FAI Money should never have been given a Crown guarantee
11/03/10 14:00 Filed in: News Releases
A decision by FAI to stop raising money from the public without the government guarantee shows the company should never have been given a Crown guarantee in the first place, Progressive Party leader and Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
FAI Money has reportedly written to investors saying the company would no longer be raising money from the public to fund its lending. FAI is owned by Hanover and, through a network of companies, by Mark Hotchin and Eric Watson.
“The Crown guarantee was the only thing that kept FAI Money in the public marketplace,” Jim Anderton said.
“But FAI should not have been in the public marketplace after what happened to Hanover, and the behaviour of Mr Hotchin and Mr Watson.”
Jim Anderton says the Crown guarantee was introduced to make sure there wouldn’t be a run on financial institutions in the difficult global economic conditions of late 2008 and 2009.
“The guarantee was never intended to provide backing for businesses that were not going to cut the mustard in more normal times. Treasury’s guidelines for considering a Crown guarantee were ‘the maintenance of public confidence in New Zealand’s financial system; and maintaining the confidence of general public depositors in New Zealand financial institutions.’
“The guarantee for FAI never met that guideline. The Treasury says factors that should be taken into account in giving a guarantee include the size of the entity and related party exposure, the business practice of the entity, the ‘good character’ and business acumen of the entity and “The track record of the entity.”
“Bill English should never have allowed Hotchin and Watson’s business to get a Crown guarantee and the confirmation today that they will not be seeking funds from the pubic proves it.
“The Crown guarantee was a good policy; but that doesn’t mean everyone should have got it”
Jim Anderton has been raising queries about the Crown guarantee for FAI since early 2009.
In 2008, before the global meltdown and the Crown guarantee, Hanover froze over half a billion of investors’ money.
FAI Money has reportedly written to investors saying the company would no longer be raising money from the public to fund its lending. FAI is owned by Hanover and, through a network of companies, by Mark Hotchin and Eric Watson.
“The Crown guarantee was the only thing that kept FAI Money in the public marketplace,” Jim Anderton said.
“But FAI should not have been in the public marketplace after what happened to Hanover, and the behaviour of Mr Hotchin and Mr Watson.”
Jim Anderton says the Crown guarantee was introduced to make sure there wouldn’t be a run on financial institutions in the difficult global economic conditions of late 2008 and 2009.
“The guarantee was never intended to provide backing for businesses that were not going to cut the mustard in more normal times. Treasury’s guidelines for considering a Crown guarantee were ‘the maintenance of public confidence in New Zealand’s financial system; and maintaining the confidence of general public depositors in New Zealand financial institutions.’
“The guarantee for FAI never met that guideline. The Treasury says factors that should be taken into account in giving a guarantee include the size of the entity and related party exposure, the business practice of the entity, the ‘good character’ and business acumen of the entity and “The track record of the entity.”
“Bill English should never have allowed Hotchin and Watson’s business to get a Crown guarantee and the confirmation today that they will not be seeking funds from the pubic proves it.
“The Crown guarantee was a good policy; but that doesn’t mean everyone should have got it”
Jim Anderton has been raising queries about the Crown guarantee for FAI since early 2009.
In 2008, before the global meltdown and the Crown guarantee, Hanover froze over half a billion of investors’ money.
0 Comments
Kiwis didn’t want Telecom privatised, says ex CEO
05/03/10 15:47 Filed in: News Releases
Former CEO, Theresa Gattung has admitted that New Zealanders would have preferred Telecom to remain in public hands.
“After years of resisting attempts to open up the telecommunications market and fighting every move we made in government to increase competition so the public had a choice, Ms Gattung now confesses that there was nothing in a privatised Telecom for the public anyway,” says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.
Ms Gattung said on Radio New Zealand’s Nine-to-Noon show this morning that the basic problem for Telecom was ‘a fundamental disconnect’ that Kiwis would have preferred Telecom to be a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) and ‘never have actually been a private company.’
She said that the SOE model of ‘commercial imperative but public good, sits much more comfortably with the Kiwi psyche.’
“It’s a shame she couldn’t have acknowledged that when she was the CEO of Telecom,” says Jim Anderton.
“The public of New Zealand are still getting the raw end of the deal when it comes to Telecom. Today it’s the failure of the XT network. In 1990 it was Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble selling Telecom for a song to US companies who on-sold it a few years later and walked away with $10 billion tax free.
Telecom was sold in 1990 for $4.25 billion to an American consortium of Ameritech and Bell Atlantic. The two American companies subsequently sold Telecom for $14 billion, making an untaxed capital gain of $10 billion.
“Theresa Gattung calls Telecom ‘a train wreck’. Well the wreck started in 1990. Ms. Gattung didn’t help to fix the wreck. She resisted the Labour Progressive government’s attempts to open the market and regulate Telecom’s monopoly. Despite her resistance we still managed to open the market considerably,” says Jim Anderton.
“Theresa Gattung is trying to re-write history and ignore the fact that Telecom should never have been sold off like the family silver, then a privatised Telecom monopoly allowed to dominate the telecommunications market in New Zealand for over a decade,” says Jim Anderton.
“After years of resisting attempts to open up the telecommunications market and fighting every move we made in government to increase competition so the public had a choice, Ms Gattung now confesses that there was nothing in a privatised Telecom for the public anyway,” says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader.
Ms Gattung said on Radio New Zealand’s Nine-to-Noon show this morning that the basic problem for Telecom was ‘a fundamental disconnect’ that Kiwis would have preferred Telecom to be a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) and ‘never have actually been a private company.’
She said that the SOE model of ‘commercial imperative but public good, sits much more comfortably with the Kiwi psyche.’
“It’s a shame she couldn’t have acknowledged that when she was the CEO of Telecom,” says Jim Anderton.
“The public of New Zealand are still getting the raw end of the deal when it comes to Telecom. Today it’s the failure of the XT network. In 1990 it was Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble selling Telecom for a song to US companies who on-sold it a few years later and walked away with $10 billion tax free.
Telecom was sold in 1990 for $4.25 billion to an American consortium of Ameritech and Bell Atlantic. The two American companies subsequently sold Telecom for $14 billion, making an untaxed capital gain of $10 billion.
“Theresa Gattung calls Telecom ‘a train wreck’. Well the wreck started in 1990. Ms. Gattung didn’t help to fix the wreck. She resisted the Labour Progressive government’s attempts to open the market and regulate Telecom’s monopoly. Despite her resistance we still managed to open the market considerably,” says Jim Anderton.
“Theresa Gattung is trying to re-write history and ignore the fact that Telecom should never have been sold off like the family silver, then a privatised Telecom monopoly allowed to dominate the telecommunications market in New Zealand for over a decade,” says Jim Anderton.
Save men’s help-line
04/03/10 15:19 Filed in: News Releases
Suicide rates are on the decline, but more men than women are still dying. This is not the time to get rid of New Zealand’s only phone counselling service set up to help men, says Jim Anderton MP for Wigram and former minister responsible for the government’s suicide prevention strategy.
Health Ministry figures show that 370 of the 483 people who killed themselves in 2007 were men.
“When I was the Associate Health Minister in the last Labour-Progressive government, we put considerable funding into public campaigns about depression and suicide prevention. We knew we had to target men deliberately because it was harder to reach them.
“Campaigns fronted by ex-rugby player John Kirwan have been very successful in de-stigmatising mental illness and raising awareness of depression. The fact that a male role model was chosen to front this campaign was deliberate.”
Lifeline runs the national helpline set up for men, but because of a funding crisis caused by the recession, the ‘Mensline’ will close tomorrow. All calls will be diverter to general Lifeline counsellors who are 75 per cent female.
Mensline has been funded by a number of private and public sponsors.
“I call on the Minister of Health to step in and work out how we can keep this line going. I suspect that the money required to restore the service is considerably less than it costs to fund other help lines like Quitline for smokers or the Gambling Helpline,” says Jim Anderton.
“The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) puts a price on a life lost when it decides which black spots to fix. The more lives lost at the black spot, the more likely the road will get fixed. The cost of one life lost is reckoned to be about $2.5 million.
“Surely the government can find what is likely to be a fraction of that, to keep this helpline going and potentially save many lives,” says Jim Anderton.
Health Ministry figures show that 370 of the 483 people who killed themselves in 2007 were men.
“When I was the Associate Health Minister in the last Labour-Progressive government, we put considerable funding into public campaigns about depression and suicide prevention. We knew we had to target men deliberately because it was harder to reach them.
“Campaigns fronted by ex-rugby player John Kirwan have been very successful in de-stigmatising mental illness and raising awareness of depression. The fact that a male role model was chosen to front this campaign was deliberate.”
Lifeline runs the national helpline set up for men, but because of a funding crisis caused by the recession, the ‘Mensline’ will close tomorrow. All calls will be diverter to general Lifeline counsellors who are 75 per cent female.
Mensline has been funded by a number of private and public sponsors.
“I call on the Minister of Health to step in and work out how we can keep this line going. I suspect that the money required to restore the service is considerably less than it costs to fund other help lines like Quitline for smokers or the Gambling Helpline,” says Jim Anderton.
“The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) puts a price on a life lost when it decides which black spots to fix. The more lives lost at the black spot, the more likely the road will get fixed. The cost of one life lost is reckoned to be about $2.5 million.
“Surely the government can find what is likely to be a fraction of that, to keep this helpline going and potentially save many lives,” says Jim Anderton.
ACC relies on out-dated methods to test injuries
25/02/10 15:09 Filed in: News Releases
Accident victims who are being turned away by ACC because of fictitious ‘pre-existing conditions’ are in some cases being assessed by non-practicing elderly surgeons who rely on text books dating back to 1934, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader, Jim Anderton.
An orthopaedic surgeon has contacted Jim Anderton to express concern that 85% of their patients needing surgery after accidents are being rejected on below-average assessments by a company contracted and paid by ACC to test claims.
“This seems a clear conflict of interest.
“A specialist surgeon currently practicing, and using the latest equipment and clinical research decides that a plumber who has fallen at work needs shoulder surgery as a result of the accident. Then retired surgeons, who are no longer specialists, probably never used an MIR scan in their working lives, and quoting from a text book which dates back to 1934, reject the claim on behalf of ACC, because of ‘pre-existing’ conditions.”
“The onus of proof had been reversed by ACC and is now on the patient to prove that their injury occurred at the time of their accident, and not ACC’s job to prove that there was a pre-existing condition. And yet there has been no public debate about this.
“It’s happened behind the scenes, and the public have been kept in the dark.”
The surgeon who contacted Mr Anderton’s office recently saw a seventeen year old who plays water polo competitively. The teenager had dislocated her shoulder and needed surgery. But ACC rejected her claim on the basis that the girl was ‘pre-disposed to dislocate her shoulder because she was very flexible.’
“That’s rubbish; it’s like saying someone is ‘pre-disposed to break their arm.’
“The typical patient being rejected is fit and well, and has been involved in occupations like the construction industry up until the time of their injury.”
“There’s no money saved here; specialists predict that up to 50% of these people who don’t get treatment straight away will have marked deterioration as they get older and will require much more expensive surgery later in life,” says Jim Anderton
An orthopaedic surgeon has contacted Jim Anderton to express concern that 85% of their patients needing surgery after accidents are being rejected on below-average assessments by a company contracted and paid by ACC to test claims.
“This seems a clear conflict of interest.
“A specialist surgeon currently practicing, and using the latest equipment and clinical research decides that a plumber who has fallen at work needs shoulder surgery as a result of the accident. Then retired surgeons, who are no longer specialists, probably never used an MIR scan in their working lives, and quoting from a text book which dates back to 1934, reject the claim on behalf of ACC, because of ‘pre-existing’ conditions.”
“The onus of proof had been reversed by ACC and is now on the patient to prove that their injury occurred at the time of their accident, and not ACC’s job to prove that there was a pre-existing condition. And yet there has been no public debate about this.
“It’s happened behind the scenes, and the public have been kept in the dark.”
The surgeon who contacted Mr Anderton’s office recently saw a seventeen year old who plays water polo competitively. The teenager had dislocated her shoulder and needed surgery. But ACC rejected her claim on the basis that the girl was ‘pre-disposed to dislocate her shoulder because she was very flexible.’
“That’s rubbish; it’s like saying someone is ‘pre-disposed to break their arm.’
“The typical patient being rejected is fit and well, and has been involved in occupations like the construction industry up until the time of their injury.”
“There’s no money saved here; specialists predict that up to 50% of these people who don’t get treatment straight away will have marked deterioration as they get older and will require much more expensive surgery later in life,” says Jim Anderton
Fisheries decision shows Fish Act is ‘hopeless’
23/02/10 17:06 Filed in: News Releases
A decision that stopped a fishery being closed in 2008 risked judicial extinction of a species of dolphin, Progressive leader and Wigram MP Jim Anderton says.
A High Court judge has today decided a case brought by the fishing industry against Jim Anderton’s decision, as fisheries minister, to close some fisheries to protect rare and endangered species of dolphin.
The fishing industry won an injunction in 2008 against the closure in some parts of the coastline. The judge has taken until now to decide the case.
The injunction meant the fishery remained open in spite of the fact that an acknowledged risk to the species existed from continued fishing.
“Since the injunction was granted I understand at least one more dolphins has been caught. Big fishing companies, through their court action, risked judicial extinction of an entire species of dolphin,” Jim Anderton said.
The High Court today upheld the original decision in the Manukau harbour, West Coast of the South island, Te Waewae Bay and Bluff.
“It’s too easy for self-interested applicants to get an injunction that threatens a species’ survival.
“I couldn’t change the Act to ensure sustainability because of the influence of big fishing money on political parties.
“Two years have gone by while the dolphins were at risk, only for it to turn out that the judge found the original decisions were justified
“A ministerial decision to close the fishery can only be made after substantial scientific evidence is compiled and enormous amounts of evidence and advice weighed. It’s hopeless for a Judge to be able to come in and substitute his decision for the original one. Decisions to close the fishery should only be set aside when the minister’s decision is manifestly unreasonable.
“In 2008 I tried to change the law to ensure the sustainability of our fisheries. Those efforts were thwarted by NZ First, National and the Maori Party. It later emerged that NZ First had taken $9990 secret ‘donations’ from big fishing. I believe the Maori Party and the National party need to disclose whether they have accepted donations from those interests as well.
“The fishing industry’s behaviour is grotesque and selfish. Enormous damage would be done to New Zealand’s exports if a species went extinct on our watch, but those who took the injunction were clearly putting their own interests first,” Jim Anderton said.
A High Court judge has today decided a case brought by the fishing industry against Jim Anderton’s decision, as fisheries minister, to close some fisheries to protect rare and endangered species of dolphin.
The fishing industry won an injunction in 2008 against the closure in some parts of the coastline. The judge has taken until now to decide the case.
The injunction meant the fishery remained open in spite of the fact that an acknowledged risk to the species existed from continued fishing.
“Since the injunction was granted I understand at least one more dolphins has been caught. Big fishing companies, through their court action, risked judicial extinction of an entire species of dolphin,” Jim Anderton said.
The High Court today upheld the original decision in the Manukau harbour, West Coast of the South island, Te Waewae Bay and Bluff.
“It’s too easy for self-interested applicants to get an injunction that threatens a species’ survival.
“I couldn’t change the Act to ensure sustainability because of the influence of big fishing money on political parties.
“Two years have gone by while the dolphins were at risk, only for it to turn out that the judge found the original decisions were justified
“A ministerial decision to close the fishery can only be made after substantial scientific evidence is compiled and enormous amounts of evidence and advice weighed. It’s hopeless for a Judge to be able to come in and substitute his decision for the original one. Decisions to close the fishery should only be set aside when the minister’s decision is manifestly unreasonable.
“In 2008 I tried to change the law to ensure the sustainability of our fisheries. Those efforts were thwarted by NZ First, National and the Maori Party. It later emerged that NZ First had taken $9990 secret ‘donations’ from big fishing. I believe the Maori Party and the National party need to disclose whether they have accepted donations from those interests as well.
“The fishing industry’s behaviour is grotesque and selfish. Enormous damage would be done to New Zealand’s exports if a species went extinct on our watch, but those who took the injunction were clearly putting their own interests first,” Jim Anderton said.
Kiwibank stays in Kiwi market - and makes a profit
19/02/10 16:08 Filed in: News Releases
Kiwibank has made a profit during the worst recession in decades by staying in the New Zealand market and refusing to gamble on overseas currencies like the big Australian banks, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton.
“This is a remarkable achievement, worth celebrating.”
Kiwibank announced today that it had made a profit of $23.5 million after tax for the six months ended December 31, 2009.
“It’s succeeded because it gets most of its deposits from, and does most of its lending in the New Zealand market,” says Jim Anderton.
“One of its strongest areas is its support for small and medium sized businesses in New Zealand.”
Kiwibank was the only bank to front up at last year’s Parliamentary Banking Inquiry. The inquiry established that the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks did not pass on all of the cut in the OCR (Official cash Rate) to home owners, credit card holders and businesses in New Zealand.
The inquiry also criticised the Australian owned banks for contributing to our volatile exchange rate. Exporters are particularly hurt by sudden and frequent changes in the exchange rate.
“In contrast to Kiwibank, the Australian banks borrowed a lot of money from overseas to fund their lending in New Zealand. This has a significant effect on our exchange rate by holding it up regardless of the real economic circumstances of New Zealand.
“The export sector, including farmers make up roughly 30% of our GDP - about $40 billion per year. But suffer the most from currency instability.
“I would like to see the government provide more capital funding for Kiwibank in order to promote more competition amongst banks and increase the share of local funding for lending.
“The Australian owned banks don’t have a vested interest in strengthening the New Zealand economy. Kiwibank does. It stayed in the New Zealand market, and today its success is our success too,” says Jim Anderton.
“This is a remarkable achievement, worth celebrating.”
Kiwibank announced today that it had made a profit of $23.5 million after tax for the six months ended December 31, 2009.
“It’s succeeded because it gets most of its deposits from, and does most of its lending in the New Zealand market,” says Jim Anderton.
“One of its strongest areas is its support for small and medium sized businesses in New Zealand.”
Kiwibank was the only bank to front up at last year’s Parliamentary Banking Inquiry. The inquiry established that the ‘big four’ Australian owned banks did not pass on all of the cut in the OCR (Official cash Rate) to home owners, credit card holders and businesses in New Zealand.
The inquiry also criticised the Australian owned banks for contributing to our volatile exchange rate. Exporters are particularly hurt by sudden and frequent changes in the exchange rate.
“In contrast to Kiwibank, the Australian banks borrowed a lot of money from overseas to fund their lending in New Zealand. This has a significant effect on our exchange rate by holding it up regardless of the real economic circumstances of New Zealand.
“The export sector, including farmers make up roughly 30% of our GDP - about $40 billion per year. But suffer the most from currency instability.
“I would like to see the government provide more capital funding for Kiwibank in order to promote more competition amongst banks and increase the share of local funding for lending.
“The Australian owned banks don’t have a vested interest in strengthening the New Zealand economy. Kiwibank does. It stayed in the New Zealand market, and today its success is our success too,” says Jim Anderton.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bill
18/02/10 20:10 Filed in: Speeches
Animal Welfare Amendment Bill
Speech Notes for the House
See Jim Anderton’s news release on this issue. Click here.
In New Zealand we’ve always had a close connection both on a social and economic basis with animals.
Our economic success is based on animal-derived products.
But we are also proud of our ethical approach to the welfare of our animals.
We care about what happens to them, and we get upset when they are mistreated, whether on farms or in homes.
So I welcome this Bill today because it toughens up our ability to protect our animals and makes offenders pay for mistreatment.
But I’m not naive about the issues. Those whose incomes depend on animals can’t afford to be overly sentimental. They and we grow animals to provide food for New Zealanders and the rest of the world.
Starting out in the workforce in the fifties and sixties, I spent enough time in the freezing works of New Zealand to see a few things that would make us cringe today. It made me cringe even then.
But anyone working with animals or simply owning an animal can and should commit to acting humanely. And most people do.
This Bill doesn’t target the overwhelming majority of farmers, the producers and pet owners who work within the animal welfare guidelines. It targets the small minority who wilfully, recklessly or because of psychological impairment, mistreat animals.
It’s not hard to think of recent examples where animals are kept in inhumane conditions:
The sight of starving and neglected animals on our TV screen focuses everyone’s minds.
New Zealand’s niche in the world is that we are pure, clean and environmentally friendly.
In our markets consumers are becoming more and more demanding.
They are asking searching questions about issues like environmental responsibility. And they’re asking about animal health and welfare and the quality standards of our production processes.
The future for New Zealand’s primary exports will be in having the best answer to those questions we can possibly have.
There is no future in trying to compete on price alone against emerging low cost producers. We have to compete by guaranteeing the quality and value of our food production as a whole.
If we don’t meet the expectations of our customers - then we face potentially very damaging risks to our export base.
This Bill will make the Animal Welfare Act work better.
Increasing the penalty from three to five years shows that we take cruelty to animals seriously.
Introducing a new offence of ‘reckless ill-treatment’ of animals, alongside the existing ‘wilful ill-treatment’ will help us capture those who might otherwise not have reached the threshold for ‘wilful ill-treatment.’
But let’s be realistic; there’s no point in increasing the penalty if you don’t have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime!
This government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity.
When the Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland recently - it wasn’t found by a biosecurity staffer.....It was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park!
So how does this government intend to police animal welfare?
MAF have exactly 5 full time staff to do animal investigations - plus 7 contractors.
The SPCA have about 100 staff who investigate animal welfare - on whom the government is heavily dependent to monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act - without paying anything towards their costs.
In 2008 I gave as Minister of Agriculture (through MAF) a $300,000 one-off grant – but I recognize it was no-where near enough.
When I was minister we set up with the Fast Forward Fund, which was a partnership between the private sector and government to fund research and development.
We had over $700 million in the bank, ready to fund research projects into areas like this.
For example - how do you measure animal welfare? It’s not always easy. Measuring how an animal ‘feels’ about its environment is awkward, at the very least.
In 2006, the chairman of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, Professor Christopher Wathes, came to New Zealand and asked - ‘how do we know whether animal welfare standards are being observed?’
When I was Minister I used to get a huge volume of letters into my office about animal welfare issues. It was clear to me then - and it still is today - that we have to be leaders, not only in animal welfare, but in measuring the standards of animal welfare.
We have to be leaders in the right techniques, as well as in the substantive results, of our measuring.
The Fast Forward Fund could have helped to deepen our research into animal welfare - and therefore improve the market position of our animal-based industries.
How is the National government going to find the right tools to measure animal welfare now?
It got rid of Fast Forward and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership which to date has funded precisely NO research projects.
And anyway, it only has $25 million in the kitty this year to do so.
I support this Bill because it’s ethically the right thing to do; but I question how this government intends to investigate the inevitable increase in complaints.
How is it going to equip vets, MAF staff or SPCA investigators to know when an animal is being mistreated?
Without that support, I fear this Bill will end up more as window dressing than providing the substance that a high quality animal welfare system in New Zealand will require.
Speech Notes for the House
See Jim Anderton’s news release on this issue. Click here.
In New Zealand we’ve always had a close connection both on a social and economic basis with animals.
Our economic success is based on animal-derived products.
But we are also proud of our ethical approach to the welfare of our animals.
We care about what happens to them, and we get upset when they are mistreated, whether on farms or in homes.
So I welcome this Bill today because it toughens up our ability to protect our animals and makes offenders pay for mistreatment.
But I’m not naive about the issues. Those whose incomes depend on animals can’t afford to be overly sentimental. They and we grow animals to provide food for New Zealanders and the rest of the world.
Starting out in the workforce in the fifties and sixties, I spent enough time in the freezing works of New Zealand to see a few things that would make us cringe today. It made me cringe even then.
But anyone working with animals or simply owning an animal can and should commit to acting humanely. And most people do.
This Bill doesn’t target the overwhelming majority of farmers, the producers and pet owners who work within the animal welfare guidelines. It targets the small minority who wilfully, recklessly or because of psychological impairment, mistreat animals.
It’s not hard to think of recent examples where animals are kept in inhumane conditions:
The sight of starving and neglected animals on our TV screen focuses everyone’s minds.
New Zealand’s niche in the world is that we are pure, clean and environmentally friendly.
In our markets consumers are becoming more and more demanding.
They are asking searching questions about issues like environmental responsibility. And they’re asking about animal health and welfare and the quality standards of our production processes.
The future for New Zealand’s primary exports will be in having the best answer to those questions we can possibly have.
There is no future in trying to compete on price alone against emerging low cost producers. We have to compete by guaranteeing the quality and value of our food production as a whole.
If we don’t meet the expectations of our customers - then we face potentially very damaging risks to our export base.
This Bill will make the Animal Welfare Act work better.
Increasing the penalty from three to five years shows that we take cruelty to animals seriously.
Introducing a new offence of ‘reckless ill-treatment’ of animals, alongside the existing ‘wilful ill-treatment’ will help us capture those who might otherwise not have reached the threshold for ‘wilful ill-treatment.’
But let’s be realistic; there’s no point in increasing the penalty if you don’t have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime!
This government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity.
When the Hadda Beetle was found in Auckland recently - it wasn’t found by a biosecurity staffer.....It was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park!
So how does this government intend to police animal welfare?
MAF have exactly 5 full time staff to do animal investigations - plus 7 contractors.
The SPCA have about 100 staff who investigate animal welfare - on whom the government is heavily dependent to monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act - without paying anything towards their costs.
In 2008 I gave as Minister of Agriculture (through MAF) a $300,000 one-off grant – but I recognize it was no-where near enough.
When I was minister we set up with the Fast Forward Fund, which was a partnership between the private sector and government to fund research and development.
We had over $700 million in the bank, ready to fund research projects into areas like this.
For example - how do you measure animal welfare? It’s not always easy. Measuring how an animal ‘feels’ about its environment is awkward, at the very least.
In 2006, the chairman of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, Professor Christopher Wathes, came to New Zealand and asked - ‘how do we know whether animal welfare standards are being observed?’
When I was Minister I used to get a huge volume of letters into my office about animal welfare issues. It was clear to me then - and it still is today - that we have to be leaders, not only in animal welfare, but in measuring the standards of animal welfare.
We have to be leaders in the right techniques, as well as in the substantive results, of our measuring.
The Fast Forward Fund could have helped to deepen our research into animal welfare - and therefore improve the market position of our animal-based industries.
How is the National government going to find the right tools to measure animal welfare now?
It got rid of Fast Forward and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership which to date has funded precisely NO research projects.
And anyway, it only has $25 million in the kitty this year to do so.
I support this Bill because it’s ethically the right thing to do; but I question how this government intends to investigate the inevitable increase in complaints.
How is it going to equip vets, MAF staff or SPCA investigators to know when an animal is being mistreated?
Without that support, I fear this Bill will end up more as window dressing than providing the substance that a high quality animal welfare system in New Zealand will require.
ACC turning people away
18/02/10 15:09 Filed in: News Releases
Victims of vicious attacks, a 17 year old girl who had an accident at the gym, and many other accident victims, are being turned away by ACC for having non-existent ‘pre-existing conditions’, says MP for Wigram and Progressive Party leader, Jim Anderton.
The Minister indicated in Parliament today that he would be willing to look at this issue if a clear pattern emerges.
“There is a clear pattern. He needs to do something now. My electorate office, and the offices of other MPs in Christchurch are inundated with stories of people who have been turned away by ACC after accidents or attacks,” says Jim Anderton.
“Wayne Direen, one of my constituents, was injured in an unprovoked attack in Christchurch, and sustained multiple injuries.
“Initially ACC paid for his treatment, but when his shoulder failed to come right, his GP referred him to an orthopaedic surgeon who recommended surgery. ACC declined to cover the surgery on the basis that the shoulder injury was a ‘pre-existing condition’ – which is clearly ludicrous.
“He had been a keen martial arts student and a rugby league player before the attack, and clearly did not have a long term shoulder problem - until the night he was attacked,” says Jim Anderton.
“Other cases include a businessman with his own cleaning business who fell at work and hurt his knee. He had no trouble with his knee prior to the accident, but again ACC declined to cover surgery on the grounds that he had a pre-existing medical condition.
“A self-employed electrician broke his elbow at work. ACC covered treatment for the bruising but not the broken bone because the break had caused on-going nerve problems which required surgery. He was forced to sell his wife’s car to pay for the operation.
“There are many more cases like this. Some of these people have contacted Nick Smith Minister for ACC, only to be sent away and told to take their case to the District Court. None of my constituents can afford to take this option, nor should they have to. Nick Smith needs to take responsibility and do something to stop this happening,” says Jim Anderton.
The Minister indicated in Parliament today that he would be willing to look at this issue if a clear pattern emerges.
“There is a clear pattern. He needs to do something now. My electorate office, and the offices of other MPs in Christchurch are inundated with stories of people who have been turned away by ACC after accidents or attacks,” says Jim Anderton.
“Wayne Direen, one of my constituents, was injured in an unprovoked attack in Christchurch, and sustained multiple injuries.
“Initially ACC paid for his treatment, but when his shoulder failed to come right, his GP referred him to an orthopaedic surgeon who recommended surgery. ACC declined to cover the surgery on the basis that the shoulder injury was a ‘pre-existing condition’ – which is clearly ludicrous.
“He had been a keen martial arts student and a rugby league player before the attack, and clearly did not have a long term shoulder problem - until the night he was attacked,” says Jim Anderton.
“Other cases include a businessman with his own cleaning business who fell at work and hurt his knee. He had no trouble with his knee prior to the accident, but again ACC declined to cover surgery on the grounds that he had a pre-existing medical condition.
“A self-employed electrician broke his elbow at work. ACC covered treatment for the bruising but not the broken bone because the break had caused on-going nerve problems which required surgery. He was forced to sell his wife’s car to pay for the operation.
“There are many more cases like this. Some of these people have contacted Nick Smith Minister for ACC, only to be sent away and told to take their case to the District Court. None of my constituents can afford to take this option, nor should they have to. Nick Smith needs to take responsibility and do something to stop this happening,” says Jim Anderton.