ACT: The Right Partner for the John Key Government
AN ADDRESS BY DON BRASH, LEADER
ACT 2011 CAMPAIGN LAUNCH
13 NOVEMBER 2011
Ladies and gentlemen,
New Zealand needs ACT!
New Zealand’s a wonderful country.
We live in a country which is bigger than Britain, with more natural resources per person than almost any other country on Earth.
A country which has more fresh water per person than almost any other country on the planet.
A country which gave women the vote before any other country, and has one of the oldest democracies in the world.
A country where we can say with certainty that, no matter how vigorously we disagree with each other about politics, nobody will get shot, or beaten to death, in political turmoil.
A country which has produced Ed Hillary, and Kiri Te Kanawa, and Kate Sheppard, and Katherine Mansfield, and Jean Batten, and Apirana Ngata, and Bill Buckley, and Angus Tait, and Bill Gallagher, and Ernest Rutherford – a man ranked by some as close to Newton and Einstein in terms of his contribution to our understanding of physics.
It is a wonderful country.
But ladies and gentlemen, this country is at risk. Far too many people are finding it hard to make ends meet. Far too many young people can’t get a job. Far too many people fill our jails. Far too many children are poorly fed and poorly housed. Far too many families break down in acrimony and violence. Far too many young people come out of school unable to read and write. Far too many working age adults languish on a hand-out. Far too many towns and cities spew untreated waste into our once-clean streams and rivers.
And to a large extent these are the social costs of the under-performance of our economy. Once, we were one of the richest countries in the world. Our productivity was up with the best.
But then we were hit by the loss of our best export market, and by the disastrous policy response to that. By 1984, New Zealand was on the verge of bankruptcy. We were rescued by Sir Roger Douglas, the Minister of Finance who went on to found the ACT Party, and for more than 10 years productivity started growing strongly again.
But when Winston Peters became the Treasurer in 1996, and even worse when Helen Clark became Prime Minister in 1999, the momentum ended.
She introduced the envy tax for those on higher incomes; she reversed many of the labour market reforms; she introduced legislation giving local authorities the power to do whatever they wished; and she massively increased government spending towards the end of her reign – an increase which set up the years of deficit since 2009.
Today, the Government is borrowing hand over fist; $20 billion in the last year, hundreds of millions of dollars every week, the equivalent of hundreds of dollars a week for every household.
Productivity growth has fallen away – to an estimated 1% annually according to the Reserve Bank.
Despite the best export prices in a generation and weak import demand, the balance of payments is still in deficit – with that deficit projected to increase over the next few years. And as a result our debt to the rest of the world gets bigger, year by year – not yet at Greek or Spanish levels, but damned uncomfortable just the same.
Two credit rating agencies have downgraded us, and as a former Governor of the Reserve Bank I know that that’s an ominous sign.
The IMF projects growth in per capita income over the decade to 2016 to be half the growth they project for Australia over the same period. In fact, 148 countries are expected to grow faster than we will over that period. We would have been in a state of national mourning if even one other country had beaten us at rugby – we seem relaxed at being 149th in the economic growth stakes!
The gap between incomes here and incomes across the Tasman continues to grow. When National came to power, the gap was 35%; now it’s closer to 40%. As a result, New Zealanders leave in ever-increasing numbers; nearly 300,000 over the last decade.
Just last week, the Herald on Sunday wrote of the Kiwi families living in Australia but longing to come home. Couples like Adrian and Jules Paalvast, with three New Zealand-born sons – longing to return to New Zealand, but feeling unable to do so because Adrian makes three times the salary in Australia that he could make in New Zealand, thus enabling Jules to stay home with her four children.
A survey of 4,000 13-year-olds recently found that an astonishing 27% of them wanted to leave New Zealand permanently when they were old enough to do so.
Dealing with this challenge should be the dominant theme in the election campaign – but it’s not. The serious danger is that we could reach a tipping point, the point at which so many New Zealanders have left that it becomes a cumulative process, with each new departure easier to justify than the last one. Some suggest we may already have reached that point.
At this critical time in our country’s life, voters face a stark choice: do they want a centre-left government headed by Phil Goff or do they want a centre-right government headed by John Key? There are no other options available.
We in the ACT Party are in no doubt at all about which of these two men offers the better prospect for our great country, and we have already declared publicly that we will give Confidence and Supply to a John Key-led Government.
The Labour Party is advocating policies which nobody who cares for our long-term future could support – massively more borrowing than even National proposes; employment legislation which would see a return to the industrial mayhem which prevailed before 1991; a $15 minimum wage which would lead quite directly to more unemployment; an end to the 90-day trial period in employment contracts; a capital gains tax; a big increase in the compliance costs imposed on small businesses because of the exemption of fruit and vegetables from GST; a huge increase in the costs of the farming sector as a result of bringing biological emissions into the ETS in 2013; and an instruction to the Reserve Bank to stop worrying about inflation and start focusing on the exchange rate. This is crazy stuff.
As an aside, I understand as well as anybody the problem which big swings in the exchange rate cause for exporters. I spent almost 14 years of my life trying to reduce those big swings. Alas, there are no easy ways to eliminate them, not at least if keeping inflation under control is also an objective. The Labour Party pretended they knew what to do about this issue in 1999, when they were campaigning to win the election in that year, and promised to have the whole Reserve Bank framework put under a microscope. When they won the election, they duly appointed a monetary policy expert from Sweden to do exactly that, and after months of study, the expert declared the New Zealand monetary policy framework world’s best practice.
It may sound good to exporters for Labour to say that they will smooth out those exchange rate fluctuations and keep inflation under control: believe me, no central bank has yet discovered how to do that.
So there’s not the slightest chance that ACT could support Labour after the election.
But like many others, we want a John Key-led Government to deal more decisively with the challenges which our country faces than has been the case over the last three years.
The Government has introduced National Standards in the school system, and some of our schools are world class. But far too many young people are coming out of 10 or 12 years of school barely literate. Parents who scrimp and save to send their children to independent schools are forced to pay twice for the privilege, once through taxation and a second time through school fees. The school system remains highly centralised – with a centralised curriculum, and a centralised and bureaucratic remuneration system.
There has been a pleasing reduction in violent crime in the last three years, and the ACT Party can take some of the credit for that – we supported National in increasing police numbers, especially in South Auckland, and we were responsible for getting the Three Strikes legislation passed, so that repeat violent and sexual offenders spend longer in jail.
But there is still far too much senseless violence, and too often the police prosecute the victim of that crime, as when Virender Singh was prosecuted a year or so ago when he tried to defend himself with a hockey stick while being attacked by five drunken youths.
Right now, the world economy is looking more ominous than at any time in my life-time. I spent a few days visiting London and Washington late last month to get a first-hand picture of just how bad things might get. I came home deeply worried – the Eurozone is in serious trouble because of irresponsible government spending in the countries of southern Europe; the United Kingdom and the United States are struggling under massive government deficits; and Japan seems unable to get to grips with its own massive government debt. The scope for the world economy to endure a prolonged and deep recession is all too evident.
In this threatening global environment, we believe the Government needs to urgently focus its spending on those who most need it, to flatten and reduce taxes in order to encourage investment, and to radically reduce the bureaucracy which makes life so miserable for homeowners, farmers, and manufacturers – indeed, for anybody wanting to do something!
Realistically, ACT is the only party which can help National do what John Key and the rest of the Cabinet know needs to be done. And Friday’s “cup of tea” shows clearly that John Key knows that.
Over the last three years, ACT has ensured stable centre-right government – indeed, we enabled John Key to announce that he was in a position to form a government on the night of the last election, because we had pledged support to National in advance, as we have done again.
Again and again, we supported National Party-initiated legislation when without our support legislation would have failed.
We gave voice to widespread public concern about the Anti-Smacking law, the Marine and Coastal Area Act, and the Emissions Trading Scheme, though ultimately in vain.
We can claim much of the credit for the retention of the right to silence in criminal cases.
And as I’ve mentioned, as a result of our initiative, the Three Strikes legislation was passed. As a result of our initiative, students are no longer obliged to join a union. As a result of our initiative, the Productivity Commission was set up. As a result of our initiative, the 2025 Taskforce was set up, and the National Party committed to promoting policies which would close the income gap with Australia by 2025. (National doesn’t talk about closing that gap much anymore, because they know they don’t have a plan to close it. ACT does!)
So we’ve shown we can work with National, and can deliver positive benefits for New Zealand.
But much remains to be done.
In the last few weeks, National has gone some way towards policies which we strongly support by proposing quite far-reaching welfare reform, some useful changes in employment law, and some steps in the right direction in enabling employers to take on teenagers at less than the adult minimum wage. They’ve even made some tentative suggestions for reforming the Resource Management Act. We support all these moves – as far as they go.
But let me set out what we would like to achieve in the next Parliament.
There are nine policy areas we’ll be looking to work with National on to improve the lives of all New Zealanders, and perhaps especially those New Zealanders whom the major parties seem to have forgotten – those who struggle to keep small and entrepreneurial businesses alive, the farmers and those who provide services in rural communities, the self-employed taxi drivers and dairy owners (for whom earning even $13 an hour for the hours worked seems a distant dream), those struggling to cope with the burden of bureaucratic officials and senseless red-tape.
Pass Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill and Regulatory Standards Bill
1) First, we want to ensure that the two Bills introduced by Rodney Hide in the last Parliament are passed into law – namely the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill.
The Spending Cap Bill would not require any reduction in government spending – indeed, it would explicitly allow government spending to increase as our population grows and as prices rise, and it would allow for a complete exemption from the cap to deal with a national emergency, such as the Christchurch earthquakes – but it would prevent future governments engaging in the kind of grossly irresponsible electoral bribes which the Clark Government undertook in the last three years of that Government’s life. For this reason, we believe its passage is well overdue.
Similarly, the Regulatory Standards Bill – opposed by most government departments and supported by most people in the private sector – would raise the bar on new legislation and regulation to the considerable benefit of everybody.
Only a party vote for ACT will get these two fundamentally important pieces of legislation passed into law!
Reduce government spending relative to the size of the economy to enable radical tax reduction, and a lower exchange rate
2) Second, we will be pushing for a faster reduction in government spending – relative to the size of the economy – than that currently envisaged. At the moment, government spending is a larger share of the total economy than in any year of the last Labour Government. And yet there are a number of spending programmes which National criticised strongly when in Opposition but which remain untouched – programmes which have little or no merit in terms of any concept of social justice.
Getting spending under control more quickly would have three important benefits.
It would hasten the day when we’re no longer borrowing from our children to make life more enjoyable for ourselves.
It would enable tax rates to be reduced and flattened. We’re especially keen to get the company tax rate reduced – that’s vitally important if we’re to see a strong increase in investment in New Zealand. Yes, our company tax rate was reduced last year, but taken together with the change in depreciation allowances the overall effect was to increase the effective corporate tax rate. In any event, our company tax rate remains at 28%. That in fast-growing Singapore and Hong Kong is only 17%.
By how much could tax rates be reduced? The 2025 Taskforce showed that, if government spending could be reduced to the same share of GDP that it was in 2005, at the end of Labour’s second three-year term in office, then the top personal tax rate and the company tax rate could both be reduced to 20%. I’m not confident that that’s still possible, but a radical reduction of both rates could certainly be achieved.
Because of the crucial need to raise wages and salaries by increasing investment, we favour accepting that there will need to be an ongoing gap between the company rate and the top personal rate (as there is currently) by introducing a radically lower company tax rate at 12.5%, with the top personal rate as low as revenue will allow, perhaps 25%. We don’t doubt that that would have a very dramatic effect on investment, and therefore on wages, salaries and jobs.
Another substantial benefit of getting government spending reduced more quickly is that it would help reduce the exchange rate – vitally important if farmers and other exporters are to generate the strong growth in exports that our high level of overseas debt demands.
This is partly because much of the borrowing being undertaken by the government is being done by selling bonds to foreigners – and of course those foreigners have to buy New Zealand dollars to buy the government bonds.
It’s also partly because tighter restraint on government spending would almost inevitably prompt the Reserve Bank to further reduce the Official Cash Rate, and that too would reduce the upward pressure on the exchange rate. Yes, the OCR is lower now than at any time in our history, but it’s also higher than in any other developed country except Australia. There can’t be much doubt that if the OCR were, say, 1% rather than 2.5%, the exchange rate would be lower and export growth would be stronger.
Only a party vote for ACT will get government spending back under control quickly, and take the pressure off exporters!
Radically reduce bureaucracy
3) Third, we will be pushing for a strong attack on bureaucracy. And by that we don’t simply mean a reduction in the number of bureaucrats, though that would no doubt be part of it. We mean taking an axe to some of the more ridiculous rules and regulations which those bureaucrats enforce:
· The rule which enables Auckland Council planners to tell a home-owner to paint her white house black or brown because it’s near the Kaipara;
· The rule which requires a retailer of farming equipment in Masterton to get approval before erecting a sign on his own property;
· The rule which requires a farmer to get approval before building a hay-barn on his own property;
· The rule which enables local authority planners to designate a farm as having outstanding landscape value, without any suggestion of compensation for the loss of value which that designation involves;
· The rule which requires a farmer to get a building consent to replace his home after it’s burnt down;
· The law which enables local authorities to tightly constrain the supply of land, with disastrous consequences for housing affordability for most young New Zealanders.
Fixing these frustrating and expensive rules would almost certainly require a fundamental reform of both the RMA and the Local Government Act, and quite possibly an amendment to the Bill of Rights Act to ensure that the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s own property is enshrined in law.
Only a party vote for ACT will make a serious dent in the inane bureaucratic rules which cost us a fortune and ruin our lives!
Take an axe to the Emissions Trading Scheme
4) Fourth, we also want to take an axe to the Emissions Trading Scheme. Whatever you believe about the causes of climate change, it makes no sense at all for New Zealand, producing just 0.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, to have the only all sectors, all gasses, ETS in the world.
No other country penalises farming for its production of greenhouse gases, and yet that is a major part of the ETS in New Zealand.
Yes, National proposes to defer the inclusion of agriculture into our ETS until 2015; Labour proposes to include it from 2013.
But even now agriculture is hurt by the effect of the ETS on the price of electricity, petrol, diesel, and coal. If biological emissions were to be included in the ETS on the basis proposed by the Labour Party, it would have an absolutely devastating effect on the viability of a great many farms. Even the deferment proposed by the National Party would at best leave farmers paying thousands of dollars for their use of on- and off-farm energy. New Zealand’s farming sector – the most efficient producer of food in the world – doesn’t deserve that kind of punishment.
Indeed, there’s a strong argument that biological emissions don’t add to greenhouse gases at all: every unit of carbon emitted by pastures, crops and animals was first absorbed from the atmosphere.
Only a party vote for ACT can protect farmers – and the rest of us – from the ETS!
Give parents effective control over their children’s education
5) Fifth, we want taxpayer funding to “follow the child”, to give parents an opportunity to send their children to any school willing to take them, as already happens with Early Childhood Education. This would enable parents to send their child to an independent school if that was their preference, or to an “integrated school”.
And to enable parents to make an informed choice about which school is best suited to their child, we would open up SchoolSMART, a website run by the Ministry of Education which holds information about schools, about pupils’ performance, about teacher performance and about other indicators. National once campaigned to make this information available to parents. In Government, they haven’t done it.
We would recognise long-established and well run state schools, such as Auckland Grammar, Epsom Girls, McLean’s College, Rangitoto College, Wellington College and Christchurch Boys High School, as “trust schools”, and allow them to operate substantially free from bureaucratic control – including giving them the ability to establish other campuses, perhaps by acquiring schools which might be losing pupils.
Only a party vote for ACT will give parents a chance to choose the school which best suits their child, and boards of trustees and principals a chance to run their schools free from the stifling hand of Wellington bureaucrats!
Promote a multi-party consensus on changes to New Zealand Superannuation
6) Sixth, we will push for a multi-party consensus on changes to New Zealand Superannuation to ensure its long-term viability as our population gradually ages.
The Labour Party has recently announced their support for a gradual increase in the age of eligibility, as we proposed months ago. They’ve adopted the proposal of the Retirement Commissioner, which would see the age of eligibility reach 67 by 2033.
We think that that’s too slow, not affecting in any material way the baby boomer generation.
The Australian Labor Government has announced that the age at which Australians will become eligible for their taxpayer-funded pension scheme will reach 67 by 2023, 10 years earlier than the Labour Party has proposed here.
But whether by 2023 or 2033, this issue needs to be put on the agenda. Most other developed countries are gradually increasing the age at which their citizens become eligible for taxpayer-funded retirement income, and for the same reason. We’re all living longer. It’s totally irresponsible to pretend that no increase will be needed.
Only a party vote for ACT will ensure that this issue is addressed in a timely way!
Promote a safer, more secure, society
7) Seventh, we will push to make New Zealand a safer and fairer place by ensuring that the victims of crime are not subject to unfair scrutiny by the police when they try to defend themselves, and ensuring that young offenders are appropriately dealt with before their criminal activities escalate.
The statute books already entitle people to use reasonable force to defend themselves and their property. But in practice it’s all too common for the police to charge people who defend themselves – in other words, for the police to treat victims as criminals.
I mentioned the case of Virender Singh a moment ago. I could have mentioned the case of Greg Carvell, charged with shooting and wounding an intruder who was threatening him and two of his staff with a machete. Or the case of Paul McIntyre, charged with shooting and wounding one of three men who were trying to steal his property in a remote location in the dead of night. There have been far too many similar cases.
While clearly the use of force in defence of person and property must be reasonable – it would clearly be absurd to use lethal force against a teenager retrieving a ball from your front lawn – the present policy needs to change. We believe there’d be merit in enshrining the right to self-defence in the Bill of Rights Act.
In respect of youth offending, there’s a lot of evidence that to the extent young people get away with minor offending, there’s an increased chance of their engaging in further and more serious offending. We will ensure that all young people know that breaking the law has consequences, in order to ensure our young people stay on the straight and narrow. Ensuring that young people receive a decent education, and can find a job when they need one, will also help keep young people out of trouble.
Only a party vote for ACT will protect your right to self defence, and make it clear to our young people that every crime has a consequence!
Push for equal legal status for all New Zealanders, irrespective of race
8) Our eighth agenda item is to give effective force to Article III of the Treaty of Waitangi – the clause which asserts that all New Zealanders have equal status at law. We reject the notion that the Treaty established a “partnership” between “the Crown” (on behalf of all New Zealanders) and a subset of New Zealanders defined by their ancestry. If Article III is taken seriously, it leaves no room for separate Maori electorates in Parliament, no room for Maori wards in local government, and no room for requiring consultation with Maori over and above the obligation to consult with any other New Zealander.
We believe that, except where already in private ownership, the foreshore and seabed should belong to the Crown, on behalf of all New Zealanders. Because we are a party which believes in the rule of law, and in particular the right of all New Zealanders to have access to the courts, we also believe that those who think they have a customary right to certain parts of the foreshore should be allowed to have their claims tested in court. And we mean tested in court: we don’t regard negotiating such claims with a minister, within an intensely political environment where Parliamentary votes are at stake, as at all a substitute.
We favour the enactment of a simple piece of legislation providing that nothing in any statute or regulation, whether passed by Parliament or by any other regulation-making body, should confer any benefit, preferment or special status on anybody by reason of the ethnicity of that person.
Only a party vote for ACT will move New Zealand forward to a state where all New Zealanders – those of Maori ancestry, those of European ancestry, those of Asian ancestry, those of Pacific Island ancestry – all of us have equal rights under the law!
Re-establish a constructive relationship with Fiji
9) Finally, we will push to rebuild our relationship with Fiji.
The ACT Party has long been in broad agreement with the thrust of New Zealand’s foreign policy: in particular, we favour the drive for building new relationships with China, India and other emerging countries in Asia, and for working hard to bring the Trans Pacific Partnership to a successful conclusion. We have supported the Government in its determination to fulfill New Zealand’s commitments in Afghanistan until next April. We continue to regard a close relationship with Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada as fundamental to our security.
But we’ve come to the conclusion after extensive talks with Fijians now living in New Zealand, and New Zealanders with long experience in the Pacific, that our present policy of holding the Bainimarama regime at arm’s length is not working for New Zealand or for Fiji.
Fiji has long been family: many New Zealanders holiday there and a significant number have business interests there. Many New Zealanders were born there.
We need to rebuild a positive relationship with that country – encouraging the regime towards its professed aim of building a vibrant colour-blind democracy, based on one vote one person.
Only a party vote for ACT will lead to a re-examination of our relationship with Fiji!
So there you have a summary statement – the ACT Plan for the next Parliamentary term if you like – setting out what we will be aiming to achieve in the next Parliament.
All of our policies are motivated by a concern for those New Zealanders who, like Adrian and Jules Paalvast, want to return to their homeland, but feel that they can’t do so in fairness to their children. And for those who still live in New Zealand but feel deeply torn between what this country has to offer and the much higher living standard which, for the foreseeable future, they could enjoy abroad.
And when we look at the policy positions being adopted by other potential partners of the National Party, we’re convinced that ACT is the most logical partner for National.
The parties of the left – Labour, Mana, Maori and Green parties – are in a competition over who can come up with the most economically irrational policies. They are in a race to increase the minimum wage – in the process, destroying jobs and consigning those they claim to represent to the unemployment benefit. So much for compassion!
Their other policies would be just as destructive. The Maori Party wants to exempt the first $25,000 of income from tax; to make teaching te reo compulsory in secondary schools; to scrap the 90 day probationary period; to write Treaty of Waitangi principles (whatever they are!) into employment law; and to give iwi a veto over foreign investment.
The Green Party wants to protect the environment, as of course we in ACT do also, but has a totally unworldly view of how economies work and has no understanding what a devastating impact on our living standards the implementation of their core policy platform would have. For a party that talks up their opposition to big business, they seem intent on delivering massive subsidies to big businesses that promise to create so-called “green jobs” – despite policies of that kind leading to massive job losses in countries such as Spain which have gone down that path.
By contrast, ACT shares much the same basic philosophy as the National Party – a belief in freedom, in individual responsibility, in limited government, in equal citizenship, a belief that New Zealanders’ lives would be better by having less government – less government taxation, less government spending, less government borrowing, less government bureaucracy. And we actually mean it!
Of course, we have differences of opinion with National too. We want to see much more vigorous action to deal with our problems than National has felt able to deliver over the last three years.
But we haven’t the slightest doubt that we could again work constructively with National, to the benefit of all New Zealanders – high income and low income; young and old; urban and rural; Maori, Asian, Pacifika and European.
And that’s my message to all New Zealanders. ACT is the only party with the experience and the commitment which can help a John Key-led Government deal with the challenges which our country faces.
And those challenges are huge.
In a world getting tired of countries which can’t live within their means, we’re still borrowing like there is no tomorrow.
In a world where our people are getting steadily greyer, we’re not confronting the challenges posed by the increasing cost of New Zealand Super, of care for the aged, and of healthcare.
In a world where people find it easier and easier to move countries, we’re drifting off the pace, and seeing too many of our young people deciding to make a better life for themselves somewhere else.
A party vote for ACT at this election is your best way to ensure that we meet those challenges, for the benefit of all New Zealanders.
Speech To Victoria International Development Society
The first thing I would like to say is thank you to Vic IDS for hosting this panel on international development. It's great to see so many people here this evening.
New Zealand And Fiji: Moving Forward
Speech to Friends of Fiji
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
I greatly appreciate this opportunity to meet with you this evening.
As you probably know, the ACT Party was founded some 15 years ago with a primary focus on helping all New Zealanders enjoy a better life, and to do that through less intrusive government.
And when I say we were founded to help all New Zealanders, I mean all New Zealanders – those on high incomes and those on low incomes, those whose ancestors arrived here centuries ago and those who’ve only just become citizens.
That’s meant that most of our focus over that 15 year period has been on economic and social policy – on how to ensure that all New Zealanders are able to afford decent housing and decent healthcare; on how to ensure that all New Zealanders can choose high quality education for their children; on how to ensure that all New Zealanders are safe in their homes and in their streets; on how to ensure that all New Zealanders are equal before the law, with no special privilege based on race.
Economic and social policy is still our primary focus because we’re very much aware that a great many New Zealanders are finding it hard to get ahead, indeed, even hard to make ends meet.
As a party, we’ve not had a strong focus on foreign policy. We’ve supported the basic thrust of New Zealand’s foreign policy under successive governments – a commitment to constructive engagement with the world based on respect for all peoples and the rule of law.
But tonight I want to talk about New Zealand’s relationship with Fiji because I’ve come to the conclusion that current policy is not serving the interests of Fiji or the interests of New Zealand.
Some years ago, but after the Bainimarama coup in late 2006, I first heard a Fijian of European ethnicity argue that both Australia and New Zealand had it wrong – that by isolating the Bainimarama regime we were not helping Fiji and we were not acting in our own national interest.
More recently, I’ve heard that view expressed by a number of Fijians of Indian ethnicity. And I’ve heard it expressed by some New Zealanders who know the Pacific well.
So what is New Zealand’s official stance towards Fiji at present? As you all know, of course, it’s to have as little to do with the Bainimarama regime as possible. We’ve not imposed economic or trade sanctions on the country, but we’ve placed a ban on visits to New Zealand by anybody associated with the regime, including in particular the Fiji military, and placed travel restrictions even on New Zealand residents who once had links to the regime.
We’ve made it abundantly clear that we don’t like military coups and we want Fiji to return to a democratic government as quickly as possible. When Fiji failed to hold elections in 2009, when first promised, New Zealand pushed for the country to be excluded from meetings of the Commonwealth and the Pacific Islands Forum, and to this day Fiji remains on the outside of both bodies. We’ve made it clear that we don’t accept Bainimarama’s commitment to have elections by 2014 as in any way adequate, and the implication is that actually we don’t trust him to hold elections in that year anyway.
Let me make it clear that the ACT Party does not condone military coups either. Military coups almost always result in the suspension of the civil rights that we in New Zealand take for granted – freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly – and the Fiji military coup has been no exception in that regard. There are reports of imprisonment without trial, of people dying in unexplained circumstances, of newspapers being closed down, of trade unions being banned. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say it again: the ACT Party does not condone military coups!
But let me make several points.
First, New Zealand does not ban visits to New Zealand by the leaders of all the countries which fail to live up to New Zealand’s standards of democracy. Over the years, we’ve had more or less normal relationships with countries having a very wide range of government systems – from western-style democracies, to “guided democracies”, to countries which oscillate between democratic government and military rule, to countries which are more or less benign dictatorships, to countries which are brutal dictatorships.
Second, it now appears clear that most of Fiji’s immediate neighbours want to engage constructively with the country, notwithstanding the absence of any resolution to that effect at the meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum summit in Auckland in mid-September.
At the very beginning of this month, at a meeting in Fiji, the representatives of 11 of Fiji’s Pacific neighbours – including Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Tonga – issued a communiqué which reaffirmed “Fiji’s Strategic Framework for Change as a credible home-grown process for positioning Fiji as a modern nation state and to hold parliamentary elections”, and noted the importance of Fiji’s “full participation in regional development initiatives and programmes”.
Third, although it’s always difficult to measure public opinion accurately when people are afraid to speak freely, a survey of Fijian opinion conducted last month by the respected Sydney-based Lowy Institute for International Policy found that 75% of Indo-Fijians and 60% of indigenous Fijians felt that Bainimarama was doing a good or very good job as Prime Minister. The same survey found substantial majorities holding a favourable view of the government’s performance in delivering education, transport and health services, in ending racial inequalities and divisions, and in improving land ownership laws. Even discounting for the influence of the military regime on people’s willingness to answer such surveys honestly, it seems likely that the Bainimarama regime enjoys quite considerable popular support within Fiji.
Fourth, it’s important to remember that in the 24 years since 1987, Fiji has had five military coups and five general elections. The Bainimarama coup of late 2006 was simply the most recent of those coups. There are no doubt many factors which contribute to military coups, but in Fiji’s case the environment at the time of the latest coup was bleak. The National Council for Building a Better Fiji noted in early 2008 that:
Today, Fiji’s people are, by and large, disappointed and disenchanted. The dream of a tolerant, united and prosperous nation has been replaced by a different reality: a reality characterised by political instability, repeated coups, economic stagnation, increasing religious and racial intolerance, a rising tide of serious crime and violence, widespread poverty, the emigration of many talented citizens and, for many, hopelessness and despair."
The Council noted that a major source of the underlying problem was the electoral system. It noted that the constitution reserved:
“places excessively and unfairly as Communal seats that make up over half the House of Representatives. This entrenches a coup culture through race based politics that impedes our national development.”
As far back as 1996, the Constitution Review Commission chaired by the late Sir Paul Reeves asserted that “the people of Fiji need to make a conscious choice about whether they wish to take a decisive step away from the communal system that has made ethnic policies inevitable since before independence.”
It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that a great deal of the political instability suffered by Fiji since independence stems from the fact that Fiji’s constitutional arrangements have been designed to entrench the power of indigenous Fijians and, within that community, the power of the traditional chiefs.
Commodore Bainimarama is himself an indigenous Fijian of course. He heads an army which is almost entirely made up of indigenous Fijians. Of the 21 Permanent Secretaries in the Fijian Government, all but three are indigenous Fijians. All but two of his ministers are indigenous Fijians.
But what Bainimarama claims to want is a “colour blind” Fijian constitution, a country where every citizen is equal before the law.
The “People’s Charter for Change, Peace and Progress”, published at the end of 2008 after an extensive round of consultations throughout Fiji, stated that its overarching objective was “to rebuild Fiji into a non-racial, culturally vibrant and united, well-governed, truly democratic nation; a nation that seeks progress and prosperity through merit-based equality of opportunity and peace”
It noted that “our nation needs to urgently remove all unjustifiable systems, policies and programmes which are based on racial discrimination or narrow communal considerations.”
It noted that “Fiji’s electoral system is racially discriminatory and undemocratic… The current communal system of representation entrenches inequalities by not providing one value for one vote, has contributed to the ‘coup culture’, and the consequent ethnic-based politics that has impeded our national development. We commit ourselves to a free and fair electoral process that promotes one people, one nation, and one identity.”
A constitution where every citizen is equal under the law is exactly what the ACT Party stands for in New Zealand – one law for all, irrespective of race, irrespective of when people arrived in New Zealand – so not surprisingly I find that commitment one which I strongly endorse.
Indeed, I have read the “People’s Charter” and found hardly a word in it which I would change. In fact, I wondered whether the authors of the “Charter” had been reading the ACT Party’s manifesto when I read that “the Government plays an over dominant role in the economy with politicians and officials second guessing the business decisions of private sector entrepreneurs (through investment approvals, planning approvals, and price control approvals) rather than in planning and implementing their own primary responsibilities, especially in the provision of basic public services”!
Ironically, with a high rate of emigration by Indo-Fijians (with many coming to New Zealand to our great advantage) and a relatively low birth rate, the Indian share of Fiji’s population has been falling steadily for many years, and now stands at only about 34%. In other words, an electoral system firmly based on the principle of one-person-one-vote would leave indigenous Fijians in full control of the legislature if they were to vote along ethnic lines. But of course such a system would not allow the traditional chiefs to retain their previous primacy.
Let me conclude by saying that I don’t want to pretend that dealing with a military dictator is easy. And nobody should be comfortable with the fact that Fiji has suffered five military coups in just 24 years.
But New Zealand and Fiji have been friends for a very long time. Our soldiers have fought alongside Fijian soldiers. Our rugby players have played against Fijian rugby players. We have been tourists in each other’s country. Our business people have done business together. Fiji is a vitally important piece of the South Pacific jigsaw. The survey conducted last month by the Lowy Institute revealed an enormous amount of goodwill towards New Zealand on the part of ordinary Fijians. It’s not in Fiji’s interests and it’s not in New Zealand’s interests to keep Fiji in a state of isolation.
Nobody likes to lose face by changing direction – not military rulers and not democratically elected Foreign Ministers.
But if ACT gets back into the next Parliament in sufficient numbers, we’ll certainly be encouraging whomever the Foreign Minister is to re-engage with Fiji, in the interests of both Fiji and New Zealand.
Brash To Call For Re-Engagement With Fiji
ACT Party Leader Don Brash will call for a step change in New Zealand’s relations with Fiji in a speech to a Friends of Fiji dinner in Auckland tonight.
While neither he nor the ACT Party endorses military dictatorships in any way, Dr Brash says that by isolating the Bainimarama regime New Zealand is neither helping Fiji nor acting in our own national interest, and a pragmatic approach is now required.
“It’s important to remember that in the 24 years since 1987, Fiji has had five military coups and five general elections. The Bainimarama coup of late 2006 was simply the most recent of those coups.
“Of course I am 100 percent in favour of democracy, and that is what I wish for Fiji, so I am encouraged that positive steps appear to be being taken in that direction.”
Dr Brash refers to the People’s Charter for Change, Peace and Progress, which was published at the end of 2008 after an extensive round of consultations throughout Fiji, and states that its overarching objective is ‘to rebuild Fiji into a non-racial, culturally vibrant and united, well-governed, truly democratic nation; a nation that seeks progress and prosperity through merit-based equality of opportunity and peace’.
“Unsurprisingly, I identify strongly with the Charter’s objective.
“A major factor behind Fiji’s coups over the years has been their communal electoral system, so the kind of constitutional reform that has been proposed is exactly what Fiji needs, but to help encourage it, we must re-engage.
“New Zealand and Fiji have been friends for a very long time. Our soldiers have fought alongside each other, our rugby players have played together and competed against each other, our business people have done business together, and we have been tourists in each other’s countries.
“Many Fijians have encouraged me to give this speech. They understand that it is now in Fiji’s best interests for New Zealand to take a pragmatic approach, but that it requires political will-power.
“Nobody likes to lose face by changing direction – neither military rulers nor democratically elected foreign ministers. But a strong ACT Party in the next Parliament will advocate vigorously for the resumption of engagement with Fiji, in the interests of both Fiji and New Zealand,” Dr Brash said.
ACT Leader Don Brash Speech to Friends of Fiji; 7.00pm Friday 23 September 2011, Chandni Chowk Function Centre, 23 Eric Baker Place, corner Great South and Kolmar Streets, Papatoetoe, Auckland
New Zealand Mourns Soldier's Death
The reported death of a New Zealand SAS soldier in Afghanistan is a tragic turn of events for all Kiwis, says ACT New Zealand Leader Dr Don Brash.
"ACT fully supports the involvement of the NZ Defence Force in all its current peace support operations, including Afghanistan, and it is vital that our nation does not fixate on theatres of operations, specific units or the politics of New Zealand foreign policy in times like these.
Our thoughts are with the family of the soldier," Dr Brash said.
ENDS
Heather Roy's Diary
TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY
Truth, they say, is stranger than fiction. The Israeli spy fiasco that has led the news for the past few days is a plot Le Carre might be tempted to write, or perhaps more likely, not even have entertained for its incompetence.
So what is really going on? The story started this week with the revelation that a young Israeli was killed in the February 22 Christchurch earthquake. Initial reports said the dead man had 5 passports and his three backpacking companions had fled the country within 12 hours because they were all spies. As the week progressed it transpired that he really had two passports – one Israeli, one European - and his three friends had handed his Israeli passport to the Israeli Ambassador on their way out of the country.
By Friday morning the news reports were this:
Among the further mysteries that emerged yesterday was confirmation from Key's office that Michal Fraidman, Guy Jordan and Liron Sade left Christchurch on one of the earliest flights out after the February 22 earthquake, on an air force 757.
They were met at Wellington Airport the next day by a local police officer, who questioned them about the identification of their dead friend Ofer Mizrahi, according to an Israeli woman who lives in Christchurch and met the three in an emergency shelter at Hagley Park on the night of the quake.
So, it would appear that after investigation approved by the Prime Minister that the group really were what they said – backpackers, not Mossad agents.
There has also been much speculation about the Israeli Search and Rescue team. On Thursday the Prime Minister’s office said that the SAR team was escorted from the Christchurch CBD ‘red zone’. On Friday however the team manager has said that they never entered the ‘red zone’ and so were never evicted. The team manager has been open about his prior involvement as a special operations paratrooper and his service in the Israeli intelligence community but this just appears to have fuelled the ‘spy ring’ rumours. It may be that the SAR team was turned away because it was made up of army personnel.
One thing overlooked by the conspiracy theorists is everyone serves in the military in Israel, including the women. So to have excluded them for that reason is extremely short-sighted, if not ignorant. New Zealand SAR teams have commented on how efficient the Israelis were in finding all their nationals and identifying three Israeli citizens killed in the earthquake.
Add to the mix the more recent suggestion that someone within the New Zealand SIS may have leaked information which revealed concern at the agency about Israeli spies operating in Christchurch. It was a journalist at the Southland Times who seems to have had the scoop on this bizarre story. Prime Minister John Key has ordered an inquiry.
The story broke while the Prime Minister was travelling in the United States and his initial and subsequent comments to media were confused. Although the opposition has made much of cover-ups it is more likely that the PM didn’t have all the information he should have. Prime Ministers don’t take kindly to not being fully briefed and particularly when information they don’t have finds its way to the media. They also have a great dislike of any threat to international relations harmony and the disquiet of the Israelis is embarrassing to the nation.
Like any good espionage novel, the story will eventually be told now that it is in the public arena. But one thing shouldn’t be forgotten – not all Israeli’s are spies, just as not all Australians wear hats with bobbling corks and not all Kiwis are sheep-shaggers.
The last word goes to the Kiwi SAR team member embarrassed at the treatment of the Israeli team. "I've got to say, over the last few days with all this spy rubbish, I feel ashamed to be a Kiwi, mate."
Lest We Forget - 22 July 2011 Carisbrook's Last Test
On Friday the All Blacks played Fiji in what was the last test ever to be played at Carisbrook - the famous Dunedin Rugby field where most Otago University students have spent at least a little time on the Terraces. It was also one of the few fields where the really hard up or fugal could sometimes get a view from the Scotman's Grandstand, the elevated roadside outside the ground.
Carisbrook was named after a castle in the Isle of Wight for James Macandrew, a colonial settler in Dunedin. The sportsground was developed during the 1870s and was first used for international cricket in 1883, when Otago hosted a team from Tasmania. Rugby union internationals have been held at Carisbrook since 1908 and full cricket internationals since 1955.
Home to the Highlanders, Carisbrook will be fondly remembered when future tests are played in the new Dunedin Stadium.
Heather Roy's Diary
More than just a ‘Day Off’
Earlier in the year there was some ‘whinging’ about the fact the 2011 calendar year has short-changed people of public holidays. Waitangi Day fell on a Saturday meaning people didn’t get a day off work and Easter Monday and ANZAC Day fall on the same day – this coming Monday.
This situation has stimulated a protracted debate about whether or not some public holidays should be moved to a week-day when they fall on a weekend or public holiday. More importantly, which holidays should fall on the actual date because they are of such significance?
The FlyBuys/Colmar Brunton Mood of the New Zealand Traveller Survey released yesterday showed that two thirds of kiwis believe the holiday to mark ANZAC Day should be moved if it falls on the same day as Easter Monday. The same survey revealed that 50% said ANZAC Day is more significant to them than Easter Monday. What wasn’t clear from the survey was if the day itself is more important than having a working day off.
I spent the first part of this morning selling poppies for the RSA in Wellington. Each year I hear stories from poppy purchasers about what ANZAC Day means to them, which service they will go to, which family member will wear the medals of servicemen and women now deceased and I hear the stories of wartime escapades passed down from generation to generation.
For most of us there are special stories which will be retold again this Monday – ANZAC Day 2011- when Kiwis and Australians from around the world gather at memorials, large and small, to pay their respects to those who fought for the freedoms we now enjoy. It is a day when we pause to reflect; to remember and to look forward with hope. When I reflect on the true significance of ANZAC day the argument of moving the date simply to ‘get a day off’ leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Both my Grandfathers were involved in the First World War. I’m too young to remember the rare occasions when ‘Granddad Jack’ would reveal snippets of his First World War experiences but my mother and her siblings tell the stories of their father who was a Sergeant in the Otago Mounted Rifles. I recall a photo of him, in uniform and riding breeches, standing next to his horse as he prepared for deployment in 1914.
He was trained for Gallipoli but at the last minute was diverted to fierce trench warfare in France. Though he suffered, like so many others, the ravages of muddy trenches, shrapnel and gas - he believed that he was one of the lucky ones.
Some of his men said, years later, that he was a brave and good Sergeant. They recalled the time when he and the other remaining eleven men of his unit were cut off from all support in particularly fierce fighting. The twelve were reported in despatches as having held back a German advance for several days by making the battle look like a trap.
My Grandad, Jack Fraser, thought it was the end. They were fighting in a hopeless situation. Ammunition had to be stolen from enemy casualties at night to put on a show of strength next day. They had no food and little sleep when eventually help came. I understand that he was offered some official recognition but refused it because he said it wasn't just him who ‘pulled it off’. On reflection, many years later, he felt he should have accepted the award ‘for his men’.
Once, when in cold damp trenches, they got extra food rations that were not intended for their unit. Everyone was hungry and most wanted the double rations, but Jack said that was not fair. He personally delivered the extra tins of bully beef to the rightful owners. When he returned, his companions had received a direct artillery hit, with several dead and many others injured. But the battlefield has no favourites and his errand could just have easily cost him his life instead of sparing it.
This year I will be commemorating ANZAC Day in uniform with my Army Unit as part of a firing party at the Titahi Bay (Porirua) Dawn Parade and later in the morning at the Johnsonville Service in Wellington. Our volleys will be critically appraised by the former servicemen on parade, but they appreciate the contribution of the currently serving in remembering those no longer with us. ANZAC Day combines everything that we value - remembrance, service and family.
The increased turnouts at ANZAC Day services throughout the country are encouraging. Are our young people coming to find out more about their families or is there a patriotic theme at play? I think there are a multitude of reasons why numbers are increasing. However, I don’t see evidence of this shaping our nation. What I do see is charitable groups and service organisations struggling to find and retain willing volunteers. People would often rather pay than serve. The concept of ‘what your time is worth’ is king. When you are walking, carrying a wounded mate, time is not king; you just put one foot in front of the other for as long as it takes to get where you are going.
But our children and grand-children, it often seems, are being swept along in a multimedia wave of individualism. They often pass up the option of the greater good and therefore ignore the most important lesson that we thought our forebears brought back from their wartime experience; service before self. Heroes today are sports stars and rock musicians - short performance individuals not low profile grafters and toilers; the people who keep the world going.
There is no doubt in my mind that our greatest challenge is still ahead of us. We know that it is simply not realistic for the younger generations to learn the formative lessons of life in the same way that we did. But the oft-touted concept of military service shaping the nation is irrelevant if we don’t find some means of imbuing our young people with the ethos of service.
We all have to look to ourselves and lead by example. We must remain relevant to our young. We can’t do that by living in the past and seeking a return to the good old days. We won’t draw our young to us by rubbishing their music or their clothes. Neither will we do it with racism, sexism or inflexibility in our own thinking. We must ask the hard questions of ourselves, for many this may mean a war within ourselves.
We’ve faced big challenges before. We can face this one. If we don’t, the sacrifice of our forebears, though not forgotten, will surely be diminished.
Young Kiwis have unhesitatingly put their lives on the line decade after decade. So too have our Australian neighbours and the best young people of every country in the free world. Those who have served the cause of freedom, in any way whatsoever, can look into their own hearts and draw deductions, with confidence, about what the fallen would want us to remember. Amid the chaos and discomfort, the exhaustion and the boredom – one desire rises above all others – PEACE.
And the price of peace is eternal vigilance. Lest We Forget.
ACT Congratulates Hon Hugh Templeton On Order Of Australia
ACT New Zealand Foreign Affairs Spokesman Heather Roy today congratulated Hon Hugh Templeton QSO on being presented with the Order of Australia by the Prime Minister of Australia The Hon Julia Gillard at the Australian High Commission.
“I was honoured to attend the ceremony of investiture hosted by Prime Minister Gillard; Mr Templeton is an inspirational New Zealander whose vision and service to Australia-New Zealand economic relations is worthy of merit,” Mrs Roy said.
“Mr Templeton worked tirelessly to achieve the Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement between Australia and New Zealand in 1983 – an agreement that has benefited both countries immensely.
“CER led to the removal of tariffs, export incentives and import restrictions between our two countries making trans-Tasman trade easier. CER has been a sound foundation for joint ventures such as the trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement and the work towards a Single Economic Market.
“Without Mr Templeton’s pivotal role in establishing CER and his contribution to economic relations Australia and New Zealand relations would be very different today. He is very deserving of the Order,” Mrs Roy said.
ENDS
Heather Roy’s Diary
What Next for US/New Zealand Relations?
Hillary Clinton is an impressive woman, no doubt about it. New Zealand’s Ambassador to the US Mike Moore describes her as a ‘rock star’ and you certainly got that feeling when she was here.
The US secretary of State’s visit to New Zealand last week signalled a thawing in previously icy relations at a political level, just by being here. She signed the Wellington Declaration and visited Canterbury to view for herself recent earthquake damage. She went for walks to exercise, surprising people who recognised her with cheery greetings as she stepped out along the Wellington waterfront and Hagley Park.
The visit was clearly a get success in PR terms and for those who, like me, got to see or meet Hillary Clinton, or for media the prize of interviewing her, it won’t soon be forgotten. But what does it mean for future relations between New Zealand and the US?”
The centre-piece of the visit was the Wellington Declaration. It is a simple document which fits on an A4 page and can be found on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website: http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Media-and-publications/Features/665-Wellington-declaration-on-new-NZ-US-partnership.php Signed by Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully and Secretary of State Clinton on November 4 the declaration reaffirms the close ties between our two nations and establishes the framework of a new United States – New Zealand strategic partnership to shape future practical co-operation and political dialogue.
Clinton’s own comment was that she is “hopeful that the Wellington Declaration will be a sign of closer co-operation in the years ahead”. Indeed, as the media described it, the declaration is an agreement in spirit more than substance. Minister McCully described it as “highly symbolic”, but now we await the detail and the inevitable devil that lies within.
One of the few specifics in the Wellington Declaration is that of the Trans Pacific Partnership. The US is keen for greater New Zealand involvement in Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief in the Pacific. A proposal I have been advocating that would take a more comprehensive approach is that of a Pacific Area Treaty Organisation – similar to NATO - that engaged all the stakeholders in the region. It could be based around any current or future trade groups such as APEC (currently meeting in Japan) or ASEAN.
One could be forgiven for a sense of confusion about New Zealand’s ‘type’ of relationship with the world’s super-power. Once we were allies, then very good friends and now we are promoted to partners. Friends have coffee and lend each other DVD’s. Really good friends are the sort you tell your secrets to – sadly this is not the case in regard to US intelligence. Partners can be business partners or domestic partners. We are not business partners with the US, who still operate a highly protectionist economy and a Free Trade Agreement remains elusive. The domestic partnership or ‘marriage’ ended with the 1987 passage of the nuclear-free legislation and the demise of ANZUS.
The American’s have maintained a good working relationship with New Zealand where they could. Joint UN missions and military co-operation in Afghanistan are examples. Why, in the face of such provocation, did the US staunchly remain in Operation Deep Freeze? Because Antarctica is a flashpoint for future conflict and NZ is one of five gateways – and arguably the easiest gateway - to the ice.
Not-withstanding the description of our relationship, the declaration - although encouraging - signals there is still plenty of work to do yet to return to the previously favoured position we had with the US until 25 years ago.
Those who think that a bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is a possibility under current circumstances are wrong. We are behaving like fair weather friends at best and the Americans rightly view us as such.
Historically the impediments to an FTA have been three-fold – agricultural subsidies, PHARMAC and New Zealand’s ‘confirm or deny’ nuclear vessel legislation. My understanding is that these are still as relevant today as they ever were.
If we really are friends or partners we should start behaving as such. Friends trust each other. They don’t require confirmation or denial of nuclear propulsion or weapons capability before letting a friend’s navy visit their waters. This is akin to requiring a friend to provide proof that their car meets emission standards before letting them pull up your driveway.
It is time to repeal the legislation that prevents US Navy vessels from entering New Zealand’s waters. We are unlikely to be inundated with visits – we are a long way from US naval bases after all. But it would be a great show of goodwill to a nation we expect to help us out in times of trouble. It is time too to develop a more mature attitude to the nuclear debate without the irrational hysteria that erupts on mentioning the ‘n’ word. Differentiating between nuclear weapons, nuclear propulsion and nuclear power would be a good start.
Some say it is time to move forward – that times have moved on and talk of repealing the ban on nuclear propelled ships is outdated. I would contend that it’s actually a case of back to the future. Repeal would be a genuine extending of the hand of friendship and a real sign of the goodwill that was visible during the Clinton visit. Perhaps it requires a private members bill to kick-start the process.
Lest We Forget: Remembrance Day (11th Hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, 1918)
The Armistice was signed between the Allies of WWI and Germany at Compiegne, France at 11am on the 11th of November 1918 leading to a ceasefire on the Western Front.
Remembrance Day passed in New Zealand on Thursday with barely a whimper, despite our involvement in many campaigns with other nations. In the UK everything stops at 11am – there’s silence in the shops and in some places even the traffic stops. It is the rest of the world’s equivalent of ANZAC Day, the day to remember those who fought and died for our freedoms and why we should protect and defend them vigorously.
ENDS
National Day Of Italy
Hon Heather Roy address to the reception on the occasion of Italian National Day; Residence of the Italian Ambassador, Grant Road, Wellington; Wednesday, June 2 2010.
Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa.
Your Excellency Gioachino Trizzino e Signora.
Members of the Diplomatic Corps, fellow Members of Parliament, distinguished guests, members of the Italian community in New Zealand, ladies and gentlemen.
It is both an honour and a pleasure to reply on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs Hon Murray McCully to the Ambassador’s toast to Her Majesty the Queen of New Zealand, on this occasion celebrating the National Day of Italy.
New Zealand and Italy share a warm friendship that has only grown over many years. At the heart of this friendship are the interpersonal links which are the foundation of this relationship.
These links have come a long way since the first intrepid young Italians were drawn by the promise of riches to the goldfields of Otago in the 1860s. Today some 10,000 New Zealanders travel to Italy each year, and approximately 8,000 Italians visit our shores. We are looking forward to welcoming many more Italians next year as we host the 2011 Rugby World Cup! Our nations are both renowned for our love of rugby, and one of our own greats, John Kirwan, lent his expertise to your national team, guiding them to historic victories in 2003 and 2004.
One integral part of our relationship is the working holiday scheme. Implemented in 2002 it allows new generations of young New Zealanders and Italians to discover the riches of each other’s country. Last year some 50 New Zealanders and 400 Italians participated and we hope that these numbers, and the associated benefits for our bilateral relations, will continue to grow in years to come. At the same time it is pleasing to see ongoing high level contacts between our two countries exemplified by visits last year by the Italian Trade Minister and Deputy Foreign Minister to New Zealand and the planned New Zealand parliamentary delegation visit to Italy later this year.
The New Zealand-Italian community has also grown significantly since the heady days of the Otago Goldrush. Tonight is a fitting opportunity to pay tribute to the contribution of the New Zealand Italian community to our civic and national life – a contribution that far exceeds its size, adding vibrancy and colour to both our cultural and our culinary landscape.
In the international arena, as noted by Your Excellency, New Zealand and Italy share a likeminded approach to many issues, we share a common commitment to the principles of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. An excellent example of this close collaboration is our cooperative research in the Antarctic region, which we view as extremely valuable. New Zealand and Italian defence forces have also stood shoulder to shoulder in support of the same goals in theatres such as the Balkans and Kosovo in the 1990s and today in Afghanistan.
An apt description of our relationship is “multifaceted” – trade is also an important component. Italy remains our 3rd most important export market in Europe, our 4th most important source of imports from Europe and, overall, our fourth most important trading partner within the European Union. We believe that New Zealand, through our Asian-Pacific connections, including recent FTAs with China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and ASEAN, offers a potential springboard for Italian companies looking to improve or expand their market penetration into this growing region.
We greatly value our relationship with Italy as a founding member of the European Union (EU). The EU is New Zealand’s second most important trading partner, and it remains of vital commercial importance to New Zealand. Working with Italy and other EU Member States we remain committed to the further expansion and development of our links with the European Union.
In recognition of the continuation and expansion of our longstanding friendship, it is my privilege, on behalf of the Government of New Zealand, to propose a toast to the President, His Excellency Mr Giorgio Napolitano, and to the Government, the representatives, and the people of the Italian Republic.
ENDS
