Progressive Party
Jim Anderton - Valedictory speech
04/10/11 18:06 Filed in: Speeches
Jim Anderton, thanked by Labour leader Phil Goff at Labour’s caucus last week.
Unlike some other MPs I've heard say that from the age of 14 years they wanted to be Prime Minister, I never had any ambition to be a member of parliament. My early ambition was to be a New Zealand Cricketer, or an All Black.
And with Dan Carter out, if Graham Henry is still looking for depth at first five....I am happy to pick up the phone! But I am not holding my breath!
So I didn't have a searing ambition to be a politician.
That might have been because I went to a school called Seddon Tech, a school, in those days, looking back now, for street kids, of whom not much was expected.
But educational planners were wrong to set their sights so low for us, and some of our best teachers didn't.
One of my classmates was Bruce McLaren, a polio victim who at 15 years of age was building a racing car in the school's engineering workshop, and went on to win the NZ Grand Prix - although not in that car.
Today, his McLaren brand is still winning Grand Prix races over forty years after he was killed in practice in the UK at the age of 32.
I gained confidence from kids around me like Bruce who showed that we could be anything and do anything we wanted to be or do. So I grew up with the conviction that one person could make a difference.
As Irish statesman Edmund Burke once observed, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Growing up in poorer, working class suburbs of Auckland, I noticed power pylons were in Mangere, Otahuhu and Mt Roskill, not Remuera or Epsom. The sewage treatment plant was in Mangere, off Puketutu Island in the Manukau Harbour, not on Brown's Island off St Heliers or Mission Bay beaches and the Waitemata Harbour where it was originally planned to be.
There were no Maori in the All Black teams to South Africa. The proliferation of nuclear weapons, and New Zealand's involvement in wars that were clearly not ours and in addition were, in the case of Vietnam, irrational in the context of the history of that country, yet were all considered, New Zealand government, policies.
My own philosophic development through this period was heavily influenced by my conversion to Catholicism as a teenager, and a resulting commitment to Christian teachings in support of social and economic justice.
So I joined the Mangere Bridge branch of the Labour Party and they made me Vice-President at the first meeting I went to. The following week I went to my first meeting of the Manukau Labour Electorate Committee and they made me president. I began to wonder at that rate whether I would end up in Wellington as leader of the party by the end of the next week.
At the tender age of 27, I stood for and was elected to, the Manukau City Council, together with my socialist colleague Roger Douglas. And we set about the public purchase of large tracts of land on which to develop our new city. The idea of selling public assets never occurred to either of us! We made use of the libraries and swimming pools free of charge.
And later I was elected to the Auckland City Council, the Auckland Regional Authority, and then President of the NZ Labour Party.
To the extreme annoyance of many politicians on all sides of politics, Time magazine, completely out of left field, selected me as 'a New Zealand leader of the future'.
I worked with Norman Kirk, who was the greatest political orator I ever heard, and later Bill Rowling, when I was President of the NZLP. Bill was the most under-rated politician I have ever known and one of the grittiest and courageous politicians I ever met.
I remember Bill and I looking at grim polling news over a beer in the lounge of his Leader's office, in 1981, and it indicated that if trends continued then on election day Labour would get no votes whatever!
We actually went on to win more votes than the Muldoon-led National Party - but still lost - an early cause of the electoral dissatisfaction that led to the change to MMP.
My message to Phil Goff is to 'hang in there' - elections are not over till they are over! To beat the National Party of the day, we had to catch and roll over the much vaunted political machine of Sir George Chapman, then the highly effective National Party President - and we did! By 1984 Labour had more than 100,000 party members.
The year before, I moved from the city of my birth, Auckland, to my adopted city of Christchurch. The people of Sydenham, and now Wigram, have been both loyal and generous to me, through four political parties, which must be some kind of record - and nine consecutive general elections.
And the greatest satisfaction I've had in politics is to be able to have helped thousands of individuals and hundreds of communities in ways almost no other occupation can make possible.
But it gave me no satisfaction at all to see that the government we had all worked so hard to elect in 1984, sheet inequality into New Zealand, through huge tax cuts for the rich, GST for everyone, and the most regressive financial shift in income and wealth inequality in New Zealand history
The gap between rich and poor widened by 127% (or 14 % per year) between 1984-90 and New Zealand has never recovered from that enormous chasm. GDP between 1984 and 1993 grew by only ½% per year - while the world economy was growing rapidly. Compare this to the Clark-led government of 1999 - 2008 where, in real terms, NZ's GDP grew by 36% - an average of 4% per year or 8 times more growth.
Social policy should always accompany economic policy, but it was never taken into account while immense social damage was done to New Zealand in the eighties and early nineties. No one says change wasn't necessary, but the scale, timing and impact of change were borne largely by poorer New Zealanders.
And while we made some considerable difference between 1999 and 2008, we are still dealing with child poverty, the decline in core services like education, health care and housing, and with radical inequality.
According to OECD figures, poverty in New Zealand is highest among children - around 15 per cent of them. None of us here can be proud of that. The top ten per cent of households own 500 times more than the bottom ten per cent. The kind of society our ancestors left in droves.
Inequality affects everything about our lives, it is unfair, and it is avoidable.
That's why I left Labour in 1989 to form the NewLabour Party.
I genuinely thought at the time (along with most commentators), that I was heading for political oblivion. Quite a few members of parliament at the time assured me with some enthusiasm that I was.
When I stood in the 1990 election as the NewLabour candidate for Sydenham, many thought they were going to see the back of me. Yet the only MPs from that parliament who are still here are Phil Goff, Annette King, Mr Speaker, Trevor Mallard, and Ross Robertson and Peter Dunne.
So the lesson from that is that even certain demise sometimes gets delayed, and voters appreciate political principle as well as pragmatic self-interest.
It really is worth sticking up for what you believe.
The promises broken by successive governments, both National and Labour from 1984 to 1993 led to the dramatic changes which have taken place in parliament under MMP.
I remember 93 per cent of the population was against the sale of Telecom, and Richard Prebble told parliament at the time that: "New Zealand is lucky to have a government of such courage that it would stand up to a lobby group like that."
It was no wonder that people rebelled against an electoral system that delivered such outcomes, and in choosing MMP they made the right decision.
Between 1853 and 1984 there were 1102 MPs elected to the NZ House of Representatives. Only 25 of them were women.
Currently there are 38 women in this parliament, - more than were elected in a total of 131 years and there are also more Maori, as well as Asian, and Pacific MPs. Parliament now, is more like New Zealand now.
So MMP was the right choice for New Zealand.
I have no doubt that I also made the right decision in joining with others to form NewLabour when I did, then taking it into the Alliance with other parties, and later, when the Alliance was set to become a threat to an enlightened government rather than a supporter of it, forming the Progressives as a coalition partner for Labour.
I have no regrets about any of that. Under the same circumstances I would do exactly the same again.
There was no point being part of a party when I couldn't, in all honesty, ask my constituents at that time to vote for it. And there is no point in asking your constituents for their vote if you don't intend to take on the opportunity and responsibility of being in government, regardless of the risk of doing so to smaller parties. Because only by sitting around the Cabinet Table helping to make the decisions can you make the greatest contribution to the well-being of those you claim to represent.
That's why I rejected the idea that we could ask people to vote for us to go into Opposition.
As I have said often, one bad day in Government is better than a thousand good days in Opposition.
I'm proud of the difference I tried to make in government. I pay tribute to Helen Clark, who had the clearest and most insightful understanding of anyone I have ever worked with in politics, and to the positive difference the government she led made to New Zealand.
As Minister of Economic, Industry and Regional Development I oversaw 23 consecutive quarters of positive growth in every region of New Zealand, while unemployment fell to record low levels.
Put that against the record of previous governments, and in particular the performance of our economy after it was restructured in the 1980s.
New Zealand went into recession in 1987 and our economy wasn't as big again as it was in that year until 1993. Six lost years. And yet between 1999 and 2008, it grew in real terms by 36 per cent.
Incidentally, our economy is still smaller in 2011 than it was in 2008, which shows how the entire country loses out when inequality grows.
My term as Minister of Agriculture as well as Minister of Economic Development demonstrated over and over again how the real strength of the New Zealand economy lies in innovation. We should constantly be celebrating our culture of success.
Ernest Rutherford once said "New Zealand doesn't have much money so we have to think."
And our core industries - sectors like agriculture, horticulture, forestry and fishing are, contrary to urban mythology, all hi-tech, science-based industries. Disciplines like soil science, animal husbandry, pasture science, marine biology, food production and processing science are all knowledge-rich, innovative and positive contributors to our national wealth.
Our food production ability and potential has never been more economically significant for New Zealand than it is today. Countries in our economic zone like India - population 1100 million, growing by 22 million every year, and China - 1400 million and growing are the dynamic economic power houses of this century and we are on the ground floor, ready to grow with them.
Because these industries are so important to us, it's important that we get them right - that we keep investing in innovation and research, and that we make sure they are sustainable industries and we extract high value from them.
I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to my wife, Carole, who has stood with me through 27 tumultuous years, and to my family and extended family, who know how much time, energy and cost all this has taken and caused.
My extraordinary long serving electorate staff, who started this journey with me in 1983 and are still with me - Jeanette Lawrence, Liz Maunsell, Shona Richards, Marty Braithwaite and dozens of volunteers who help 1500 constituents every year.
My parliamentary staff, who have worked tirelessly and well beyond what could reasonably have been expected - Sally Griffin, David Cuthbert, John Pagani and Tony Simpson, you have all been valued colleagues.
To Parliamentary staff, the Speakers and the Clerk's Offices, VIP drivers, and messengers, my thanks for years of unfailing courtesy and assistance. And my former NewLabour, Alliance and Progressive Party colleagues who are present in parliament today: My grateful thanks for your invaluable contribution throughout what has been a remarkable journey: Sandra Lee, Matt Robson, John Wright, Grant Gillon - not to mention Reg Boorman, my former Labour colleague, whom I once had to persuade not to engage in fisticuffs with Richard Prebble at a particularly robust meeting of the Labour Party caucus in the Rogernomics era.
Also my Labour Party colleagues, particularly Phil Goff and Annette King. We have been on a long journey together but, at the end, are now on the same side again. We have KiwiBank and Air NZ to remind us that publicly owned assets can be run successfully in the interests of all New Zealanders.
And as far as KiwiBank is concerned, I will always remember Annette's contribution at a final Cabinet Policy Committee meeting after months of exhaustive advocacy by me of the NZ Post's business case for the Bank - having to knock down every objection one by one. Annette turned to Michael Cullen and said these immortal words: "Michael, he's beaten back every argument against the bank we've ever put up - for God's sake give him the bloody bank! And in equally immortal words, Michael Cullen replied: "Oh, all right then"!
And finally, I want to mention two areas that have been central concerns for me, where I hope that work will continue into the future:
Suicide prevention, and prevention of drug and alcohol abuse. These areas are sometimes sidelined because they are complex and hard to solve. Progress is frustrating.
And yet they are indicators of a community that, to the extent that it does not address the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens nor has the will to make necessary changes, fails in its responsibility to care for all of our citizens.
To those critics who constantly belittle and cynically demean political participation and representation in parliament, I can do no better than quote the words of former United States President, Teddy Roosevelt, who said, in a speech on 'citizenship':
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who knows at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall not be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
My next task now is to do what I can to help my adopted, beleaguered and loved city of Christchurch to recover from the disaster by which it has been struck.
It's been a privilege to serve in this House, and I want to end by again thanking my constituents for the once in a lifetime opportunity to do so.
ENDS
Progressive Party Update
27/06/10 15:08 Filed in: News Releases
The Progressive Party has been re-registered as a political party with the Electoral Commission after proving that it has a minimum of five hundred paying members.
Party activists and members continue to work closely with the Labour Party, both on the ground and in parliament.
“We remain focused on key policy issues like affordable dental health care for all New Zealanders, and on challenging the government not to sell Kiwibank,” says Jim Anderton.
The Party will continue to support its members who are seeking election both at the up-coming local body elections and the general election next year.
Party activists and members continue to work closely with the Labour Party, both on the ground and in parliament.
“We remain focused on key policy issues like affordable dental health care for all New Zealanders, and on challenging the government not to sell Kiwibank,” says Jim Anderton.
The Party will continue to support its members who are seeking election both at the up-coming local body elections and the general election next year.
Coastguards prepare for their busy season.
25/09/09 18:01 Filed in: News Releases
“On an average day the Coastguard around New Zealand make ten rescues. That’s more than 3500 incidents a year, and over 5000 people a year who might not be with us today if it wasn’t for these volunteers,” says Progressive leader and MP for Wigram, Jim Anderton.
“These are just ordinary people with families and jobs, doing extraordinary things every day. And they do it for nothing. That kind of service is humbling.”
Jim Anderton was giving the key note speech at the annual Conference of the New Zealand Coastguard Association in Christchurch. He and his wife Carol are the official Patrons for the Canterbury Coastguard.
“It's easy for people to take this service for granted. But what would we do if we didn't have people around who give so much to helping out others?
“There are still New Zealand boaties out there who think they are indestructible; they don’t wear life jackets or carry rescue beacons. I know that many Coastguard volunteers would like to see more funding to spend on education, and there is a strong demand in the community for Coastguard boating education.
“That’s why I was very pleased last year to advocate in Cabinet with colleagues like Annette King, that a levy from petrol and diesel should be used to fund the work of the Coastguard service.
“They need all the funding they can get, and it doesn’t make sense for boaties filling their boats with fuel to pay a road tax.”
The Land Transport Management Act now allows for some of the fuel excise paid by boaties to be used to fund specified safety activities, most notably search and rescue.
“There are more than 2,500 of you across New Zealand. You are dedicated active volunteers who give over 300,000 hours of your time for free every year, and you are all heroes,” Jim Anderton said.
“Your service is an inspiration. New Zealanders owe you a debt of gratitude, and I wish you a successful and safe summer,” says Jim Anderton.
“These are just ordinary people with families and jobs, doing extraordinary things every day. And they do it for nothing. That kind of service is humbling.”
Jim Anderton was giving the key note speech at the annual Conference of the New Zealand Coastguard Association in Christchurch. He and his wife Carol are the official Patrons for the Canterbury Coastguard.
“It's easy for people to take this service for granted. But what would we do if we didn't have people around who give so much to helping out others?
“There are still New Zealand boaties out there who think they are indestructible; they don’t wear life jackets or carry rescue beacons. I know that many Coastguard volunteers would like to see more funding to spend on education, and there is a strong demand in the community for Coastguard boating education.
“That’s why I was very pleased last year to advocate in Cabinet with colleagues like Annette King, that a levy from petrol and diesel should be used to fund the work of the Coastguard service.
“They need all the funding they can get, and it doesn’t make sense for boaties filling their boats with fuel to pay a road tax.”
The Land Transport Management Act now allows for some of the fuel excise paid by boaties to be used to fund specified safety activities, most notably search and rescue.
“There are more than 2,500 of you across New Zealand. You are dedicated active volunteers who give over 300,000 hours of your time for free every year, and you are all heroes,” Jim Anderton said.
“Your service is an inspiration. New Zealanders owe you a debt of gratitude, and I wish you a successful and safe summer,” says Jim Anderton.
Coastguard conference 2009
25/09/09 18:00 Filed in: Speeches
Opening speech to the Royal New Zealand Coastguard Annual Conference 2009
As patrons of Canterbury Coastguard, Carole and I have much pleasure in being here for the annual conference of the NZ Coastguard.
I’ve been the Patron for the Canterbury Coastguard for a number of years. Each time I meet with you I’m struck again by your dedication and personal commitment to serve your fellow New Zealanders.
It’s people like you who keep voluntary organisations alive and running. This is not unimportant as your organisation also happens to save lives.
I’m sure you look at the way parliament is portrayed in the media and wonder if all politicians are driven by a similar desire to serve. I am reminded, in this regard, of a story I heard recently.
A priest was being honoured by the local coastguard at his retirement dinner after 25 years in the parish. The local MP who was also a member of his parish had been chosen to make the presentation and give a speech at the dinner.
The politician was delayed, so the priest decided to say his own few words while they waited. He said: "I got my first impression of this town from the first confession I heard here. I thought I had been assigned to a terrible place. The very first person who entered my confessional told me he had stolen money from some old, retired pensioners and when questioned by the police, he was able to lie his way out of it. He had also stolen money from his parents, embezzled from his former employer, and had an affair with his former boss's wife. I was appalled,” said the priest.
“But as the days went on I came to learn that most of the people were not like that at all and I had, indeed, come to a fine parish full of good and loving people, with a dedicated Coastguard service of the highest quality.”
Just as the priest finished his talk, the MP arrived full of apologies for being late. He immediately began to make the presentation by starting his speech.
"I'll never forget the first day our parish priest arrived," said the politician. "In fact, I had the honour of being the first person to go to him for confession.....”
It’s inspiring to read about some of your members who won the Coastguard National Awards in 2008, and to see some of the 2009 nominees here tonight.
It's easy for us to take your service for granted. But what would we do if we didn't have people around who give so much to helping others?
I’d like to pay tribute to the 2008 Award winners: Richard Packham from Rotorua; Chris Henshaw from Mana; and Rosie Musters from Nelson, and to the 2009 nominees.
All of you here are heroes. There are more than 2,500 members of the Coastguard across New Zealand. You are dedicated active volunteers who freely give over 300,000 hours of your time every year. You are ordinary people like the rest of us, holding down jobs and bringing up your families, but in your spare time, you do extraordinary things.
Rescuing people and keeping us safe in and on the water is not easy. I know you work long and irregular hours, you witness traumatic events, and each time you go out you put your own safety at risk to go to the aid often, of a total stranger.
These risks were brought home to me in March this year, when five crew members from the Coastguard vessel Tutukaka were injured when their rescue vessel struck rocks in bad weather.
You risk your lives all the time.
That’s why I was very pleased last year to advocate in Cabinet with colleagues like Annette King, that a levy from petrol and diesel used by recreational boaties should help fund the work of the Coastguard.
You need all the funding you can get, and it doesn’t make sense for boaties filling their boats with fuel to pay a road tax.
The hours that you spend helping to raise money; the effort that goes in to getting a boat like the new rescue vessel in Gisborne; the care and attention you have to give to administration; your commitment to having two people in your operations room 24 hours a day ... it all adds up.
I know that some of your members would like to see more funding to invest on community education. There is an urgent need for boating education to be given to the New Zealand community by the coastguard service.
People still go out in boats without life jackets, without rescue beacons, and in greater numbers than their boats or dinghys can handle safely.
As we head into summer, I’m sure you are gearing yourselves up for a busy time. Because for all your efforts to educate the public, in schools and at fishing tournaments, and throughout the community, people will still go out onto the water and get into trouble.
The tragic death of a child on Lake Taupo recently ignited a heated debate on whether we need licenses for boaties, just like we have licenses for car drivers. Certainly, we must keep the pressure up for boating education.
While the skill of our top yachties is world class, there is also a need for the fundamental skills of seamanship and boathandling to be spread more widely in the boating community.
There is still a large number of people who think nothing bad could ever happen to them.
New Zealanders love and treasure our oceans, lakes and rivers environment but we also need first class marine skills if we are to get the most out of our boating activities and be safe at the same time.
I was impressed to see how innovative you have been this year to raise awareness about safety: you used Trade Me to auction off rides across the Whanganui River bar on your super boat, Earthrace! I understand you had over 29,000 hits on TradeMe, and raised about $10,000.
Without you all we wouldn't have a Coastguard. And without the Coastguard, marine recreation and our Kiwi lifestyle on the water would be very different.
We're blessed with the marvellous coastline and waterways that we have in New Zealand.
We think of ourselves as a small country, because our population is small. But our coastline is enormous by global standards. And most of our coastline is readily accessible for pleasure craft as well as for commercial users.
It makes for a fantastic lifestyle. But it also inevitably makes for mishaps and accidents.
A lot of them are minor - people run out of fuel, get stranded or run across a minor problem. And the coastguard is there as a safety service to help them out.
Sometimes though, the mishaps are catastrophic. And then the help the Coastguard is able to provide is critical. It literally makes the difference between life and death, between recovery and tragedy.
On an average day the Coastguard around New Zealand makes ten rescues. That’s over 3500 incidents every year. And it’s potentially over 5600 people who may not be with us today if it wasn’t for you.
It's well known that one of the great privileges of living in Canterbury is that our weather conditions can be rugged at times. And whenever we hear of boats losing their way or needing help in those conditions, we also hear of brave coastguard efforts to help them.
For shift after shift, rescue teams from the Coastguard are going out into arduous cold and rough conditions hoping to make a rescue, knowing that when they come home, families will be waiting, desperate for good news.
That's what you're signing up to when you join the NZ Coastguard service and it is a heavy responsibility.
The New Zealand Coastguard Service helps to save lives and it's no wonder, therefore, that there is a special pride and sense of achievement in Coastguard volunteers as a result.
For all the work you do as volunteers in making our water safer, I want to express gratitude on behalf of the whole New Zealand community. It's a privilege to be here and for both Carole and I to be patrons of your local organisation. Carole and I congratulate you on your work over the last year and we congratulate and commend the people receiving recognition today and in the years gone by.
We wish you all the very best for the coming year.
As patrons of Canterbury Coastguard, Carole and I have much pleasure in being here for the annual conference of the NZ Coastguard.
I’ve been the Patron for the Canterbury Coastguard for a number of years. Each time I meet with you I’m struck again by your dedication and personal commitment to serve your fellow New Zealanders.
It’s people like you who keep voluntary organisations alive and running. This is not unimportant as your organisation also happens to save lives.
I’m sure you look at the way parliament is portrayed in the media and wonder if all politicians are driven by a similar desire to serve. I am reminded, in this regard, of a story I heard recently.
A priest was being honoured by the local coastguard at his retirement dinner after 25 years in the parish. The local MP who was also a member of his parish had been chosen to make the presentation and give a speech at the dinner.
The politician was delayed, so the priest decided to say his own few words while they waited. He said: "I got my first impression of this town from the first confession I heard here. I thought I had been assigned to a terrible place. The very first person who entered my confessional told me he had stolen money from some old, retired pensioners and when questioned by the police, he was able to lie his way out of it. He had also stolen money from his parents, embezzled from his former employer, and had an affair with his former boss's wife. I was appalled,” said the priest.
“But as the days went on I came to learn that most of the people were not like that at all and I had, indeed, come to a fine parish full of good and loving people, with a dedicated Coastguard service of the highest quality.”
Just as the priest finished his talk, the MP arrived full of apologies for being late. He immediately began to make the presentation by starting his speech.
"I'll never forget the first day our parish priest arrived," said the politician. "In fact, I had the honour of being the first person to go to him for confession.....”
It’s inspiring to read about some of your members who won the Coastguard National Awards in 2008, and to see some of the 2009 nominees here tonight.
It's easy for us to take your service for granted. But what would we do if we didn't have people around who give so much to helping others?
I’d like to pay tribute to the 2008 Award winners: Richard Packham from Rotorua; Chris Henshaw from Mana; and Rosie Musters from Nelson, and to the 2009 nominees.
All of you here are heroes. There are more than 2,500 members of the Coastguard across New Zealand. You are dedicated active volunteers who freely give over 300,000 hours of your time every year. You are ordinary people like the rest of us, holding down jobs and bringing up your families, but in your spare time, you do extraordinary things.
Rescuing people and keeping us safe in and on the water is not easy. I know you work long and irregular hours, you witness traumatic events, and each time you go out you put your own safety at risk to go to the aid often, of a total stranger.
These risks were brought home to me in March this year, when five crew members from the Coastguard vessel Tutukaka were injured when their rescue vessel struck rocks in bad weather.
You risk your lives all the time.
That’s why I was very pleased last year to advocate in Cabinet with colleagues like Annette King, that a levy from petrol and diesel used by recreational boaties should help fund the work of the Coastguard.
You need all the funding you can get, and it doesn’t make sense for boaties filling their boats with fuel to pay a road tax.
The hours that you spend helping to raise money; the effort that goes in to getting a boat like the new rescue vessel in Gisborne; the care and attention you have to give to administration; your commitment to having two people in your operations room 24 hours a day ... it all adds up.
I know that some of your members would like to see more funding to invest on community education. There is an urgent need for boating education to be given to the New Zealand community by the coastguard service.
People still go out in boats without life jackets, without rescue beacons, and in greater numbers than their boats or dinghys can handle safely.
As we head into summer, I’m sure you are gearing yourselves up for a busy time. Because for all your efforts to educate the public, in schools and at fishing tournaments, and throughout the community, people will still go out onto the water and get into trouble.
The tragic death of a child on Lake Taupo recently ignited a heated debate on whether we need licenses for boaties, just like we have licenses for car drivers. Certainly, we must keep the pressure up for boating education.
While the skill of our top yachties is world class, there is also a need for the fundamental skills of seamanship and boathandling to be spread more widely in the boating community.
There is still a large number of people who think nothing bad could ever happen to them.
New Zealanders love and treasure our oceans, lakes and rivers environment but we also need first class marine skills if we are to get the most out of our boating activities and be safe at the same time.
I was impressed to see how innovative you have been this year to raise awareness about safety: you used Trade Me to auction off rides across the Whanganui River bar on your super boat, Earthrace! I understand you had over 29,000 hits on TradeMe, and raised about $10,000.
Without you all we wouldn't have a Coastguard. And without the Coastguard, marine recreation and our Kiwi lifestyle on the water would be very different.
We're blessed with the marvellous coastline and waterways that we have in New Zealand.
We think of ourselves as a small country, because our population is small. But our coastline is enormous by global standards. And most of our coastline is readily accessible for pleasure craft as well as for commercial users.
It makes for a fantastic lifestyle. But it also inevitably makes for mishaps and accidents.
A lot of them are minor - people run out of fuel, get stranded or run across a minor problem. And the coastguard is there as a safety service to help them out.
Sometimes though, the mishaps are catastrophic. And then the help the Coastguard is able to provide is critical. It literally makes the difference between life and death, between recovery and tragedy.
On an average day the Coastguard around New Zealand makes ten rescues. That’s over 3500 incidents every year. And it’s potentially over 5600 people who may not be with us today if it wasn’t for you.
It's well known that one of the great privileges of living in Canterbury is that our weather conditions can be rugged at times. And whenever we hear of boats losing their way or needing help in those conditions, we also hear of brave coastguard efforts to help them.
For shift after shift, rescue teams from the Coastguard are going out into arduous cold and rough conditions hoping to make a rescue, knowing that when they come home, families will be waiting, desperate for good news.
That's what you're signing up to when you join the NZ Coastguard service and it is a heavy responsibility.
The New Zealand Coastguard Service helps to save lives and it's no wonder, therefore, that there is a special pride and sense of achievement in Coastguard volunteers as a result.
For all the work you do as volunteers in making our water safer, I want to express gratitude on behalf of the whole New Zealand community. It's a privilege to be here and for both Carole and I to be patrons of your local organisation. Carole and I congratulate you on your work over the last year and we congratulate and commend the people receiving recognition today and in the years gone by.
We wish you all the very best for the coming year.
Bill to stop MPs standing for Parliament
11/09/09 12:00 Filed in: News Releases
New Bill designed to stop MPs standing for election when they are already elected
Jim Anderton has drafted a Bill designed to stop current members of parliament from standing for election to parliament in a by-election.
The Bill will be placed in the Member’s Ballot. The next ballot for Member’s Bills is expected to be drawn next Thursday.
“It’s a nonsense that people can stand for election to parliament when they’ve already members of parliament,” says Member of Parliament for Wigram and Progressive leader, Jim Anderton
“What would rate-payers think if a member of a city council stood in a by-election to become a city councillor?”
In this year’s Mt Albert by-election, three out of the four main candidates were already members of parliament. Only the Labour Party candidate, David Shearer was not already an MP. Mr Shearer went on to win the by-election.
“There should be a rule that if you want to stand in a by-election, you first resign your seat in parliament.
“It’s not acceptable that M.Ps like Russell Norman for the Green Party, Melissa Lee for National, and John Boscawan for the Act Party used tax-payers’ money to run a campaign to get elected to parliament when they had already been elected. In reality they were using their parliamentary salaries and resources to try and win the by-election and bring another MP into parliament on their party list.
“If the Bill is introduced, existing M.P.s will have to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to run for a seat, they will need to resign from parliament and contest it on the same basis as anyone else. If a list member is so keen to represent the people of a particular electorate, his/her party can open an office there.
“In a general election, an electorate MP has no insurance. They have to win enough votes in their electorate or for their party to return to Parliament. It is inconsistent at the very least, to have different rules in a by-election,” says Jim Anderton.
Jim Anderton has drafted a Bill designed to stop current members of parliament from standing for election to parliament in a by-election.
The Bill will be placed in the Member’s Ballot. The next ballot for Member’s Bills is expected to be drawn next Thursday.
“It’s a nonsense that people can stand for election to parliament when they’ve already members of parliament,” says Member of Parliament for Wigram and Progressive leader, Jim Anderton
“What would rate-payers think if a member of a city council stood in a by-election to become a city councillor?”
In this year’s Mt Albert by-election, three out of the four main candidates were already members of parliament. Only the Labour Party candidate, David Shearer was not already an MP. Mr Shearer went on to win the by-election.
“There should be a rule that if you want to stand in a by-election, you first resign your seat in parliament.
“It’s not acceptable that M.Ps like Russell Norman for the Green Party, Melissa Lee for National, and John Boscawan for the Act Party used tax-payers’ money to run a campaign to get elected to parliament when they had already been elected. In reality they were using their parliamentary salaries and resources to try and win the by-election and bring another MP into parliament on their party list.
“If the Bill is introduced, existing M.P.s will have to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to run for a seat, they will need to resign from parliament and contest it on the same basis as anyone else. If a list member is so keen to represent the people of a particular electorate, his/her party can open an office there.
“In a general election, an electorate MP has no insurance. They have to win enough votes in their electorate or for their party to return to Parliament. It is inconsistent at the very least, to have different rules in a by-election,” says Jim Anderton.
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.
Progressives to co-operate with Labour in coalition
19/11/08 15:50 Filed in: News Releases
A close relationship with Labour in government will be every bit as close in Opposition, Progressive Party leader and Wigram MP leader Jim Anderton says. The Progressives will formally cooperate with Labour in Opposition.
Jim Anderton, who was agriculture minister, will be the Opposition coalition agriculture spokesperson on behalf of both parties.
"Before the election, we said we would only enter government in partnership with Labour. We couldn’t support National because we won’t work with parties that are likely to increase poverty, that try to sell publicly-owned strategic assets, that increase unemployment, or that fail to take care of our most vulnerable citizens.
"Progressives share with Labour a joint determination to ensure that National govern for no more than a single term, to stop it before it can do lasting damage to New Zealand and to refresh New Zealand’s interest in a progressive future.
"Our leadership group has met and we believe our long-term future is with our close partners in the Labour Party."
Jim Anderton said a priority for the Progresives beyond his coalition role would be to push better access to dental care.
Jim Anderton, who was agriculture minister, will be the Opposition coalition agriculture spokesperson on behalf of both parties.
"Before the election, we said we would only enter government in partnership with Labour. We couldn’t support National because we won’t work with parties that are likely to increase poverty, that try to sell publicly-owned strategic assets, that increase unemployment, or that fail to take care of our most vulnerable citizens.
"Progressives share with Labour a joint determination to ensure that National govern for no more than a single term, to stop it before it can do lasting damage to New Zealand and to refresh New Zealand’s interest in a progressive future.
"Our leadership group has met and we believe our long-term future is with our close partners in the Labour Party."
Jim Anderton said a priority for the Progresives beyond his coalition role would be to push better access to dental care.
May Edition of Jim's eNews
29/05/09 12:15 Filed in: Newsletters
Budget Day 09 - Huge cuts in primary sector science
28.05.09
Nearly as much is being cut out of science and research in the primary sector as the government is investing in infrastructure.
The total value of primary sector science investment falls from $2 billion provided for in NZ Fast Forward under the last government to as little as $1.2 billion now.
Like for like government spending over ten years falls from around a billion dollars in the NZ Fast Forward Fund, to $610 million in the government’s replacement. “With matching private sector funding, the total investment in primary sector research and development falls by $800 million, or about 0.4 per cent of GDP.
In addition, the government has not replaced a cent of the cancelled research and development tax credit. Overall, the government is cutting innovation spending by more than the value of the personal tax cuts.
This is huge cut in science and research. It is a disaster for the future of New Zealand’s economy.
Other developed countries are preparing themselves to come out of recession stronger. New Zealand is preparing by switching from science and research to poltergeists and UFOs.
The government promised the primary sector it would spend more on science and research. It has broken that promise as surely as if it has broken its promise on personal taxes.
Winter rebate from electricity companies would be appreciated
22.05.09
The knowledge that many elderly New Zealanders huddle under blankets rather than turn on unaffordable heating should be a wake-up call to the power companies to return a winter rebate to their consumers this winter.
For many New Zealanders, this wintry weather brings on a bitter struggle with the cold and the dilemma of whether they can turn on a heater or not. Low income households, the elderly and students fear their electricity bills and well they might. I remember when the electricity bills came every two months – now the monthly bill is the same – or more – than the bi-monthly one was.
The Commerce Commission’s investigation into the wholesale and retail electricity markets showed that the electricity companies have not breached Part 2 of the Commerce Act but their extra $4.3 billion in earnings from 2001 to mid-2007 reveals they are charging with a take no prisoners mentality. The electricity companies’ profits are at the expense of New Zealand’s most economically vulnerable.
Since 2002, I have pushed for a return to consumers of some of the big profit increases from the state-owned power companies to help them with winter power bills. Low income households could be given $200 toward winter heating costs and power companies would still contribute as much to the government as they did last year. $200 would mean some households had a month of relief from winter heating costs. For superannuitants, beneficiaries and people who have lost their jobs in the downturn, it would make a huge difference.
The Commerce Commission’s ruling on the power companies should not be seen as a sign off for a return to business as usual. I am sure that New Zealanders would be hugely relieved to see the companies acting in the interests’ of their consumers with a winter rebate during this winter.
Comment on economics and the recession Response to Daniel Silva’s article in the Country-wide magazine
21.05.09
So Daniel Silva thinks that the current international recession isn’t going to affect New Zealand much. Well that’s all right then? Actually – no.
He’s quite wrong to think so for two significant reasons quite aside from the fact that any nation which earns its living as an international commodities trader is going to be affected by what happens to purchasing power in our major markets.See website for full response
Aucklanders should have elected, not appointed leaders
19.05.09
Letting Auckland vote would be a better way to make appointees to the Auckland super city transitional agency than a secret process in a government where decision-making is melting down.
Why is the government even appointing a board? The way we find people to run local government in New Zealand is we have democratic elections.
A government that listened to New Zealanders would not have a problem making a choice of leadership. The people do the appointing for it. In a democratic election, you are much more likely to get leadership that looks like Auckland. National seems interested only in leadership that looks like the National or ACT Party.
I am very concerned that the quality of decision-making in the government is falling apart as the pressure of actually governing comes on. The National government is making poor decisions or refusing to make them at all. It created a sense of urgency for itself over Auckland’s super city, and now it can’t even meet its own urgent timetable.
Needle Exchange Programme proven it worth
19.05.09
On the 21st Anniversary of the Needle Exchange Programme (NEP) - and the 4th year of the free one-for-one exchange of needles, I again would support and expand a needle exchange programme that provides free needles for intravenous drug users.
The Progressive Party successfully bid in 2004 for $4 million over four years to fund free-to-users, one-for-one exchange of used needles because we wanted to minimise the harm caused by drugs”.
Back in 2002, I was appointed as the Associate Minister of Health and the minister responsible for drug policy. I received an independent review of the needle and syringe exchange programme. It reported that the programme saves lives. It said the programme saved - back then, seven years ago - $35 million in treatment costs since it had been established.
The report said plainly that the needle exchange programme reduces the harm caused by drug use. It told me the programme had helped to prevent twenty deaths from AIDS and more than two thousand cases of Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS.
When you get a report like that in government, you sit up and take notice.
It makes a pleasant change from all the doom and gloom about things that don’t work. Here was clear evidence of a programme that worked.
There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness. I can tell you from personal experience there aren’t many votes in being wise or liberal about this stuff. But it was then, and is now, the right thing to do anyway.
The results have been very worthwhile. Obviously, 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 endorse it for that reason.
Anderton brands Auckland bill as the “Removal of Democracy” bill
18.05.09
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which will usher in Auckland’s “supercity” should be renamed the Removal of Democracy Bill.
The Local Government Act would have given Aucklanders a say in one of the most significant changes in local government in their region that they will see in their lifetime, but they are not going to have a chance to have that say.
In essence it is a great leap backwards to the days when 21 out of twenty two councillors lived east of Queen Street. It was the reason why a ward system had to be introduced so that all Aucklanders could actually be represented on their own Council. The conservative right-wingers have always resented that change and this proposal returns Auckland to the past they have always hankered after.
In real life terms it means, for example, the end of free swimming pools for the kids of South Auckland and any other future say for most Aucklanders in the way they want their local communities to deliver for them. Does anyone believe that those pools will continue to be free under the government’s proposal? I can already hear the self appointed Mayor of the super city, John Banks, making speeches about why the ratepayers of Auckland City shouldn’t be subsidising the swimming pools of south Auckland.
I support a strong regional government for Auckland. There used to be one – the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and I know about it because I was elected to it in 1977. We bought all the major regional parks and replaced the entire ancient bus fleet with new Mercedes Benz vehicles.
In 1989, the Labour government replaced the ARA with the Auckland Regional Council (ARC). In 1992, the then National government wanted to sell the Ports of Auckland and the water services, so they diverted ownership of these and other profitable assets into the newly established Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) with the plan to sell. What a shambles that would have been if it had been allowed to happen. It took all of the strength of the political group I led at the time to put a stop to that. Auckland has reaped the benefit ever since,” Jim Anderton said.
Now they’re having another go. This is a privatisers’ dream to sell the community assets of Auckland, and is entirely in line with Rodney Hide and the ACT party’s ideologies. Does anyone believe that this is in the best interests of Aucklanders?
You can understand in those circumstances why the National ACT government doesn’t want people to have a say as to whether or not they want this outrageous piece of community destruction to go ahead.
Tribute to Senior-Constable Len Snee
12.05.09
I join with other party leaders in expressing my deepest condolences to the family of Len Snee. I too wish a speedy and full recovery to the injured as they lie in their hospitals.
I send my best wishes to their families who must be desperately worried as they pray and wait at the bedsides of the fallen.
Maybe the most sombre thing we do in Parliament and government is send men and women into danger on our behalf. We send them out knowing that sometimes, on our darkest days, they won’t come back alive. When we send them out, we send them to defend New Zealanders. They are there for us.
They go out as our bravest, and when they fall, some of us all falls with them.
Every police officer knows that they go about their duty on every apparently normal day, with danger and unpredictability lurking. They take on that danger on our behalf. We can never repay sufficiently our debt to them, and we can not begin to repay the debt we owe to those who give their lives for us.
Most of us have learned a lot about Len Snee in the last few days. We learned about his professionalism as an officer. We learned about his popularity in his community. So I pay tribute to him personally and I hope his family, as they grieve, can find some small condolence in the respect and admiration his country is expressing.
I hope New Zealanders will show respect by declining to seek political mileage from this death while this wound is still so raw.
It is very easy to exploit the strong emotions we all feel over a tragedy like this. It is easy, but it’s wrong.
I want to congratulate the prime minister, and say I agree with his reaction when he said he was not going to be stampeded into a call for arming the police in their day to day operations. That was the right response. There will be lessons to be learned from this tragedy, and we will all have to reflect carefully on them. But the time for making political points isn’t here yet.
I am sure the family of the murdered officer are not yet ready to have him used for point-scoring about guns, nor for political mileage about drugs nor crime, nor about policing, nor mental health, nor any of the other issues that will inevitably give us pause.
This is a time to give thanks to the men and women whom we ask to protect us, to share the grief of Len Snee’s family and friends, and to express our strength as a community that comes together and makes our bonds stronger when we are confronted with tragedy.
Launch of the Finsec Banking petition
05.05.09
I would like to express my support for the Finsec petition, and for the retention of New Zealand jobs. Banks in New Zealand have been making enormous profits by mistreating customers and exploiting staff.
In the current global financial situation - the overseas owned banks in New Zealand are some of the most profitable in the world.
But they are still firing staff.
It’s time for them to give something back. It’ time for them to support New Zealand as good corporate citizens.
The taxpayer is giving the banks a crucial government guarantee. The government is right to do so. The banks need the guarantee to keep functioning. In a crisis, New Zealanders should be prepared to help each other out. And we should be prepared to use the power of government to make our economy stronger.
But there is a quid pro quo. It is perfectly reasonable to ask that in exchange for getting support from New Zealanders, the banks should, in return, support New Zealand in general and their own staff in particular.
MPs should not be able to fight by-elections
05.05.09
It’s a farce that sitting MPs are standing for election to parliament. I am drafting a members’ bill to stop MPs from standing for parliament in by-elections. In Mt Albert, there are three MPs standing for parliament. They are already MPs. If they want to represent the electorate, they already can. Any list MP can open an electorate office in Mt Albert and be a good representative.
What those MPs are really doing is using their parliamentary salaries and resources to bring in someone on a party list who has nothing to do with Mt Albert. For example, if the National candidate were to win she would be an MP just as she is now. But she would bring in a new MP who virtually no one has heard of, and who might never have visited Mt Albert in his or her life.
MPs who contest the seat but lose bring MMP into disrepute. Since there are three MPs contesting the seat, at least two of them have to lose and maybe all three will lose. If they are going to test their mandate, they should be prepared to live with the result.
In a general election, no MP has insurance. They have to get enough votes in their electorate or for their party, or they are out. It’s a democratic farce to have different rules in a by-election.
A simple bill that stopped a sitting MP standing in a by-election would force MPs to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to contest a seat, they should resign from parliament and contest it on the same basis as anyone else.
MPs shouldn’t fight a parliamentary by-election while they’re drawing a full parliamentary salary.
28.05.09
Nearly as much is being cut out of science and research in the primary sector as the government is investing in infrastructure.
The total value of primary sector science investment falls from $2 billion provided for in NZ Fast Forward under the last government to as little as $1.2 billion now.
Like for like government spending over ten years falls from around a billion dollars in the NZ Fast Forward Fund, to $610 million in the government’s replacement. “With matching private sector funding, the total investment in primary sector research and development falls by $800 million, or about 0.4 per cent of GDP.
In addition, the government has not replaced a cent of the cancelled research and development tax credit. Overall, the government is cutting innovation spending by more than the value of the personal tax cuts.
This is huge cut in science and research. It is a disaster for the future of New Zealand’s economy.
Other developed countries are preparing themselves to come out of recession stronger. New Zealand is preparing by switching from science and research to poltergeists and UFOs.
The government promised the primary sector it would spend more on science and research. It has broken that promise as surely as if it has broken its promise on personal taxes.
Winter rebate from electricity companies would be appreciated
22.05.09
The knowledge that many elderly New Zealanders huddle under blankets rather than turn on unaffordable heating should be a wake-up call to the power companies to return a winter rebate to their consumers this winter.
For many New Zealanders, this wintry weather brings on a bitter struggle with the cold and the dilemma of whether they can turn on a heater or not. Low income households, the elderly and students fear their electricity bills and well they might. I remember when the electricity bills came every two months – now the monthly bill is the same – or more – than the bi-monthly one was.
The Commerce Commission’s investigation into the wholesale and retail electricity markets showed that the electricity companies have not breached Part 2 of the Commerce Act but their extra $4.3 billion in earnings from 2001 to mid-2007 reveals they are charging with a take no prisoners mentality. The electricity companies’ profits are at the expense of New Zealand’s most economically vulnerable.
Since 2002, I have pushed for a return to consumers of some of the big profit increases from the state-owned power companies to help them with winter power bills. Low income households could be given $200 toward winter heating costs and power companies would still contribute as much to the government as they did last year. $200 would mean some households had a month of relief from winter heating costs. For superannuitants, beneficiaries and people who have lost their jobs in the downturn, it would make a huge difference.
The Commerce Commission’s ruling on the power companies should not be seen as a sign off for a return to business as usual. I am sure that New Zealanders would be hugely relieved to see the companies acting in the interests’ of their consumers with a winter rebate during this winter.
Comment on economics and the recession Response to Daniel Silva’s article in the Country-wide magazine
21.05.09
So Daniel Silva thinks that the current international recession isn’t going to affect New Zealand much. Well that’s all right then? Actually – no.
He’s quite wrong to think so for two significant reasons quite aside from the fact that any nation which earns its living as an international commodities trader is going to be affected by what happens to purchasing power in our major markets.See website for full response
Aucklanders should have elected, not appointed leaders
19.05.09
Letting Auckland vote would be a better way to make appointees to the Auckland super city transitional agency than a secret process in a government where decision-making is melting down.
Why is the government even appointing a board? The way we find people to run local government in New Zealand is we have democratic elections.
A government that listened to New Zealanders would not have a problem making a choice of leadership. The people do the appointing for it. In a democratic election, you are much more likely to get leadership that looks like Auckland. National seems interested only in leadership that looks like the National or ACT Party.
I am very concerned that the quality of decision-making in the government is falling apart as the pressure of actually governing comes on. The National government is making poor decisions or refusing to make them at all. It created a sense of urgency for itself over Auckland’s super city, and now it can’t even meet its own urgent timetable.
Needle Exchange Programme proven it worth
19.05.09
On the 21st Anniversary of the Needle Exchange Programme (NEP) - and the 4th year of the free one-for-one exchange of needles, I again would support and expand a needle exchange programme that provides free needles for intravenous drug users.
The Progressive Party successfully bid in 2004 for $4 million over four years to fund free-to-users, one-for-one exchange of used needles because we wanted to minimise the harm caused by drugs”.
Back in 2002, I was appointed as the Associate Minister of Health and the minister responsible for drug policy. I received an independent review of the needle and syringe exchange programme. It reported that the programme saves lives. It said the programme saved - back then, seven years ago - $35 million in treatment costs since it had been established.
The report said plainly that the needle exchange programme reduces the harm caused by drug use. It told me the programme had helped to prevent twenty deaths from AIDS and more than two thousand cases of Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS.
When you get a report like that in government, you sit up and take notice.
It makes a pleasant change from all the doom and gloom about things that don’t work. Here was clear evidence of a programme that worked.
There were people who sneered at that as liberal political correctness. I can tell you from personal experience there aren’t many votes in being wise or liberal about this stuff. But it was then, and is now, the right thing to do anyway.
The results have been very worthwhile. Obviously, 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 endorse it for that reason.
Anderton brands Auckland bill as the “Removal of Democracy” bill
18.05.09
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which will usher in Auckland’s “supercity” should be renamed the Removal of Democracy Bill.
The Local Government Act would have given Aucklanders a say in one of the most significant changes in local government in their region that they will see in their lifetime, but they are not going to have a chance to have that say.
In essence it is a great leap backwards to the days when 21 out of twenty two councillors lived east of Queen Street. It was the reason why a ward system had to be introduced so that all Aucklanders could actually be represented on their own Council. The conservative right-wingers have always resented that change and this proposal returns Auckland to the past they have always hankered after.
In real life terms it means, for example, the end of free swimming pools for the kids of South Auckland and any other future say for most Aucklanders in the way they want their local communities to deliver for them. Does anyone believe that those pools will continue to be free under the government’s proposal? I can already hear the self appointed Mayor of the super city, John Banks, making speeches about why the ratepayers of Auckland City shouldn’t be subsidising the swimming pools of south Auckland.
I support a strong regional government for Auckland. There used to be one – the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and I know about it because I was elected to it in 1977. We bought all the major regional parks and replaced the entire ancient bus fleet with new Mercedes Benz vehicles.
In 1989, the Labour government replaced the ARA with the Auckland Regional Council (ARC). In 1992, the then National government wanted to sell the Ports of Auckland and the water services, so they diverted ownership of these and other profitable assets into the newly established Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) with the plan to sell. What a shambles that would have been if it had been allowed to happen. It took all of the strength of the political group I led at the time to put a stop to that. Auckland has reaped the benefit ever since,” Jim Anderton said.
Now they’re having another go. This is a privatisers’ dream to sell the community assets of Auckland, and is entirely in line with Rodney Hide and the ACT party’s ideologies. Does anyone believe that this is in the best interests of Aucklanders?
You can understand in those circumstances why the National ACT government doesn’t want people to have a say as to whether or not they want this outrageous piece of community destruction to go ahead.
Tribute to Senior-Constable Len Snee
12.05.09
I join with other party leaders in expressing my deepest condolences to the family of Len Snee. I too wish a speedy and full recovery to the injured as they lie in their hospitals.
I send my best wishes to their families who must be desperately worried as they pray and wait at the bedsides of the fallen.
Maybe the most sombre thing we do in Parliament and government is send men and women into danger on our behalf. We send them out knowing that sometimes, on our darkest days, they won’t come back alive. When we send them out, we send them to defend New Zealanders. They are there for us.
They go out as our bravest, and when they fall, some of us all falls with them.
Every police officer knows that they go about their duty on every apparently normal day, with danger and unpredictability lurking. They take on that danger on our behalf. We can never repay sufficiently our debt to them, and we can not begin to repay the debt we owe to those who give their lives for us.
Most of us have learned a lot about Len Snee in the last few days. We learned about his professionalism as an officer. We learned about his popularity in his community. So I pay tribute to him personally and I hope his family, as they grieve, can find some small condolence in the respect and admiration his country is expressing.
I hope New Zealanders will show respect by declining to seek political mileage from this death while this wound is still so raw.
It is very easy to exploit the strong emotions we all feel over a tragedy like this. It is easy, but it’s wrong.
I want to congratulate the prime minister, and say I agree with his reaction when he said he was not going to be stampeded into a call for arming the police in their day to day operations. That was the right response. There will be lessons to be learned from this tragedy, and we will all have to reflect carefully on them. But the time for making political points isn’t here yet.
I am sure the family of the murdered officer are not yet ready to have him used for point-scoring about guns, nor for political mileage about drugs nor crime, nor about policing, nor mental health, nor any of the other issues that will inevitably give us pause.
This is a time to give thanks to the men and women whom we ask to protect us, to share the grief of Len Snee’s family and friends, and to express our strength as a community that comes together and makes our bonds stronger when we are confronted with tragedy.
Launch of the Finsec Banking petition
05.05.09
I would like to express my support for the Finsec petition, and for the retention of New Zealand jobs. Banks in New Zealand have been making enormous profits by mistreating customers and exploiting staff.
In the current global financial situation - the overseas owned banks in New Zealand are some of the most profitable in the world.
But they are still firing staff.
It’s time for them to give something back. It’ time for them to support New Zealand as good corporate citizens.
The taxpayer is giving the banks a crucial government guarantee. The government is right to do so. The banks need the guarantee to keep functioning. In a crisis, New Zealanders should be prepared to help each other out. And we should be prepared to use the power of government to make our economy stronger.
But there is a quid pro quo. It is perfectly reasonable to ask that in exchange for getting support from New Zealanders, the banks should, in return, support New Zealand in general and their own staff in particular.
MPs should not be able to fight by-elections
05.05.09
It’s a farce that sitting MPs are standing for election to parliament. I am drafting a members’ bill to stop MPs from standing for parliament in by-elections. In Mt Albert, there are three MPs standing for parliament. They are already MPs. If they want to represent the electorate, they already can. Any list MP can open an electorate office in Mt Albert and be a good representative.
What those MPs are really doing is using their parliamentary salaries and resources to bring in someone on a party list who has nothing to do with Mt Albert. For example, if the National candidate were to win she would be an MP just as she is now. But she would bring in a new MP who virtually no one has heard of, and who might never have visited Mt Albert in his or her life.
MPs who contest the seat but lose bring MMP into disrepute. Since there are three MPs contesting the seat, at least two of them have to lose and maybe all three will lose. If they are going to test their mandate, they should be prepared to live with the result.
In a general election, no MP has insurance. They have to get enough votes in their electorate or for their party, or they are out. It’s a democratic farce to have different rules in a by-election.
A simple bill that stopped a sitting MP standing in a by-election would force MPs to make a meaningful choice - if they really want to contest a seat, they should resign from parliament and contest it on the same basis as anyone else.
MPs shouldn’t fight a parliamentary by-election while they’re drawing a full parliamentary salary.