Translators and Interpreters
10/07/10 11:59 Filed in: Speeches
Annual conference of Translators and Interpreters – Opening speech by Jim Anderton MP
Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today. A warm welcome to Christchurch to those of you who have come to our city – particularly if it is your first visit.
I’d like to thank your President Sibylle Ferner, Vice-President Patrick King, and Peter Tuffley for the invitation.
Some of you have travelled from Auckland and Wellington to be in Christchurch today. Welcome to the global capital of the South Island. You’ll be pleased to know we speak the same language as you.
You may or may not be aware that there’s an election coming up in our city and I’m standing to be the next Mayor of Christchurch. If successful, I’m serious about turning this city into a Global Centre - for IT, for food processing, for tourism.
I’d like to think that people like you will be in hot demand in this city - and that your professional services will become a growth industry in the international city of Christchurch. You might even think of moving here.
A quality service
As I was preparing for this speech today, it struck me that most New Zealanders are ignorant of the service you provide. Yet we are an increasingly a multicultural nation. The number of languages we speak is growing.
We need people like you to help us understand each other, and to help us trade with other countries.
But we don’t just need people who speak different languages, we need professional interpreters and translators.
It takes years to become a professional at what you do. Being bilingual is not enough. I don’t think many people grasp the importance in the understanding of other people and nationalities.
Your Society deserves praise and thanks for creating an organisation that recognises qualifications and encourages some form of accreditation. For 25 years it has worked hard to promote an awareness of what you do in New Zealand, and I am happy to be here today to support that. There’s a stark contrast between New Zealand and Australia in this respect.
In Australia, the importance of having translation and interpreting done by qualified professionals is actively recognized by having a national accreditation agency. That is lacking in New Zealand.
Trial aborted after bad translation
And yet not taking a professional approach can have terrible outcomes. We saw this recently when an inaccurate translation in a major methamphetamine trial meant that the trial was abandoned.
The Judge complained that "significantly inaccurate" mistakes had been made in translating evidence into Cantonese.
The defendant was facing a life sentence. A lot was at stake. He got off free because the translation wasn’t good enough. Words had been omitted, added and wrongly translated and the wrong choice had been made between words similar in sound.
The Judge said it was fundamentally important that translations in criminal trials were of an appropriately high standard. Clearly - quality is worth paying for.
When we don’t pay for it, bad things happen and people’s rights are ignored. Things can go badly wrong in the commercial sector too.
When Pepsi started marketing its products in China a few years back, they translated their slogan, ‘Pepsi Brings You Back to Life’ pretty literally.
The slogan in Chinese meant, ‘Pepsi Brings Your Ancestors Back from the Grave’.
Translating from another language into English is equally risky when done by amateurs. I heard of an advertisement by a Hong Kong dentist the other day that read: ‘Teeth extracted by latest Methodists’.
Or a Copenhagen airline ticket office which had translated an advert into English: ‘We take your bags and send them in all directions.’
One of my favorites, as a good Catholic boy, is an American T-shirt maker in Miami who printed shirts for the Spanish market to promote the Pope's visit to the US. Instead of "I saw the Pope" (el Papa), the shirts read "I saw the potato" (la papa).
When times are hard, businesses that rely on good translations should resist the temptation to save money by employing people who are simply bilingual - but are not necessarily professionals.
The challenge of the internet
I know that one of your challenges in a globalised world dominated by the internet, is on-line translation services. They are free and easy to use. But they are not always accurate.
Try translating ‘New Zealand Society for Translators and Interpreters’.
Translated into German and then back into English, it comes out as: ‘Company of the sea and land news of the translators and interpreters.
And from Spanish back into English:
‘Society of the warning of the sea-track of the translators and the interpreter’
With this sort of nonsense all over the internet, it really can feel like we live in the Tower of Babel.
Once again, the moral is clear; quality is worth paying for. The internet may be free, but it isn’t always accurate.
Having said that, new technology in any industry is also an opportunity. Part of the challenge you face is to embrace that technology and make it work for you in a globalised market.
I’m sure the internet has opened up markets for you. Many of you I know, work on contract and run your own businesses.
These days you can translate material and send it back to clients across the world within a few hours via the internet. Your shop is open 24 hours a day, and that’s good for business.
Not so good for weekends and work/life balance, I know – only too well!
Don’t forget, there are other industries which are also facing the challenge of new technology. An obvious one is NZ Post. People don’t write letters as often these days, so what future does NZ Post have?
Rather than get in the bunker, and blame new technology, NZ Post has adapted its business model.
It has looked at the huge success of Trade Me for example, and decided that while people might not be getting letters these days, they are getting things picked up and delivered after buying and selling items on Trade Me.
NZ Post’s courier arm is therefore growing. It may be that courier deliveries become its key business in the future. Apart, of course, from KiwiBank – which also is the result of NZ Post adapting to the electronic communication era and falling use of letter deliveries and stamp sales.
Competition from poor countries
The challenge for you is to also adapt your business to new technology and make it work for you.
The truth is, the world will always need the services of people like you, whether it’s via the internet or face-to-face.
I know that cheap labour prices from poorer countries in the developing world can undercut your rates and take work away from you. The same has been true in other industries too - like telecommunications for example.
Call centres in New Zealand are closing at alarming rates and companies like Telstra Clear are moving their call centres from Christchurch to countries like the Philippines where wages are cheaper.
I don’t like it, and I’ll fight to keep those jobs in New Zealand and in Christchurch – on issues such as quality, customer service and local knowledge.
But if the long term trend is to move call centres offshore, then we have to find new and satisfying jobs to keep people employed. That means investing in knowledge and research and development so that New Zealand stays ahead of the global market. We all have to adapt.
(Interpreting is more than just translating)
I know that some of you here today are professional translators dealing with the written word, and some are interpreters, dealing with the spoken word.
All of you do more than just translate or interpret words from one language to another.
You serve people in our community.
This is certainly true for our ethnic communities, whether Samoan, Japanese, Somali or Iraqi. You know better than anyone, language is not only a vehicle for day-to-day communication. It is also a repository of our own identity and culture.
Many of you go into these communities, and you do it with sensitivity and empathy. You help people deal with the bureaucracy in hospitals, schools or government departments.
I know there is a growing number of people in New Zealand who either do not speak English or whose level of English is not yet good enough to deal with doctors or health providers.
The Health and Disability Commission’s Code of Patient’s Rights includes the right to a competent interpreter. But this right is often effectively denied when trained interpreters are overlooked in favour of cheap, non-professional interpreters.
The pitfalls of that are obvious when you get a misdiagnosis from a doctor or in a hospital, for example. Some people can’t even read medical instructions on a medicine bottle.
Interpreting for people is a serious business and you don’t want to get it wrong. Although, on a lighter note there may be times when you’re sorely tempted.
I’m reminded of the story of a Mexican bandit who made a specialty of crossing the Rio Grande and robbing banks in Texas. Finally, a reward was offered for his capture, and an enterprising Texas Ranger decided to track him down.
After a lengthy search, he found the bandit, snuck up behind him, put his trusty six-shooter to the bandit's head, and said:
"You're under arrest. Tell me where you hid the loot or I'll shoot you."
But the bandit didn't speak English, and the Ranger didn't speak Spanish.
As luck would have it, a professional and accredited interpreter from New Zealand was in the saloon and translated the Ranger’s message.
The terrified bandit blurted out, in Spanish, that the loot was buried under the oak tree behind the Saloon.
"What did he say?" asked the Ranger.
The interpreter answered, "He said, 'Get lost, Gringo. You wouldn't dare shoot me.'"
Languages need protecting
Language is a powerful tool. I’m sure you have to use all the powers of your intellect to get the meaning of a text or a conversation right. It must challenge your sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ translations, when you sometimes catch yourself translating the same paragraph differently on different days!
I find it amazing that in 2005, a language expert was hired by James Cameron to develop an entirely new language for the very successful film ‘Avatar.’ He needed a language for the Na’vi, the indigenous race of humanoids on the moon called Pandora.
Imagine creating new sounds, new rules for grammar and a whole new vocabulary? It’s amazing that new languages can still emerge - even in the make-belief world of film-making.
Of course the reality is that the world is losing languages.
The Director of Samoan Studies at Victoria University in Wellington has said that the most recent census indicates an alarming decrease in the number of people who speak Samoan in the home, for example. It’s been said that it takes just one generation to lose a language, and three generations to build it up again.
Local Christchurch issues
Before I end, I would like to pay tribute to the Canterbury branch of your Society. In March your members met at the Refugee and Migrant Centre for the last time. This has been the venue for your meetings for many years.
Sadly, the Centre closed down this year because of lack of funding, some of it withdrawn by the Christchurch City Council, and it now no longer exists. This is a real loss to those refugee and migrant communities in Christchurch and also to your Society which had built up a long standing relationship with the people at the Centre.
I want you to know that you will have my support for your on-going work in Christchurch if I am the next Mayor.
Conclusion
Finally, I want to wish you all the best for your conference. I have nothing but praise for the work that you do in our communities. And on the theme of the conference - the opportunities and challenges that globalisation presents after the recession - I would encourage you to embrace new technology.
Don’t be afraid to adapt your business models to suit changing global markets. I’m sure that many of you are already doing this and I hope business will boom for you in the coming years.
There will never be a time when we don’t need your services, not least because we are a multicultural nation vitally dependent on world trade.
Don’t resist change and suffer the consequences - like one of the two translators overheard talking on a ship recently:
"Can you swim?" asks one.
"No" says the other, "but I can shout for help in nine languages."
Good luck for the future and thank you again for inviting me to be with you today.
Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today. A warm welcome to Christchurch to those of you who have come to our city – particularly if it is your first visit.
I’d like to thank your President Sibylle Ferner, Vice-President Patrick King, and Peter Tuffley for the invitation.
Some of you have travelled from Auckland and Wellington to be in Christchurch today. Welcome to the global capital of the South Island. You’ll be pleased to know we speak the same language as you.
You may or may not be aware that there’s an election coming up in our city and I’m standing to be the next Mayor of Christchurch. If successful, I’m serious about turning this city into a Global Centre - for IT, for food processing, for tourism.
I’d like to think that people like you will be in hot demand in this city - and that your professional services will become a growth industry in the international city of Christchurch. You might even think of moving here.
A quality service
As I was preparing for this speech today, it struck me that most New Zealanders are ignorant of the service you provide. Yet we are an increasingly a multicultural nation. The number of languages we speak is growing.
We need people like you to help us understand each other, and to help us trade with other countries.
But we don’t just need people who speak different languages, we need professional interpreters and translators.
It takes years to become a professional at what you do. Being bilingual is not enough. I don’t think many people grasp the importance in the understanding of other people and nationalities.
Your Society deserves praise and thanks for creating an organisation that recognises qualifications and encourages some form of accreditation. For 25 years it has worked hard to promote an awareness of what you do in New Zealand, and I am happy to be here today to support that. There’s a stark contrast between New Zealand and Australia in this respect.
In Australia, the importance of having translation and interpreting done by qualified professionals is actively recognized by having a national accreditation agency. That is lacking in New Zealand.
Trial aborted after bad translation
And yet not taking a professional approach can have terrible outcomes. We saw this recently when an inaccurate translation in a major methamphetamine trial meant that the trial was abandoned.
The Judge complained that "significantly inaccurate" mistakes had been made in translating evidence into Cantonese.
The defendant was facing a life sentence. A lot was at stake. He got off free because the translation wasn’t good enough. Words had been omitted, added and wrongly translated and the wrong choice had been made between words similar in sound.
The Judge said it was fundamentally important that translations in criminal trials were of an appropriately high standard. Clearly - quality is worth paying for.
When we don’t pay for it, bad things happen and people’s rights are ignored. Things can go badly wrong in the commercial sector too.
When Pepsi started marketing its products in China a few years back, they translated their slogan, ‘Pepsi Brings You Back to Life’ pretty literally.
The slogan in Chinese meant, ‘Pepsi Brings Your Ancestors Back from the Grave’.
Translating from another language into English is equally risky when done by amateurs. I heard of an advertisement by a Hong Kong dentist the other day that read: ‘Teeth extracted by latest Methodists’.
Or a Copenhagen airline ticket office which had translated an advert into English: ‘We take your bags and send them in all directions.’
One of my favorites, as a good Catholic boy, is an American T-shirt maker in Miami who printed shirts for the Spanish market to promote the Pope's visit to the US. Instead of "I saw the Pope" (el Papa), the shirts read "I saw the potato" (la papa).
When times are hard, businesses that rely on good translations should resist the temptation to save money by employing people who are simply bilingual - but are not necessarily professionals.
The challenge of the internet
I know that one of your challenges in a globalised world dominated by the internet, is on-line translation services. They are free and easy to use. But they are not always accurate.
Try translating ‘New Zealand Society for Translators and Interpreters’.
Translated into German and then back into English, it comes out as: ‘Company of the sea and land news of the translators and interpreters.
And from Spanish back into English:
‘Society of the warning of the sea-track of the translators and the interpreter’
With this sort of nonsense all over the internet, it really can feel like we live in the Tower of Babel.
Once again, the moral is clear; quality is worth paying for. The internet may be free, but it isn’t always accurate.
Having said that, new technology in any industry is also an opportunity. Part of the challenge you face is to embrace that technology and make it work for you in a globalised market.
I’m sure the internet has opened up markets for you. Many of you I know, work on contract and run your own businesses.
These days you can translate material and send it back to clients across the world within a few hours via the internet. Your shop is open 24 hours a day, and that’s good for business.
Not so good for weekends and work/life balance, I know – only too well!
Don’t forget, there are other industries which are also facing the challenge of new technology. An obvious one is NZ Post. People don’t write letters as often these days, so what future does NZ Post have?
Rather than get in the bunker, and blame new technology, NZ Post has adapted its business model.
It has looked at the huge success of Trade Me for example, and decided that while people might not be getting letters these days, they are getting things picked up and delivered after buying and selling items on Trade Me.
NZ Post’s courier arm is therefore growing. It may be that courier deliveries become its key business in the future. Apart, of course, from KiwiBank – which also is the result of NZ Post adapting to the electronic communication era and falling use of letter deliveries and stamp sales.
Competition from poor countries
The challenge for you is to also adapt your business to new technology and make it work for you.
The truth is, the world will always need the services of people like you, whether it’s via the internet or face-to-face.
I know that cheap labour prices from poorer countries in the developing world can undercut your rates and take work away from you. The same has been true in other industries too - like telecommunications for example.
Call centres in New Zealand are closing at alarming rates and companies like Telstra Clear are moving their call centres from Christchurch to countries like the Philippines where wages are cheaper.
I don’t like it, and I’ll fight to keep those jobs in New Zealand and in Christchurch – on issues such as quality, customer service and local knowledge.
But if the long term trend is to move call centres offshore, then we have to find new and satisfying jobs to keep people employed. That means investing in knowledge and research and development so that New Zealand stays ahead of the global market. We all have to adapt.
(Interpreting is more than just translating)
I know that some of you here today are professional translators dealing with the written word, and some are interpreters, dealing with the spoken word.
All of you do more than just translate or interpret words from one language to another.
You serve people in our community.
This is certainly true for our ethnic communities, whether Samoan, Japanese, Somali or Iraqi. You know better than anyone, language is not only a vehicle for day-to-day communication. It is also a repository of our own identity and culture.
Many of you go into these communities, and you do it with sensitivity and empathy. You help people deal with the bureaucracy in hospitals, schools or government departments.
I know there is a growing number of people in New Zealand who either do not speak English or whose level of English is not yet good enough to deal with doctors or health providers.
The Health and Disability Commission’s Code of Patient’s Rights includes the right to a competent interpreter. But this right is often effectively denied when trained interpreters are overlooked in favour of cheap, non-professional interpreters.
The pitfalls of that are obvious when you get a misdiagnosis from a doctor or in a hospital, for example. Some people can’t even read medical instructions on a medicine bottle.
Interpreting for people is a serious business and you don’t want to get it wrong. Although, on a lighter note there may be times when you’re sorely tempted.
I’m reminded of the story of a Mexican bandit who made a specialty of crossing the Rio Grande and robbing banks in Texas. Finally, a reward was offered for his capture, and an enterprising Texas Ranger decided to track him down.
After a lengthy search, he found the bandit, snuck up behind him, put his trusty six-shooter to the bandit's head, and said:
"You're under arrest. Tell me where you hid the loot or I'll shoot you."
But the bandit didn't speak English, and the Ranger didn't speak Spanish.
As luck would have it, a professional and accredited interpreter from New Zealand was in the saloon and translated the Ranger’s message.
The terrified bandit blurted out, in Spanish, that the loot was buried under the oak tree behind the Saloon.
"What did he say?" asked the Ranger.
The interpreter answered, "He said, 'Get lost, Gringo. You wouldn't dare shoot me.'"
Languages need protecting
Language is a powerful tool. I’m sure you have to use all the powers of your intellect to get the meaning of a text or a conversation right. It must challenge your sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ translations, when you sometimes catch yourself translating the same paragraph differently on different days!
I find it amazing that in 2005, a language expert was hired by James Cameron to develop an entirely new language for the very successful film ‘Avatar.’ He needed a language for the Na’vi, the indigenous race of humanoids on the moon called Pandora.
Imagine creating new sounds, new rules for grammar and a whole new vocabulary? It’s amazing that new languages can still emerge - even in the make-belief world of film-making.
Of course the reality is that the world is losing languages.
The Director of Samoan Studies at Victoria University in Wellington has said that the most recent census indicates an alarming decrease in the number of people who speak Samoan in the home, for example. It’s been said that it takes just one generation to lose a language, and three generations to build it up again.
Local Christchurch issues
Before I end, I would like to pay tribute to the Canterbury branch of your Society. In March your members met at the Refugee and Migrant Centre for the last time. This has been the venue for your meetings for many years.
Sadly, the Centre closed down this year because of lack of funding, some of it withdrawn by the Christchurch City Council, and it now no longer exists. This is a real loss to those refugee and migrant communities in Christchurch and also to your Society which had built up a long standing relationship with the people at the Centre.
I want you to know that you will have my support for your on-going work in Christchurch if I am the next Mayor.
Conclusion
Finally, I want to wish you all the best for your conference. I have nothing but praise for the work that you do in our communities. And on the theme of the conference - the opportunities and challenges that globalisation presents after the recession - I would encourage you to embrace new technology.
Don’t be afraid to adapt your business models to suit changing global markets. I’m sure that many of you are already doing this and I hope business will boom for you in the coming years.
There will never be a time when we don’t need your services, not least because we are a multicultural nation vitally dependent on world trade.
Don’t resist change and suffer the consequences - like one of the two translators overheard talking on a ship recently:
"Can you swim?" asks one.
"No" says the other, "but I can shout for help in nine languages."
Good luck for the future and thank you again for inviting me to be with you today.
0 Comments
Odyssey House 25th Anniversary
07/05/10 12:29 Filed in: Speeches
Odyssey House Trust has been successfully providing treatment in Christchurch for nearly 25 years. It opened in 1985.
They already had an Odyssey House in Auckland, opened by Fraser McDonald in 1980 who was an enlightened pioneer in mental health treatment and it is important to remember people like him today.
The tag line for Odyssey House in Auckland is “Never Give Up Hope” and I know that people here in Christchurch have never given up.
It can be a challenge, campaigning against drug and alcohol abuse.
People assume - wrongly - that these problems are nothing to do with them. But there’s hardly a family in New Zealand that hasn’t been touched by alcohol or drug abuse.
There are now 70,000 physical and sexual assaults a year in New Zealand that can be attributed to alcohol abuse. That’s 1350 a week.
But if, like me and Professor Doug Sellman, and you openly campaign to raise the drinking age to 20 for example, you’re accused of stopping people having a good time and being a wowser.
I’ve been working with Doug Sellman to campaign for the +5 solution to alcohol abuse, and I know that Odyssey House is supportive.
These proposals would: Raise alcohol prices, raise the purchase age, reduce accessibility of alcohol, reduce marketing and advertising of alcohol, and increase drink-driving measures. And the ‘plus’ is increased treatment like the programmes provided at Odyssey.
As many of you know, I’ve also campaigned to curb drug abuse. When I was minister I banned the party drug BZP.
So now there’s an ad running on the radio which promotes the latest legal party pill, and it starts off by saying: “Don’t let Uncle Jim ruin the Party!”
Apparently, last week, I’ve discovered I have a new nick-name in one of the university magazines: ‘Jim BANderton.’ If you put your head above the parapet on these issues, expect to get a whack!
I have no doubt that we have a drinking problem in New Zealand - and we also have a drug problem – but, of course, alcohol is also a drug – the most serious drug affecting the lives of New Zealanders.
The biggest challenge we face is attitude. We need a culture change - where binge drinking isn’t tolerated and regular drug use isn’t seen as a ‘normal’ way to have a good time.
My 6 year old godson plays ripper rugby, and it’s obscene to see 6 year olds running around with beer ads all over the flags and the goal posts!
The work that Odyssey House has done over 25 years has been remarkable, and I’ve been proud to be a part of it when as Minister I managed to obtain the funds for a new youth residential facility.
At the time, there were people who thought it was a mad idea, because - they said - you only get so many chances at bidding for money when you’re a small party in government like the Progressive Party.
We had to be very strategic when we went to see our coalition partners asking for money out of the government’s budget.
A new residential facility at Odyssey House wasn’t a big national project like Kiwibank. But it was thinking like that, that had left Christchurch without any residential centre, and four in five youth offenders with a drug or alcohol problem.
We had to be strong enough to care about these issues locally, and you have shown over the last few years, that that money was well spent. It hasn’t been easy. Its taken vision, hard work and commitment.
You have shown that this community cares enough to give people a second chance. I’ve heard stories from graduates of Odyssey who when they arrive, had given up on life. What makes the difference are the programmes and the staff.
Here’s what one young woman said about the staff: “I have never encountered such unconditional acceptance. It was the first time in years that I had been treated as an equal and as an adult. At first I was suspicious of their motives because I thought nobody can be this nice or kind or knowledgeable and want to work with people like us – mentally ill and grossly addicted to alcohol or drugs. We’re messy and smelly and grumpy and violent.”
Gradually she accepted that the staff were genuine and she decided to “give it a shot”.
This young woman is now studying for a Bachelor of Alcohol & Drug Studies at WelTec. Her dream is to one day work for Odyssey House.
What impresses me the most, however, is that Odyssey House in Christchurch is evidence that our community cares. It was a core group of 16 residents who got together and set it up in the first place in 1985.
Since then, you have been successfully providing treatment in Christchurch. Today, the community is still at the heart of the Odyssey House model. People learn how to use the resources in the community to help them recover.
Another example I read about was a 47 year old who said Odyssey House had “ruined” his career - his criminal career!
He started in crime and drugs when he was fourteen. He had been, over the years, into everything. Heroin in the eighties, P for eight years. He spent ten years of his life in jail. And one day he finally showed up in front of a judge who gave him a choice between going inside or going to Odyssey House. He found out that it was no soft option.
Today, that person is studying at a tertiary institution and helping others to move away from drugs. Now, you are getting people like him age 14 - not 47 - before they make big mistakes; before they spend ten years in jail.
Here’s another quote from an Odyssey House graduate: “I can’t say enough about Odyssey. It gave me a life. I feel whole, capable, loveable. I never thought that would happen.”
That’s what you are doing every day at Odyssey House Christchurch; you are giving people back their lives. I congratulate everyone involved today.
It took tenacity and strength by a caring community to open Odyssey House 25 years ago, and it will take the same strength to keep it going for another 25 years.
They already had an Odyssey House in Auckland, opened by Fraser McDonald in 1980 who was an enlightened pioneer in mental health treatment and it is important to remember people like him today.
The tag line for Odyssey House in Auckland is “Never Give Up Hope” and I know that people here in Christchurch have never given up.
It can be a challenge, campaigning against drug and alcohol abuse.
People assume - wrongly - that these problems are nothing to do with them. But there’s hardly a family in New Zealand that hasn’t been touched by alcohol or drug abuse.
There are now 70,000 physical and sexual assaults a year in New Zealand that can be attributed to alcohol abuse. That’s 1350 a week.
But if, like me and Professor Doug Sellman, and you openly campaign to raise the drinking age to 20 for example, you’re accused of stopping people having a good time and being a wowser.
I’ve been working with Doug Sellman to campaign for the +5 solution to alcohol abuse, and I know that Odyssey House is supportive.
These proposals would: Raise alcohol prices, raise the purchase age, reduce accessibility of alcohol, reduce marketing and advertising of alcohol, and increase drink-driving measures. And the ‘plus’ is increased treatment like the programmes provided at Odyssey.
As many of you know, I’ve also campaigned to curb drug abuse. When I was minister I banned the party drug BZP.
So now there’s an ad running on the radio which promotes the latest legal party pill, and it starts off by saying: “Don’t let Uncle Jim ruin the Party!”
Apparently, last week, I’ve discovered I have a new nick-name in one of the university magazines: ‘Jim BANderton.’ If you put your head above the parapet on these issues, expect to get a whack!
I have no doubt that we have a drinking problem in New Zealand - and we also have a drug problem – but, of course, alcohol is also a drug – the most serious drug affecting the lives of New Zealanders.
The biggest challenge we face is attitude. We need a culture change - where binge drinking isn’t tolerated and regular drug use isn’t seen as a ‘normal’ way to have a good time.
My 6 year old godson plays ripper rugby, and it’s obscene to see 6 year olds running around with beer ads all over the flags and the goal posts!
The work that Odyssey House has done over 25 years has been remarkable, and I’ve been proud to be a part of it when as Minister I managed to obtain the funds for a new youth residential facility.
At the time, there were people who thought it was a mad idea, because - they said - you only get so many chances at bidding for money when you’re a small party in government like the Progressive Party.
We had to be very strategic when we went to see our coalition partners asking for money out of the government’s budget.
A new residential facility at Odyssey House wasn’t a big national project like Kiwibank. But it was thinking like that, that had left Christchurch without any residential centre, and four in five youth offenders with a drug or alcohol problem.
We had to be strong enough to care about these issues locally, and you have shown over the last few years, that that money was well spent. It hasn’t been easy. Its taken vision, hard work and commitment.
You have shown that this community cares enough to give people a second chance. I’ve heard stories from graduates of Odyssey who when they arrive, had given up on life. What makes the difference are the programmes and the staff.
Here’s what one young woman said about the staff: “I have never encountered such unconditional acceptance. It was the first time in years that I had been treated as an equal and as an adult. At first I was suspicious of their motives because I thought nobody can be this nice or kind or knowledgeable and want to work with people like us – mentally ill and grossly addicted to alcohol or drugs. We’re messy and smelly and grumpy and violent.”
Gradually she accepted that the staff were genuine and she decided to “give it a shot”.
This young woman is now studying for a Bachelor of Alcohol & Drug Studies at WelTec. Her dream is to one day work for Odyssey House.
What impresses me the most, however, is that Odyssey House in Christchurch is evidence that our community cares. It was a core group of 16 residents who got together and set it up in the first place in 1985.
Since then, you have been successfully providing treatment in Christchurch. Today, the community is still at the heart of the Odyssey House model. People learn how to use the resources in the community to help them recover.
Another example I read about was a 47 year old who said Odyssey House had “ruined” his career - his criminal career!
He started in crime and drugs when he was fourteen. He had been, over the years, into everything. Heroin in the eighties, P for eight years. He spent ten years of his life in jail. And one day he finally showed up in front of a judge who gave him a choice between going inside or going to Odyssey House. He found out that it was no soft option.
Today, that person is studying at a tertiary institution and helping others to move away from drugs. Now, you are getting people like him age 14 - not 47 - before they make big mistakes; before they spend ten years in jail.
Here’s another quote from an Odyssey House graduate: “I can’t say enough about Odyssey. It gave me a life. I feel whole, capable, loveable. I never thought that would happen.”
That’s what you are doing every day at Odyssey House Christchurch; you are giving people back their lives. I congratulate everyone involved today.
It took tenacity and strength by a caring community to open Odyssey House 25 years ago, and it will take the same strength to keep it going for another 25 years.
Tobacco Excise bill
04/05/10 10:16 Filed in: Speeches
Jim Anderton’s speech in Parliament on the Excise and Excise-Equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill first reading, 29 May 2010.
This bill to increase excise duties on tobacco products is being introduced under extraordinary urgency. I understand that. The House therefore understands that this issue is urgent: there is no public debate allowable; there is no select committee and so on. I happen to agree with what the government is proposing and I will support it. But this Bill highlights the need the reasons why this step, in particular, is being taken to increase the price of a legal drug that is dangerous to the health of any New Zealander who partakes of it.
The reason this bill is being introduced is that the price effect of tobacco is significant. If we increase the price of tobacco we reduce the volume of tobacco that is smoked. There is a linear relationship and many studies all around the world will show exactly the same thing for product after product.
Unfortunately, if we look at supermarkets of New Zealand, we see that Coca-Cola is cheaper than water or milk. People buy Coca-Cola. Why? It is because it is cheaper. It may well be disastrous for the teeth of the children who are drinking it – and it is – but nevertheless, because it is cheap, people buy it.
That is why this price effect will be relevant in this case. I have to say, however, that just 24 hours ago, within minutes of the Law Commission’s report on alcohol being introduced into this House, the government immediately, through Simon Power, the Minister of justice, reacted and said it was not going to put up the price of alcohol.
It did that immediately. It did not give any consideration to the report, the ink was not dry on the report, and we were told that no, the Government was not going to increase the price. Would a price increase for alcohol reduce alcohol consumption? Yes, it would. It is a very effective means of doing it. I know that because I introduced a Bill that increased the price of so-called light spirits, at 23 per cent proof alcohol, which target young people. I was lambasted by the industry.
Full page ads were taken out against me personally, but light spirits were reduced by 85 per cent in terms of sales, and then they went off the market. That does not mean to say that there are not still alcopops and stuff like that, but these were lethal light spirits.
They were 25 per cent proof of alcohol drinks with vodka, gin, whisky, and so on. So we know that this 30 per cent increase in tobacco will be effective, but Mr Power said about alcohol that such a change would be unfair to all the people who drink alcohol. Well, I presume that an increase of more than 30 per cent in the price of alcohol will be unfair to some of the people who smoke alcohol too. I still agree with it, but it is amazing how an attitude can change in one day from one position on the issue of alcohol to another on tobacco, where we can have a crack at them.
Chris Tremain: You might find that a significantly larger proportion of the population enjoy a glass of wine. What a stupid thing to say.
Hon. Jim Anderton: Oh, I see. We will hear this. Here is the industry line. I can hear it. Mr Dunne is not here, so we have plenty of acolytes in his place. They are sprouting the industry line. It is true that 5000 people die in New Zealand every year from tobacco smoking, and that makes this kind of measure significant and important. What is there about the social, economic, and health problems of alcohol that make it different from tobacco? Is it a significant social and economic health cost? We just heard Dr Blue say that the cost of tobacco-related harm is $1 billion to $2 billion.
The cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is indicated by reputable economists and analysts to be in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year.
That is at least as much as smoking and could well be more, so there is no problem about it being a significant cost. Is drinking alcohol a health risk? Yes, it is. It is a very serious health risk, and the jury is coming in on that all the time.
Are between 60 – 80 per cent of all police arrests to do with alcohol abuse? Yes, they are. Are 60 per cent of the people who are in our prisons affected by alcohol? The answer is yes.
Yet we are told that we desperately need passed under extraordinary urgency through the House a tobacco-related bill, which I personally support, a day after we are told that the price effect is not going to be contemplated in alcohol, when demonstrably all the effects of the tobacco use plus some additional effects are there in evidence before us.
The Government has a knee-jerk reaction against that. Why is that? Well, the tobacco industry is on the ropes, and the people are brave now. Dr Blue has said that she did not use to believe the philosophy behind this bill, and there are plenty of people on the other side of the house like her.
When Helen Clark was pushing for a change like this one, and was pilloried as the minister of Health for doing it in – when was that, 1990?
Hon Darren Hughes: Yes, 20 years ago.
Hon Jim Anderton: So that was 20 years ago. She did not have too much support then, but now it is the brave thing to do. Why? Because everything has been done, practically, and the tobacco industry has given up. It knows that it is a done deal. The liquor industry has not given up. Oh, no. It is really into this issue, and it will fight it tooth and claw.
The brave Government will take on the ‘on the ropes’ tobacco industry, but it will not have a bar of taking on the liquor industry, which is actually a much more significant and important problem facing New Zealand now than ever before.
Will raising the price of alcohol reduce the volume of alcohol consumed? Absolutely, it will but we have no courage from the Government on this issue. So under extraordinary urgency we are passing this bill.
As for the Government’s opposition to raising the price of the most dangerous drug in New Zealand, I could call that a word which I am not allowed to use in this House, so I will say that it is one of the most significant acts of double standards I have ever seen.
On one day a serious drug is not to be touched in terms of price, even though the price effect will be very effective, and I acknowledge that; on the next day, the industry that really does not have a feather to fly with will be clobbered into the ground because the brave government will take it on after all the hard work has been done.
It will not take on an industry that is still up there and fighting tooth and claw to hang on. I heard the representative of the hospitality industry this morning on Morning Report. He admitted that every single thing in the alcohol legislation that he agrees with is a vested interest of the industry.
He said that. He said: “Yes, it is a vested interest of the industry. I admit that. Yes, that is too, and that is too.”
The interviewer asked him whether there was anything thing that was not a vested interest among the measures he agreed with. The answer was no. Oh well, we understand where the industry is coming from. But Mr Dunne did not. He had to meet the representatives of the industry seven times, and he was not sure what they meant.
He knew what Professor Doug Sellman meant; Peter Dunne would not meet with Doug Sellman at all.
I support this legislation, and I have contempt for the government that is bringing this in one day after it backed off completely from doing the most effective thing on alcohol. I have contempt for it;
I am telling members that now. It would have been an act of at least some responsibility to do that yesterday. This initiative needed to be done, and it has to be done regularly. I support it, but I contrast it with the completely mealy-mouthed approach we had yesterday on alcohol, and I am ashamed of the government for that.
This bill to increase excise duties on tobacco products is being introduced under extraordinary urgency. I understand that. The House therefore understands that this issue is urgent: there is no public debate allowable; there is no select committee and so on. I happen to agree with what the government is proposing and I will support it. But this Bill highlights the need the reasons why this step, in particular, is being taken to increase the price of a legal drug that is dangerous to the health of any New Zealander who partakes of it.
The reason this bill is being introduced is that the price effect of tobacco is significant. If we increase the price of tobacco we reduce the volume of tobacco that is smoked. There is a linear relationship and many studies all around the world will show exactly the same thing for product after product.
Unfortunately, if we look at supermarkets of New Zealand, we see that Coca-Cola is cheaper than water or milk. People buy Coca-Cola. Why? It is because it is cheaper. It may well be disastrous for the teeth of the children who are drinking it – and it is – but nevertheless, because it is cheap, people buy it.
That is why this price effect will be relevant in this case. I have to say, however, that just 24 hours ago, within minutes of the Law Commission’s report on alcohol being introduced into this House, the government immediately, through Simon Power, the Minister of justice, reacted and said it was not going to put up the price of alcohol.
It did that immediately. It did not give any consideration to the report, the ink was not dry on the report, and we were told that no, the Government was not going to increase the price. Would a price increase for alcohol reduce alcohol consumption? Yes, it would. It is a very effective means of doing it. I know that because I introduced a Bill that increased the price of so-called light spirits, at 23 per cent proof alcohol, which target young people. I was lambasted by the industry.
Full page ads were taken out against me personally, but light spirits were reduced by 85 per cent in terms of sales, and then they went off the market. That does not mean to say that there are not still alcopops and stuff like that, but these were lethal light spirits.
They were 25 per cent proof of alcohol drinks with vodka, gin, whisky, and so on. So we know that this 30 per cent increase in tobacco will be effective, but Mr Power said about alcohol that such a change would be unfair to all the people who drink alcohol. Well, I presume that an increase of more than 30 per cent in the price of alcohol will be unfair to some of the people who smoke alcohol too. I still agree with it, but it is amazing how an attitude can change in one day from one position on the issue of alcohol to another on tobacco, where we can have a crack at them.
Chris Tremain: You might find that a significantly larger proportion of the population enjoy a glass of wine. What a stupid thing to say.
Hon. Jim Anderton: Oh, I see. We will hear this. Here is the industry line. I can hear it. Mr Dunne is not here, so we have plenty of acolytes in his place. They are sprouting the industry line. It is true that 5000 people die in New Zealand every year from tobacco smoking, and that makes this kind of measure significant and important. What is there about the social, economic, and health problems of alcohol that make it different from tobacco? Is it a significant social and economic health cost? We just heard Dr Blue say that the cost of tobacco-related harm is $1 billion to $2 billion.
The cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is indicated by reputable economists and analysts to be in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year.
That is at least as much as smoking and could well be more, so there is no problem about it being a significant cost. Is drinking alcohol a health risk? Yes, it is. It is a very serious health risk, and the jury is coming in on that all the time.
Are between 60 – 80 per cent of all police arrests to do with alcohol abuse? Yes, they are. Are 60 per cent of the people who are in our prisons affected by alcohol? The answer is yes.
Yet we are told that we desperately need passed under extraordinary urgency through the House a tobacco-related bill, which I personally support, a day after we are told that the price effect is not going to be contemplated in alcohol, when demonstrably all the effects of the tobacco use plus some additional effects are there in evidence before us.
The Government has a knee-jerk reaction against that. Why is that? Well, the tobacco industry is on the ropes, and the people are brave now. Dr Blue has said that she did not use to believe the philosophy behind this bill, and there are plenty of people on the other side of the house like her.
When Helen Clark was pushing for a change like this one, and was pilloried as the minister of Health for doing it in – when was that, 1990?
Hon Darren Hughes: Yes, 20 years ago.
Hon Jim Anderton: So that was 20 years ago. She did not have too much support then, but now it is the brave thing to do. Why? Because everything has been done, practically, and the tobacco industry has given up. It knows that it is a done deal. The liquor industry has not given up. Oh, no. It is really into this issue, and it will fight it tooth and claw.
The brave Government will take on the ‘on the ropes’ tobacco industry, but it will not have a bar of taking on the liquor industry, which is actually a much more significant and important problem facing New Zealand now than ever before.
Will raising the price of alcohol reduce the volume of alcohol consumed? Absolutely, it will but we have no courage from the Government on this issue. So under extraordinary urgency we are passing this bill.
As for the Government’s opposition to raising the price of the most dangerous drug in New Zealand, I could call that a word which I am not allowed to use in this House, so I will say that it is one of the most significant acts of double standards I have ever seen.
On one day a serious drug is not to be touched in terms of price, even though the price effect will be very effective, and I acknowledge that; on the next day, the industry that really does not have a feather to fly with will be clobbered into the ground because the brave government will take it on after all the hard work has been done.
It will not take on an industry that is still up there and fighting tooth and claw to hang on. I heard the representative of the hospitality industry this morning on Morning Report. He admitted that every single thing in the alcohol legislation that he agrees with is a vested interest of the industry.
He said that. He said: “Yes, it is a vested interest of the industry. I admit that. Yes, that is too, and that is too.”
The interviewer asked him whether there was anything thing that was not a vested interest among the measures he agreed with. The answer was no. Oh well, we understand where the industry is coming from. But Mr Dunne did not. He had to meet the representatives of the industry seven times, and he was not sure what they meant.
He knew what Professor Doug Sellman meant; Peter Dunne would not meet with Doug Sellman at all.
I support this legislation, and I have contempt for the government that is bringing this in one day after it backed off completely from doing the most effective thing on alcohol. I have contempt for it;
I am telling members that now. It would have been an act of at least some responsibility to do that yesterday. This initiative needed to be done, and it has to be done regularly. I support it, but I contrast it with the completely mealy-mouthed approach we had yesterday on alcohol, and I am ashamed of the government for that.
Save 198 Youth Health Centre
18/03/10 10:14 Filed in: News Releases
Save 198 Youth Health Centre
Jim Anderton’s address to rally
The services provided by the 198 Youth Health Centre over the last 10 years have played a critical part in the mental and physical well-being of tens of thousands of our most vulnerable young citizens, local Wigram MP, Jim Anderton said today.
“At a time when the National led government is calling for more services in the areas of mental health, comprehensive health services to primary care/general practitioner level, not to mention nursing, family planning, counselling vaccinations, alcohol and drug, sexual and reproductive health, peer support and smoking cessation services, this is the very worst time to cease adequate funding for 198 which provides exactly these services.
“With increasing unemployment, increasing social and housing needs, together with cuts in ACC, health and education, such a move would simply be a disaster,” Jim Anderton said.
“It is even more inexplicable when the Canterbury DHB is suggesting the need for a “One Stop Shop” for these services which, of course, 198 already provides.
“At a time when the Christchurch City Council is also reducing its funding for voluntary community organisations it is vitally important that concerned citizens in this city vigorously protest against this serious backward step in the provision of these and other crucial community services.
“For the 198 Youth Health Centre services to continue requires only a very modest amount of additional government funding, approximately around $100,000 per year for what is already a low cost, high quality health service.
“Good wishes for your protest. Be assured that I and my Labour Parliamentary colleagues will be joining you in this fight. I’m certain it is one we can win, no matter how long it takes,” Jim Anderton said.
Jim Anderton’s address to rally
The services provided by the 198 Youth Health Centre over the last 10 years have played a critical part in the mental and physical well-being of tens of thousands of our most vulnerable young citizens, local Wigram MP, Jim Anderton said today.
“At a time when the National led government is calling for more services in the areas of mental health, comprehensive health services to primary care/general practitioner level, not to mention nursing, family planning, counselling vaccinations, alcohol and drug, sexual and reproductive health, peer support and smoking cessation services, this is the very worst time to cease adequate funding for 198 which provides exactly these services.
“With increasing unemployment, increasing social and housing needs, together with cuts in ACC, health and education, such a move would simply be a disaster,” Jim Anderton said.
“It is even more inexplicable when the Canterbury DHB is suggesting the need for a “One Stop Shop” for these services which, of course, 198 already provides.
“At a time when the Christchurch City Council is also reducing its funding for voluntary community organisations it is vitally important that concerned citizens in this city vigorously protest against this serious backward step in the provision of these and other crucial community services.
“For the 198 Youth Health Centre services to continue requires only a very modest amount of additional government funding, approximately around $100,000 per year for what is already a low cost, high quality health service.
“Good wishes for your protest. Be assured that I and my Labour Parliamentary colleagues will be joining you in this fight. I’m certain it is one we can win, no matter how long it takes,” Jim Anderton said.
Mental health disaster unfolding in Canterbury DHB
18/03/10 10:08 Filed in: News Releases
Something has gone terribly wrong with the Canterbury DHB’s management of New Zealand’s only high quality Eating Disorder Unit, Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
He says the resignation of the clinical director, Geoff Buckett, is only the latest disaster.
Dr Buckett is going to Sydney to work for one of the best eating disorder clinics in the world. He has been highly critical of the ‘exclusion from decision making tables’ of the mental health service, and especially of plans to remove adolescents from specialty care.
Jim Anderton has learned that eleven other psychiatrists have also recently resigned, including the chief of psychiatry Dr Phil Brinded.
“Why is the Board and management of the Canterbury DHB overseeing this disaster, with apparent disregard for the serious consequences for the most vulnerable patients and families anyone can imagine?
“Either they know about it and have done nothing, or they don’t know, which is almost worse.
“With the 198 Youth Centre Service going down one day and the Eating Disorder Unit the next, one wonders what else is about to happen to an already fragile mental health system.”
He says the resignation of the clinical director, Geoff Buckett, is only the latest disaster.
Dr Buckett is going to Sydney to work for one of the best eating disorder clinics in the world. He has been highly critical of the ‘exclusion from decision making tables’ of the mental health service, and especially of plans to remove adolescents from specialty care.
Jim Anderton has learned that eleven other psychiatrists have also recently resigned, including the chief of psychiatry Dr Phil Brinded.
“Why is the Board and management of the Canterbury DHB overseeing this disaster, with apparent disregard for the serious consequences for the most vulnerable patients and families anyone can imagine?
“Either they know about it and have done nothing, or they don’t know, which is almost worse.
“With the 198 Youth Centre Service going down one day and the Eating Disorder Unit the next, one wonders what else is about to happen to an already fragile mental health system.”
Speech to the Alcohol Causes Violence conference
23/03/10 14:00 Filed in: Speeches
Any day of any week you can open any newspaper, or watch any news bulletin, and the evidence is plain: Alcohol-fuelled violence. Alcohol-fuelled crime. A culture of binge drinking.
Stories like these…
* A brutal and baffling weekend attack which left a young couple critically injured in a west Auckland park has nearby residents fearing for their own safety
* A man walking his dog found the young man semi-conscious in the park at 7am on Sunday morning with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain
* Six hours into her shift, Heretini had had no break. But she rallied to care for her last patient, a young man with head injuries and lacerations to most of his body. He had fallen out of the window of a moving car while hanging onto the coat hanger handle above the vehicle’s back door.
* The veteran of the Malayan campaign and the Vietnam war was shocked by the viciousness and callousness of the youths. His daughter Jillian was knocked unconscious and her boyfriend was stomped on the head when they arrived home in a taxi as he was being set upon by the mob
* “She was drunk as a skunk”, he said. Mr McKenzie, who survived a serious heart attack two years ago, lost three teeth and received bruising and cuts to his head and body.
That’s just a sample of the sorts of headlines reflecting the every day reality of alcohol in New Zealand, and the results of our drinking culture.
On conservative figures prepared by the Ministry of Health the harm alcohol causes costs between $1.5 and $2.5 billion every year. Three out of five people who are arrested are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they’re arrested.
If we want to reduce the level of crime in New Zealand, the fastest way we can make a difference, and the biggest difference we can make, would be to make alcohol less available. And conversely, in recent years when alcohol has been made more available, the harm caused by alcohol has risen as well.
Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse. Three quarters of adults arriving at emergency departments on Thursday, Friday or Saturday night have alcohol related injuries.
The Salvation Army says alcohol is present in four out of five domestic violence cases.
Here’s another statistic to make you think; according to a recent medical journal article, there are now 70,000 physical and sexual assaults a year in New Zealand that can be linked to alcohol. That’s 1350 a week.
I support changing the law to make alcohol less available.
I support raising the drinking age and restricting the number of outlets where alcohol is sold.
I support lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for drivers over 20 years of age from 0.08 to 0.05.
I would raise alcohol prices, reduce alcohol marketing and advertising and increase drink-driving measures.
If we made some of these changes then at least it wouldn’t be so easy for any teenager to walk into a corner shop and buy as much alcohol as they want for them and their friends.
The proliferation of outlets where teenagers can buy booze or alco-pops has to stop.
I want those who grant liquor licences to have greater scope to turn down licences.
If they can see that several dairies selling alcohol, and another off-licence on top of that, all in less than a few kilometres of each other, then licensing authorities need the ability to say - no, that’s only going to cause more social problems.
I’d like to give police more resources to monitor the way liquor outlets comply with the law.
I would like to see the opening hours of all off-licences restricted, for example from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm.
Who needs to buy beer or wine at 3am? Plenty of people are buying alcohol after midnight to continue a binge.
If we made some of these changes then there wouldn’t have been some of the horrific stories we have heard about in the news - such as the alcohol fuelled Auckland men who drove down to their local corner liquor store late at night to rob it and ended up shooting the owner.
It would make a difference, but on its own changing the law would be only one step. It would not be a miracle solution.
What is required is a change in our drinking culture. It is the cultural complexity of drinking that makes regulation of alcohol politically contentious.
We don’t take the steps that need to be taken because political decision-making runs head first into a culture of heavy drinking and of alcohol abuse.
I got attacked in the Dominion for being a wowser by a columnist who raved he simply wanted to just enjoy a glass or two of wine with his meal. That’s what happens when you try to deal with binge drinking and genuine harm.
There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel that their lifestyle is being criticized and threatened. That’s what makes the issue politically contentious.
Those of us who want to promote responsible alcohol use have to deal with this issue. There is a crucial difference between alcohol and smoking - every cigarette is bad for you. Any use at all is harmful.
But the same is not true of a glass of wine with dinner or a beer at the cricket. Three glasses of wine a day, every day, over a long period, is classed as heavy drinking because over a long period it has harmful health effects.
But that is not the same as binge drinking that is fuelling violence and hospital admissions.
So we need to respond differently to different issues. That means targeted campaigns that raise awareness about the harmful health effects of heavy use on one hand; and targeted rule changes that actively reduce dangerous binge drinking on the other.
What both have in common is that there is a heavy drinking culture in New Zealand. And wanting to change our culture of abuse doesn’t make me a wowser or a party pooper; it makes me someone concerned to reduce crime, injuries and deaths as well as other serious harm to our nation’s health profile.
If we’re going to make an impact, we have to start with binge drinking and dangerous misuse, and we have to address the culture that makes those things acceptable.
Many people who use alcohol don’t abuse it, and therefore changing the culture has to focus where the harm is greatest: If we are going to make an impact on binge drinking and the harm alcohol causes then we have to be prepared to front up to drinking that is risky.
And we have to acknowledge that heavy drinking and binge drinking is widespread.
It’s rare for anyone today to be demonised for wanting to restrict smoking.
But twenty years ago Helen Clark was called every name under the sun for doing so as Minister of Health. A generation ago, people would go to parties and then brag about driving home drunk.
Today, it’s become socially unacceptable. People still do it, but not many people laugh about it any more.
The culture around drink driving has changed, but we have to be clear that it’s a much bigger process than simply changing the law. It takes decades to change social attitudes.
Teenagers are drinking to excess more often and in greater numbers.
And one of the reasons teenagers are getting boozed in harmful ways, and so often, is that the culture of drinking is promoting heavy alcohol use. We are sending out confusing messages to young people.
All-Black’s games and the summer cricket series drip in alcohol promotion. But we act surprised when Black Cap Jesse Ryder or All Black Jimmy Cowan get into trouble when they’re out on the booze.
The community vilifies them, rather than vilifying the alcohol companies who sponsor the games and encourage young New Zealanders to go out and drink to excess.
That’s why I believe one of the most effective changes we could make is to reduce or ban alcohol advertising, particularly at sports games.
The alcohol industry actively markets alcohol to young people. They make their profits by encouraging heavy drinking, and ‘growing’ new drinkers. Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.
Remember the tobacco industry’s sponsorship of big sporting events like tennis?
Now it is alcohol brands linked alongside major sporting events, for example, the Heineken Tennis Open and any poster of the All Blacks meant for display in a child’s bedroom or school classroom has the Steinlager logo prominently displayed.
The alcohol industry is extremely well resourced and determined to resist any changes that would dent its profits. In my view, all donations to politicians by liquor (or tobacco) companies should be banned, including sponsoring functions.
The liquor industry used to sponsor the annual press gallery party in Parliament House. Journalists themselves found this policy an uncomfortable fit and to their credit now pay for the function themselves or seek their newspaper or media outlet’s support for it.
But you still get bad press by taking on a lot of the alcohol issues like binge drinking. I’ll give you one example.
Six years ago, MPs who are now in government bitterly attacked me because I took steps to increase the excise rate charged on so-called light spirits. These were alcoholic drinks in the range 14 – 23% alcohol by volume.
The evidence showed plainly that the people who were buying them were kids, who bought bottles of cheap liquor on which to get smashed.
It was huge factor in binge drinking. One of principle manufacturers immediately reduced the alcoholic content of his product from 23% to 13.9% - to stay inside the law!
There was, however, a very large decline in the quantities of ‘light alcohol’ drinks sold for sale of around 80 percent. Overall alcohol consumption went down by half a million litres after the excise was increased. I would call that a huge success.
But I am under no illusions about the political cost of the measure. It ran headlong into the booze lobby, and the sneering about nanny state from people who don’t care how many kids kill themselves, until it’s one of their own.
We shouldn’t be under any illusions that changing the law about where to buy alcohol, how you can promote it, who can buy it, and how much it costs, is going to be hard.
Voting on alcohol law in parliament is still seen as a conscience vote. Historically this is because the issue split the major parties, at the time of the prohibition debate and created explosive tensions between prohibitionists and others.
Today, there are no votes in parliament for prohibition.
But everyone professes to be for responsible alcohol consumption. In that case, there should be responsible alcohol laws. Conscience voting in parliament has made alcohol laws incoherent.
Laws get amended in chaos, debates border on the irrational and law-making doesn’t fully take account of health-based interventions, education, and public campaigns to change the way people behave.
The spread of diseases, waiting lists for elective surgery, unemployment or even climate change aren’t treated as conscience votes. Yet alcohol still is. Clearly there needs to be changes in the law surrounding alcohol sale and consumption. But we will only be successful when it is accompanied by a long and targeted marketing campaign.
Alcohol is an addictive drug. It reduces the health status of some of its users. It contributes to premature deaths. We’ve got a long way to go to get people to see alcohol abuse as a public health issue. And therefore we are all affected by the abuse of alcohol.
Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. The good news is that people who enjoy the many positive features that come with drinking in moderation - enjoying friendships, socialising and having fun - are starting to see that alcohol abuse is a big problem in our communities. Most people understand that we need to change our attitude to heavy drinking.
The fact that we are all here today is a sign that change is already happening.
Stories like these…
* A brutal and baffling weekend attack which left a young couple critically injured in a west Auckland park has nearby residents fearing for their own safety
* A man walking his dog found the young man semi-conscious in the park at 7am on Sunday morning with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain
* Six hours into her shift, Heretini had had no break. But she rallied to care for her last patient, a young man with head injuries and lacerations to most of his body. He had fallen out of the window of a moving car while hanging onto the coat hanger handle above the vehicle’s back door.
* The veteran of the Malayan campaign and the Vietnam war was shocked by the viciousness and callousness of the youths. His daughter Jillian was knocked unconscious and her boyfriend was stomped on the head when they arrived home in a taxi as he was being set upon by the mob
* “She was drunk as a skunk”, he said. Mr McKenzie, who survived a serious heart attack two years ago, lost three teeth and received bruising and cuts to his head and body.
That’s just a sample of the sorts of headlines reflecting the every day reality of alcohol in New Zealand, and the results of our drinking culture.
On conservative figures prepared by the Ministry of Health the harm alcohol causes costs between $1.5 and $2.5 billion every year. Three out of five people who are arrested are under the influence of alcohol at the time they commit the offence for which they’re arrested.
If we want to reduce the level of crime in New Zealand, the fastest way we can make a difference, and the biggest difference we can make, would be to make alcohol less available. And conversely, in recent years when alcohol has been made more available, the harm caused by alcohol has risen as well.
Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse. Three quarters of adults arriving at emergency departments on Thursday, Friday or Saturday night have alcohol related injuries.
The Salvation Army says alcohol is present in four out of five domestic violence cases.
Here’s another statistic to make you think; according to a recent medical journal article, there are now 70,000 physical and sexual assaults a year in New Zealand that can be linked to alcohol. That’s 1350 a week.
I support changing the law to make alcohol less available.
I support raising the drinking age and restricting the number of outlets where alcohol is sold.
I support lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for drivers over 20 years of age from 0.08 to 0.05.
I would raise alcohol prices, reduce alcohol marketing and advertising and increase drink-driving measures.
If we made some of these changes then at least it wouldn’t be so easy for any teenager to walk into a corner shop and buy as much alcohol as they want for them and their friends.
The proliferation of outlets where teenagers can buy booze or alco-pops has to stop.
I want those who grant liquor licences to have greater scope to turn down licences.
If they can see that several dairies selling alcohol, and another off-licence on top of that, all in less than a few kilometres of each other, then licensing authorities need the ability to say - no, that’s only going to cause more social problems.
I’d like to give police more resources to monitor the way liquor outlets comply with the law.
I would like to see the opening hours of all off-licences restricted, for example from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm.
Who needs to buy beer or wine at 3am? Plenty of people are buying alcohol after midnight to continue a binge.
If we made some of these changes then there wouldn’t have been some of the horrific stories we have heard about in the news - such as the alcohol fuelled Auckland men who drove down to their local corner liquor store late at night to rob it and ended up shooting the owner.
It would make a difference, but on its own changing the law would be only one step. It would not be a miracle solution.
What is required is a change in our drinking culture. It is the cultural complexity of drinking that makes regulation of alcohol politically contentious.
We don’t take the steps that need to be taken because political decision-making runs head first into a culture of heavy drinking and of alcohol abuse.
I got attacked in the Dominion for being a wowser by a columnist who raved he simply wanted to just enjoy a glass or two of wine with his meal. That’s what happens when you try to deal with binge drinking and genuine harm.
There are a lot of people who use alcohol responsibly, and they feel that their lifestyle is being criticized and threatened. That’s what makes the issue politically contentious.
Those of us who want to promote responsible alcohol use have to deal with this issue. There is a crucial difference between alcohol and smoking - every cigarette is bad for you. Any use at all is harmful.
But the same is not true of a glass of wine with dinner or a beer at the cricket. Three glasses of wine a day, every day, over a long period, is classed as heavy drinking because over a long period it has harmful health effects.
But that is not the same as binge drinking that is fuelling violence and hospital admissions.
So we need to respond differently to different issues. That means targeted campaigns that raise awareness about the harmful health effects of heavy use on one hand; and targeted rule changes that actively reduce dangerous binge drinking on the other.
What both have in common is that there is a heavy drinking culture in New Zealand. And wanting to change our culture of abuse doesn’t make me a wowser or a party pooper; it makes me someone concerned to reduce crime, injuries and deaths as well as other serious harm to our nation’s health profile.
If we’re going to make an impact, we have to start with binge drinking and dangerous misuse, and we have to address the culture that makes those things acceptable.
Many people who use alcohol don’t abuse it, and therefore changing the culture has to focus where the harm is greatest: If we are going to make an impact on binge drinking and the harm alcohol causes then we have to be prepared to front up to drinking that is risky.
And we have to acknowledge that heavy drinking and binge drinking is widespread.
It’s rare for anyone today to be demonised for wanting to restrict smoking.
But twenty years ago Helen Clark was called every name under the sun for doing so as Minister of Health. A generation ago, people would go to parties and then brag about driving home drunk.
Today, it’s become socially unacceptable. People still do it, but not many people laugh about it any more.
The culture around drink driving has changed, but we have to be clear that it’s a much bigger process than simply changing the law. It takes decades to change social attitudes.
Teenagers are drinking to excess more often and in greater numbers.
And one of the reasons teenagers are getting boozed in harmful ways, and so often, is that the culture of drinking is promoting heavy alcohol use. We are sending out confusing messages to young people.
All-Black’s games and the summer cricket series drip in alcohol promotion. But we act surprised when Black Cap Jesse Ryder or All Black Jimmy Cowan get into trouble when they’re out on the booze.
The community vilifies them, rather than vilifying the alcohol companies who sponsor the games and encourage young New Zealanders to go out and drink to excess.
That’s why I believe one of the most effective changes we could make is to reduce or ban alcohol advertising, particularly at sports games.
The alcohol industry actively markets alcohol to young people. They make their profits by encouraging heavy drinking, and ‘growing’ new drinkers. Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.
Remember the tobacco industry’s sponsorship of big sporting events like tennis?
Now it is alcohol brands linked alongside major sporting events, for example, the Heineken Tennis Open and any poster of the All Blacks meant for display in a child’s bedroom or school classroom has the Steinlager logo prominently displayed.
The alcohol industry is extremely well resourced and determined to resist any changes that would dent its profits. In my view, all donations to politicians by liquor (or tobacco) companies should be banned, including sponsoring functions.
The liquor industry used to sponsor the annual press gallery party in Parliament House. Journalists themselves found this policy an uncomfortable fit and to their credit now pay for the function themselves or seek their newspaper or media outlet’s support for it.
But you still get bad press by taking on a lot of the alcohol issues like binge drinking. I’ll give you one example.
Six years ago, MPs who are now in government bitterly attacked me because I took steps to increase the excise rate charged on so-called light spirits. These were alcoholic drinks in the range 14 – 23% alcohol by volume.
The evidence showed plainly that the people who were buying them were kids, who bought bottles of cheap liquor on which to get smashed.
It was huge factor in binge drinking. One of principle manufacturers immediately reduced the alcoholic content of his product from 23% to 13.9% - to stay inside the law!
There was, however, a very large decline in the quantities of ‘light alcohol’ drinks sold for sale of around 80 percent. Overall alcohol consumption went down by half a million litres after the excise was increased. I would call that a huge success.
But I am under no illusions about the political cost of the measure. It ran headlong into the booze lobby, and the sneering about nanny state from people who don’t care how many kids kill themselves, until it’s one of their own.
We shouldn’t be under any illusions that changing the law about where to buy alcohol, how you can promote it, who can buy it, and how much it costs, is going to be hard.
Voting on alcohol law in parliament is still seen as a conscience vote. Historically this is because the issue split the major parties, at the time of the prohibition debate and created explosive tensions between prohibitionists and others.
Today, there are no votes in parliament for prohibition.
But everyone professes to be for responsible alcohol consumption. In that case, there should be responsible alcohol laws. Conscience voting in parliament has made alcohol laws incoherent.
Laws get amended in chaos, debates border on the irrational and law-making doesn’t fully take account of health-based interventions, education, and public campaigns to change the way people behave.
The spread of diseases, waiting lists for elective surgery, unemployment or even climate change aren’t treated as conscience votes. Yet alcohol still is. Clearly there needs to be changes in the law surrounding alcohol sale and consumption. But we will only be successful when it is accompanied by a long and targeted marketing campaign.
Alcohol is an addictive drug. It reduces the health status of some of its users. It contributes to premature deaths. We’ve got a long way to go to get people to see alcohol abuse as a public health issue. And therefore we are all affected by the abuse of alcohol.
Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. The good news is that people who enjoy the many positive features that come with drinking in moderation - enjoying friendships, socialising and having fun - are starting to see that alcohol abuse is a big problem in our communities. Most people understand that we need to change our attitude to heavy drinking.
The fact that we are all here today is a sign that change is already happening.
Save men’s help-line
04/03/10 15:19 Filed in: News Releases
Suicide rates are on the decline, but more men than women are still dying. This is not the time to get rid of New Zealand’s only phone counselling service set up to help men, says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and former minister responsible for the government’s suicide prevention strategy.
Health Ministry figures show that 370 of the 483 people who killed themselves in 2007 were men.
“When I was the Associate Health Minister in the last Labour-Progressive government, we put considerable funding into public campaigns about depression and suicide prevention. We knew we had to target men deliberately because it was harder to reach them.
“Campaigns fronted by ex-rugby player John Kirwan have been very successful in de-stigmatising mental illness and raising awareness of depression. The fact that a male role model was chosen to front this campaign was deliberate.”
Lifeline runs the national helpline set up for men, but because of a funding crisis caused by the recession, the ‘Mensline’ will close tomorrow. All calls will be diverter to general Lifeline counsellors who are 75 per cent female.
Mensline has been funded by a number of private and public sponsors.
“I call on the Minister of Health to step in and work out how we can keep this line going. I suspect that the money required to restore the service is considerably less than it costs to fund other help lines like Quitline for smokers or the Gambling Helpline,” says Jim Anderton.
“The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) puts a price on a life lost when it decides which black spots to fix. The more lives lost at the black spot, the more likely the road will get fixed. The cost of one life lost is reckoned to be about $2.5 million.
“Surely the government can find what is likely to be a fraction of that, to keep this helpline going and potentially save many lives,” says Jim Anderton.
Health Ministry figures show that 370 of the 483 people who killed themselves in 2007 were men.
“When I was the Associate Health Minister in the last Labour-Progressive government, we put considerable funding into public campaigns about depression and suicide prevention. We knew we had to target men deliberately because it was harder to reach them.
“Campaigns fronted by ex-rugby player John Kirwan have been very successful in de-stigmatising mental illness and raising awareness of depression. The fact that a male role model was chosen to front this campaign was deliberate.”
Lifeline runs the national helpline set up for men, but because of a funding crisis caused by the recession, the ‘Mensline’ will close tomorrow. All calls will be diverter to general Lifeline counsellors who are 75 per cent female.
Mensline has been funded by a number of private and public sponsors.
“I call on the Minister of Health to step in and work out how we can keep this line going. I suspect that the money required to restore the service is considerably less than it costs to fund other help lines like Quitline for smokers or the Gambling Helpline,” says Jim Anderton.
“The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) puts a price on a life lost when it decides which black spots to fix. The more lives lost at the black spot, the more likely the road will get fixed. The cost of one life lost is reckoned to be about $2.5 million.
“Surely the government can find what is likely to be a fraction of that, to keep this helpline going and potentially save many lives,” says Jim Anderton.
National shows its true colours – health cuts
22/01/10 11:52 Filed in: News Releases
A quick chat on the phone, and no more home help for you. This is how 2010 is starting for many elderly New Zealanders across the country, and the National Government couldn’t give a damn, said Wigram MP and Progressive Leader, Jim Anderton.
“Last year I was inundated with calls from elderly people in my electorate who were having their home help cut. Then I predicted that this would be repeated across the country. Unfortunately it looks as though I was right.”
Jim Anderton’s electorate office in Sydenham was receiving 15-20 calls a day from elderly people facing cuts, or concerned people worried about their neighbours.
The Kapiti Observer recently reported the same treatment of elderly people in the Kapiti region. Over forty upset locals have complained to Grey Power over cuts to Capital and Coast District Health Board funded home-help.
Elderly people are assessed over the phone, and then find that their 1-2 hours home-help with cleaning or shopping has been cut.
“Although it’s the District Health Boards making these decisions, whether in Wellington or Christchurch, they are cutting services because resources are limited. That’s a problem for the government, and Tony Ryall as Minister of Health should be doing something about it.”
Until now, elderly people who need it get help with basic domestic and personal activities like vacuuming and showering.
“I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you get a government that promises tax cuts, then you’re going to have less money to spend on essential services, and then there’s only one way to balance the books.
“When my office contacted the Christchurch District Health Board, it was told that ‘families will need to take more responsibility for their elderly parents...If old people can’t go out shopping, there’s always on-line shopping; and if they can’t manage the cleaning they can just clean one room a day with a carpet sweeper.’ Well, I’d like to see my 90 year old constituent who has just had her help cut, carpet sweep the house on her walking frame!
“We need to have a proper public policy debate to work out how we’re going to deal with the health and welfare of the increasing numbers of aging New Zealanders. This shambles is certainly not the way to do it,” Jim Anderton said.
“Last year I was inundated with calls from elderly people in my electorate who were having their home help cut. Then I predicted that this would be repeated across the country. Unfortunately it looks as though I was right.”
Jim Anderton’s electorate office in Sydenham was receiving 15-20 calls a day from elderly people facing cuts, or concerned people worried about their neighbours.
The Kapiti Observer recently reported the same treatment of elderly people in the Kapiti region. Over forty upset locals have complained to Grey Power over cuts to Capital and Coast District Health Board funded home-help.
Elderly people are assessed over the phone, and then find that their 1-2 hours home-help with cleaning or shopping has been cut.
“Although it’s the District Health Boards making these decisions, whether in Wellington or Christchurch, they are cutting services because resources are limited. That’s a problem for the government, and Tony Ryall as Minister of Health should be doing something about it.”
Until now, elderly people who need it get help with basic domestic and personal activities like vacuuming and showering.
“I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you get a government that promises tax cuts, then you’re going to have less money to spend on essential services, and then there’s only one way to balance the books.
“When my office contacted the Christchurch District Health Board, it was told that ‘families will need to take more responsibility for their elderly parents...If old people can’t go out shopping, there’s always on-line shopping; and if they can’t manage the cleaning they can just clean one room a day with a carpet sweeper.’ Well, I’d like to see my 90 year old constituent who has just had her help cut, carpet sweep the house on her walking frame!
“We need to have a proper public policy debate to work out how we’re going to deal with the health and welfare of the increasing numbers of aging New Zealanders. This shambles is certainly not the way to do it,” Jim Anderton said.
Opening the new Rodger Wright Centre
20/11/09 19:00 Filed in: Speeches
I am very happy to be here today to witness this blessing, and the opening of the new Rodger Wright premises.
It’s normal practice at a house-warming to bring a present or flowers, and I’m sorry I’ve come empty handed. But giving the wrong present at an opening can be worse than giving nothing at all.
I heard of a new school that opened recently, and a supporter wanted to send flowers for the occasion. The flowers arrived and the staff read the card; it said ‘Rest in Peace.’ The supporter was furious, and he phoned the florist to complain.
After he’d told the florist of the obvious mistake and how angry he was, the florist said: ‘Sir, I’m really sorry for the mistake, but rather than getting angry, you should imagine this; somewhere there is a funeral taking place today, and they have flowers with a note saying, ‘Congratulations on your new location.’
I was pleased to be able to launch the free-to-users, one-for-one Needle Exchange Programme (NEP) in 2004, and it’s wonderful today to know it has made the difference we knew it would.
Most people know that I am strongly anti-drugs. To some, it still seems like a contradiction to be anti-drugs, but to have funded a free needle exchange service to drug users.
But anyone who has watched a loved one use drugs knows that the fear that they are sharing needles is almost as bad as the fear that they are taking dangerous drugs.
You are always anxious that someone you love will not just suffer the after effects of drug use, but that they may pick up HIV or Hepatitis C from sharing needles.
The NEP has very positive results to show. New Zealand has the lowest number of people with the H.I.V. virus in the world, there has been a marked reduction in those with Hepatitis C, and visits to the Accident and Emergency department in Christchurch have declined by 30 per cent for drug using related incidents.
It was the evidence that drove me to introduce the free ‘needle-exchange programme’.
Back in 2002 when I was the minister responsible for drug policy, I received an independent review which told me that the needle exchange programme saved lives, and back then, it was saving $35 million in treatment costs since it had been established.
It would be saving even more today.
The report told me that the programme back then had prevented twenty deaths from AIDS, and reduced by more than 2000 the cases of Hepatitis C and HIV.
When you get a report like that in government, you sit up and take notice.
The report also came up with some strong recommendations. One was a recommendation to remove a legal anomaly around the possession of needles and syringes.
As a result of this report, I took a Bill to parliament in 2004, changing the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Bill did other things too, like bringing in much tougher rules controlling methamphetamines.
It also recommended a law change regarding the possession of needles. The amendment I brought in at the time was a technical one that reversed the onus of proof on a person found with needles in their possession. It was meant to make the needle exchange programme work better.
Tony Ryall - then an opposition MP - called it “political correctness by a liberal Government.”
He’s now the Minister of Health, and has responsibility for the needle exchange programme. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was sneering about political correctness as a reflex action, rather than because he is genuinely misguided.
But there you have some insight into the battle you have to face if you want to do the right thing to minimise the harm caused by drug use.
Just because an idea is good, and just because it works, doesn’t mean we can take for granted that it will be supported.
We later introduced the one-for-one programme that made needles available freely. I made (and succeeded with) a budget bid for $4 million dollars to fund the programme and I did it as part of the coalition agreement that the Progressive Party had with Labour at the time – for which my Labour colleagues here today deserve thanks for their support.
There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness. I can tell you from personal experience that there aren’t many votes in being wise or liberal about drug abuse.
But it was the right thing to do.
I am proud to have contributed to it. I am proud to have played a part in saving many lives.
I am also pleased we have saved many millions of dollars in treatment costs that our heath system would otherwise have incurred.
Most of all I would like to congratulate the people here today who have made such an effort to make this programme a success. And these new premises are evidence of the work you have done.
As a politician, I know that to make a difference to peoples’ lives, more often than not, means going the extra mile. I thank you for your commitment.
I wish we didn’t need this programme. I wish we didn’t have drug use causing the harm it does, wrecking the lives of many people, and wrecking many communities. But it does happen. It will keep happening.
And if we care about vulnerable victims then our responsibility is to reduce the harm to them as much as we can. The needle exchange programme does just that and I continue to support it for that reason.
It’s normal practice at a house-warming to bring a present or flowers, and I’m sorry I’ve come empty handed. But giving the wrong present at an opening can be worse than giving nothing at all.
I heard of a new school that opened recently, and a supporter wanted to send flowers for the occasion. The flowers arrived and the staff read the card; it said ‘Rest in Peace.’ The supporter was furious, and he phoned the florist to complain.
After he’d told the florist of the obvious mistake and how angry he was, the florist said: ‘Sir, I’m really sorry for the mistake, but rather than getting angry, you should imagine this; somewhere there is a funeral taking place today, and they have flowers with a note saying, ‘Congratulations on your new location.’
I was pleased to be able to launch the free-to-users, one-for-one Needle Exchange Programme (NEP) in 2004, and it’s wonderful today to know it has made the difference we knew it would.
Most people know that I am strongly anti-drugs. To some, it still seems like a contradiction to be anti-drugs, but to have funded a free needle exchange service to drug users.
But anyone who has watched a loved one use drugs knows that the fear that they are sharing needles is almost as bad as the fear that they are taking dangerous drugs.
You are always anxious that someone you love will not just suffer the after effects of drug use, but that they may pick up HIV or Hepatitis C from sharing needles.
The NEP has very positive results to show. New Zealand has the lowest number of people with the H.I.V. virus in the world, there has been a marked reduction in those with Hepatitis C, and visits to the Accident and Emergency department in Christchurch have declined by 30 per cent for drug using related incidents.
It was the evidence that drove me to introduce the free ‘needle-exchange programme’.
Back in 2002 when I was the minister responsible for drug policy, I received an independent review which told me that the needle exchange programme saved lives, and back then, it was saving $35 million in treatment costs since it had been established.
It would be saving even more today.
The report told me that the programme back then had prevented twenty deaths from AIDS, and reduced by more than 2000 the cases of Hepatitis C and HIV.
When you get a report like that in government, you sit up and take notice.
The report also came up with some strong recommendations. One was a recommendation to remove a legal anomaly around the possession of needles and syringes.
As a result of this report, I took a Bill to parliament in 2004, changing the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Bill did other things too, like bringing in much tougher rules controlling methamphetamines.
It also recommended a law change regarding the possession of needles. The amendment I brought in at the time was a technical one that reversed the onus of proof on a person found with needles in their possession. It was meant to make the needle exchange programme work better.
Tony Ryall - then an opposition MP - called it “political correctness by a liberal Government.”
He’s now the Minister of Health, and has responsibility for the needle exchange programme. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was sneering about political correctness as a reflex action, rather than because he is genuinely misguided.
But there you have some insight into the battle you have to face if you want to do the right thing to minimise the harm caused by drug use.
Just because an idea is good, and just because it works, doesn’t mean we can take for granted that it will be supported.
We later introduced the one-for-one programme that made needles available freely. I made (and succeeded with) a budget bid for $4 million dollars to fund the programme and I did it as part of the coalition agreement that the Progressive Party had with Labour at the time – for which my Labour colleagues here today deserve thanks for their support.
There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness. I can tell you from personal experience that there aren’t many votes in being wise or liberal about drug abuse.
But it was the right thing to do.
I am proud to have contributed to it. I am proud to have played a part in saving many lives.
I am also pleased we have saved many millions of dollars in treatment costs that our heath system would otherwise have incurred.
Most of all I would like to congratulate the people here today who have made such an effort to make this programme a success. And these new premises are evidence of the work you have done.
As a politician, I know that to make a difference to peoples’ lives, more often than not, means going the extra mile. I thank you for your commitment.
I wish we didn’t need this programme. I wish we didn’t have drug use causing the harm it does, wrecking the lives of many people, and wrecking many communities. But it does happen. It will keep happening.
And if we care about vulnerable victims then our responsibility is to reduce the harm to them as much as we can. The needle exchange programme does just that and I continue to support it for that reason.
1000 people die because of heavy drinking each year
26/11/09 15:21 Filed in: News Releases
When over 300 leading doctors and nurses and the heads of police in New Zealand and Australia agree that we face an urgent and serious issue with alcohol abuse, then we know we have a problem, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.
He welcomed the release today of a joint statement from New Zealand doctors and nurses, calling for the Law Commission to recommend reducing the marketing and advertising of alcohol; lowering the purchase age; increasing the price of alcohol; reducing the availability of alcohol; and doing more to counter drink-driving.
New Zealand and Australian police commissioners met recently to talk about the culture of binge drinking in both countries, and to agree to a series of crackdowns against alcohol-fueled crime and antisocial behaviour this Christmas.
“This is our chance to do something about binge drinking. The legislation must be changed, and the Law Commission is looking at that right now,” says Jim Anderton.
75% of people who show up in emergency rooms on a Friday or a Saturday night will have injuries related in some way to alcohol. 60% of people arrested by the police are under the influence of alcohol.
“25% of New Zealand drinkers are heavy drinkers. That’s equal to the combined population of both Wellington and Christchurch.
“To put this national crisis into perspective, each year less than ten people die as a result of using the drug commonly known as ‘P’. Twenty people died from swine flu this year.1000 people die from alcohol related problems each year.”
“But it’ll take more than legislation to change our attitude to binge drinking. What we need is a culture change. We need to stop romanticising heavy drinking.
“That’s why I want to see alcohol sponsorship, particularly for sports events banned, and the marketing of alco-pops to our teenagers stopped. Evidence shows that every advertisement seen by a young person (15-24 years) increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life and the liquor industry banks on it,” says Jim Anderton
He welcomed the release today of a joint statement from New Zealand doctors and nurses, calling for the Law Commission to recommend reducing the marketing and advertising of alcohol; lowering the purchase age; increasing the price of alcohol; reducing the availability of alcohol; and doing more to counter drink-driving.
New Zealand and Australian police commissioners met recently to talk about the culture of binge drinking in both countries, and to agree to a series of crackdowns against alcohol-fueled crime and antisocial behaviour this Christmas.
“This is our chance to do something about binge drinking. The legislation must be changed, and the Law Commission is looking at that right now,” says Jim Anderton.
75% of people who show up in emergency rooms on a Friday or a Saturday night will have injuries related in some way to alcohol. 60% of people arrested by the police are under the influence of alcohol.
“25% of New Zealand drinkers are heavy drinkers. That’s equal to the combined population of both Wellington and Christchurch.
“To put this national crisis into perspective, each year less than ten people die as a result of using the drug commonly known as ‘P’. Twenty people died from swine flu this year.1000 people die from alcohol related problems each year.”
“But it’ll take more than legislation to change our attitude to binge drinking. What we need is a culture change. We need to stop romanticising heavy drinking.
“That’s why I want to see alcohol sponsorship, particularly for sports events banned, and the marketing of alco-pops to our teenagers stopped. Evidence shows that every advertisement seen by a young person (15-24 years) increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life and the liquor industry banks on it,” says Jim Anderton
Jim's E-News, November 2009
16/11/09 15:00 Filed in: Newsletters
DENTAL CARE ISSUES FOR NEW ZEALANDERS
I am involving myself in a project to raise the profile of, and extend the services for, dental treatment in New Zealand.
The cost of dental treatment is a significant barrier to lifetime dental care and as a result, neglected teeth and gums are a hidden but critical problem for New Zealand’s healthcare system which needs to be urgently addressed.
It is my strongly held view that a high quality, accessible and affordable dental system should be part of the general medical health system in New Zealand. This would provide a public-private partnership which would enable all of our citizens from their earliest years right through to their last, to have their teeth cared for by qualified dental professionals at an affordable cost.
From one end of New Zealand to the other I have been made aware of the importance of this issue to a large number of our citizens, young and old, and it is well beyond time when action rather than words was seen and heard to be taking place.
I would be grateful to hear from you by email, fax or letter about your thoughts on this vital issue.
Contact me here.
ACC IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD - BIKERS RALLY, CHRISTCHURCH
Let’s be clear about one thing; New Zealand has the best accident compensation scheme in the world. It’s not broken, so why try and fix it; and no matter what Nick Smith tries to tell you - it’s not broke. It has reserves of money. It has over $11 billion of reserves, and last year it collected $1 billion more in levies, than it spent on claims.
Bikers are being unfairly targeted – Nick Smith wants them to pay three times as much in ACC levies as they are paying today.
Today motorcyclists are paying about $252. Tomorrow they will be paying $735.
This is outrageous. And it is completely unnecessary - because ACC can pay its bills without making them pay three times as much.
ACC was set up as a no-fault system to be run by a government-owned company so that everyone who has an accident gets looked after, and at a lower cost than overseas.
It was never intended to penalise certain groups that it saw as ‘high risk’ - otherwise where do you stop? If its bikers today, why not old people who are more likely to fall over than anyone else; why not 6 year boys who play rugby and are more likely to get hurt than kids playing chess?
The point of the scheme was to avoid this situation, and draw on the overall resources of the whole community. So we all pay a bit, and no one is disadvantaged. Every one avoids the very large lawyers’ bills and insurance company profits that have to be paid under a private insurance system.
We gave up the right to sue under this system, in return for the fair treatment of injured people.
The National-led government is playing dirty with the figures. It’s insisting that all imagined accidents in the future should be paid right now by people like the bike riders. But this wasn’t what ACC was set up to do. It was always intended to be a ‘pay as you go’ scheme.
That means the levies received in any one year, pay for the accidents in that year. And that system has been working fine - in fact ACC has even managed to put aside significant resources.
The real agenda here, is to set up ACC for a gradual return to a privately run insurance scheme. Scaremongering about costs is just the Trojan horse. And inside the Trojan horse is a bunch of lawyers and foreign insurance companies, licking their lips and looking forward to getting their hands on your levies!
I am entirely opposed to any private scheme. And I totally reject the National government’s attempt to make bikers pay three times as much.
URGENT INQUIRY INTO MONETARY POLICY NOW
We should put party politics aside and come up with a new approach to monetary policy which supports people in New Zealand who produce tradeable goods, rather than those who speculate on property and take the profits off-shore.
The National-led government and its coalition partners refused to take part in the inquiry, with the PM cynically calling it a ‘stunt’ from the opposition parties.
I don’t believe in the “nothing we can do” stance of this government. We could be looking to remove the incentives for those buying investment properties. Banks need to be encouraged to lend to businesses; and we need to review our tax system which at the moment encourages unproductive property investment and discourages investment in the productive tradeable export goods sector.
We need to look at regulating the banking sector so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make excessive profits.
With the National-led government complacently sitting on the sidelines, New Zealanders will be the losers for it.
To download the banking inquiry report, go here, or get in touch with my office.
BANKING INQUIRY BACKGROUNDER AND FINDINGS
The ‘big four’ Australian banks control nearly 90% of banking assets in New Zealand. The three New Zealand owned banks have 4% of banking assets.
Have the Banks made a profit?
The combined profits of the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks now exceed the combined profits of all other companies listed on the stock exchange NZX 50 series.
In 2008 Banks earned $3.26 billion; the earnings of the NZX 50 were $2.89 billion.
Did the Banks pass on the cut to the Official Cash Rate (OCR)?
The Reserve Bank cut the OCR from its high of 8.25 % in mid 2008, to only 2.5% today.
But the overseas owned banks reduced interest rates by less than the fall in the OCR. 1% margin in interest rates was not passed on to bank customers. 1% extra interest added $787 million to costs for New Zealand businesses; and 1% higher margin on loans added $460 million to the net interest costs to the farming sector.
The biggest cost was in the housing sector: 1% extra interest cost added over $1.6 billion to mortgage repayments.
New Zealand businesses are suffering
In 2009 bank lending for home loans rose about $3.2 billion (to $164.8 billion). Meanwhile business lending fell by about $3 billion (to $78 billion.)
The effects on the farming sector have been negative
Federated Farmers interest rates survey in June 2009 found that farm business overdraft interest rates had fallen an average of 2.68 % since December 2008. Meanwhile the OCR was cut by 4%.
Ordinary New Zealanders had problems paying their mortgages
In five years, Budgeting and Family Support Services has only seen one family lose their house in a mortgage sale. But in the first three months on 2009, fifteen families had already lost their home.
Have the Banks contributed to overseas debt and a housing bubble?
In the last ten years, personal lending has almost doubled, from $60 billion to $105 billion; most of the lending has been for housing.
Home loans now make up 55% of bank lending, up from 35% ten years ago. The banks borrowed more money to fund property price increases which contributed to a rise in overseas debt.
Between 2003 and 2009 net overseas liabilities rose from $100.6 billion to $176.3 billion; that’s a rise from 76.8% of GDP to 98%.
What have the banks got to do with our volatile exchange rate?
High overseas borrowing has impacted on the exchange rate which is subject to high volatility. The export sector makes up roughly 30% of GDP - about $40 billion per year but suffers the most from currency instability which means uncertain returns.
PROGRESSIVE SUBMISSION ON THE LAW COMMISSION PAPER: ‘ALCOHOL IN OUR LIVES’ I am under no illusion about the challenge involved if we are to seriously reduce the harm caused by alcohol. But doing nothing is not an option.
Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. It causes between $2-$3 billion dollars worth of economic and social harm each year. The personal cost to families and loved ones is incalculable. How can we measure the cost of a family tragedy?
One of the most damaging drugs we face right now is not even illegal; our kids can buy it in the local dairy; they play sports and have it promoted to them all the time; they see it on TV, on billboards and hear about it on the radio.
The abuse of alcohol amongst our young people is on the rise and it’s destroying lives.
I have been working with others like Dr Doug Sellman of the Otago School of Medicine to raise awareness of the damage that alcohol is causing. We have a unique opportunity right now to do something, through the Law Commission’s review of the legislation to do with the drinking age, the availability and the advertising of alcohol.
Did you know that every advertisement seen by a young person increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life. And people like you end up picking up the pieces.
Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.
I welcome the Law Commission’s issues paper which gives New Zealanders a unique opportunity to reform the legal framework in which alcohol is sold, advertised and promoted.
It gives us a chance today to do more to protect New Zealanders from the harm caused by the abuse of alcohol.
The Progressive Party submission calls on the Law Commission to do more in its final recommendations to guide law makers on how to further curb alcohol advertising, particularly to the most vulnerable New Zealanders - the young. I would like to see more options put forward by the Law Commission on how we can greatly reduce the availability of alcohol to young people. I have also given my opinions and made comments on every option put forward in the Law Commission’s paper, ‘Alcohol in our Lives’.
For the full submission: go here.
For my speech to the National CAYAD hui, go here.
"Ten things the alcohol industry won't tell you about alcohol"
Alcohol Action are holding their last two last meetings this week with presenter Dr. Doug Sellman.
The meetings are at: CHRISTCHURCH: Art Gallery Theatre, Tuesday 17th November, 7.30-9pm PORIRUA: Helen Smith Community Room, Wednesday 18th November, 7.30-9pm
There is still time to get in a late submissions to the Law Commission.
Use milk payout to farmers to strengthen industry
It's important that the increase in Fonterra's payout to farmers is used to strengthen the industry, and not squandered.
The increased pay out is very timely for a large number of farmers who have been struggling with higher input prices and enormous costs for financing. Interest rates for many farmers have not come down.
But the risk is that the higher payout will lead to higher farm valuations and in turn to yet more farm indebtedness. That's what happened too often when the milk payout reached $7 a kilo. When the price then dropped, it left a lot of farmers under mortgage stress.
Banks should be careful about getting into the same position of lending against valuations based on favourable milk payouts.
The payout shows New Zealand is well positioned as a food producer to continue to earn a living when global conditions are less than favourable.
When payouts increase as much as this one has, the extra earnings need to be used to strengthen the industry, for example by stronger investment in research and development, and strenthening balance sheets to reduce our exposure to rapacious overseas owned banks.
A generation of kids will be lost – New Zealand must do more
Launch of the Mutima Project in Christchurch
16,000 children are dying from hunger every day because food aid is now at its lowest level in twenty years, but the National government remains determined not to use our aid for ‘poverty reduction.
The head of the United Nation’s World Food Programme recently announced that tens of millions of the world’s poor will have their food rations cut or cancelled in the next few weeks because some OECD countries have slashed aid after the financial crisis.
The Mutima project is a volunteer organisation and will send a team of cardiac surgeons to Zambia to perform life-saving heart surgery on young adults.
I commend them for the strength of their personal commitment and their determination to serve. We are a stronger and more caring community because of people like these Christchurch surgeons. Because of them, a hundred young Zambians will have a second chance at life.
About 60% of the Zambian population are living on less than a $1 per day.
But where is the urgency from the National government to save a generation of children who will die from starvation if the world does nothing?
The National government has recently announced that it will abolish the goal of ‘poverty reduction’ for our aid, and replace it with a goal of ‘economic development’.
I am a strong champion of economic development but you can’t do much business development if people don’t have enough to eat or clean water to drink.
I want to see the National government do more about bad governance and corruption in some of the poorest countries and see New Zealand get behind a new international Natural Resource Charter which sets out ‘best practice’ in countries with natural resources like oil (or copper in Zambia), so proceeds of those resources go to the poorest people and don’t end up in the pockets of the corrupt.
For the speech, go here.
Who owns the ASB? Not us.
The ASB has been an Australian owned bank for the last two decades, and it is misleading the public when it pretends to be a ‘Kiwi Bank’.
The ABS is running promotional ads claiming ‘We’ve been a Kiwi Bank since 1847’.
The truth is we don’t really know who owns the ASB. We know it is owned 100% by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), but who owns the Commonwealth Bank?
It used to be owned by the Federal Government of Australia but it was privatised in stages beginning in 1991.
Almost half of the current owners of the Commonwealth Bank are ‘nominee’ companies.
That means their identities are hidden behind other well-known companies, like the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).
We don’t really know who owns ASB. All we know for sure is that New Zealand doesn’t.
For the release, go here.
An ‘unfortunate arrangement’
The Auditor General’s findings about Bill English’s accommodation arrangements go significantly further than findings that caused Marion Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle to stand down from ministerial office in 2001. This makes Mr English’s position as finance minister very difficult. I have been in the same position as Mr Key, in having to make a decision on the future of the Minister. A precedent for the right thing to do has been set.
I wrote to the Auditor-General saying Mr English’ arrangements needed scrutiny. The report finds Mr English’s arrangements were not within the rules. The Auditor General’s report states:
The result was that the Crown was renting a property for Mr English from a trust in which he had an interest, and the arrangement was explicitly based on a view that he did not have an interest. Clearly, this was unfortunate.
The report discloses Mr English went to some lengths to arrange his affairs around the accommodation allowance entitlement. That is not a good look for a Minister of Finance.
The Auditor-General’s advice does not even mention other issues that the Prime Minister still needs to consider: that Mr English was giving his Wellington address as his home for the purpose of being a director of a company (incidentally, the company that owns his Dipton investment), but claiming to live in Dipton for the purpose of receiving an accommodation allowance.
A prudent minister might have noticed the contradiction between those two claims.
I have always welcomed the idea of Mr English having his family with him in Wellington. That is not the issue. The question is whether he was right to claim entitlements for doing so. It would not have been in any way objectionable if Mr English had lived in Wellington with his family and claimed an out of town allowance for his occasional trips to Dipton.
For the release, go here.
I am involving myself in a project to raise the profile of, and extend the services for, dental treatment in New Zealand.
The cost of dental treatment is a significant barrier to lifetime dental care and as a result, neglected teeth and gums are a hidden but critical problem for New Zealand’s healthcare system which needs to be urgently addressed.
It is my strongly held view that a high quality, accessible and affordable dental system should be part of the general medical health system in New Zealand. This would provide a public-private partnership which would enable all of our citizens from their earliest years right through to their last, to have their teeth cared for by qualified dental professionals at an affordable cost.
From one end of New Zealand to the other I have been made aware of the importance of this issue to a large number of our citizens, young and old, and it is well beyond time when action rather than words was seen and heard to be taking place.
I would be grateful to hear from you by email, fax or letter about your thoughts on this vital issue.
Contact me here.
ACC IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD - BIKERS RALLY, CHRISTCHURCH
Let’s be clear about one thing; New Zealand has the best accident compensation scheme in the world. It’s not broken, so why try and fix it; and no matter what Nick Smith tries to tell you - it’s not broke. It has reserves of money. It has over $11 billion of reserves, and last year it collected $1 billion more in levies, than it spent on claims.
Bikers are being unfairly targeted – Nick Smith wants them to pay three times as much in ACC levies as they are paying today.
Today motorcyclists are paying about $252. Tomorrow they will be paying $735.
This is outrageous. And it is completely unnecessary - because ACC can pay its bills without making them pay three times as much.
ACC was set up as a no-fault system to be run by a government-owned company so that everyone who has an accident gets looked after, and at a lower cost than overseas.
It was never intended to penalise certain groups that it saw as ‘high risk’ - otherwise where do you stop? If its bikers today, why not old people who are more likely to fall over than anyone else; why not 6 year boys who play rugby and are more likely to get hurt than kids playing chess?
The point of the scheme was to avoid this situation, and draw on the overall resources of the whole community. So we all pay a bit, and no one is disadvantaged. Every one avoids the very large lawyers’ bills and insurance company profits that have to be paid under a private insurance system.
We gave up the right to sue under this system, in return for the fair treatment of injured people.
The National-led government is playing dirty with the figures. It’s insisting that all imagined accidents in the future should be paid right now by people like the bike riders. But this wasn’t what ACC was set up to do. It was always intended to be a ‘pay as you go’ scheme.
That means the levies received in any one year, pay for the accidents in that year. And that system has been working fine - in fact ACC has even managed to put aside significant resources.
The real agenda here, is to set up ACC for a gradual return to a privately run insurance scheme. Scaremongering about costs is just the Trojan horse. And inside the Trojan horse is a bunch of lawyers and foreign insurance companies, licking their lips and looking forward to getting their hands on your levies!
I am entirely opposed to any private scheme. And I totally reject the National government’s attempt to make bikers pay three times as much.
URGENT INQUIRY INTO MONETARY POLICY NOW
We should put party politics aside and come up with a new approach to monetary policy which supports people in New Zealand who produce tradeable goods, rather than those who speculate on property and take the profits off-shore.
The National-led government and its coalition partners refused to take part in the inquiry, with the PM cynically calling it a ‘stunt’ from the opposition parties.
I don’t believe in the “nothing we can do” stance of this government. We could be looking to remove the incentives for those buying investment properties. Banks need to be encouraged to lend to businesses; and we need to review our tax system which at the moment encourages unproductive property investment and discourages investment in the productive tradeable export goods sector.
We need to look at regulating the banking sector so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t pay (in interest rates or hidden bank fees) while the Australian-owned banks make excessive profits.
With the National-led government complacently sitting on the sidelines, New Zealanders will be the losers for it.
To download the banking inquiry report, go here, or get in touch with my office.
BANKING INQUIRY BACKGROUNDER AND FINDINGS
The ‘big four’ Australian banks control nearly 90% of banking assets in New Zealand. The three New Zealand owned banks have 4% of banking assets.
Have the Banks made a profit?
The combined profits of the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks now exceed the combined profits of all other companies listed on the stock exchange NZX 50 series.
In 2008 Banks earned $3.26 billion; the earnings of the NZX 50 were $2.89 billion.
Did the Banks pass on the cut to the Official Cash Rate (OCR)?
The Reserve Bank cut the OCR from its high of 8.25 % in mid 2008, to only 2.5% today.
But the overseas owned banks reduced interest rates by less than the fall in the OCR. 1% margin in interest rates was not passed on to bank customers. 1% extra interest added $787 million to costs for New Zealand businesses; and 1% higher margin on loans added $460 million to the net interest costs to the farming sector.
The biggest cost was in the housing sector: 1% extra interest cost added over $1.6 billion to mortgage repayments.
New Zealand businesses are suffering
In 2009 bank lending for home loans rose about $3.2 billion (to $164.8 billion). Meanwhile business lending fell by about $3 billion (to $78 billion.)
The effects on the farming sector have been negative
Federated Farmers interest rates survey in June 2009 found that farm business overdraft interest rates had fallen an average of 2.68 % since December 2008. Meanwhile the OCR was cut by 4%.
Ordinary New Zealanders had problems paying their mortgages
In five years, Budgeting and Family Support Services has only seen one family lose their house in a mortgage sale. But in the first three months on 2009, fifteen families had already lost their home.
Have the Banks contributed to overseas debt and a housing bubble?
In the last ten years, personal lending has almost doubled, from $60 billion to $105 billion; most of the lending has been for housing.
Home loans now make up 55% of bank lending, up from 35% ten years ago. The banks borrowed more money to fund property price increases which contributed to a rise in overseas debt.
Between 2003 and 2009 net overseas liabilities rose from $100.6 billion to $176.3 billion; that’s a rise from 76.8% of GDP to 98%.
What have the banks got to do with our volatile exchange rate?
High overseas borrowing has impacted on the exchange rate which is subject to high volatility. The export sector makes up roughly 30% of GDP - about $40 billion per year but suffers the most from currency instability which means uncertain returns.
PROGRESSIVE SUBMISSION ON THE LAW COMMISSION PAPER: ‘ALCOHOL IN OUR LIVES’ I am under no illusion about the challenge involved if we are to seriously reduce the harm caused by alcohol. But doing nothing is not an option.
Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country. It causes between $2-$3 billion dollars worth of economic and social harm each year. The personal cost to families and loved ones is incalculable. How can we measure the cost of a family tragedy?
One of the most damaging drugs we face right now is not even illegal; our kids can buy it in the local dairy; they play sports and have it promoted to them all the time; they see it on TV, on billboards and hear about it on the radio.
The abuse of alcohol amongst our young people is on the rise and it’s destroying lives.
I have been working with others like Dr Doug Sellman of the Otago School of Medicine to raise awareness of the damage that alcohol is causing. We have a unique opportunity right now to do something, through the Law Commission’s review of the legislation to do with the drinking age, the availability and the advertising of alcohol.
Did you know that every advertisement seen by a young person increases the number of drinks they consume by 1%. They become customers for life. And people like you end up picking up the pieces.
Currently, $200,000 per day is spent on marketing and advertising alcohol. About half the marketing is spent on sponsorship.
I welcome the Law Commission’s issues paper which gives New Zealanders a unique opportunity to reform the legal framework in which alcohol is sold, advertised and promoted.
It gives us a chance today to do more to protect New Zealanders from the harm caused by the abuse of alcohol.
The Progressive Party submission calls on the Law Commission to do more in its final recommendations to guide law makers on how to further curb alcohol advertising, particularly to the most vulnerable New Zealanders - the young. I would like to see more options put forward by the Law Commission on how we can greatly reduce the availability of alcohol to young people. I have also given my opinions and made comments on every option put forward in the Law Commission’s paper, ‘Alcohol in our Lives’.
For the full submission: go here.
For my speech to the National CAYAD hui, go here.
"Ten things the alcohol industry won't tell you about alcohol"
Alcohol Action are holding their last two last meetings this week with presenter Dr. Doug Sellman.
The meetings are at: CHRISTCHURCH: Art Gallery Theatre, Tuesday 17th November, 7.30-9pm PORIRUA: Helen Smith Community Room, Wednesday 18th November, 7.30-9pm
There is still time to get in a late submissions to the Law Commission.
Use milk payout to farmers to strengthen industry
It's important that the increase in Fonterra's payout to farmers is used to strengthen the industry, and not squandered.
The increased pay out is very timely for a large number of farmers who have been struggling with higher input prices and enormous costs for financing. Interest rates for many farmers have not come down.
But the risk is that the higher payout will lead to higher farm valuations and in turn to yet more farm indebtedness. That's what happened too often when the milk payout reached $7 a kilo. When the price then dropped, it left a lot of farmers under mortgage stress.
Banks should be careful about getting into the same position of lending against valuations based on favourable milk payouts.
The payout shows New Zealand is well positioned as a food producer to continue to earn a living when global conditions are less than favourable.
When payouts increase as much as this one has, the extra earnings need to be used to strengthen the industry, for example by stronger investment in research and development, and strenthening balance sheets to reduce our exposure to rapacious overseas owned banks.
A generation of kids will be lost – New Zealand must do more
Launch of the Mutima Project in Christchurch
16,000 children are dying from hunger every day because food aid is now at its lowest level in twenty years, but the National government remains determined not to use our aid for ‘poverty reduction.
The head of the United Nation’s World Food Programme recently announced that tens of millions of the world’s poor will have their food rations cut or cancelled in the next few weeks because some OECD countries have slashed aid after the financial crisis.
The Mutima project is a volunteer organisation and will send a team of cardiac surgeons to Zambia to perform life-saving heart surgery on young adults.
I commend them for the strength of their personal commitment and their determination to serve. We are a stronger and more caring community because of people like these Christchurch surgeons. Because of them, a hundred young Zambians will have a second chance at life.
About 60% of the Zambian population are living on less than a $1 per day.
But where is the urgency from the National government to save a generation of children who will die from starvation if the world does nothing?
The National government has recently announced that it will abolish the goal of ‘poverty reduction’ for our aid, and replace it with a goal of ‘economic development’.
I am a strong champion of economic development but you can’t do much business development if people don’t have enough to eat or clean water to drink.
I want to see the National government do more about bad governance and corruption in some of the poorest countries and see New Zealand get behind a new international Natural Resource Charter which sets out ‘best practice’ in countries with natural resources like oil (or copper in Zambia), so proceeds of those resources go to the poorest people and don’t end up in the pockets of the corrupt.
For the speech, go here.
Who owns the ASB? Not us.
The ASB has been an Australian owned bank for the last two decades, and it is misleading the public when it pretends to be a ‘Kiwi Bank’.
The ABS is running promotional ads claiming ‘We’ve been a Kiwi Bank since 1847’.
The truth is we don’t really know who owns the ASB. We know it is owned 100% by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), but who owns the Commonwealth Bank?
It used to be owned by the Federal Government of Australia but it was privatised in stages beginning in 1991.
Almost half of the current owners of the Commonwealth Bank are ‘nominee’ companies.
That means their identities are hidden behind other well-known companies, like the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).
We don’t really know who owns ASB. All we know for sure is that New Zealand doesn’t.
For the release, go here.
An ‘unfortunate arrangement’
The Auditor General’s findings about Bill English’s accommodation arrangements go significantly further than findings that caused Marion Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle to stand down from ministerial office in 2001. This makes Mr English’s position as finance minister very difficult. I have been in the same position as Mr Key, in having to make a decision on the future of the Minister. A precedent for the right thing to do has been set.
I wrote to the Auditor-General saying Mr English’ arrangements needed scrutiny. The report finds Mr English’s arrangements were not within the rules. The Auditor General’s report states:
The result was that the Crown was renting a property for Mr English from a trust in which he had an interest, and the arrangement was explicitly based on a view that he did not have an interest. Clearly, this was unfortunate.
The report discloses Mr English went to some lengths to arrange his affairs around the accommodation allowance entitlement. That is not a good look for a Minister of Finance.
The Auditor-General’s advice does not even mention other issues that the Prime Minister still needs to consider: that Mr English was giving his Wellington address as his home for the purpose of being a director of a company (incidentally, the company that owns his Dipton investment), but claiming to live in Dipton for the purpose of receiving an accommodation allowance.
A prudent minister might have noticed the contradiction between those two claims.
I have always welcomed the idea of Mr English having his family with him in Wellington. That is not the issue. The question is whether he was right to claim entitlements for doing so. It would not have been in any way objectionable if Mr English had lived in Wellington with his family and claimed an out of town allowance for his occasional trips to Dipton.
For the release, go here.
Nick Smith stigmatises families of suicide victims
15/10/09 13:50 Filed in: News Releases
Minister of ACC, Nick Smith says it was ‘a mistake and wrong’ for the last Labour-led government to support the families of suicide victims through ACC.
“Nick Smith should have the courage to say this directly to the families of suicide victims. It is yet another cowardly and insensitive comment from a Minister who is determined to further stigmatise these families,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.
Nick Smith apologised in parliament today for his comments on TVNZ News last night where he said that the terminally ill might as well ‘throw themselves under a train’ to get the same treatment for their own families as is available for the bereaved families of suicide victims.
“If the children or loved ones of a suicide victim don’t get our support through ACC, then where do they get it from? Is the Minister saying that they don’t deserve our support? Or is he saying that they should go on a sickness benefit?”
“When he said yesterday that the government’s ‘objective is to secure the long-term future of ACC as an efficient and fair 24/7, no-fault insurance scheme for all New Zealanders’, he clearly did not mean the families of suicide victims. He is effectively victimising these most vulnerable of New Zealanders.”
As the Minister in charge of suicide prevention programs in the last Labour/Progressive government, Jim Anderton introduced a program of support for families after a suicide (Postvention). This provided urgent counselling where needed to families, and victim support for those affected.
Nick Smith claims that it is necessary to cut support to the families of suicide victims because ACC has a huge deficit. He said if someone with a family committed suicide, that family could have been given almost $1 million in compensation over time.
“Yet the cost for ACC to give support to a family of three children on an average wage is less than $210,000 over five years. With approximately 350 claims per year, that is about $7 millions per year to all families of suicide victims who make an ACC claim.”
“That is a small cost to pay out of what Nick Smith claims is a $2 billion shortfall annually, to help some of the most vulnerable families in our community.”
“Nick Smith should have the courage to say this directly to the families of suicide victims. It is yet another cowardly and insensitive comment from a Minister who is determined to further stigmatise these families,” says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.
Nick Smith apologised in parliament today for his comments on TVNZ News last night where he said that the terminally ill might as well ‘throw themselves under a train’ to get the same treatment for their own families as is available for the bereaved families of suicide victims.
“If the children or loved ones of a suicide victim don’t get our support through ACC, then where do they get it from? Is the Minister saying that they don’t deserve our support? Or is he saying that they should go on a sickness benefit?”
“When he said yesterday that the government’s ‘objective is to secure the long-term future of ACC as an efficient and fair 24/7, no-fault insurance scheme for all New Zealanders’, he clearly did not mean the families of suicide victims. He is effectively victimising these most vulnerable of New Zealanders.”
As the Minister in charge of suicide prevention programs in the last Labour/Progressive government, Jim Anderton introduced a program of support for families after a suicide (Postvention). This provided urgent counselling where needed to families, and victim support for those affected.
Nick Smith claims that it is necessary to cut support to the families of suicide victims because ACC has a huge deficit. He said if someone with a family committed suicide, that family could have been given almost $1 million in compensation over time.
“Yet the cost for ACC to give support to a family of three children on an average wage is less than $210,000 over five years. With approximately 350 claims per year, that is about $7 millions per year to all families of suicide victims who make an ACC claim.”
“That is a small cost to pay out of what Nick Smith claims is a $2 billion shortfall annually, to help some of the most vulnerable families in our community.”