Jim's E-News, October 2011
09/11/11 12:58 Filed in: Newsletters
A farewell to Parliament
This has been something of a special month for me, and there could not have been a better highlight than to have been joined by my family and friends as I gave my final or valedictory speech to Parliament on Tuesday 4 October.
It is hard to believe it is 27 years ago since I was elected as the Member of Parliament for the former seat of Sydenham, and even harder to believe the incredible passage of events that have occurred in the intervening years. Not the least among these was that I represented four different political parties in two electorates, and surviving the turbulent period of the 1980s in which I left the Labour Party as a result of its adherence to the philosophies of what became known as Rogernomics. Leaving the Labour Party when I did risked almost certain political oblivion, but instead I created political history by being the first MP to leave his parliamentary party, stand against it and win.
I have no doubt that I made the right decision to leave the Labour Party to form New Labour when I did, then taking it into the Alliance with other parties, and later by forming the Progressives as a coalition partner for Labour. I have no regrets about any of those decisions and under the same circumstances I would do exactly the same again.
Later, with the Clark-led Labour Government, we made a number of social and economic advancements of which I am particularly proud. 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. Similarly, 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. The establishment of KiwiBank was a particular highlight and, while I had to fight long and hard to get it established, it was worth every ounce of effort and the bank has been roaring success.
There are some fights still to be won, namely suicide prevention and dealing with drug and alcohol abuse. These issues are sometimes side-lined because they are complex and hard to solve. Progress can be frustrating, but we have an overriding obligation to care for all of our citizens, many of whom who have reached the depths of despair and are no longer able to make good judgements for themselves.
Finally, the greatest satisfaction I’ve had in politics is to have been able to help thousands of individuals and hundreds of communities in ways almost no other occupation can make possible. That is an opportunity that you, as members of your communities, have given me and I thank you all for that.
My valedictory speech can be found here.
To view the interview on The Nation with Sean Plunket go here.
To hear the Focus on Politics podcast, go here.
To see the TV3 news clip, go here.
MMP: A better system than before
In a little over a month voters will get to have a say in the future of New Zealand’s electoral system with a referendum on representation systems being held in conjunction with the general election.
Broken election promises by previous governments coupled with the blatant unfairness of the First-Past-the-Post electoral system led to the introduction of the current MMP system in 1996, and it has resulted in some pretty important changes.
I remember 93 percent of the population was against the sale of Telecom in 1990, and Richard Prebble told parliament at the time that “New Zealand was 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.
Consider this. Between 1853 and 1984 there were 1102 MPs elected to parliament. Only 25 of them were women. Currently there are 38 women in this parliament; more than were elected in the previous 131 years. There are also more young, Maori, Asian and representatives of different religious persuasions.
Another breakthrough has been the power and scrutiny of select committees. Almost every piece of legislation now goes to select committee, the most democratic process of all Commonwealth Parliament as far as I know. Select committees are also now often chaired by opposition MPs, so it is much more difficult for the government to control them.
Importantly, MMP has broken the back of the old two-party stranglehold and nowadays political parties are required to work with each other more constructively. There is no doubt that the old adversarial nature of politics has lessened.
If I was to offer one piece of advice, it would be to vote to retain MMP in this year’s referendum. Believe me, it has certainly improved parliamentary representation and it would be a real backwards move to go back to the old system.
And as I leave parliament, here is a final note of encouragement to you all. I have always believed that every citizen should stand for public office in their lifetime because it would create a much better understanding of the democratic process and a much healthier respect for politics and parliament.
The culture of success
Throughout my years in politics I’ve been driven by the desire to make sure every New Zealander has the opportunity and security that a well-paid, satisfying job brings, that everyone has access to the essentials of a strong community such as health care, education, affordable quality housing and a decent standard of living in retirement.
If we want these things, however, we need a strong economy capable of sustaining them, and my message is that it is our agricultural and horticultural industries have the potential to create jobs and prosperity throughout the regions of New Zealand.
Over the last four decades, our economy has been struggling to pay for what we want, and we’ve been slipping behind the rest of the developed world. Although our markets and our exports have changed, we still haven’t created enough of the high-value, high-skill innovation-led businesses we need. The main reason for this is that we don’t have enough investment in science and innovation to lift the productivity of our economy.
Agriculture is probably the most scientifically advanced of all our industries. Our primary industries have the scale, sophistication and the underlying science advantage to be a springboard for much greater things.
Everywhere you look around the world where economies have been successfully transformed to the benefit of their people and their communities, the pattern has been the same. It has been, without exception, where the government has worked alongside industry.
Yet, uncomfortable as it is for many people, especially in business, support for innovation in New Zealand has become a fault line between differing political philosophies. The current government wiped out a two billion public-private partnership in scientific research as soon as it got elected. A tax credit for research and development worth a billion dollars over three years was cancelled, and all this took place without much of a squeak, specifically from the business community itself.
This was nonsensical. We need innovation, talent and a culture that embeds innovation into the boardroom. And so we need a culture of creativity and success that celebrates and inspires the creation of new industry.
This was part of a speech given to the Conference of the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science at Te Papa on 04 October 2011.
The good, bad and ugly of parliamentary politics – with Jim Anderton and Simon Power
The ASPG Seminar in Parliament
The Good
The MMP environment has meant a far more diverse group of representatives. 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.
Another breakthrough has been the power and scrutiny of select committees. Almost every piece of legislation goes to select committee – the most democratic process of all Commonwealth Parliament as far as I know. Even the video surveillance legislation this month went to select committee at the very end of this term, when the Government wanted the Bill passed within days. The consultation process involved produced a bill that much better protected some ancient civil liberties; even though I’m sure it frustrated the Government. Select Committees are now often chaired by opposition MPs, so it is much more difficult for the government to control them.
When I chaired the sub-committee of the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee in 1984 we started an inquiry into the post-election devaluation. The government called it off after pressure from Treasury and the Reserve Bank by ordering the government members of the committee, to vote to cancel the enquiry. Ironically, the minister who gave that order was the same person who had written the book ‘Unbridled Power’ about the excessive use of political power by the executive over parliament. That couldn’t happen now.
The Bad
We have lobbying of minor parties by vested interests, who play each off against the others. One example - in 2008, as Minister of Fisheries I needed to amend the Fisheries Act following a court decision which put at risk the sustainability of our fisheries and to make it clear that the fishery should not be depleted by the way it was fished. Vested commercial interests spent a lot of time and resource lobbying first the Maori Party, then NZ First, and other parties. None wanted to be out-flanked by the Maori Party.
So we ended up with a law no one could intellectually defend because of the influence a few commercial interests had over minor parties.
So no system of government is perfect!
The Ugly
The defections of list MPs from the parties they were elected to represent have largely diminished now, but waka jumping gave MMP a very bad reputation. It was made too easy and even encouraged.
The adversarial nature of politics in the debating chamber is the ugly face of parliamentary politics most often displayed by the media to the people of New Zealand. It is not the reality of the overwhelming majority of the work of politicians at electorate, select committee, caucus or ministerial level in New Zealand politics.
New Zealanders would be better informed and have a different view of politics and politicians in their country if they were presented with a more balanced view of this reality.
Being elected as an MP to the Parliament of New Zealand is hard to do and happens to very few of our citizens. Since 1853 when our first parliament met with 36 MPs and the population of New Zealand was approximately 92,000, there have only been 1,365 MPs elected up until 2011 (158 years), with our population standing now at 4,416,324.
I have always believed that every citizen should stand for public office in their lifetime because it would create a much better understanding of the democratic process and a much healthier respect for politics and Parliament. But I’m not holding my breath!
This has been something of a special month for me, and there could not have been a better highlight than to have been joined by my family and friends as I gave my final or valedictory speech to Parliament on Tuesday 4 October.
It is hard to believe it is 27 years ago since I was elected as the Member of Parliament for the former seat of Sydenham, and even harder to believe the incredible passage of events that have occurred in the intervening years. Not the least among these was that I represented four different political parties in two electorates, and surviving the turbulent period of the 1980s in which I left the Labour Party as a result of its adherence to the philosophies of what became known as Rogernomics. Leaving the Labour Party when I did risked almost certain political oblivion, but instead I created political history by being the first MP to leave his parliamentary party, stand against it and win.
I have no doubt that I made the right decision to leave the Labour Party to form New Labour when I did, then taking it into the Alliance with other parties, and later by forming the Progressives as a coalition partner for Labour. I have no regrets about any of those decisions and under the same circumstances I would do exactly the same again.
Later, with the Clark-led Labour Government, we made a number of social and economic advancements of which I am particularly proud. 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. Similarly, 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. The establishment of KiwiBank was a particular highlight and, while I had to fight long and hard to get it established, it was worth every ounce of effort and the bank has been roaring success.
There are some fights still to be won, namely suicide prevention and dealing with drug and alcohol abuse. These issues are sometimes side-lined because they are complex and hard to solve. Progress can be frustrating, but we have an overriding obligation to care for all of our citizens, many of whom who have reached the depths of despair and are no longer able to make good judgements for themselves.
Finally, the greatest satisfaction I’ve had in politics is to have been able to help thousands of individuals and hundreds of communities in ways almost no other occupation can make possible. That is an opportunity that you, as members of your communities, have given me and I thank you all for that.
My valedictory speech can be found here.
To view the interview on The Nation with Sean Plunket go here.
To hear the Focus on Politics podcast, go here.
To see the TV3 news clip, go here.
MMP: A better system than before
In a little over a month voters will get to have a say in the future of New Zealand’s electoral system with a referendum on representation systems being held in conjunction with the general election.
Broken election promises by previous governments coupled with the blatant unfairness of the First-Past-the-Post electoral system led to the introduction of the current MMP system in 1996, and it has resulted in some pretty important changes.
I remember 93 percent of the population was against the sale of Telecom in 1990, and Richard Prebble told parliament at the time that “New Zealand was 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.
Consider this. Between 1853 and 1984 there were 1102 MPs elected to parliament. Only 25 of them were women. Currently there are 38 women in this parliament; more than were elected in the previous 131 years. There are also more young, Maori, Asian and representatives of different religious persuasions.
Another breakthrough has been the power and scrutiny of select committees. Almost every piece of legislation now goes to select committee, the most democratic process of all Commonwealth Parliament as far as I know. Select committees are also now often chaired by opposition MPs, so it is much more difficult for the government to control them.
Importantly, MMP has broken the back of the old two-party stranglehold and nowadays political parties are required to work with each other more constructively. There is no doubt that the old adversarial nature of politics has lessened.
If I was to offer one piece of advice, it would be to vote to retain MMP in this year’s referendum. Believe me, it has certainly improved parliamentary representation and it would be a real backwards move to go back to the old system.
And as I leave parliament, here is a final note of encouragement to you all. I have always believed that every citizen should stand for public office in their lifetime because it would create a much better understanding of the democratic process and a much healthier respect for politics and parliament.
The culture of success
Throughout my years in politics I’ve been driven by the desire to make sure every New Zealander has the opportunity and security that a well-paid, satisfying job brings, that everyone has access to the essentials of a strong community such as health care, education, affordable quality housing and a decent standard of living in retirement.
If we want these things, however, we need a strong economy capable of sustaining them, and my message is that it is our agricultural and horticultural industries have the potential to create jobs and prosperity throughout the regions of New Zealand.
Over the last four decades, our economy has been struggling to pay for what we want, and we’ve been slipping behind the rest of the developed world. Although our markets and our exports have changed, we still haven’t created enough of the high-value, high-skill innovation-led businesses we need. The main reason for this is that we don’t have enough investment in science and innovation to lift the productivity of our economy.
Agriculture is probably the most scientifically advanced of all our industries. Our primary industries have the scale, sophistication and the underlying science advantage to be a springboard for much greater things.
Everywhere you look around the world where economies have been successfully transformed to the benefit of their people and their communities, the pattern has been the same. It has been, without exception, where the government has worked alongside industry.
Yet, uncomfortable as it is for many people, especially in business, support for innovation in New Zealand has become a fault line between differing political philosophies. The current government wiped out a two billion public-private partnership in scientific research as soon as it got elected. A tax credit for research and development worth a billion dollars over three years was cancelled, and all this took place without much of a squeak, specifically from the business community itself.
This was nonsensical. We need innovation, talent and a culture that embeds innovation into the boardroom. And so we need a culture of creativity and success that celebrates and inspires the creation of new industry.
This was part of a speech given to the Conference of the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science at Te Papa on 04 October 2011.
The good, bad and ugly of parliamentary politics – with Jim Anderton and Simon Power
The ASPG Seminar in Parliament
The Good
The MMP environment has meant a far more diverse group of representatives. 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.
Another breakthrough has been the power and scrutiny of select committees. Almost every piece of legislation goes to select committee – the most democratic process of all Commonwealth Parliament as far as I know. Even the video surveillance legislation this month went to select committee at the very end of this term, when the Government wanted the Bill passed within days. The consultation process involved produced a bill that much better protected some ancient civil liberties; even though I’m sure it frustrated the Government. Select Committees are now often chaired by opposition MPs, so it is much more difficult for the government to control them.
When I chaired the sub-committee of the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee in 1984 we started an inquiry into the post-election devaluation. The government called it off after pressure from Treasury and the Reserve Bank by ordering the government members of the committee, to vote to cancel the enquiry. Ironically, the minister who gave that order was the same person who had written the book ‘Unbridled Power’ about the excessive use of political power by the executive over parliament. That couldn’t happen now.
The Bad
We have lobbying of minor parties by vested interests, who play each off against the others. One example - in 2008, as Minister of Fisheries I needed to amend the Fisheries Act following a court decision which put at risk the sustainability of our fisheries and to make it clear that the fishery should not be depleted by the way it was fished. Vested commercial interests spent a lot of time and resource lobbying first the Maori Party, then NZ First, and other parties. None wanted to be out-flanked by the Maori Party.
So we ended up with a law no one could intellectually defend because of the influence a few commercial interests had over minor parties.
So no system of government is perfect!
The Ugly
The defections of list MPs from the parties they were elected to represent have largely diminished now, but waka jumping gave MMP a very bad reputation. It was made too easy and even encouraged.
The adversarial nature of politics in the debating chamber is the ugly face of parliamentary politics most often displayed by the media to the people of New Zealand. It is not the reality of the overwhelming majority of the work of politicians at electorate, select committee, caucus or ministerial level in New Zealand politics.
New Zealanders would be better informed and have a different view of politics and politicians in their country if they were presented with a more balanced view of this reality.
Being elected as an MP to the Parliament of New Zealand is hard to do and happens to very few of our citizens. Since 1853 when our first parliament met with 36 MPs and the population of New Zealand was approximately 92,000, there have only been 1,365 MPs elected up until 2011 (158 years), with our population standing now at 4,416,324.
I have always believed that every citizen should stand for public office in their lifetime because it would create a much better understanding of the democratic process and a much healthier respect for politics and Parliament. But I’m not holding my breath!
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
Jim's E-News September
09/09/11 15:05 Filed in: Newsletters
John Key Fact Free
The ability of Prime Minister John Key to rewrite history and make things up as he goes is something that, despite my years in politics, continues to astound me.
On TVNZ’s Breakfast programme recently, John Key told interviewer Corin Dann that a law that I had passed to increase the price of sherry had the consequence of putting fortified wine manufacturers in his electorate out of business and causing grandmothers to move from their regular tipple of sherry to low-priced vodka. Key went on to tell Dann that increasing prices did not affect alcohol consumption.
In his comments, Key cynically ignored the fact that the law change, which, incidentally, I promoted on behalf of Labour’s Rick Barker, who was Minister of Customs but out of New Zealand at the time, the removal of a highly lethal product from the shelves of liquor outlets. It wasn’t Grandma’s sherry that was the target of the legislation, it was the so-called light spirits with an alcohol content of 23% or more. The law change was aimed at those selling high octane drinks to kids. Those drinks included vodka, gin, whiskey, and brandy. And the law change worked. Using price control to remove a literally lethal cocktail product aimed at young binge drinkers was a complete success. It reduced the sale of ‘light’ spirits by more than 80% and has virtually knocked them out of the market.
Although the cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year, Mr Key is trying to argue that the problem is binge-drinking restricted mostly to the young. He is wrong; alcohol abuse is a widespread problem, with 700,000 New Zealanders drinking too heavily with 60% of all police arrests involving the abuse of alcohol.
While John Key’s stance is one that alarms me, as is that of the media which fawns over his every word while failing to investigate the accuracy of his assertions. Key’s calculated use of his populist appeal, while pushing through legislation and policies that will ultimately harm our society, shows one thing; that John Key doesn’t actually care about people. He doesn’t really care about the ‘grandmas’ or binge-drinking teens, or the harm that the misuse of alcohol causes. What he revealed to Dann on the Breakfast programme was his true motivation; that of defending those people who manufacture cheap booze and cause misery to others in order to make themselves rich.
Transcript of the TVNZ interview with the PM.
My response.
Ministerial statement at the time.
Megan Woods endorsed for Wigram
It is now less than one month until I give my farewell, or valedictory, speech to Parliament, marking an end to my 27 years as the MP for Wigram and, before that, Sydenham. My speech is scheduled to be held at 5.45 pm on Tuesday 4 October and will be one of my last official duties in Parliament before getting back on the campaign trail, this time to help Labour’s Megan Woods.
While it will be unusual to campaign for someone else in “my” seat, I want to ensure that Megan is elected with a strong majority in order that she has a clear mandate to carry on the work that I have been doing. To that end, I have sent a personal letter to more than 28,000 households in the Wigram electorate endorsing Megan’s candidacy and urging constituents to vote for her.
John Key’s National Government, if re-elected in November, will cut Kiwisaver and Working for Families, reduce eligibility for such things as student loans and sell off state-owned assets. Undoubtedly Kiwibank will eventually be “on the block” and these are the very things I have spent my political career building and protecting. I want to leave Parliament safe in the knowledge that I will be handing over to some-one who will fight for these things just as I have done, and I trust Megan to do that.
Megan has been an important member of my own campaign team over the past 12 years and I know she has the skills, experience and ability to be a good MP and so it is very satisfying to be handing over responsibility to someone I know well and am confident will carry on what I hope has been a high-quality electorate service. In fact, her selection has made my decision to retire easier knowing that she has the qualities necessary to take over and be another hard working MP for Wigram.
Residents protest against liquor licenses
I recently addressed a protest rally by residents of Avonhead in Christchurch opposed to the granting of new licenses to discount liquor outlets in the area. These proposed outlets are in close proximity to student hostels and flats, the University of Canterbury and two secondary schools.
The stupidity of the licensing situation is illustrated in one of the applications where the authorities accept that another liquor outlet could only exacerbate existing liquor problems, but then went on to say they were not persuaded that the outlet’s car park and streets in the immediate area were likely to become venues for drinking.
In reaching their conclusion, the authorities were evidently not aware of, nor took into account, a number of significant, long-standing problems in the area caused by student drinking. Such has been the problem that, in April this year, the Christchurch City Council issued a temporary six-month public alcohol ban in this area. Since the ban has been in place there has continued to be a number of incidents, most recently an out-of-control party tied up all available police resources in Christchurch and which the police described as “highly dangerous”. So bad is the situation that local councillors have called for the temporary liquor ban to be made permanent.
The Council did not implement the current ban without reason. Vandalism, assaults and other crime caused through alcohol abuse has been prevalent in the area for decades, and the problem has been getting worse, not better. It defies belief to think that those authorities granting the resource consent could not have been aware of the extent of the alcohol problem in the area. To acknowledge that the granting of another licence could exacerbate the problem, but then not to be persuaded that the local streets in the immediate area would not become venues for drinking, ignores both history and logic.
The other point to note is that cheap liquor outlets regularly engage in alcohol promotion including the sale of discounted liquor. While they deny selling alcohol as a loss leader, many of the prices are extraordinarily low, with wine often being sold in supermarkets at less than half the normal retail price.
Again, it flies in the face of research and historical evidence to believe that students will not take advantage of discounted prices, particularly when cheap alcohol is available effectively on their own doorsteps.
My speech to the rally can be found here.
From the community organisers.
ECE funding cuts blot Minister’s copybook
If there are some things that defy belief, one would be the rise of education minister, Anne Tolley on the National Party list. Her climb, from 10 to 8 belies the disaster she has wreaked on the education portfolio.
Believing she knows more than the education profession, Minister Tolley forced the unpopular national standards onto schools before attempting to introduce changes to the early childhood sector that would have seen funding cuts to Playcentres of almost two-thirds of their entire budgets. An Early Childhood Education Taskforce, set up by Tolley, recommended that Playcentres be reclassified with the effect that they would lose 63 per cent of their funding.
At a rally, originally planned as a protest against the proposed cuts, I told parents and supporters that Playcentres are unique in the early childhood sector, differing from kindergartens and early childcare centres in that parents are directly involved in the care and education of their children. Playcentres offer parents a supportive environment to help educate their children because the centres act as community hubs, virtual extended families, offering help, guidance, mentoring and support when parents need it most. And because Playcentres involve parents in the running of their centres across New Zealand, they can offer affordable childcare.
Playcentres are the heart of Kiwi communities, and in some rural areas are often the only childcare available to families. The Government’s ECE Taskforce recommendation for funding cuts threatens the very survival of those Playcentres simply because they don’t fit into its current thinking.
On the Wednesday before the planned protest march, Anne Tolley was adamant the Government would not move on its plans, but within 24 hours she had abandoned that stance and was telling the media that there was no risk to funding. Perhaps the change of heart was because it is election year.
My message to the Playcentre supporters was that, if Anne Tolley can change her mind so quickly to appease them, she can just as easily change it back again.
My speech to the rally can be found here.
Farewell to Sir Paul
It was with great sadness that I joined many others last month in farewelling former Governor General Sir Paul Reeves.
Sir Paul’s appointment as Governor General was so obviously different to previous appointments in number of ways and he helped bring New Zealand into a new era. He was the first Maori appointed to the position, and the first to come from outside traditional diplomatic and legal circles. Importantly, he had a highly developed sense of social awareness and was not afraid to express his views.
Sir Paul was our first Governor General to have grown up after the great depression of the thirties and, like so many others who came of age in that time, he was influenced by the change it made to New Zealand and the way we think about ourselves. Throughout his life he identified with social and economic justice.
Always able to make his point effectively, Sir Paul could always cause people to pause and take stock, but without giving offence. That may have been because he came from a modest family background himself and never allowed himself to forget that.
Sir Paul knew from simply growing up and looking around that economic adversity and social exclusion can wound deeply, and that we must give everyone born into our communities as equal as possible a start in life, the sort of fair go society that most New Zealanders want to live in, and which is one of our most admirable achievements.
Sir Paul spoke out against the inequality between rich and poor, and against racial division. Neither was he afraid to push the limits of his constitutional position and its conventions and to make himself felt in political areas where his predecessors would have been reluctant to tread.
Above all else, Paul Reeves wore his talents lightly because he had that one thing which marks out those who serve us best; his modesty. Truly with his passing a mighty totara has fallen.
Release
Sea-change needed for New Zealand fishing industry
A change in the way we fish will reap dividends for the fishing industry and boost “Brand ‘New Zealand” if we can reverse current practices and industry thinking particularly by upskilling workers and addressing a number of outmoded industry practices that have dumbed-down our fishing industry.
I spoke recently in support of a petition from The Service and Food Workers’ Union to Parliament’s Primary Production Select Committee, urging a change in focus from treating seafood as a commodity to recognising our high quality wild fisheries as the ideal environment to produce a high premium product.
Too much of the fishing industry has compromised quality in favour of quantity in order to reap higher short-term dividends by treating seafood as a commodity. By going for volume, quality is lost which has resulted in low prices, widespread job losses and the devaluation of the enormous potential of our fishing industry.
There is no high value future in high-volume pulverised fishmeat caught in huge nets. The prices we are currently attracting for this product are no incentive to develop the high quality, high value fishing industry that New Zealand needs.
New Zealand has one of the most valuable wild fisheries in the world and we should expect to earn a sizable export premium from it.
Discerning chefs and restaurateurs will pay top dollar for fresh line-caught fish. We stand to gain significant market premiums for our fish exports if we can assure customers of high quality and sustainable practices that are the hallmarks of New Zealand food exports.
The current focus on using cheap foreign labour and bulk fishing is to the detriment of our fishing industry and risks giving New Zealand a bad reputation if it continues.
Meanwhile, interested parties have been invited to lodge written submissions with a Ministerial Panel inquiring into Foreign Charter Vessels fishing in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone. The Panel will be reviewing New Zealand's current policy and legislation as well as the economic return New Zealand is getting from our fishing resources.
The Inquiry Panel, which will hold public hearings in Auckland, Wellington, Nelson and Christchurch in October as well as visiting fishing vessels, will report its findings and recommendations to the Ministers of Fisheries and Labour on 24 February 2012.
Submissions close on Friday 7 October.
Further information about the Inquiry, including the Panel's terms of reference, can be found at www.fish.govt.nz
The ability of Prime Minister John Key to rewrite history and make things up as he goes is something that, despite my years in politics, continues to astound me.
On TVNZ’s Breakfast programme recently, John Key told interviewer Corin Dann that a law that I had passed to increase the price of sherry had the consequence of putting fortified wine manufacturers in his electorate out of business and causing grandmothers to move from their regular tipple of sherry to low-priced vodka. Key went on to tell Dann that increasing prices did not affect alcohol consumption.
In his comments, Key cynically ignored the fact that the law change, which, incidentally, I promoted on behalf of Labour’s Rick Barker, who was Minister of Customs but out of New Zealand at the time, the removal of a highly lethal product from the shelves of liquor outlets. It wasn’t Grandma’s sherry that was the target of the legislation, it was the so-called light spirits with an alcohol content of 23% or more. The law change was aimed at those selling high octane drinks to kids. Those drinks included vodka, gin, whiskey, and brandy. And the law change worked. Using price control to remove a literally lethal cocktail product aimed at young binge drinkers was a complete success. It reduced the sale of ‘light’ spirits by more than 80% and has virtually knocked them out of the market.
Although the cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year, Mr Key is trying to argue that the problem is binge-drinking restricted mostly to the young. He is wrong; alcohol abuse is a widespread problem, with 700,000 New Zealanders drinking too heavily with 60% of all police arrests involving the abuse of alcohol.
While John Key’s stance is one that alarms me, as is that of the media which fawns over his every word while failing to investigate the accuracy of his assertions. Key’s calculated use of his populist appeal, while pushing through legislation and policies that will ultimately harm our society, shows one thing; that John Key doesn’t actually care about people. He doesn’t really care about the ‘grandmas’ or binge-drinking teens, or the harm that the misuse of alcohol causes. What he revealed to Dann on the Breakfast programme was his true motivation; that of defending those people who manufacture cheap booze and cause misery to others in order to make themselves rich.
Transcript of the TVNZ interview with the PM.
My response.
Ministerial statement at the time.
Megan Woods endorsed for Wigram
It is now less than one month until I give my farewell, or valedictory, speech to Parliament, marking an end to my 27 years as the MP for Wigram and, before that, Sydenham. My speech is scheduled to be held at 5.45 pm on Tuesday 4 October and will be one of my last official duties in Parliament before getting back on the campaign trail, this time to help Labour’s Megan Woods.
While it will be unusual to campaign for someone else in “my” seat, I want to ensure that Megan is elected with a strong majority in order that she has a clear mandate to carry on the work that I have been doing. To that end, I have sent a personal letter to more than 28,000 households in the Wigram electorate endorsing Megan’s candidacy and urging constituents to vote for her.
John Key’s National Government, if re-elected in November, will cut Kiwisaver and Working for Families, reduce eligibility for such things as student loans and sell off state-owned assets. Undoubtedly Kiwibank will eventually be “on the block” and these are the very things I have spent my political career building and protecting. I want to leave Parliament safe in the knowledge that I will be handing over to some-one who will fight for these things just as I have done, and I trust Megan to do that.
Megan has been an important member of my own campaign team over the past 12 years and I know she has the skills, experience and ability to be a good MP and so it is very satisfying to be handing over responsibility to someone I know well and am confident will carry on what I hope has been a high-quality electorate service. In fact, her selection has made my decision to retire easier knowing that she has the qualities necessary to take over and be another hard working MP for Wigram.
Residents protest against liquor licenses
I recently addressed a protest rally by residents of Avonhead in Christchurch opposed to the granting of new licenses to discount liquor outlets in the area. These proposed outlets are in close proximity to student hostels and flats, the University of Canterbury and two secondary schools.
The stupidity of the licensing situation is illustrated in one of the applications where the authorities accept that another liquor outlet could only exacerbate existing liquor problems, but then went on to say they were not persuaded that the outlet’s car park and streets in the immediate area were likely to become venues for drinking.
In reaching their conclusion, the authorities were evidently not aware of, nor took into account, a number of significant, long-standing problems in the area caused by student drinking. Such has been the problem that, in April this year, the Christchurch City Council issued a temporary six-month public alcohol ban in this area. Since the ban has been in place there has continued to be a number of incidents, most recently an out-of-control party tied up all available police resources in Christchurch and which the police described as “highly dangerous”. So bad is the situation that local councillors have called for the temporary liquor ban to be made permanent.
The Council did not implement the current ban without reason. Vandalism, assaults and other crime caused through alcohol abuse has been prevalent in the area for decades, and the problem has been getting worse, not better. It defies belief to think that those authorities granting the resource consent could not have been aware of the extent of the alcohol problem in the area. To acknowledge that the granting of another licence could exacerbate the problem, but then not to be persuaded that the local streets in the immediate area would not become venues for drinking, ignores both history and logic.
The other point to note is that cheap liquor outlets regularly engage in alcohol promotion including the sale of discounted liquor. While they deny selling alcohol as a loss leader, many of the prices are extraordinarily low, with wine often being sold in supermarkets at less than half the normal retail price.
Again, it flies in the face of research and historical evidence to believe that students will not take advantage of discounted prices, particularly when cheap alcohol is available effectively on their own doorsteps.
My speech to the rally can be found here.
From the community organisers.
ECE funding cuts blot Minister’s copybook
If there are some things that defy belief, one would be the rise of education minister, Anne Tolley on the National Party list. Her climb, from 10 to 8 belies the disaster she has wreaked on the education portfolio.
Believing she knows more than the education profession, Minister Tolley forced the unpopular national standards onto schools before attempting to introduce changes to the early childhood sector that would have seen funding cuts to Playcentres of almost two-thirds of their entire budgets. An Early Childhood Education Taskforce, set up by Tolley, recommended that Playcentres be reclassified with the effect that they would lose 63 per cent of their funding.
At a rally, originally planned as a protest against the proposed cuts, I told parents and supporters that Playcentres are unique in the early childhood sector, differing from kindergartens and early childcare centres in that parents are directly involved in the care and education of their children. Playcentres offer parents a supportive environment to help educate their children because the centres act as community hubs, virtual extended families, offering help, guidance, mentoring and support when parents need it most. And because Playcentres involve parents in the running of their centres across New Zealand, they can offer affordable childcare.
Playcentres are the heart of Kiwi communities, and in some rural areas are often the only childcare available to families. The Government’s ECE Taskforce recommendation for funding cuts threatens the very survival of those Playcentres simply because they don’t fit into its current thinking.
On the Wednesday before the planned protest march, Anne Tolley was adamant the Government would not move on its plans, but within 24 hours she had abandoned that stance and was telling the media that there was no risk to funding. Perhaps the change of heart was because it is election year.
My message to the Playcentre supporters was that, if Anne Tolley can change her mind so quickly to appease them, she can just as easily change it back again.
My speech to the rally can be found here.
Farewell to Sir Paul
It was with great sadness that I joined many others last month in farewelling former Governor General Sir Paul Reeves.
Sir Paul’s appointment as Governor General was so obviously different to previous appointments in number of ways and he helped bring New Zealand into a new era. He was the first Maori appointed to the position, and the first to come from outside traditional diplomatic and legal circles. Importantly, he had a highly developed sense of social awareness and was not afraid to express his views.
Sir Paul was our first Governor General to have grown up after the great depression of the thirties and, like so many others who came of age in that time, he was influenced by the change it made to New Zealand and the way we think about ourselves. Throughout his life he identified with social and economic justice.
Always able to make his point effectively, Sir Paul could always cause people to pause and take stock, but without giving offence. That may have been because he came from a modest family background himself and never allowed himself to forget that.
Sir Paul knew from simply growing up and looking around that economic adversity and social exclusion can wound deeply, and that we must give everyone born into our communities as equal as possible a start in life, the sort of fair go society that most New Zealanders want to live in, and which is one of our most admirable achievements.
Sir Paul spoke out against the inequality between rich and poor, and against racial division. Neither was he afraid to push the limits of his constitutional position and its conventions and to make himself felt in political areas where his predecessors would have been reluctant to tread.
Above all else, Paul Reeves wore his talents lightly because he had that one thing which marks out those who serve us best; his modesty. Truly with his passing a mighty totara has fallen.
Release
Sea-change needed for New Zealand fishing industry
A change in the way we fish will reap dividends for the fishing industry and boost “Brand ‘New Zealand” if we can reverse current practices and industry thinking particularly by upskilling workers and addressing a number of outmoded industry practices that have dumbed-down our fishing industry.
I spoke recently in support of a petition from The Service and Food Workers’ Union to Parliament’s Primary Production Select Committee, urging a change in focus from treating seafood as a commodity to recognising our high quality wild fisheries as the ideal environment to produce a high premium product.
Too much of the fishing industry has compromised quality in favour of quantity in order to reap higher short-term dividends by treating seafood as a commodity. By going for volume, quality is lost which has resulted in low prices, widespread job losses and the devaluation of the enormous potential of our fishing industry.
There is no high value future in high-volume pulverised fishmeat caught in huge nets. The prices we are currently attracting for this product are no incentive to develop the high quality, high value fishing industry that New Zealand needs.
New Zealand has one of the most valuable wild fisheries in the world and we should expect to earn a sizable export premium from it.
Discerning chefs and restaurateurs will pay top dollar for fresh line-caught fish. We stand to gain significant market premiums for our fish exports if we can assure customers of high quality and sustainable practices that are the hallmarks of New Zealand food exports.
The current focus on using cheap foreign labour and bulk fishing is to the detriment of our fishing industry and risks giving New Zealand a bad reputation if it continues.
Meanwhile, interested parties have been invited to lodge written submissions with a Ministerial Panel inquiring into Foreign Charter Vessels fishing in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone. The Panel will be reviewing New Zealand's current policy and legislation as well as the economic return New Zealand is getting from our fishing resources.
The Inquiry Panel, which will hold public hearings in Auckland, Wellington, Nelson and Christchurch in October as well as visiting fishing vessels, will report its findings and recommendations to the Ministers of Fisheries and Labour on 24 February 2012.
Submissions close on Friday 7 October.
Further information about the Inquiry, including the Panel's terms of reference, can be found at www.fish.govt.nz
John Key is a fact free zone on alcohol pricing
29/08/11 16:28 Filed in: News Releases
John Key is rewriting history as he tries to explain why the government won't act on New Zealand's heavy drinking culture, Progressive Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
Talking about minimum pricing for alcohol on TVNZ's breakfast programme this morning, John Key said:
John Key: Now do you remember some years ago Jim Anderton passed a law that put the price of Sherry up.
Corin Dann: The Sherry drinkers yeah.
John Key: It did a couple of things. It put the fortified wine manufacturers in my electorate out of business, and it stopped grandma having a Sherry, so she moved off to a low price Vodka. It didn't actually change her consumption of alcohol. So yes I mean if you could get a price that was a high selling point for all alcohol, maybe, but all you're likely to do is raise excise across the board.
Jim Anderton says John Key is rewriting the history of a highly successful tax that removed a lethal product from the shelves.
"I introduced a Bill that increased the price of so-called light spirits - those that had 23 per cent proof alcohol.
"It was targeted at wiping out the light spirits industry, because they were selling high octane drinks to kids. They were 25 per cent proof of alcohol drinks of vodka, gin, whisky, and brandy.
“These so-called light spirits were lethal and the bill was a success. Sales of light spirits were reduced by 85 per cent and they went off the market. That was the whole point of the bill, and John Key speaks as if it was a bad thing.
"The cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is indicated by reputable economists and analysts to be in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year.
"Mr Key is now trying to argue that the problem is mostly binge-drinking and mostly the young. But that is not true. 700,000 New Zealanders drink heavily. Sixty per cent of all police arrests involve alcohol.
"And one measure that has made a difference in recent times - using price to remove a literally lethal product aimed at young binge drinkers - was a complete success,” Jim Anderton said.
Talking about minimum pricing for alcohol on TVNZ's breakfast programme this morning, John Key said:
John Key: Now do you remember some years ago Jim Anderton passed a law that put the price of Sherry up.
Corin Dann: The Sherry drinkers yeah.
John Key: It did a couple of things. It put the fortified wine manufacturers in my electorate out of business, and it stopped grandma having a Sherry, so she moved off to a low price Vodka. It didn't actually change her consumption of alcohol. So yes I mean if you could get a price that was a high selling point for all alcohol, maybe, but all you're likely to do is raise excise across the board.
Jim Anderton says John Key is rewriting the history of a highly successful tax that removed a lethal product from the shelves.
"I introduced a Bill that increased the price of so-called light spirits - those that had 23 per cent proof alcohol.
"It was targeted at wiping out the light spirits industry, because they were selling high octane drinks to kids. They were 25 per cent proof of alcohol drinks of vodka, gin, whisky, and brandy.
“These so-called light spirits were lethal and the bill was a success. Sales of light spirits were reduced by 85 per cent and they went off the market. That was the whole point of the bill, and John Key speaks as if it was a bad thing.
"The cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is indicated by reputable economists and analysts to be in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year.
"Mr Key is now trying to argue that the problem is mostly binge-drinking and mostly the young. But that is not true. 700,000 New Zealanders drink heavily. Sixty per cent of all police arrests involve alcohol.
"And one measure that has made a difference in recent times - using price to remove a literally lethal product aimed at young binge drinkers - was a complete success,” Jim Anderton said.
Enough is enough - liquor outlet community protest
20/08/11 13:06 Filed in: Speeches
Jim Anderton’s speech at liquor outlet community protest
Another liquor store is the last thing we need. Public drinking is a serious problem for this area. It’s got worse since the earthquakes closed the inner city. Just two weeks ago, four students were arrested, cars were vandalised and police were pelted with bottles in Riccarton.
How much of this behaviour do we have to take before we say it’s too much? It’s too hard for communities to oppose liquor outlets when we feel there are already too many in our neighbourhoods.
More places selling alcohol, a lower drinking age, and longer opening hours - it all adds up. It adds up to more alcohol abuse. It adds up to more harm to communities.
Communities are in a good position to judge for themselves whether there are too many places in an area to buy liquor.
Residents are good at gauging for themselves whether there are enough places.
But the law doesn’t give local communities enough say. The result is that it is too hard for a community to respond to increasing alcohol abuse.
You don't have to be a wowser to say the rules are too heavily weighted in favour of alcohol. But ‘wowser’ and ‘zealot’ and the labels that the alcohol industry puts on anyone who expresses concern about the harm caused by alcohol - Sensible people like Doug Selman, from the National Addiction Centre at the University of Otago, and Ross Bell, from the New Zealand Drug Foundation.
Liquor lobbyists like the Hospitality Association say drinkers should take personal responsibility for their own actions. That sounds reasonable. But it is the opposite, and it’s just as cynical as the arguments the tobacco industry used to use.
Those who are addicted to alcohol or affected by it are generally the least well equipped to deal with it responsibly. The hospitality industry knows this only too well.
I often ask myself what some of those same people would say if their own children or family members became addicted to an illegal drug such as methamphetamine.
Would they blame the children alone, or would they put some responsibility on the dealers.
The same goes for the alcohol industry.
We have a serious alcohol problem in New Zealand.
Sixty per cent of criminal offences are committed when the offender is under the influence of alcohol. There are 1350 violent physical assaults which take place in New Zealand homes each week fuelled by alcohol abuse.
If we want less crime and safer streets, we need to make alcohol less available.
This community is taking action. Everyone here today is taking personal responsible for making this community safer. We deserve to be listened to. We are entitled to say enough is enough.
We don’t need more drinking nor more places to drink.
What we need are safer streets and more respect for the wishes of this community to control the number of liquor outlets in our neighbourhood.
Another liquor store is the last thing we need. Public drinking is a serious problem for this area. It’s got worse since the earthquakes closed the inner city. Just two weeks ago, four students were arrested, cars were vandalised and police were pelted with bottles in Riccarton.
How much of this behaviour do we have to take before we say it’s too much? It’s too hard for communities to oppose liquor outlets when we feel there are already too many in our neighbourhoods.
More places selling alcohol, a lower drinking age, and longer opening hours - it all adds up. It adds up to more alcohol abuse. It adds up to more harm to communities.
Communities are in a good position to judge for themselves whether there are too many places in an area to buy liquor.
Residents are good at gauging for themselves whether there are enough places.
But the law doesn’t give local communities enough say. The result is that it is too hard for a community to respond to increasing alcohol abuse.
You don't have to be a wowser to say the rules are too heavily weighted in favour of alcohol. But ‘wowser’ and ‘zealot’ and the labels that the alcohol industry puts on anyone who expresses concern about the harm caused by alcohol - Sensible people like Doug Selman, from the National Addiction Centre at the University of Otago, and Ross Bell, from the New Zealand Drug Foundation.
Liquor lobbyists like the Hospitality Association say drinkers should take personal responsibility for their own actions. That sounds reasonable. But it is the opposite, and it’s just as cynical as the arguments the tobacco industry used to use.
Those who are addicted to alcohol or affected by it are generally the least well equipped to deal with it responsibly. The hospitality industry knows this only too well.
I often ask myself what some of those same people would say if their own children or family members became addicted to an illegal drug such as methamphetamine.
Would they blame the children alone, or would they put some responsibility on the dealers.
The same goes for the alcohol industry.
We have a serious alcohol problem in New Zealand.
Sixty per cent of criminal offences are committed when the offender is under the influence of alcohol. There are 1350 violent physical assaults which take place in New Zealand homes each week fuelled by alcohol abuse.
If we want less crime and safer streets, we need to make alcohol less available.
This community is taking action. Everyone here today is taking personal responsible for making this community safer. We deserve to be listened to. We are entitled to say enough is enough.
We don’t need more drinking nor more places to drink.
What we need are safer streets and more respect for the wishes of this community to control the number of liquor outlets in our neighbourhood.