Heather Roy's Diary
The Last Political Chapter
I wrote my first Heather Roy’s Dairy on 9 August 2002 and have sent one out most Fridays since then. Looking back, they are a great record of what was happening at the time and the issues I was involved with. Hon Hugh Templeton advised me that I should always keep a diary – so that I could write a book when I felt the time was right. It was great advice, but this is the closest I got.
Parliament adjourns this week for the election period. I am very proud to have participated in New Zealand’s 47th, 48th and 49th parliaments and I am very pleased that this final diary finishes my Parliamentary time on a high note.
Last week was a big week. My Voluntary Student Membership Bill passed its third reading last Wednesday. It is the culmination of a debate that has raged on campuses for the best part of two decades and as of 1 January 2012 students will no longer be compelled to join a Student Union in order to study. After prolonged delaying tactics by Parliament’s opponents of the Bill I was delighted that it finally passed on the last members day of this Parliament, and with an hour and a quarter to spare!
My third reading speech can be found here, the Parliamentary video of my speech can be found here. A Bill doesn’t become law until it receives the Royal assent and The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill received this last Friday.
My valedictory statement was last Thursday and can be found here, the video here. I was pleased to have many of my family members present, as well as those who have had a profound effect on my Parliamentary career.
My final thanks go to the readers of my diary. When I made mistakes you told me about them and I’ve been very grateful for the feedback (especially the positive!) and comments many have sent back to me. As I said in my valedictory speech, politics is the contest of ideas and no-one has a monopoly on these. If we are to grow as a nation we must always be receptive to a wide range of opinions and new ideas should be encouraged, examined, researched and pursued according to their merit. Most of all, thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts.
Lest We Forget
My final Lest We Forget is a personal one from my valedictory speech:
As I look around the four walls of this chamber for the last time I’ll take particular note of the battlements: the 12 carved circular wreaths around the balcony and the 18 carved plaques on the wall panels, representative of battles and places where New Zealand troops have fought and served. They remind me of the reason I came to this place – to continue the fight for our freedoms that our forebears began, for a prosperous nation, one where we all have the same opportunities. Our freedoms are hard won with many New Zealanders having paid the price with their lives. Freedoms hard won, but so easily eroded. I have been honoured to serve my country in this House and I hope those in the 50th Parliament and beyond will also be reminded of their responsibility to uphold our freedoms.
I wonder, Mr Speaker, if I could make a request before I leave this chamber. There are some battlements missing from our walls: the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and our recent peace keeping missions are not represented despite the fact that our Defence Force personnel have participated with the same courage, commitment and distinction as those who served before them. They too have suffered injury and, in some tragic cases, loss of life in their quest for freedom around the world on our behalf. I know my fellow soldiers would be touched by such a gesture and it would seem entirely fitting.
ENDS
Creating new jobs. That's what it's about.
Our youth need a chance to get on the career ladder
Do you know a young person struggling to find work?
41,400 young people are now out of work, enough to fill Mt Smart Stadium. One in every three young people that wants to work can’t.
There are no jobs for them.
It’s true, there’s been a recession. Unemployment is worse than usual for everybody, but youth unemployment is off the chart.
Why?
It’s common sense that hiring a 17 year old is a bit of a risk. They don’t have experience.
That’s why we used to have a youth minimum wage.
So employers would take a chance on a young person and give them experience.
Then Labour removed the youth minimum wage.
Now young people are forced to compete with older, more experienced workers for the same rate of pay.
Employers choose experience every time.
Economist Eric Crampton from Canterbury University has calculated that 12,000 youth are unemployed for this very reason.
National know this but refuse to do anything about it. As usual, they campaigned against this Labour policy; now they’re keeping it.
ACT wants a future where young people can have the dignity of work. We want a future where young New Zealanders can learn skills and become productive citizens.
The difference is that we’re prepared to apply economic common sense to get there.
Creating new jobs, that’s what it’s about.
Heather Roy's Diary
Retirement Age Unsustainable at 65
The Retirement Commissioner Diana Crossan says it frequently, former Treasury Head John Whitehead and current Treasury secretary Gabriel Makhlouf advised government it is so and well known economists Gareth Morgan and Bernard Hickey and others have also joined the chorus in recent weeks – New Zealand cannot afford to continue paying superannuation to kiwis when they turn 65. All believe the retirement age must gradually rise to 67.
ACT believes this too, but unfortunately no other political party will touch this hot potato in election year, or any time soon it would seem. Yet the fair thing to do is start a transition period now so that those it affects soon won’t be disadvantaged and younger kiwis can start preparing now.
New Zealand’s Superannuation scheme currently costs around 4% of GDP. This is relatively low for a western country but it is forecast to rise to 7.3% by 2035, and money to fund this has to come from somewhere. In 1950 the life expectancy of a pensioner was just 67.2 for men and 71.3 for women, meaning on average pensioners were only expected to live for around five years on superannuation. Today the age of eligibility remains the same, yet life expectancy for men is now 78 and women 82.
In fact it is clear from a wide range of experts that a retirement age of 65 is unsustainable. Treasury has predicted that by the mid-2020s New Zealand would have to either increase GST to 19 percent or raise income tax by an average of $30 a week just to continue paying for existing entitlements. Faced with such dire numbers the least parliament – both government and opposition - could do is consider advice on the matter. This is an important issue for our nation and economy and one that requires cross-party support and decisions that won’t be tampered with by subsequent governments.
At present everyone receives National Super at age 65 whether they continue to work or not.
The Retirement Commissioner is required to examine the government’s retirement income policy every three years. Commissioner Diana Crossan lashed out at the government’s rejection of her review findings that the age of eligibility for NZ Super be gradually increased to 67 by two months a year up to 2033. She pointed out that politicians burying their head in the sand would not solve this looming problem. “It's crucial that we make changes now, so that today's 45 year olds and younger Kiwis are able to receive New Zealand Super in the future. Why wait until we have to raise the age suddenly in 10 years time? We can't keep ignoring this issue," Crossan said, and she is absolutely right.
The 2025 Taskforce in their most recent report also commented on this issue saying that “New Zealand should lift the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation beyond 65, as Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries are doing, and also draw a clear link between life expectancy improvements and future increases in the eligibility age”.
I asked Finance Minister Bill English in Parliament yesterday whether former Treasury Secretary John Whitehead, Retirement Commissioner Diana Crossan and commentators Bernard Hickey and Gareth Morgan are all wrong in calling for the retirement age to be raised – as is being done by Labor in Australia – his answer was simply that these people “should run for office” if they wanted to have more say on the retirement age.
The Government pays experts like Mr Whitehead and Ms Crossan to give free and frank advice. It is unacceptable for Mr English to tell them to ‘run for office’ merely because his government does not want to hear the home truths they are quite rightly telling him.
Internationally, New Zealand is totally out of kilter with how other nations are responding to ever increasing life expectancy. Australia will slowly lift the age of eligibility by 6 months every two years from 2017 so it reaches 67 in 2023, meaning everyone has time to prepare for the change. The UK will slowly lift their age to 68 by 2046 and the US will lift theirs to 67 by 2022.
Prime Minister John Key has repeatedly stated he will resign rather than put the age up. All demographic figures suggest that raising the age is inevitable and the very worst that the Government can do is delay the inevitable and leave the problem for future generations to deal with. ACT believes that it would be far more caring for the Government to give retirees time to plan for their future by raising the age over a long transition period than it is to take the John Key “not on my watch” approach that we are left with at the moment.
Lest We Forget
This weekend I will be joining my Army Unit (5 Wellington, West Coast, Taranaki Battalion Group) for a Charter parade in New Plymouth. Each year at the beginning of August we commemorate the Battle of Chunuk Bair which took place between the 7th and 19th of August 1915. The assult on Chunuk Bair, which the Wellington Battalion played a crucial role in, was commanded by Lt Col. William Malone, from Taranki and who had ties to the Army Unit to which I now belong.
The Battle of Chunuk Bair was fought in August 1915 between the Ottoman defenders and troops of New Zealand and Britain on Gallipoli peninsula. The capture of Chunuk Bair, the secondary peak of the Sari Bair range, was one of the two objectives of the Allied August Offensive launched at Anzac and Suvla in order to break the stalemate that the campaign had become. The capture of Chunuk Bair was the only success for the Allies but success was short-lived as the position proved untenable. The Ottomans recaptured the peak after a few days and didn’t relinquish it again.
The assault on Chunuk Bair took place on 8 August. The fight raged all day until the trenches were clogged with the New Zealand dead. Around 5 p.m. Lt Col. Malone was killed by a misdirected artillery shell, fired from either Anzac or a British ship. As we parade in New Plymouth this weekend we will remember his contribution to our freedoms. The Army now has a scholarship scheme for Reservists in honour of Malone.
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.
ACT Parliamentary Report - Winter 2011
This report was originally mailed out to 100,000 households throughout New Zealand. Click here for a printable copy. You are welcome to share this with anyone else who shares your concerns for New Zealand.
ACT Parliamentary Report - Winter 2011
The big issue facing Parliament and the country is the economy. The government is borrowing over $300 million a week, $15 billion a year. That’s $200 a week per household.
For most of this Parliament, ACT has been a lone voice pointing out that we are heading for a crisis.
The problem is so serious the ACT MPs have persuaded Don Brash to become ACT’s Leader.
As Reserve Bank Governor, Don Brash got us out of double-digit inflation and on the road to prosperity. Don has been heading up a government-appointed Commission looking at how New Zealand can close the income gap with Australia.
The Commission’s report was good news and bad. The good is that we can close the income gap. Holding us back are issues like red tape, having the only Emissions Trading Scheme in the world that covers agriculture, and having a Resource Management Act so bureaucratic that it empowers the interferers at the expense of the productive.
The bad news is that borrowing $300 million a week is unsustainable. Don Brash is coming back to help us persuade Parliament that we must stop this policy of “spend, borrow and hope”.
The government was borrowing $300 million a week before the latest Christchurch earthquake. Christchurch, our second largest city, must be helped to recover; in order to do this something has got to change.
John Key, a former successful investment banker, knows this. National’s problem is they are reliant on the Maori Party that wants even more spending. Labour and the Greens believe the government is not spending enough and that all that’s needed is more taxes on the “rich”.
But there are not enough “rich” to fund $300 million a week.
Greece is a warning to us that if we do not put our house in order then our lenders will force us to do so.
People wonder how Greece could get itself into a position where its debt is much greater than its income.
The answer is simple. Greek politicians were not upfront about the situation. Greek politicians believed the only way to be elected was to make extravagant promises. When there was not enough money, the Greek government borrowed.
Most New Zealand Members of Parliament are not very different. When did an MP write and tell you that New Zealand’s total overseas debt, public and private, is nearly as bad as Greece’s.
Well, it is.
Balancing the budget is the biggest single issue facing the country.
I think most MPs have got it wrong. If we tell New Zealanders the facts, I think they will support practical positive solutions. If we just reduced government spending, adjusted for inflation, to the level it was in 2005 we could balance the books. How hard can that be?
I am sending this letter to over one hundred thousand households regardless of whom you may have supported in the past. I want a reply so big that Parliament cannot ignore the result. I am asking you the question that we confront in Parliament each week.
“Do you support balancing the budget, no more spend, borrow and hope” or “Do you support further increases to government spending, borrowing and taxation?”
Are we the “Greeks of the South Pacific” or do we want our government to balance the books?
I undertake to give your answer in Parliament.
This is your chance to deliver a message to Wellington. Please fill out this survey and return it to the address provided, or email it to john.boscawen@parliament.govt.nz.
Regards
Hon John Boscawen MP
Leader, ACT Parliamentary Team
PS: In the time it will take you to receive and reply to this letter government will have borrowed another $300 million dollars – please reply today.
PPS: ACT has many other policies, such as one law for all, greater choice in education, three strikes and repealing red tape; I refer you to ACT’s website for more information: www.act.org.nz.
Heather Roy's Diary
Theatre Of The Mind
The Boat that Rocked is a great film about taking the authorities on, breaking a government monopoly and introducing the population to rock music. It is inspirational and the radio rockers didn’t take themselves too seriously. It is the story of Radio Caroline, a UK radio station set up in 1964 who had to transmit from a former Danish ferry that was renamed MV Caroline in order escape the land based authorities.
New Zealand has its own Boat that Rocked story – that of Radio Hauraki. Like Radio Caroline that battle was with the government monopoly and the stories have become legendary. Radio Hauraki broadcast illegally from 1966 – 1970 and had to do so outside NZ waters from the Tiri.
The story that best describes the lengths those involved in setting up Radio Hauraki went to is this:
“On 28 January 1968 disaster struck as the Tiri attempted to negotiate its way into Whangaparapara Harbour on Great Barrier Island in foul weather. The ship ran aground on rocks, with Radio Hauraki disc jockey Derek King keeping listeners up-to-date with running commentary. The final broadcast from the Tiri was "Hauraki News: Hauraki crew is abandoning ship. This is Paul Lineham aboard the 'Tiri'. Good Night." followed by a station jingle, and then the sound of the ship's hull striking the rocks.”
In 1970 the government monopoly of broadcast frequencies was finally broken when the New Zealand Broadcast Authority allowed Radio Hauraki a broadcast license, after 1,111 days at sea. The Tiri II, the original Tiri being unrepairable after running aground at Great Barrier Island, then sailed back to Auckland broadcasting Born Free.
The pioneering attitude of Hauraki’s Pirate Radio contrasts markedly with the tantrum throwing we have seen from the Otago University Students’ Association’s Radio One over the past week. In April OUSA contracted Deloitte to provide financial advice. This advice was sought because OUSA was, laudably, interested in ‘getting the transition to a voluntary association right’.
I have often said that this sort of responsible management is exactly the type of change that Voluntary Student Membership (VSM) should bring about. When student politicians realise that they cannot indefinitely rely on a stream on non-contestable funding they will reassess which of their services they need to provide and how to provide them.
Not all of the recipients of funding have responded to these home truths so charitably. As part of their advice Deloitte told OUSA that Radio One was of ‘little commercial value’ to the students’ association. OUSA has admitted that Radio One is among the least valued of its assets and has since stated that disestablishing Radio One is on the cards. Radio One manager Sean Norling has, rather than assessing how to make his station more viable, decided to commence a ‘week of silence’. Radio One has been purposely taken off the air to protest its potential closure.
Labour has attempted to wade, or stumble, into the issue by claiming that they could save Radio One by watering down the VSM Bill. In fact, what student services really need is certainty. Labour’s practice of filibustering an unrelated Bill that has bi-partisan support in order to delay the VSM Bill gives student associations no certainty whatsoever and makes it difficult to plan for the future.
Of course, students don’t have to be forced to own a radio station for student radio to exist. Radio Active used to be owned by the Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association but had to be sold as, like many groups receiving free money, it became inefficient. Over 20 years later Radio Active has not disappeared off the airwaves, it has thrived with volunteer and non-commercial support. Similarly students are not forced to join the Auckland University Students’ Association, yet the Association manages to fund bFM quite successfully.
Whereas the Hauraki pioneers risked all to fight against the government’s stranglehold on broadcasting, Radio One’s management is throwing a tantrum because their government mandated stranglehold on student funds is being threatened. The broadcasters on the Tiri, like their counterparts on the MV Caroline fought for the right to compete freely and openly with other broadcasters. Radio One is fighting not to have to. Their conduct during the past week is an embarrassment to New Zealand’s broadcasting legacy. However, they still have time to redeem themselves. Just as Radio Active has functioned for two decades since having their student association apron strings cut, and just as bFM in Auckland has managed to survive without compulsory student funding, Radio One now has an opportunity to make themselves relevant to their target audience – students.
Lest We Forget – Homosexual Law Reform Act – 9 July 1986
Perhaps the most controversial law ever to be debated in the New Zealand parliament, the Homosexual Law Reform Bill which decriminalized male homosexuality, was passed on 9 July 1986. The bill was a members bill introduced by Labour MP Fran Wilde in 1985 and after substantial debate and fierce opposition from some quarters passed narrowly (49 ayes to 44 noes).
An initial vote originally set down for 2 July was delayed by George Gair who was concerned it may have failed as several supporters were unable to be in Wellington due to bad weather. A second part to the bill – to provide anti-discrimination law protections for lesbians and gay men - was defeated but later incorporated in to the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993.
ENDS
Heather Roy's Diary
An Idealistic Struggle but well worth the Effort
This year is my ninth as a Member of the New Zealand Parliament. It has been a fast-paced journey comprising excitement, disappointment, enjoyment and angst. In this regard, my tenure as an MP is little different to that of others who have taken up the challenge of national politics. It isn’t a life that all are suited to. However, for our country to thrive, it is vital that we attract a wide cross-section of people who are willing to serve at every level of governance.
When I first stood for ACT in 1999, I didn’t think I would actually become an MP but was ‘doing my bit’ for the party effort. Three years later, I became the 80th woman to enter the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the day told our 2002 cohort, during our orientation, that the average tenure of an MP was 6 years. Encouraged by early mentors Sir Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble to develop a personal plan, I wrote some goals – actually, back then, they were more like ‘notes to self’. One of those was to remain an MP for 3 terms – 9 years.
That time has now come. The ACT Party has embarked on a fresh start under new leader Don Brash and a strong Epsom candidate in John Banks. To achieve electoral success in November, it’s essential that Don has plenty of time to build the remainder of the team that he will need in order to pursue the principles and policies on which ACT was founded. It’s also important for me that I leave politics at an age where I still have plenty of time to undertake new challenges – too much gardening is not a good thing! For all these reasons, I intend to retire at this year’s election.
ACT’s role in the political landscape is arguably one of the toughest ideological struggles that any NZ political party could undertake. We have never promised handouts, only a ‘hand-up’. We are consistently vocal in our call for Government to live within its means and we believe that personal freedoms, hard-won over many centuries, should not be surrendered lightly. In my maiden speech in 2002, I quoted Machiavelli’s warning that "There is nothing more difficult to accomplish, nor more dubious in its outcome, nor more perilous in its execution, than to take the initiative introducing change." ACT’s message is not an easy one to ‘sell’ to voters but I think that its positive impact for future generations makes it well worth the effort.
I closed that same speech by saying that ACT is a party that seeks to change the way people think and that if I could contribute to the move in attitude needed to make this change a reality I would consider my time at parliament a success. It is difficult to measure the sum of one’s influence and is something that is best left to others.
However, there are a number of achievements that I am pleased to have contributed to. These include successful amendments to a Justice bill that enabled victims of crime to retain the right to speak at the parole hearings of their perpetrators (Labour wanted to abolish this right), highlighting the huge increase in numbers of people dying on hospital waiting lists under the previous government’s health policy and other health issues. As a Minister for almost 2 years I put in place the Aspire Scholarships and instigated reviews of special education and consumer law. More laterally I have shepherded through the parliament (with the help of Sir Roger Douglas) a bill to make Student Union Membership voluntary and hope this will pass before the election.
It’s hard to believe that it is five years since I joined the Army Reserve and I have thoroughly enjoyed the people and challenges that my connections with our Defence Force have brought me in contact with – both as a sapper and as Associate Minister.
There’s much more that I could write about but a friend reminded me that this is not a valedictory speech. I will continue to publish the Diary. Everyone, so they say, should have a baby, write a book and build a house before they die. Having over-achieved somewhat on the first point, it might well be time to upgrade my tool set and get a dictaphone! I’ll keep you posted on progress.
Lest We Forget – Bannockburn Day.
24 June is Bannockburn Day. It commemorates the decisive 1314 victory of Scottish forces under Robert Bruce over the English army of Edward II. However, the First War of Scottish Independence spread across four periods between 1296 and 1328. The war began after multiple claimants to the Scottish throne could not agree on succession and the Guardians of Scotland asked King Edward I to come north and arbitrate. He arrived in force and without army or leader; the Scots reluctantly accepted his claim to be Lord Paramount of Scotland.
It is estimated that the English Army at Bannockburn was 2-3 times the size of the Scots. After the two day battle, only about a third of the original force made it back to England. Bannockburn was a classic example of how a determined, smaller but agile force can rout a larger, more powerful but unwieldy opponent. Scotland, then - as it still does today - prevailed by taking the long view of the road to freedom from oppression.
ENDS
Heather Roy's Diary
Who Really Wears The Gumboots?
What has Labour got against Farmers? They are amongst the most productive business people in our society. Some farmers vote Labour (I’ve met a few) and I can’t quite work out the recent frontal attack by Labour on the farming community, unless it is to out-do the Greens and target the anti-business, anti-farming, anti-profit vote. Agriculture is a very important part of our economy and farmers deserve better than this.
The first attack came at the recent Labour Party Congress where Labour Leader Phil Goff announced policy to restore the entry date of 2013 for agriculture to come into the Emissions Trading Scheme, 2 years ahead of National’s 2015 proposed date. He wants to use this money to pay for another policy initiative – Labour’s Research and Development Tax credit but can’t explain why it is just farmers who should foot this $800 million bill over 5 years.
Then, on the eve of the May 20 Budget, Labour MP Stuart Nash had a go at farmers spouting the nonsense line that they were avoiding paying tax. He stated “They’ve played within the rules, but perhaps the rules aren’t working any more and farmers are simply not paying their fair share”. Embarrassingly Labour and Nash mistook average dairy farm revenue (around $500,000) for their average profit, and used figures from the wrong year to boot. This would be surprising except for the fact that the real world of business is a foreign concept to most Labour MPs.
And this week at the National Agricultural Field Days at Mystery Creek Phil Goff antagonised the agriculture industry further by saying that Federated Farmers were considered the National Party in gumboots. “It’s always been that way and we have to accept that” Mr Goff said. Clearly the election campaign has started in earnest; Phil Goff has drawn his battle lines and come out swinging. It looks like it will be an aggressively negative campaign from the left.
So what is it that the farmers have done wrong in the eyes of Labour? Here are some possible sins.
Ten Reasons Labour Doesn’t Like Farmers:
1. Farmers are businessmen and women. Some years they make a profit - i.e. when they deduct their expenses from their income they sometimes have some money left over which they most often use to retire debt or buy new equipment for the farm.
2. Farmers think for themselves and don't like government telling them how to run their lives or businesses.
3. Farmers are hardworking, industrious, independent, self-reliant and don't depend on welfare.
4. Farmers have little pretence. They can spot insincerity 50 yards away.
5. Farmers raise animals that produce methane which some people think causes global warming. For Labour and the Greens this is a punishable offence.
6. Farmers are some of the most productive members of society. They create jobs and bring money into the country.
7. Farmers wear gumboots.
8. Farmers make the free market work.
9. Some Farmers own more than one farm. Labour thinks this is greedy.
10. Farmers are smart. They are the smartest voters and know the value of splitting their vote.
Add to the list what the Greens think of farmers: They want to tax farmers to pay for Christchurch while stopping them using water or letting cows pass wind.
One correspondent said to me recently that farmers are the living embodiment of everything the modern Labour party stands opposed to.
Sadly, when you look at the list of reasons and sit it side-by-side with current Government policy one could be forgiven for thinking the National party doesn't like farmers much either. The ETS proposals are the best example – John Key promised that, rather than leading the world with our ETS we would be “fast followers”. But what we see from both old parties are policies that impose costs on all sectors of society for dubious, if any, gain.
Farmers are successful business people; they create wealth and jobs for New Zealand which everyone benefits from. We should value, not denigrate their contribution. Much more likely is that farmers are ACT in gumboots. Mine sit on the back doorstep and are worn often.
Lest We Forget – 17 June 1991: Repeal of the Population Registration Act (1950) in South Africa.
The 1950 Population Registration Act in South Africa gave legal standing to the system of apartheid. It required that all inhabitants be classified and registered in accordance with their racial characteristics, an Office for Race Classification was set up and a classification certificate issued. There were three basic racial classifications: Black, White and Coloured. Indians was added later as a separate classification because they were seen as having “no historical right to the country”. A South African citizen’s political and social rights, educational opportunities and economic status were determined by which group they belonged to.
The Population Registration Act worked alongside the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act – to marry someone of another race was illegal – and the Immorality Act, which made it a crime to display interest in having a relationship with a member of a different race.
The Population Registration Act was repealed on 17 June, 1991. However the racial groups still remain ingrained in the South African culture and still form the basis of some official policies. Attitudinal change takes much more time to accomplish and there are lessons here for lawmakers – the damage created by bad laws doesn’t go away overnight.
ENDS
Heather Roy's Diary
The War on Drugs – A Battle Lost.
Last week I surprised some by endorsing Bill English’s comments on prisons as a “moral and fiscal failure”.
This week, an even bigger moral and fiscal failure hit the headlines, with the global war on drugs being labelled “a costly failure” by the Global Commission on Drug Policy. The “Global Commission” has no official status although it is a club that includes some very impressive people.
Anyone observing Mexico recently will be aware of the danger of the government losing control of law and order to violent drug lords. Profits from the drug trade are so great that drug gangs can and do field private armies that outgun local police, requiring army support to tackle the narcotics barons. Anyone who doubts the severity of the Mexican drug war needs only to look at the numbers. Over 39,000 people have been killed since 2006. To put this tragedy in context, over 10 times as many people have been killed in the Mexican drug war in the past five years as were killed in the Northern Ireland conflict over a space of 40 years.
Tales of the cruelty of the drug cartels are common and they wield enormous power. The desire for the huge profits made in the drug trade worldwide undermines whole governments. One example is Panama which President Bush (senior) invaded in 1989 because the Panamanian leader, Manuel Noriega, and much of his government were heavily involved in the cocaine trade. Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar was the embodiment of the all-powerful drug cartel. Forbes estimated him to be the seventh richest man in the world.
The casualties of drug wars are examples of what the Global Commission calls ‘collateral damage’. Like other wars the war on drugs has unexpected consequences and damages unintended victims.
Amongst the illustrious members of the Commission is Paul Volcker, an economist who has been Chairman of the US Reserve Bank and is widely credited with driving inflation out of the American Economy. Mr Volcker is well aware that the cost of illegal drugs in the US is declining and availability is rising. He knows that the considerable investment in “the war on drugs” has been totally ineffective.
Even if attempts to suppress the drug trade were having some success then the result would be to drive up the price, giving the drug desperadoes an incentive to take greater risks.
This is what the Global Commission report had to say:
“The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world … Vast expenditure on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption. Apparent victories in eliminating one source or trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the emergence of other sources and traffickers. Repressive efforts directed at consumers impede public health measures to reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose fatalities and other harmful consequences of drug use. Government expenditures on futile supply reduction strategies and incarceration displace more cost-effective and evidence-based investments in demand and harm reduction.”
The Global Commission on Drug Policy can be found here.
The Global Commission does not advocate a free for all on hard drugs but rather medicalisation of the problem. Only a small proportion of the money spent on the drug war is spent on drug rehabilitation although it is the only possible way to reduce demand for drugs.
The report advocates the end of criminalisation, marginalisation and stigmatisation of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. It suggests models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organised crime as well as providing health and treatment services for those in need. It recommends investment in activities that both prevent young people taking drugs and preventing those who do from developing more serious problems. Most importantly it calls for breaking the taboo on debate and reform.
New Zealand is not Mexico, Panama or Colombia, but the same principles apply to the way in which we deal with drugs from party pills to cannabis, from pseudoephedrine containing substances to ‘P’. The banning of BZP party pills has merely seen the emergence of new variants with different active substances. Getting tough on ‘P’ by banning cold and flu remedy over-the-counter sales hasn’t reduced the growth in demand for ‘P’. It has denied effective symptomatic relief for hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens. It is time to have a real debate about how to develop effective policy of psychotropic (mind altering) substances, including alcohol.
In April this year the New Zealand Law Commission released its report “Controlling and Regulating Drugs” – a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It recommends a full scale review of drug classifications to determine controls and penalties and assessing a drug’s risk of harm; taking steps toward legalising cannabis for medicinal use; cutting criminal charges against low level drug offenders and introducing new regulations that aim to reduce the production of legal highs.
Unfortunately this is mainly tinkering with the problem. It is not nearly as insightful into the real drivers of drug activity as the Global Commission report, nor as ambitious of outcome. President Obama has already indicated that the recommendations are a bridge too far for his government and it will be the same in New Zealand. Why? Because politicians are more worried about votes than reducing drug dependency, especially in election year. It’s time we got over that irrational hurdle.
Lest We Forget – 6 June 1944, D-Day – A Battle Won.
The Normandy landings (Operation Neptune) which commenced on 6 June 1944 were the landing operations of the Allied invasion of Normandy during World War II and involved troops from the UK, Canada, Free France, Poland, Norway, Austalia, New Zealand and the Netherlands.
The assault was conducted in two phases. Shortly after midnight an airborne assault commenced landing 24,000 troops in France. This was followed at 0630 by the amphibious landing of Allied infantry and armoured divisions on the coast of France. Decoy operations to distract the German forces from the real landing areas were also deployed under the codenames Operation Glimmer and Operation Taxable. The landings took place along an 80km stretch of Normandy coast and were divided into five sectors: Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword.
The operation was a massive undertaking with over 160,000 troops landed in total and Allied naval and merchant navy ships with another 5,000 personnel also involved. The invasion involved transportation of soldiers and materials from UK bases by aircraft and ships, air support, naval fire-support and interdiction of the English Channel.
ENDS
Heather Roy's Diary
Bold Reform Or Nervous Tinkering?
Two recess week announcements made the headlines this week which give a steer as to the direction of a National-led government post November 26. On Tuesday State Sector Reforms were announced and on Wednesday a move towards private sector involvement in ACC was proposed. Both have potential to cut costs and gain efficiencies, but how effective are they really likely to be?
A government discussion document on ACC was released on Wednesday. The proposals include allowing choice of workplace insurance cover for employers from October 2012 and extending the Accredited Employer Programme (AEP) from April next year.
For a brief period in 1998 the work account was opened up to competition by the then National Government. Although only in place for nine months the early indications were that the numbers of injuries in the workplace were dropping and prices for most employer categories were lower than in the non-competitive environment. ACT was instrumental in pushing for competition in 1998 and again for this current proposal of greater employer choice.
The Accredited Employer Programme was introduced in 1996. Current experience shows the AEP delivers 12 percent fewer claims and lower costs of 15 percent. Strong financial incentives and involvement by employers in rehabilitation has resulted in a commitment to workplace safety. Programmes that incentivise employers in this way benefit workers and employers alike and should be encouraged. ACT is very pleased with the proposal to extend this programme.
Missing however from the talk of improving ACC is fairness. The artificial barrier that drives a wedge between illness and injury is no closer to being dealt with. Those eligible for payments because they have an accident will continue to be advantaged over those who suffer illness, even if the symptoms and outcomes are the same. I would have hoped we could have a real discussion this election about fixing this inequity. An insurance based health scheme which deals with conditions and needs regardless of how they are acquired would have been a good starting point.
State Sector Reform has been on the agenda since last election. Finance Minister Bill English announced on Tuesday the formation of the Better Public Services Advisory Group to investigate a number of proposals in order to achieve better value-for-money, innovation and high-quality service provision within the public sector.
Mr English noted that "New Zealand currently has 39 government departments, over 150 Crown entities of various types, not including school boards of trustees, and more than 200 other agencies” and "With the Government committed to returning to budget surplus in 2014/15, change in the state sector now needs to pick up momentum. This is about identifying the things that matter most to New Zealanders, doing them better and doing them with less back-office bureaucracy”.
There are seven proposals including: disestablishing the Crown Health Financing Agency, the Health Act Boards of Appeal, the Maritime Appeal Authority and the Land Valuation Tribunal; and transferring the functions of the Charities Commission to the Department of Internal Affairs. Consolidation of the audio-visual archiving by the New Zealand Film Archive, Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand is also planned. The Education Review Office and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority would be merged into a single agency.
The full list of proposals can be found at http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-reviews-more-state-agencies
It all sounds like movement in the right direction but has the look about it of tackling the easy areas first, as opposed to any overall vision of how New Zealand should look in two generations time or a plan of how to get there. Some would conclude this to be tinkering around the edges.
When it comes to State Sector reform government needs to show leadership. If smaller government is the aim – and I sincerely hope it is – then leadership by example would be wise. The 1999 referendum on reducing the size of Parliament to 99 MPs has been ignored, despite the support of 81% of voters, but would be a sensible first step in reducing the size of the bureaucracy, especially for a country with a little over 4 million people. A longer electoral cycle would help government plan more effectively too – but that’s another whole ball game.
Lest We Forget - 1 June 1941, The end of the Battle of Crete
The Battle of Crete is a significant part of New Zealand’s military history. The battle began on 20 May 1941, when Germany launched an airborne invasion of Crete. After the first day of fighting, the Germans had suffered heavy casualties with none of their objectives achieved. The following day Maleme airfield fell to the Germans due to miscommunication and the failure of Allied commanders to grasp the situation. The Germans flew in reinforcements and overwhelmed the defenders. The battle lasted for 10 days.
The Battle of Crete was unprecedented in three respects: it was the first mainly airborne invasion in military history and the first battle where “parachute rangers” were used on a large scale; the first time the Allies made significant use of intelligence from the deciphered German Enigma code; and the first time invading German troops encountered mass resistance from a civilian population.
Greek and Allied forces, along with Cretan civilians, defended the island. Greek forces consisted of approximately 9,000 troops. The British Commonwealth contingent consisted of 14,000 British troops and another 25,000 Commonwealth troops evacuated from the mainland – the New Zealand 2nd Division (without 6th Brigade and division headquarters), the Australian 19th Brigade Group and the British 14th Infantry Brigade.
ENDS
