Jim's E-News, December 2010
20/12/10 13:11 Filed in: News Releases
Season’s Greetings
With just a couple of weeks until Christmas, it is time to wish you all the very best for the holiday and festive season. It has been a hectic year and in many respects a tumultuous one given the Christchurch earthquakes and the Christchurch Mayoral election. In recent weeks the Pike River Mine tragedy has occupied the thoughts of a nation.
Next year will be election year and I am predicting that the Government will go to the polls early. We need to be prepared early as populist leader John Key will not want to risk leaving an election until after the Rugby World Cup on the off-chance (unlikely I hope) that the All Blacks will again falter.
While the Government’s popularity seems high at the moment, it will take just a small swing to see a change in government. Roy Morgan polls over the last year show National and its support parties tracking downwards, with the latest one showing its support at 55.5%, down from a high of 61.5% in February. Meanwhile, Labour and its support parties have slowly but steadily tracked upwards, with their support now at 44.5%, compared to 41.61% at the time of the 2008 General Election.
All that is required is a swing of slightly more than 5% from National and its support parties to Labour, and so I am urging you to make your New Year’s resolution one that you will get out and campaign for a Labour victory.
As for me, it will be the first time in more than 27 years that I will not be a candidate, and so I will be throwing my support firmly behind Labour’s Megan Woods in my current seat of Wigram.
Once again, I wish you all a safe and happy Christmas and New Year and hope that 2011 is a good and prosperous one for you and your family.
The Pike River mining tragedy
Like all New Zealanders, I watched in horror as events unfolded at the Pike River Mine in November and was deeply saddened at the loss of 29 lives. That it has been a traumatic time for New Zealand and the West Coast in particular is something of an understatement, and my sympathies go to the families and communities affected by this tragic event.
As the various inquiries get underway into the cause of this disaster, we must now take responsibility for ensuring that such a tragedy does not happen again. We must refuse to accept that the deaths are a necessary cost of mining. All of us, from mine operators to government and parliament, must take steps to ensure that the safety of all miners is paramount.
Pike River is a modern state-of-the-art mine with presumably all the latest safety technology, but that didn’t save the lives of the 29 men. The new mine is on the same coal seam as the one in Brunner, where 65 men were killed by choking gas in 1896, and this event echoed the Strongman mine explosion which killed 19 miners in 1967.
How many more deaths must we experience in this industry before we ask some very serious questions about the viability of this type of mine?
It will be the best possible tribute to those who died to carefully examine the most comprehensive safety means possible before we put any more miners in harm’s way. Quite simply, we must make mining conditions safer.
For that reason I support the call for former ACC Chair Ross Wilson to be appointed to the Royal Commission investigating the Pike River tragedy. As a previous NZCTU President, Ross is well-respected, capable and has championed workplace safety over many years.
His presence would assure workers and their families about the integrity of the investigation.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge Superintendent Gary Knowles, who led the Police effort, and Pike River Chief Executive Peter Whittall. Both men showed calm, intelligent leadership and great strength at such a difficult time. And similarly, no praise is high enough for all of those who were and still are part of the plans to recover the bodies of their mining colleagues.
The speech can be found here.
Reserve Bank statement shows unaffordability of cut in top tax rate
It’s National’s fault.
The cuts in the top tax rate from 39 cents down to 33 cents since the 2008 election are helping to put New Zealand’s recovery on hold.
The Reserve Bank has identified “elimination of New Zealand’s fiscal deficit” as a factor that’s adding pressure to interest rates and keeping the dollar high.
The fiscal deficit is caused because the government reduced the top tax rate. 42% of the tax cuts since the 2008 election went to the top ten per cent of income earners. If the government had only pushed out the threshold at which the highest tax rate applies, and not cut the top tax rate from 39 cents to 33 cents, most of the fiscal deficit would not exist.
Because of the irresponsible cut in the top rate, interest rates are higher and the dollar is higher - putting pressure on our exporters and making it cheaper for foreigners to come in and buy up New Zealand.
This is National’s idea of economic management: The recovery has stalled. Business investment is ‘below average.’ Households are not spending. Homes aren’t selling. House prices are falling. Unemployment is higher than it was when National took office and wages have stalled.
The Reserve Bank today made clear that this is all National’s fault. But will the Prime Minister accept that the buck stops with him? Don’t count on it!
Canterbury businesses face tough times
I recently addressed a meeting of small business owners in Christchurch whose businesses are still significantly affected by the Canterbury earthquakes. Now that the quakes do not fill our television screens every night and many people get back to life as normal, many businesses remain on the brink of failure and no-one seems to care.
Small business depends on cash flow and there seems little appreciation from those in authority of the effect when a business is open, but where access is blocked by rubble and cordons, and where the damaged surroundings are such an eyesore that customers head to the sanctuary of shopping malls. Many of these businesses have suffered a loss of cash flow of up to 60% and more.
The Council seems to have abdicated any leadership on the issue. Not once has the Mayor briefed me or the local Labour members of parliament about earthquake recovery plans and arrangements, and I understand that he has not even formally briefed his own councillors.
I have been working with a number of local business owners and recently arranged to have 100 tonnes of rubble cleared from the streets of Sydenham and Beckenham, for a number of cordons to be removed or reduced, and for Colombo Street to be opened again to two-way traffic.
The Government announced last week that it is making available approximately $600,000 to assist small businesses for such things as courses in managing cash-flow. As one owner at the meeting said, I have been in business for 28 years and I know all I need about cash flow. What I need is some cash to flow.
Sour grapes: Yeah Right
Political sour grapes is how Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker has described my call for heads to roll over the Council’s decision to buy at a cost of $17 million, a number of properties from the failed and now bankrupted property developer David Henderson. But it is hardly a case of sour grapes as Mr Parker well knows.
In a deal which was controversial and which I criticised at the time, the Council paid top prices for the properties from a clearly cash-strapped Henderson. The deal was one whereby Henderson had an option to buy the properties back, and so it looked like a bailout rather than a smart business arrangement.
Since the purchase in 2008, the Council (meaning ratepayers) has paid almost $600,000 annually in interest on the loans, while watching the value of the properties slump. It was utterly predictable that Henderson would not be able to buy back the properties, and that is precisely what has happened.
As a result, the Council is stuck with overpriced and, in cases, derelict properties, with ratepayers picking up the interest costs. It was barmy then, it remains barmy and the most ridiculous expenditure of public money I have ever heard of - and among the heads I believe should roll is that of the Council CEO, Tony Marryatt, who must have been responsible for the advice to purchase under such unacceptable conditions.
Ironically, Mr Henderson was reported last week on National radio as saying that no-one in their right mind would buy inner city properties in Christchurch at the moment - which raises the obvious question of just how he managed to convince the Christchurch City Council to do just that.
Liquor industry ad an ‘Orwellian’ history lesson
Anyone who wants evidence of just how far the liquor industry will go to promote its product need look no further that the new DB Export advertising campaign as it attempts to rewrite New Zealand history in a way that would even astound ‘1984’ author, George Orwell.
The ad is set in 1958 around the time of the so-called ‘Black Budget’ of Labour’s Finance Minister, Arnold Nordmeyer. It paints Nordmeyer as a tight-fisted old bore who taxed beer to the extent that working men could no longer afford to drink. By contrast, brewer Moreton Coutts, the creator of DB export, is portrayed as giving back these working class drinkers not only their sacred turf of public bars, but also export quality beer at affordable prices.
In what is a distortion of epic proportion, the ad goes on to show archive footage of men rioting, ostensibly over the price of beer, when in fact the footage is from the 1951 waterfront lockout.
The truth is, that in the 1958 Budget, Nordmeyer raised excise on beer, spirits, cigarettes and petroleum as a part of a package to meet a balance of payments crisis that had been caused by the previous National government. Nordmeyer was putting the interests of New Zealand before short term political gain and was not trying to stop the working man’s drink after work. Nordmeyer was also, of course, the architect of New Zealand’s Public Health Scheme, the envy of most countries at the time of its introduction.
Pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into patently dishonest advertising campaigns like this shows once again the level of cynicism shown by the liquor industry towards New Zealanders and the social problems their industry produces. In my view, the creators of this ad would have a place in George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth where lies are truth and truth is lies
My full press release can be found here.
The nine-point plan to social harm
In Parliament last month, I set out a nine-point plan on how a major social problem could be created in New Zealand with the active support of this government.
· It starts with legalising a drug known to be of high risk to public health, commercialising that drug, and then selling it in supermarkets and other easily accessible places.
· From there you make it legal to deal in the drug, particularly by glamorising its use through marketing, and then go on to bestow its manufacturers and dealers with honours and make them socially acceptable.
· The icing on the cake could be to link the drug to major sporting teams and events, and for government to fund and Prime Minister to champion venues for taking this particular drug.
· The Automobile Association could then support driving under that drug’s influence.
This might sound extreme, but the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s proposals on alcohol allows all of those things. The Commission describes alcohol as a legalised drug and proposes a new policy framework that it says amounts to a major shift in the regulation of alcohol. The Commission’s recommendations include increasing excise tax on alcohol, banning off-licence sales after 10.00pm, refusing entry to bars and night clubs after 2.00am and increasing the drinking age.
But what has been the Government’s response?
The Commission anticipated some opposition to its recommendations and this is exactly what has happened, to a degree that even I had not anticipated. In response to the report, the Government has done nothing whatsoever to address the problems created by alcohol or to fundamentally change the drinking culture in New Zealand.
The mood of the country towards alcohol abuse is changing, but that change is being led by the public and the media, not the Government. For example, there is 70% support to lower the drink-driving, blood-alcohol limit, yet the Government needs ‘more research’ before it will act. Why?
This Government, normally a slave to the polls, is out of step with the majority of New Zealanders and, until it changes, New Zealand’s record of deaths and injuries on our roads will remain among the worst in the world.
My speech on ‘the plan’ can be found here.
Will National decline liquor money?
I will be scrutinising closely donations from the liquor industry after National MPs objected to claims that their party takes industry money. In Parliament recently I asked National Party members to tell us, how much money is being put into the National Party’s ‘Victory Fund’ by the liquor industry?
For some reason they objected and wanted the question ruled out of order, claiming that it suggested they were influenced by liquor industry donations.
Attempting to have the question ruled out of order means that if it turns out that the Nats have accepted liquor industry donations and then pass pro-liquor laws, there is a potential breach of privilege issue.
If the Nats don’t want to be criticised for taking liquor industry money then they should simply publicly refuse to accept donations from that industry. Even anonymous donations have a habit of becoming public, so I look forward to National refusing any money from vested liquor interests – but I am not holding my breath.
Carole’s birthday
To end this newsletter on a celebratory note, I am delighted to report that we held a very successful 70th birthday brunch for my wife Carole during November. Held at the Clearwater Resort near Christchurch, around 80 friends, family and colleagues gathered to enjoy the occasion.
To me, a real highlight was being able to have so many of Carole’s family come from around New Zealand, a surprise to her as most had pretended they weren’t able to be there. And what a delight it was to hear so many nice speeches and comments about Carole from family members in particular.
A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all.
With just a couple of weeks until Christmas, it is time to wish you all the very best for the holiday and festive season. It has been a hectic year and in many respects a tumultuous one given the Christchurch earthquakes and the Christchurch Mayoral election. In recent weeks the Pike River Mine tragedy has occupied the thoughts of a nation.
Next year will be election year and I am predicting that the Government will go to the polls early. We need to be prepared early as populist leader John Key will not want to risk leaving an election until after the Rugby World Cup on the off-chance (unlikely I hope) that the All Blacks will again falter.
While the Government’s popularity seems high at the moment, it will take just a small swing to see a change in government. Roy Morgan polls over the last year show National and its support parties tracking downwards, with the latest one showing its support at 55.5%, down from a high of 61.5% in February. Meanwhile, Labour and its support parties have slowly but steadily tracked upwards, with their support now at 44.5%, compared to 41.61% at the time of the 2008 General Election.
All that is required is a swing of slightly more than 5% from National and its support parties to Labour, and so I am urging you to make your New Year’s resolution one that you will get out and campaign for a Labour victory.
As for me, it will be the first time in more than 27 years that I will not be a candidate, and so I will be throwing my support firmly behind Labour’s Megan Woods in my current seat of Wigram.
Once again, I wish you all a safe and happy Christmas and New Year and hope that 2011 is a good and prosperous one for you and your family.
The Pike River mining tragedy
Like all New Zealanders, I watched in horror as events unfolded at the Pike River Mine in November and was deeply saddened at the loss of 29 lives. That it has been a traumatic time for New Zealand and the West Coast in particular is something of an understatement, and my sympathies go to the families and communities affected by this tragic event.
As the various inquiries get underway into the cause of this disaster, we must now take responsibility for ensuring that such a tragedy does not happen again. We must refuse to accept that the deaths are a necessary cost of mining. All of us, from mine operators to government and parliament, must take steps to ensure that the safety of all miners is paramount.
Pike River is a modern state-of-the-art mine with presumably all the latest safety technology, but that didn’t save the lives of the 29 men. The new mine is on the same coal seam as the one in Brunner, where 65 men were killed by choking gas in 1896, and this event echoed the Strongman mine explosion which killed 19 miners in 1967.
How many more deaths must we experience in this industry before we ask some very serious questions about the viability of this type of mine?
It will be the best possible tribute to those who died to carefully examine the most comprehensive safety means possible before we put any more miners in harm’s way. Quite simply, we must make mining conditions safer.
For that reason I support the call for former ACC Chair Ross Wilson to be appointed to the Royal Commission investigating the Pike River tragedy. As a previous NZCTU President, Ross is well-respected, capable and has championed workplace safety over many years.
His presence would assure workers and their families about the integrity of the investigation.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge Superintendent Gary Knowles, who led the Police effort, and Pike River Chief Executive Peter Whittall. Both men showed calm, intelligent leadership and great strength at such a difficult time. And similarly, no praise is high enough for all of those who were and still are part of the plans to recover the bodies of their mining colleagues.
The speech can be found here.
Reserve Bank statement shows unaffordability of cut in top tax rate
It’s National’s fault.
The cuts in the top tax rate from 39 cents down to 33 cents since the 2008 election are helping to put New Zealand’s recovery on hold.
The Reserve Bank has identified “elimination of New Zealand’s fiscal deficit” as a factor that’s adding pressure to interest rates and keeping the dollar high.
The fiscal deficit is caused because the government reduced the top tax rate. 42% of the tax cuts since the 2008 election went to the top ten per cent of income earners. If the government had only pushed out the threshold at which the highest tax rate applies, and not cut the top tax rate from 39 cents to 33 cents, most of the fiscal deficit would not exist.
Because of the irresponsible cut in the top rate, interest rates are higher and the dollar is higher - putting pressure on our exporters and making it cheaper for foreigners to come in and buy up New Zealand.
This is National’s idea of economic management: The recovery has stalled. Business investment is ‘below average.’ Households are not spending. Homes aren’t selling. House prices are falling. Unemployment is higher than it was when National took office and wages have stalled.
The Reserve Bank today made clear that this is all National’s fault. But will the Prime Minister accept that the buck stops with him? Don’t count on it!
Canterbury businesses face tough times
I recently addressed a meeting of small business owners in Christchurch whose businesses are still significantly affected by the Canterbury earthquakes. Now that the quakes do not fill our television screens every night and many people get back to life as normal, many businesses remain on the brink of failure and no-one seems to care.
Small business depends on cash flow and there seems little appreciation from those in authority of the effect when a business is open, but where access is blocked by rubble and cordons, and where the damaged surroundings are such an eyesore that customers head to the sanctuary of shopping malls. Many of these businesses have suffered a loss of cash flow of up to 60% and more.
The Council seems to have abdicated any leadership on the issue. Not once has the Mayor briefed me or the local Labour members of parliament about earthquake recovery plans and arrangements, and I understand that he has not even formally briefed his own councillors.
I have been working with a number of local business owners and recently arranged to have 100 tonnes of rubble cleared from the streets of Sydenham and Beckenham, for a number of cordons to be removed or reduced, and for Colombo Street to be opened again to two-way traffic.
The Government announced last week that it is making available approximately $600,000 to assist small businesses for such things as courses in managing cash-flow. As one owner at the meeting said, I have been in business for 28 years and I know all I need about cash flow. What I need is some cash to flow.
Sour grapes: Yeah Right
Political sour grapes is how Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker has described my call for heads to roll over the Council’s decision to buy at a cost of $17 million, a number of properties from the failed and now bankrupted property developer David Henderson. But it is hardly a case of sour grapes as Mr Parker well knows.
In a deal which was controversial and which I criticised at the time, the Council paid top prices for the properties from a clearly cash-strapped Henderson. The deal was one whereby Henderson had an option to buy the properties back, and so it looked like a bailout rather than a smart business arrangement.
Since the purchase in 2008, the Council (meaning ratepayers) has paid almost $600,000 annually in interest on the loans, while watching the value of the properties slump. It was utterly predictable that Henderson would not be able to buy back the properties, and that is precisely what has happened.
As a result, the Council is stuck with overpriced and, in cases, derelict properties, with ratepayers picking up the interest costs. It was barmy then, it remains barmy and the most ridiculous expenditure of public money I have ever heard of - and among the heads I believe should roll is that of the Council CEO, Tony Marryatt, who must have been responsible for the advice to purchase under such unacceptable conditions.
Ironically, Mr Henderson was reported last week on National radio as saying that no-one in their right mind would buy inner city properties in Christchurch at the moment - which raises the obvious question of just how he managed to convince the Christchurch City Council to do just that.
Liquor industry ad an ‘Orwellian’ history lesson
Anyone who wants evidence of just how far the liquor industry will go to promote its product need look no further that the new DB Export advertising campaign as it attempts to rewrite New Zealand history in a way that would even astound ‘1984’ author, George Orwell.
The ad is set in 1958 around the time of the so-called ‘Black Budget’ of Labour’s Finance Minister, Arnold Nordmeyer. It paints Nordmeyer as a tight-fisted old bore who taxed beer to the extent that working men could no longer afford to drink. By contrast, brewer Moreton Coutts, the creator of DB export, is portrayed as giving back these working class drinkers not only their sacred turf of public bars, but also export quality beer at affordable prices.
In what is a distortion of epic proportion, the ad goes on to show archive footage of men rioting, ostensibly over the price of beer, when in fact the footage is from the 1951 waterfront lockout.
The truth is, that in the 1958 Budget, Nordmeyer raised excise on beer, spirits, cigarettes and petroleum as a part of a package to meet a balance of payments crisis that had been caused by the previous National government. Nordmeyer was putting the interests of New Zealand before short term political gain and was not trying to stop the working man’s drink after work. Nordmeyer was also, of course, the architect of New Zealand’s Public Health Scheme, the envy of most countries at the time of its introduction.
Pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into patently dishonest advertising campaigns like this shows once again the level of cynicism shown by the liquor industry towards New Zealanders and the social problems their industry produces. In my view, the creators of this ad would have a place in George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth where lies are truth and truth is lies
My full press release can be found here.
The nine-point plan to social harm
In Parliament last month, I set out a nine-point plan on how a major social problem could be created in New Zealand with the active support of this government.
· It starts with legalising a drug known to be of high risk to public health, commercialising that drug, and then selling it in supermarkets and other easily accessible places.
· From there you make it legal to deal in the drug, particularly by glamorising its use through marketing, and then go on to bestow its manufacturers and dealers with honours and make them socially acceptable.
· The icing on the cake could be to link the drug to major sporting teams and events, and for government to fund and Prime Minister to champion venues for taking this particular drug.
· The Automobile Association could then support driving under that drug’s influence.
This might sound extreme, but the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s proposals on alcohol allows all of those things. The Commission describes alcohol as a legalised drug and proposes a new policy framework that it says amounts to a major shift in the regulation of alcohol. The Commission’s recommendations include increasing excise tax on alcohol, banning off-licence sales after 10.00pm, refusing entry to bars and night clubs after 2.00am and increasing the drinking age.
But what has been the Government’s response?
The Commission anticipated some opposition to its recommendations and this is exactly what has happened, to a degree that even I had not anticipated. In response to the report, the Government has done nothing whatsoever to address the problems created by alcohol or to fundamentally change the drinking culture in New Zealand.
The mood of the country towards alcohol abuse is changing, but that change is being led by the public and the media, not the Government. For example, there is 70% support to lower the drink-driving, blood-alcohol limit, yet the Government needs ‘more research’ before it will act. Why?
This Government, normally a slave to the polls, is out of step with the majority of New Zealanders and, until it changes, New Zealand’s record of deaths and injuries on our roads will remain among the worst in the world.
My speech on ‘the plan’ can be found here.
Will National decline liquor money?
I will be scrutinising closely donations from the liquor industry after National MPs objected to claims that their party takes industry money. In Parliament recently I asked National Party members to tell us, how much money is being put into the National Party’s ‘Victory Fund’ by the liquor industry?
For some reason they objected and wanted the question ruled out of order, claiming that it suggested they were influenced by liquor industry donations.
Attempting to have the question ruled out of order means that if it turns out that the Nats have accepted liquor industry donations and then pass pro-liquor laws, there is a potential breach of privilege issue.
If the Nats don’t want to be criticised for taking liquor industry money then they should simply publicly refuse to accept donations from that industry. Even anonymous donations have a habit of becoming public, so I look forward to National refusing any money from vested liquor interests – but I am not holding my breath.
Carole’s birthday
To end this newsletter on a celebratory note, I am delighted to report that we held a very successful 70th birthday brunch for my wife Carole during November. Held at the Clearwater Resort near Christchurch, around 80 friends, family and colleagues gathered to enjoy the occasion.
To me, a real highlight was being able to have so many of Carole’s family come from around New Zealand, a surprise to her as most had pretended they weren’t able to be there. And what a delight it was to hear so many nice speeches and comments about Carole from family members in particular.
A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all.
"Jim was the man..."
15/09/09 18:07
A gracious comment from Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove on the Labour MPs’ collective blog, about the opening of Sydenham police station.
“I was absolutely gobsmacked on Friday when [the Police Minister] opened the new Christchurch South police station, and failed to mention the immense debt this new building owes to the advocacy of Progressive MP Jim Anderton over a decade and a half. Instead, Collins trumpeted the new building as proof of National’s commitment to police and policing. National had nothing to do with this new station except as de facto purchasers of the ribbon Judith Collins cut.”
Here’s Jim’s statement on opening day.
“I was absolutely gobsmacked on Friday when [the Police Minister] opened the new Christchurch South police station, and failed to mention the immense debt this new building owes to the advocacy of Progressive MP Jim Anderton over a decade and a half. Instead, Collins trumpeted the new building as proof of National’s commitment to police and policing. National had nothing to do with this new station except as de facto purchasers of the ribbon Judith Collins cut.”
Here’s Jim’s statement on opening day.
Jim Anderton’s speech to the Labour Party Conference
11/09/09 19:30 Filed in: Speeches
Jim Anderton’s speech to the Labour Party Conference
7.30pm Friday 11th September 2009
ENERGY EVENTS CENTRE, GOVERNMENT GARDENS, ROTORUA
I would like to thank Phil Goff for his invitation to be here, for his warm introduction and for your kind welcome.
It’s been 21 years since I last spoke at a Labour Party conference. …Did anything happen while I was away?
In July, I wrote to the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party on behalf of the Progressive Party. I said the time had come to clear the way for our members to work together, in recognition of our common values; In recognition of the years we spent in government together; and in recognition that cooperation between us is in the best interests of the people we represent.
I’m pleased that the New Zealand Council responded with goodwill.
As a result, members of the Progressives can now also belong to the Labour Party – in other words, dual membership.
Anyone with a sense of our history will be moved by the determination and purpose with which we are pushing ahead.
We share a vision of New Zealand:
A fairer New Zealand.
A stronger New Zealand.
A New Zealand in which we work together for the benefit of all new Zealanders.
For jobs.
For better health care, better education.
And above all for the future; For a better future for New Zealanders young and old.
The Progressive party was formed by people determined to work with Labour in government.
Ten years ago I set out with Helen Clark to form a new government. We were faced with an urgent challenge:
Turning around New Zealand so that we were going in the right direction.
Creating jobs and strengthening regions.
Restoring public services.
And we did it:
We achieved the lowest level of unemployment in New Zealand’s modern history.
Gains for working New Zealanders, like paid parental leave and four weeks paid annual leave.
Fair collective bargaining and fair workplace laws.
This is what we can achieve by working together.
We lifted more children out of poverty than at any time since the Great Depression.
We restored income related rents for state houses. We brought down the cost of seeing a doctor and getting medicine.
This is what we achieved by working together.
We brought Air NZ back into public ownership.
We brought Kiwi Rail back into public ownership.
And we opened our own Kiwibank.
This is the kind of progress we will continue to make by working together.
They are gains I am proud of. And I particularly remember our coalition government’s decision to refuse to send troops to Iraq as a part of the unilateral action led by the USA and the UK.
It was the right decision and I can tell you that no-one was more supportive of that decision than Phil Goff as Minister of Foreign Affairs and that is just one of the reasons I strongly support his leadership of the New Zealand Labour Party.
But then last year New Zealanders looked at our government, and chose not to keep us there. There were many reasons contributing to our loss. But I am certain of the things they did not reject. I am certain they did not reject our values.
They rejected us because they believed we had moved onto other priorities.
They tired of controversies, mini-scandals and mistakes we should not have made.
Not because they rejected low unemployment; not because they no longer wanted government to deliver for ordinary families; not because they wanted a return to asset sales and cuts in public services.
They thought we were sidetracked from these priorities.
And they believed our opponents’ promises. Remember those?
National said they would put more money in your pocket. They called Michael Cullen “Scrooge” and blamed him for not spending surpluses. National said you didn’t have more money in your pocket because the Labour-Progressive government wouldn’t spend the surpluses.
They don’t mention that much now.
They got elected without a strategic plan to deal with the problems New Zealand faces.
And so the usual suspects are already gathering to demand a return to the failed policies of the past.
We’re already hearing the vultures who say, ‘all we need to do is sell our assets.’ But they are wrong. People are over it. Anyone who says our economic problems would be solved by selling Meridian energy or the Ports of Auckland is looking in the wrong place for the wrong solutions
The days are over when it could be credibly argued that radical restructuring would deliver jobs and raise incomes while herds of unicorns would guide us down golden pathways to the future.
When I was a young political organiser, I was stirred to action in part by the call to public service of President Kennedy, immortalised in the memorable line, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
Hope. Service. And common purpose in pursuit of a common good. These are our values.
If we want to do better, and provide a better future for our children and grandchildren than the legacy we have inherited from the 80s and 90s, then we need to rediscover our common purpose.
Politics is not about point-scoring, or who is up and who is down. It’s not about Phil Goff, John Key, or Jim Anderton. It is about people, and ideas and leadership dedicated to realising a better future. And when we remember that, we will win.
Because our ideas are better. Because our side of politics is never content with the way things are. Because we want the mother with four kids who comes into my office with a $400 power bill to have a warm home, a good income and an opportunity for her kids to get well paid, skilled jobs when they leave school.
Because we want the young family that comes to see me with unaffordable dental bills to have access to life long, high quality, affordable dental health care.
Because we want superannuitants who come to see me with soaring rents for their home to be able to enjoy their retirement in affordable, housing.
Because we want the business that is taking on staff and growing to have access to the science and global networks that will help to create jobs and generate income in and for New Zealand.
President Obama said last year, “we are at our best when we lead with principle; when we lead with conviction; when we summon an entire nation around a common purpose – a higher purpose.”
He swept away cynicism with a vision of higher purpose and common effort in pursuit of a better country. And this should be our guide.
We have to be the voice of and for people who want to do better. We have to be the movement that says we get ahead by working hard and putting something back.
If we want kids to have a future, we must put something back.
If we want our elderly to enjoy a secure retirement, we must put something back. If we want our streets free from crime, we must put something back into the community so it offers potential criminals a stake, and a place to which they belong.
It is not acceptable that many elderly New Zealanders as well as low income families can not afford to heat their homes in winter. Nor is it acceptable that less than 66 per cent of all New Zealanders can afford to own their own home and that percentage is falling rapidly, while many of those who don’t, will never be able to do so.
And I still find the fact that the mental health system is the Cinderella of the physical health system something to be ashamed of as a New Zealander while more of us commit suicide than the numbers killed on our roads each year.
We need to do better at making our side of politics a thriving part of the regions of New Zealand. The Labour-progressive government did more for regional New Zealand than any government in recent memory – and, it has to be said, for less political reward.
But we need to listen to the regions – and even more we need to be part of those local communities. We need to be fearsomely well organised in regional New Zealand.
When I first joined the Labour Party in the nineteen sixties, its organisation was appalling.
Branches couldn’t talk to each other except by going through head office, for permission to do so. Our electorate organization, branch membership and election systems were so bad they were an embarrassment.
So much so that between 1949 and 1984, a period of 35 years, National was in government for 29 and Labour for just 6 years. In 1981 and 1984 we rolled right over the top of National’s much vaunted election machine.
If you have poor organisation it’s very hard to win elections. If you have great organisation, it’s funny how you start winning. It can seem lonely out there when there aren’t many members.
But even last year, as Labour lost both urban and non-urban based seats all over New Zealand, there were still hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who didn’t vote for this government.
They are the potential membership base from which Labour must build outwards. Not holding a seat today is not an obstacle to winning it next time. But not having a strong, local, regional and national organisation, is.
You won’t win without strong organization. It’s not enough on its own but it is a necessary ingredient.
Block systems in every winnable seat.
Door knocking in every winnable seat.
Hoardings in greater numbers than our opponents.
More energy, more visibility, more connections.
More members – In 1981 – 1984 Labour had over 100,000 registered members and supporters. This gave us not only an army for our election machine but enthusiasm, high morale and momentum which in the end overwhelmed our political opponents.
Can we do it again? As President Obama said often – “Yes, we can!”
Without organization and membership, you won’t raise the money that it will take to change the government.
When I produced a booklet recommending democratic institutional change in the 1960’s, head office banned and recalled it for a book burning – it’s true!
But I’ve learnt since then a thing or two about electorate organisation. Your National opponents have 9 seats with a majority of less than 2000 votes where a two-party swing of less than 3% to Labour would win all of them.
If you include Wigram on your side you only need one more seat to hold more electorate seats than National. What I am saying to you is that you can win the next election.
To win the party vote you need a two party swing of 5.84% which would give you an additional 277,573 party votes. This is a hard call but averaged out per electorate it means 3965 extra party votes in each.
Can you do it? Yes you can!
If you think you are in a tough situation try coming back from a coup against your leader in the middle of an election campaign!
We had an election system in Wigram that could tell us household by household how well we were doing.
My campaign organiser said to me before the election in 1990 as the NewLabour candidate for Sydenham that we would win by 4012 votes. No such victory had ever been achieved in the whole of New Zealand’s political history.
We won by 4009. Jeanette Lawrence was that organiser – and still is.
And in the first week after the election we were working on getting back the three votes we had failed to get. And nothing has changed in the organisation of my electorate over 25 years.
Winning elections comes from defining the positive difference we want to make for ordinary New Zealanders.
It comes from listening to New Zealanders, in regions and towns and from winning the trust and confidence of people we seek to represent. Winning comes from powerful, detailed organisation, at the level of every town and suburb, every street, every letterbox, every doorstep, every telephone, every mobile phone. It comes from Internet connections, and personal connections, and relentlessly returning to them again and again.
I pledge the Progressive Party to help in this endeavour.
We have already contributed a state of the art, modern election organization manual to almost all MPs and it is available to all candidates and campaign managers. Every one of the ideas it contains has been implemented in my electorate. I don’t expect this one to be burnt!
To achieve this result over the next two and a half years will require clear strategic goals, high quality campaign planning, tight discipline and superior organizational ability and capability. The gap cannot be closed in three to four months in election year. It is not rocket science. Everything in this election manual is already being done in several Labour electorates.
But the book is a compilation of the processes and techniques required to win in every electorate. This is a best practice guide to organizing in an electorate. It tells you what you can do, how to do it, and in what order.
In Wigram, we do everything in it. And we win!
The Progressive Party is contributing people to help.
A lot of our members went to Mt Albert this year to help Labour win that seat. And our members will be out on the streets again in 2011 helping to re-elect a Labour-led government.
It’s up to us all to inspire New Zealand with our common vision:
That everyone has a place.
That everyone has a chance to succeed.
That every single person has a unique contribution to make.
That when we choose to invest in our future, and in jobs, then New Zealand can again join the first rank of nations.
And then not just the chief executive but also the caretaker, the secretary and tradesmen and women will have a place in the winners’ circle.
That is the New Zealand we all know and love. That is the New Zealand we must commit ourselves to help re-build in just 2 years time.
7.30pm Friday 11th September 2009
ENERGY EVENTS CENTRE, GOVERNMENT GARDENS, ROTORUA
I would like to thank Phil Goff for his invitation to be here, for his warm introduction and for your kind welcome.
It’s been 21 years since I last spoke at a Labour Party conference. …Did anything happen while I was away?
In July, I wrote to the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party on behalf of the Progressive Party. I said the time had come to clear the way for our members to work together, in recognition of our common values; In recognition of the years we spent in government together; and in recognition that cooperation between us is in the best interests of the people we represent.
I’m pleased that the New Zealand Council responded with goodwill.
As a result, members of the Progressives can now also belong to the Labour Party – in other words, dual membership.
Anyone with a sense of our history will be moved by the determination and purpose with which we are pushing ahead.
We share a vision of New Zealand:
A fairer New Zealand.
A stronger New Zealand.
A New Zealand in which we work together for the benefit of all new Zealanders.
For jobs.
For better health care, better education.
And above all for the future; For a better future for New Zealanders young and old.
The Progressive party was formed by people determined to work with Labour in government.
Ten years ago I set out with Helen Clark to form a new government. We were faced with an urgent challenge:
Turning around New Zealand so that we were going in the right direction.
Creating jobs and strengthening regions.
Restoring public services.
And we did it:
We achieved the lowest level of unemployment in New Zealand’s modern history.
Gains for working New Zealanders, like paid parental leave and four weeks paid annual leave.
Fair collective bargaining and fair workplace laws.
This is what we can achieve by working together.
We lifted more children out of poverty than at any time since the Great Depression.
We restored income related rents for state houses. We brought down the cost of seeing a doctor and getting medicine.
This is what we achieved by working together.
We brought Air NZ back into public ownership.
We brought Kiwi Rail back into public ownership.
And we opened our own Kiwibank.
This is the kind of progress we will continue to make by working together.
They are gains I am proud of. And I particularly remember our coalition government’s decision to refuse to send troops to Iraq as a part of the unilateral action led by the USA and the UK.
It was the right decision and I can tell you that no-one was more supportive of that decision than Phil Goff as Minister of Foreign Affairs and that is just one of the reasons I strongly support his leadership of the New Zealand Labour Party.
But then last year New Zealanders looked at our government, and chose not to keep us there. There were many reasons contributing to our loss. But I am certain of the things they did not reject. I am certain they did not reject our values.
They rejected us because they believed we had moved onto other priorities.
They tired of controversies, mini-scandals and mistakes we should not have made.
Not because they rejected low unemployment; not because they no longer wanted government to deliver for ordinary families; not because they wanted a return to asset sales and cuts in public services.
They thought we were sidetracked from these priorities.
And they believed our opponents’ promises. Remember those?
National said they would put more money in your pocket. They called Michael Cullen “Scrooge” and blamed him for not spending surpluses. National said you didn’t have more money in your pocket because the Labour-Progressive government wouldn’t spend the surpluses.
They don’t mention that much now.
They got elected without a strategic plan to deal with the problems New Zealand faces.
And so the usual suspects are already gathering to demand a return to the failed policies of the past.
We’re already hearing the vultures who say, ‘all we need to do is sell our assets.’ But they are wrong. People are over it. Anyone who says our economic problems would be solved by selling Meridian energy or the Ports of Auckland is looking in the wrong place for the wrong solutions
The days are over when it could be credibly argued that radical restructuring would deliver jobs and raise incomes while herds of unicorns would guide us down golden pathways to the future.
When I was a young political organiser, I was stirred to action in part by the call to public service of President Kennedy, immortalised in the memorable line, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
Hope. Service. And common purpose in pursuit of a common good. These are our values.
If we want to do better, and provide a better future for our children and grandchildren than the legacy we have inherited from the 80s and 90s, then we need to rediscover our common purpose.
Politics is not about point-scoring, or who is up and who is down. It’s not about Phil Goff, John Key, or Jim Anderton. It is about people, and ideas and leadership dedicated to realising a better future. And when we remember that, we will win.
Because our ideas are better. Because our side of politics is never content with the way things are. Because we want the mother with four kids who comes into my office with a $400 power bill to have a warm home, a good income and an opportunity for her kids to get well paid, skilled jobs when they leave school.
Because we want the young family that comes to see me with unaffordable dental bills to have access to life long, high quality, affordable dental health care.
Because we want superannuitants who come to see me with soaring rents for their home to be able to enjoy their retirement in affordable, housing.
Because we want the business that is taking on staff and growing to have access to the science and global networks that will help to create jobs and generate income in and for New Zealand.
President Obama said last year, “we are at our best when we lead with principle; when we lead with conviction; when we summon an entire nation around a common purpose – a higher purpose.”
He swept away cynicism with a vision of higher purpose and common effort in pursuit of a better country. And this should be our guide.
We have to be the voice of and for people who want to do better. We have to be the movement that says we get ahead by working hard and putting something back.
If we want kids to have a future, we must put something back.
If we want our elderly to enjoy a secure retirement, we must put something back. If we want our streets free from crime, we must put something back into the community so it offers potential criminals a stake, and a place to which they belong.
It is not acceptable that many elderly New Zealanders as well as low income families can not afford to heat their homes in winter. Nor is it acceptable that less than 66 per cent of all New Zealanders can afford to own their own home and that percentage is falling rapidly, while many of those who don’t, will never be able to do so.
And I still find the fact that the mental health system is the Cinderella of the physical health system something to be ashamed of as a New Zealander while more of us commit suicide than the numbers killed on our roads each year.
We need to do better at making our side of politics a thriving part of the regions of New Zealand. The Labour-progressive government did more for regional New Zealand than any government in recent memory – and, it has to be said, for less political reward.
But we need to listen to the regions – and even more we need to be part of those local communities. We need to be fearsomely well organised in regional New Zealand.
When I first joined the Labour Party in the nineteen sixties, its organisation was appalling.
Branches couldn’t talk to each other except by going through head office, for permission to do so. Our electorate organization, branch membership and election systems were so bad they were an embarrassment.
So much so that between 1949 and 1984, a period of 35 years, National was in government for 29 and Labour for just 6 years. In 1981 and 1984 we rolled right over the top of National’s much vaunted election machine.
If you have poor organisation it’s very hard to win elections. If you have great organisation, it’s funny how you start winning. It can seem lonely out there when there aren’t many members.
But even last year, as Labour lost both urban and non-urban based seats all over New Zealand, there were still hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who didn’t vote for this government.
They are the potential membership base from which Labour must build outwards. Not holding a seat today is not an obstacle to winning it next time. But not having a strong, local, regional and national organisation, is.
You won’t win without strong organization. It’s not enough on its own but it is a necessary ingredient.
Block systems in every winnable seat.
Door knocking in every winnable seat.
Hoardings in greater numbers than our opponents.
More energy, more visibility, more connections.
More members – In 1981 – 1984 Labour had over 100,000 registered members and supporters. This gave us not only an army for our election machine but enthusiasm, high morale and momentum which in the end overwhelmed our political opponents.
Can we do it again? As President Obama said often – “Yes, we can!”
Without organization and membership, you won’t raise the money that it will take to change the government.
When I produced a booklet recommending democratic institutional change in the 1960’s, head office banned and recalled it for a book burning – it’s true!
But I’ve learnt since then a thing or two about electorate organisation. Your National opponents have 9 seats with a majority of less than 2000 votes where a two-party swing of less than 3% to Labour would win all of them.
If you include Wigram on your side you only need one more seat to hold more electorate seats than National. What I am saying to you is that you can win the next election.
To win the party vote you need a two party swing of 5.84% which would give you an additional 277,573 party votes. This is a hard call but averaged out per electorate it means 3965 extra party votes in each.
Can you do it? Yes you can!
If you think you are in a tough situation try coming back from a coup against your leader in the middle of an election campaign!
We had an election system in Wigram that could tell us household by household how well we were doing.
My campaign organiser said to me before the election in 1990 as the NewLabour candidate for Sydenham that we would win by 4012 votes. No such victory had ever been achieved in the whole of New Zealand’s political history.
We won by 4009. Jeanette Lawrence was that organiser – and still is.
And in the first week after the election we were working on getting back the three votes we had failed to get. And nothing has changed in the organisation of my electorate over 25 years.
Winning elections comes from defining the positive difference we want to make for ordinary New Zealanders.
It comes from listening to New Zealanders, in regions and towns and from winning the trust and confidence of people we seek to represent. Winning comes from powerful, detailed organisation, at the level of every town and suburb, every street, every letterbox, every doorstep, every telephone, every mobile phone. It comes from Internet connections, and personal connections, and relentlessly returning to them again and again.
I pledge the Progressive Party to help in this endeavour.
We have already contributed a state of the art, modern election organization manual to almost all MPs and it is available to all candidates and campaign managers. Every one of the ideas it contains has been implemented in my electorate. I don’t expect this one to be burnt!
To achieve this result over the next two and a half years will require clear strategic goals, high quality campaign planning, tight discipline and superior organizational ability and capability. The gap cannot be closed in three to four months in election year. It is not rocket science. Everything in this election manual is already being done in several Labour electorates.
But the book is a compilation of the processes and techniques required to win in every electorate. This is a best practice guide to organizing in an electorate. It tells you what you can do, how to do it, and in what order.
In Wigram, we do everything in it. And we win!
The Progressive Party is contributing people to help.
A lot of our members went to Mt Albert this year to help Labour win that seat. And our members will be out on the streets again in 2011 helping to re-elect a Labour-led government.
It’s up to us all to inspire New Zealand with our common vision:
That everyone has a place.
That everyone has a chance to succeed.
That every single person has a unique contribution to make.
That when we choose to invest in our future, and in jobs, then New Zealand can again join the first rank of nations.
And then not just the chief executive but also the caretaker, the secretary and tradesmen and women will have a place in the winners’ circle.
That is the New Zealand we all know and love. That is the New Zealand we must commit ourselves to help re-build in just 2 years time.