All posts tagged UnitedFuture

Dunne on Māori, water, wind and race relations

Peter Dunne in a recent address to Petone Rotary:

Māori, water and the wind

Another issue that has been exercising our minds recently and that may well be before the courts soon is that of the Māori claims on water.

While Māori do have rights with respect to water interests, they are not and never can ever be exclusive rights.

Were they to be so, the logical conclusion must be that all New Zealand’s natural resources are owned by Māori – a claim long since rejected.

As with the foreshore and seabed, natural resources like air and water belong to all New Zealanders, and it is the Crown’s responsibility to exercise that ownership equally and fairly on behalf of us all.

Where customary usage can be established we should negotiate particular settlements in each specific instance, again in a manner similar to the provisions of the foreshore and seabed legislation.

UnitedFuture long promoted the public domain solution for the foreshore and seabed, which was finally enshrined in the 2010 legislation.

The same principle ought to be followed in respect of the current water rights debate.

Threat to Race Relations

I think at this point we also need to step back a little because there is something going on here that needs to be challenged.

Since its signing in 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi, our nation’s founding document, has been both honoured and dishonoured in various ways at various times.

But I would like to think we have got a little better – perhaps a lot better – in recent times at facing up to these issues.

On the occasions that the Treaty has been breached in word, deed or spirit, it has often been the Pākehā at fault, as evidenced by the much needed and very important Treaty settlements process of recent years.

In recent months, however, I believe we are seeing greed and opportunism and an attempt to cash-in, coming from some sections of Māori leadership, and none of it does credit to them.

In an age when we are righting wrongs of the past; in an age where Pākehā New Zealanders, I think, generally acknowledge the transgressions of their predecessors and with goodwill, want to see them put right, aspects of recent developments are very concerning.

Greed, it would seem, is not just a white man’s sin.

Māori leadership would do well to consider the implications of some of their particularly unreasonable demands around water – and now it would appear, coming further in from the fringes, the wind.

There is a well of goodwill in New Zealand among non-Māori and Māori alike.

Most New Zealanders genuinely want to understand, and then engage in and resolve issues around the Treaty of Waitangi.

But it is not a bottomless well of goodwill on either side.

Greed and opportunistic resource grabs are neither ethical nor smart, and will come at considerable cost to social harmony in this country that we all have to share today.

Sadly, it is once more a case of the extremists at either end of the argument who risk destroying the capacity of the rest of us to reach balanced, fair and enduring solutions, that the vast majority of us can live with.

by Pete George on October 5, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues, Politics
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on October 5, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/10/05/dunne-on-maori-water-wind-and-race-relations/

Peter Dunne explains alcohol law reforms

From a speech by Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne to Lion Partners setting out his views on the alcohol reforms and the reasons for them.

Introduction

The Alcohol Reform Bill is the Government’s formal response to the Law Commission’s report, and replaces the current Sale of Liquor Act 1989 in what promises to be the most major shake-up of our liquor laws in a generation.

Partnership and responsibility are essentially what the Alcohol Reform Bill is about.

And beyond legislation; beyond regulation, it will be partnership and responsibility that need to be present to really make things work.

There must be goodwill and an honest and real intent to make a difference and to meet the challenges we face as a society with alcohol.
The alcohol and hospitality sectors can in no sense stand apart from that.

The Alcohol Reform Bill, then, represents a balanced approach that aims to support the safe and responsible sale, supply and consumption of alcohol.

We must never forget that for many, many New Zealanders alcohol is a pleasant social lubricant that is enjoyed in many settings without any hint of problems or misuse, but there are those for whom alcohol is anything but a positive experience.

Summary

While the current Bill represents the most comprehensive legislative attempt since the passing of the Sale of Liquor Act in 1989 to curb alcohol-related harm, it is indeed only legislation and will not alone be enough to change the problems associated with New Zealand’s drinking culture.

It is how we all respond to the new legislation that is most important.

Real change will come with everyone playing a part: from Parliament, local government, Police, the alcohol and hospitality industries, communities, parents and individuals.

And a culture change can be achieved in relation to alcohol-associated activity.

We only need to look at the change over the last 10 to 15 years in public attitudes to drink driving – to a point now when it is considered to be entirely unacceptable.

So I hope that we all see this is a unique opportunity to tackle problem drinking and that if enough people act responsibly and appreciate what we are all trying to achieve that long term change will follow.

Full speech:

‘The Alcohol Law Reforms – the changes and the reasons behind them’

I am delighted to be able to speak to you today about the pending alcohol law changes contained in the Alcohol Reform Bill, currently wending its way through Parliament.

It is worth recalling that these changes arise out of a comprehensive review of alcohol and its place in New Zealand society conducted by the New Zealand Law Commission, which reported to the Government back in 2006.

The Alcohol Reform Bill is the Government’s formal response to the Law Commission’s report, and replaces the current Sale of Liquor Act 1989 in what promises to be the most major shake-up of our liquor laws in a generation.

When Liz invited to me to speak here today she noted Lion strongly advocates “that compliance with sale and supply laws and best practice in the responsible service of alcohol are intrinsic to operating an efficient and effective hospitality business”.

Then she asked me to outline Government’s perspective on minimising alcohol harm in the context of encouraging a vibrant and economically sustainable hospitality sector.

Both of those statements represent a position of a responsible partnership between those in the alcohol hospitality sector and the public – between reducing harm from alcohol while maintaining viable businesses and jobs.

As someone who has had a long association, now dating back nearly 35 years, with your industry and with the alcohol and drug field generally, I applaud both that statement and the recognition of reasonable partnership that it implies.

Partnership and responsibility are essentially what the Alcohol Reform Bill is about.

And beyond legislation; beyond regulation, it will be partnership and responsibility that need to be present to really make things work.

There must be goodwill and an honest and real intent to make a difference and to meet the challenges we face as a society with alcohol.
The alcohol and hospitality sectors can in no sense stand apart from that.

The Alcohol Reform Bill, then, represents a balanced approach that aims to support the safe and responsible sale, supply and consumption of alcohol.

We must never forget that for many, many New Zealanders alcohol is a pleasant social lubricant that is enjoyed in many settings without any hint of problems or misuse, but there are those for whom alcohol is anything but a positive experience.

I have to say that is my starting position when approaching the place of alcohol in our society, and I make no apologies for that.

It is too easy to fall in with extremists on either side of any argument but experience has taught me that keeping company with extremists of any description is as unwise as their solutions are unpalatable.

Let me repeat – most New Zealanders enjoy alcohol responsibly and appropriately as a social lubricant and do not have and will never have a problem with it.

It is therefore – as far as I am concerned – totally unreasonable that they should be punished, prohibited or unreasonably restricted in their access to and use of alcohol to address the very real problems of a very real minority.

Yes, we need to address these issues in our society, but we need to do so in a balanced way that does not impinge unreasonably upon the vast majority of New Zealanders who quietly and healthily enjoy a drink or two.

Alcohol policy therefore has to be a careful balance between respecting the rights of the overwhelming majority for whom alcohol will never be an issue, and addressing the circumstances which led to alcohol misuse by a minority.

Many New Zealanders are concerned by the misuse of alcohol in our society and the damage they see it causing.

That is not to say that they respond at all positively to the neo-prohibitionism now being demonstrated by some professional zealots, but rather that they are looking for genuine solutions that will work, ahead of the feel-good, ideological sloganeering they have been subject to for too long.

It goes without saying that the Government is seriously concerned by the major contribution of problem drinking to crime, public disorder and health problems in our communities, and accepts its responsibilities in this regard.

We see this Bill as the most serious and comprehensive attempt in more than 20 years to make fundamental changes to how, when and where New Zealanders drink.

But it will take individuals, industry and communities working together, not the pious hectoring of wowser intellectuals to make a real difference to the issue of problem drinking in our country.

Most of you will have a pretty good idea about what is proposed in the Bill.

However, it is a large piece of legislation and has undergone a number of changes since its introduction to Parliament – some of them as recently as late last month.

So let me outline the Bill’s main proposals.

New restrictions are proposed on the availability of alcohol.

For a start, dairies and convenience stores will no longer be able to sell alcohol.

Grocery stores will still be eligible for liquor licences, but the term ‘grocery store’ will be limited to premises that sell a wide range of food products and other household items, where the principal business is the sale of food products other than convenience foods.

Supermarkets and grocery stores will be restricted to displaying alcohol in a single area – and not at the check-out or at the entrance to the store.

The argument here is that a single area restriction will reduce exposure to alcohol, which has been associated with increased consumption and related harm among young people.

The Bill sets default maximum trading hours of 8am to 4am for on-licences and club licences and 7am to 11pm for off licences.

Overall, the Government believes the proposed trading hours reflect a balance between reducing alcohol-related harm and the impacts on licensees and responsible drinkers.

All these changes are designed to remove the opportunities many young people have had to obtain alcohol cheaply and constantly and almost right around the clock.

The Bill also aims to empower local communities to determine where and how alcohol is sold – and it introduces a risk-based licence fee regime.

Local authorities will be able to establish local alcohol policies and expand licensing criteria.

These may include restricting or extending maximum trading hours, specifying the location of outlets and imposing one-way doors.

If communities choose not to establish a Local Alcohol Policy, then the national framework will apply.

The risk-based licence fee regime is intended to reflect risk factors such as the type and capacity of the venue, trading hours and previous conduct of the licensee.

Its objectives are to recover the costs of regulating the licensing industry as far as possible and to incentivise licensees to adjust their practices to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related harm.

Personal and parental responsibility

The Bill proposes new requirements for alcohol to be supplied responsibly to young people.

Many parents have for too long felt a degree of impotence when it comes to moderating the way in which their young ones deal with alcohol outside the family home.

Parental consent will now be required before alcohol can be supplied to young people and their drinking will require adult supervision.

This will mean the good parenting of responsible adults cannot be so easily undone by the irresponsible actions of some other parents.

Police will also have a greater ability to intervene in unsupervised or poorly supervised parties, such as after-ball functions.

The Government recently proposed new amendments to the Bill to improve its workability and effectiveness – and to address issues that were raised in the consultation process.

For example, changes have been made to address concerns around the increase in the last few years of the alcohol content in ready-to-drink beverages – RTDs.

The Bill now includes a new regulation-making power that enables a maximum alcohol content and number of standard drinks per container for RTDs sold from licensed premises, which can be used if the Government considers it necessary.

I should acknowledge here that the industry has responded recently to these proposals by announcing it is developing a code to voluntarily reduce alcohol levels in RTDs.

The Government is still awaiting details of the proposals, but I welcome the industry response as a positive development.

Cynics are already saying it is the Government letting the industry off the hook with this move.

Make no mistake – you need to prove them wrong.

We are putting a degree of trust in you to address issues properly and, to be blunt, we would not welcome the criticism that would come our way should that trust prove misplaced.

I have no doubt that you as an industry are aware of that.

In the first instance, it is up to you, the industry, to give your critics pause for thought with integrity rather than opportunism in the self-regulatory codes that you will put in place around RTDs.

I have said that the bill before Parliament now is a generational change in our treatment of alcohol as a society.

What society is rightfully demanding of the alcohol and hospitality industry is that it rises above opportunism and the pursuit of the next fast buck.

Some of the criticism that you have received in the past is not entirely unmerited.

The game must be lifted.

The Bill as a whole is expected to be passed by the end of this year, with some provisions coming into effect after six months and the majority after 12 months.

This is to provide enough time to set up new licensing and enforcement systems, and to give industry time to adapt to the changes.

The Ministry of Justice is leading a plan to ensure the changes are implemented efficiently and communicated to key stakeholders.

There are a number of other measures the Government is investigating to see if they will reduce harm:

Minimum pricing

Last month the Opposition proposed an amendment to the Bill to provide the Government with powers to set a minimum price for a standard measure of alcohol.

I stated at the time that I was opposed to the amendment on the basis that I consider it to be elitist, as it will disproportionately affect those who cannot afford more expensive products and not affect others at all.

I am also yet to see any convincing evidence that it will work by curbing New Zealand’s so-called binge drinking culture.

What is required is a careful consideration on whether a pricing scheme is workable.

That is why the Government has asked the Ministry of Justice to investigate the impact and effectiveness of a minimum price regime.

Expert review of advertising

Another issue that requires careful consideration is the impact of advertising on people’s drinking.

The Government has agreed to establish an expert forum to consider the effectiveness of further restrictions on alcohol advertising and sponsorship to reduce alcohol-related harm.

This is a joint project between the Ministries of Justice and Health.

The Ministry of Health is in the process of identifying forum members and drafting a terms of reference.

The expert forum will be set up after the Alcohol Reform Bill is passed.

It will invite submissions from experts and from other interested parties and will report back to the Government within one year.

If accepted by the Government, there will be a further process of consultation undertaken by a parliamentary select committee as part of the legislative process.

Other initiatives

There are also other initiatives the Government is progressing directly, or supporting, to prevent alcohol-related harm.

For example, the Government has recently committed $10 million each year, taken from alcohol excise revenue, towards assessment and interventions for alcohol and other drugs.

These include screening for alcohol problems and brief interventions; nationally consistent youth treatment services; community based treatment for offenders with alcohol or drug problems; and a pilot drug court for adult offenders in Auckland.

I would like to acknowledge the role of ALAC here too, which is now part of the new Health Promotion Agency.

Since 1976, ALAC has been providing guidance and direction to the hospitality sector on safer drinking environments and improved host responsibility.

ALAC is also working to assist and educate industry and local authorities on what the new legislation will mean – and how it will work – in practice.

National Drug Policy review

The Ministry of Health has begun a review of the National Drug Policy 2007 – 2012.

As the title suggests, the policy expires this year and I see it as an excellent opportunity to review its effectiveness.

The National Drug Policy provides the basis for coordinated policy development and action to address drug issues in New Zealand.

The key principle of the policy is harm minimisation and co-ordinated approaches to control supply, reduce demand and provide treatment to those with drug-related problems.

I should point out here that ‘drugs’ in the National Drug Policy is used in the wider sense of the term and includes alcohol, tobacco, illegal and emerging drugs, and other substances with legitimate uses which are sometimes diverted for illicit purposes.

The Ministry of Health will be working in conjunction with a number of other government agencies on the review.

The objective is to ensure the new policy is fit for purpose, based on good evidence, cost effective, and allocates resources where they will achieve the best results.

The Ministry of Health plans to consult on a draft policy by March 2013 and for a new National Drug Policy to be in place later in the year.

Conclusion

Finally, I would like to return to the issue of partnership.

While the current Bill represents the most comprehensive legislative attempt since the passing of the Sale of Liquor Act in 1989 to curb alcohol-related harm, it is indeed only legislation and will not alone be enough to change the problems associated with New Zealand’s drinking culture.

It is how we all respond to the new legislation that is most important.

Real change will come with everyone playing a part: from Parliament, local government, Police, the alcohol and hospitality industries, communities, parents and individuals.

And a culture change can be achieved in relation to alcohol-associated activity.

We only need to look at the change over the last 10 to 15 years in public attitudes to drink driving – to a point now when it is considered to be entirely unacceptable.

So I hope that we all see this is a unique opportunity to tackle problem drinking and that if enough people act responsibly and appreciate what we are all trying to achieve that long term change will follow.

by Pete George on September 7, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues, Politics
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 7, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/07/peter-dunne-explains-alcohol-law-reforms/

Hard road ahead for United Future?

United Future had a meeting/conference sort of thing in Auckland on Saturday. Not many people attended (I was one of ‘less than twenty’). Not much media bothered to turn up. Subsequent coverage has given fair emphasis:

United Future says big challenges ahead

At the United Future party annual conference at the weekend, president Robin Gunston told our political reporter Clare Pasley that Peter Dunne’s party is rebranding to a liberal democratic identity.

United Future looking for big backers ahead of 2014

The United Future President, Robin Gunston, says the party will need financial backing if it is to be successful in 2014, especially if the MMP thresholds are changed and it can no longer bring in MPs on the back of the leader, Peter Dunne.

Dunne concedes hard road ahead for United Future

The newly liberal democratic United Future party’s leader talks about the hard road ahead to the next elections after last weekend’s party conference.

Three reports from Radio NZ suggest that United Future is sort of like a Lotto dream party, hoping to win something to change it’s fortunes.

NZ Herald didn’t attend but have belatedly added a small report:

United puts message on rebrand to AGM of 20

MP Peter Dunne was expecting a small annual meeting for his United Future party at the weekend – but not quite as small as 20 people.

That was about the size of the crowd that turned up at the Martin Hautus Institute in Onehunga to hear the leader’s address.

He told the Herald last night he hadn’t been mortified by the turnout, but would have preferred more. “It was an AGM. It wasn’t really a conference. That’s why the numbers were light.”

It’s easy to see in this reporting that the party is struggling to survive. It is struggling to survive. Which is a shame, it has potentially a lot to offer a lot of people, but not many people have any inclination to do anything about it.

The party is rebranding as Liberal Democrat, which is a reasonable exercise internally and to promote to the media and political watchers.

Last night he expanded on the bid to present the tiny party as a Liberal Democrat party. “What we’re talking about is support of a free, open, competitive, economic environment but accepting the state has very clear responsibilities in education, health and welfare.”

But it’s a label that will have little resonance to the wider public. I don’t see or hear a clamouring for a New Zealand Liberal Democrat party.

A third strand was supporting community-based solutions to problems. The values weren’t new to the party but he had been thinking a lot about how to get his message across.

The third strand is the key if United Future is to do more than have a solid policy platform (which it has) and one MP flying the party flag (which it has) amidst flagging support (which it has).

United Future has not been a populist party. It doesn’t look likely it will win a Lotto of support, because it doesn’t offer glitzy illusions of prizes.

But it is a party with a very sound framework.

It is a framework that could easily support a community-based solutions approach to problems.

People want to be listened to. Communities want to be listened to. They want to play a part in finding, prioritising and implementing solutions that are appropriate for their own communities.

All United Future needs to do is provide the framework for communities to achieve this.

It needs to rebrand as more than a political label. It needs to be a party for people. Not just for MPs. Not just for members. A party that provides a framework for everyone in New Zealand’s communities to be heard, and to enable them to work on their own solutions.

A party as a road, allowing people to do more of their own walking.

by Pete George on August 28, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on August 28, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/08/28/hard-road-ahead-for-united-future/

United Future conference welcome…

United Future is having it’s party conference in Auckland tomorrow.

Saturday, 25th August 2012 at 10am – 3pm

Keynote address: the Mayor of Auckland, Len Brown.

If you are curious about having a look you will be welcome. If interested get in touch with me, I’m happy to meet beforehand (I’m meeting with others at 9am) to introduce and chat to help make you welcome.

  • Email: petedgeorge@gmail.com
  • Phone: 027 327 3468

UnitedFuture Annual Conference

This year marks a key time for the party as it repositions to be the Liberal Democratic political representation in New Zealand. We need all of those of you who wish to see a vibrant alternative expression within our political spectrum to attend and make your views known.

United Future has had an increased profile this term with Peter Dunne’s crucual vote in parliament. This generates plenty of interest, and it also provides a unique chance to fast track into an influential party position.

United Future has the structure and the policies that make it the best positioned opportunity to establish a centre-ish alternative to the big parties in Government. The country needs more and better alternatives.

Politics and parties are what we make of them.

Image

 

by Pete George on August 24, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on August 24, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/08/24/united-future-conference-welcome/

Peter Dunne votes with Labour and a barb

Today Peter Dunne is expected to vote in support of two Labour Member’s bills:

Dunne to use casting vote

  • David Clark’s bill to Monday-ise Anzac Day and Waitangi Day
  • Sue  Moroney’s bill to increase paid parental leave to 26 week

Dunne has commented on Facebook:

Tomorrow, two Labour Member’s Bill will pass first reading in ParliamentThe vote in both cases will 61-60 in favour.

What perplexes me is that Labour seems happy to accept my vote being the one that tips their Bills over the line tomorrow, while only a few weeks they were railing in the most disgusting terms against the fact that the Mixed Ownership Model Bill was also passed 61-60 on the basis of my vote.

In both cases, my vote was based on long standing UnitedFuture policy positions. I have been entirely consistent. But on the face of it, Labour’s position seems not only remarkable inconsistent, but also extremely self-serving.

This is a fair call from Dunne. He has been bombarded with extensive criticism on hos MOM Bill vote – much of it ill-informed or deliberately false.

Ironically David Clark has been one Labout MP who has openly criticised Dunne…

1 -Absent conscience when it comes to keeping his election promise never to sell off our water assets.

…and wouldn’t retract this blatantly false accusation, but who accepts Dunne’s support for his own bill when it’s on exactly the same basis, consistent with United Future policy.

So Dunne has made a point…

Mr Dunne admitted he was tempted to withhold support for the Labour MPs’ bills in revenge for the “smears” he was subjected to during debate on the state assets sale bill, but decided sticking to his principles was more noble than political utu.

…but common sense politics prevails.

by Pete George on July 25, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on July 25, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/07/25/peter-dunne-votes-with-labour-and-a-barb/

Peter Dunne on Q+A

United Future leader Peter Dunne got a rare chance to explain his stances on Q+A.

Interview video

Peter Dunne explains his position no asset sales, the Sky City deal, and minimum alcohol pricing.

TV One’s news report:

Labour’s minimum booze price plan ‘elitist’ – Dunne

United Future leader Peter Dunne has ruled out supporting Labour’s bid to put a minimum price on alcohol, possibly sinking the plans designed to halt binge drinking.

Labour has been drumming up support for the plan in Parliament, hoping to add a clause to the Alcohol Law Reform Bill, which would give the Ministry of Justice the power to set a minimum price for a drink.

“It’s very easy, for particularly young women, to pre-load with cheap wine from the supermarkets and then go out on the town and get drunker and drunker,” Labour MP Charles Chavuel said last week.

“If instead of being able to buy a bottle of cheap wine for $6 from the supermarket, a minimum pricing regime puts that up to 12, 13 or 14 dollars then it’s much harder for people to lay their hands on cheap booze,” Chauvel said.

But, Dunne told TV ONE’s Q+A programme this morning he would not support Labour’s amendment as currently proposed, describing it as “elitist”.

“To say that we’ll have a minimum price of $12 for a bottle of wine because people who can’t afford to pay $12 shouldn’t pay a lesser price, but Chardonnay socialists who can pay $25, $30 for a bottle of wine will still be able to get their wine. I think that’s a really elitist and ridiculous argument.”

Dunne said if there was evidence that showed that the scheme was workable he would consider it.

“But I have to say, putting my hat on as Associate Health Minister for a moment, a lot of the material that I’ve seen from other jurisdictions raises more doubts than support for the issue of minimum alcohol pricing.”

He adds his decision was less to do with voting on it in the house, and more the correct policy outcome.

Transcript:

Q+A: Transcript of Peter Dunne interview

SHANE TAURIMA

Good morning, Peter Dunne. Thank you for joining us. You’ve been under a bit of fire lately for supporting the state asset sales. Was it a hard decision to mae?

PETER DUNNE – United Future Leader

No, it wasn’t. In fact, United Future and its policy as long ago as 2005, had said while we opposed wholesale asset sales, we were not against floating shares in selected state assets. We had the same policy in 2008, had the same policy in 2011. I enunciated it on the leaders debate in this very studio in 2011. So it was not a difficult decision to make. What’s been surprising, though, is that no one seemed to notice that we were honouring a policy commitment we put in place three years ago.

SHANE You weren’t swayed by the polls, public opposition or indeed your electorate?

PETER No. In fact, in every electorate meeting during the campaign, this issue was raised. I set out the position exactly as I intended to follow, what our policy was. I was re-elected with an increased majority. We concluded in our confidence and supply agreement statutory limitations. The National Party previously wasn’t in favour of putting into law the 51-49 10 split. That was put in the confidence and supply agreement. Utterly transparent and public. I’m one of these old fashioned people that believes that if you say something, you stand by your word. If you make an agreement, you keep it, and that’s exactly what I’ve done.

SHANE So I wonder do you think your support was damaged in any way. Or by keeping your word, do you think it increased your support?

PETER Who knows? Time will tell. But for me, whether it be mixed-ownership models or any other issues where we have taken a clearly determined position, what is important is actually honouring your word. I think the people have had far too much of politicians who say one thing before an election and then weasel word after it. In fact, I must be the only politician being criticised for keeping his word.

SHANE A lot has been made about you having the deciding vote, and I wonder what you think about that. Is that a comfortable position to be in, given that you’re going to be in that position again. And I ask you because, as we say, it’s one man, one vote, but a lot of power.

PETER Well, first of all, that was what the electorate chose. I didn’t choose that particular outcome. You live with it. And the rule that I’ve adopted, as I’ve tried to hint at in what I’ve said already, is where the issue is one where we have had a clearly enunciated policy on it, that will be the position that I follow.

SHANE So you follow party policy?

PETER Absolutely. Because it’s been out there, and it’s been available, and people have judged me and my party on that previously. If it’s a new issue, then it depends entirely on the circumstances of that issue, what the facts are, what the benefits or disadvantages might be, and that will be case by case.

SHANE Let’s go to a few of the issues that are coming up-

PETER And the other point just before you do is I don’t know, my crystal ball doesn’t tell me where other parties are going to be on these issues. So I don’t factor into the decision, and I can’t, actually, whether my vote will be the determining one or not. What I have to do is decide what is the right course for me as the United Future member of Parliament to follow. Now, if that means that in some situations it’s the casting vote, so be it. If in other situations it means that my vote is just one of many on one side or the other of an argument, that’s life too. But I don’t seek to be the casting vote. I can’t, because that’s actually determined by what others do, not what I do.

SHANE Let’s take a look at some of the issues that are coming up, like the alcohol reforms. Do you support a minimum price for alcohol?

PETER I certainly don’t support the Labour Party’s amendment, which I think is remarkably elitist. To say that we’ll have a minimum price of $12 for a bottle of wine because people who can’t afford to pay $12 shouldn’t pay a lesser price, but Chardonnay socialists who can pay $25, $30 for a bottle of wine will still be able to get their wine. I think that’s a really elitist and ridiculous argument.

SHANE So you don’t support a regime?

PETER I don’t support a minimum pricing regime as currently proposed. Were there to be evidence that would suggest a workable scheme, I would look at it. But I have to say, putting my hat on as Associate Health Minister for a moment, a lot of the material that I’ve seen from other jurisdictions raises more doubts than support for the issue of minimum alcohol pricing.

SHANE The minister also doesn’t seem that supportive of such a regime because she says it’s just going to line the pockets of the liquor industry.

PETER I assume you mean Minister Collins?

SHANE Minister Collins, yes.

PETER Well, I think there are a lot of arguments to have, but, you see, we’re leaping ahead here to say that my vote will be the determining one on this issue. I don’t know that. I don’t know what NZ First is doing.

SHANE But you’ve made your mind up, though?

PETER I have, but it’s not to do with whether it’s the casting vote. It’s what I think is the correct policy outcome in this case would be.

SHANE What about the Sky City deal? And I know that you’re not going to confirm your position till you’ve seen more detail, but you are on the record saying you support Auckland having a world-class convention centre.

PETER That’s right. And I’m also on the record as saying as one of the principal architects of the 2003 Gambling Act, which has seen a significant reduction in the number of pokie machines across the country, I don’t want to see that downward trend interfered with either. So it will come down to what the specific deal is when one eventually emerges, what the impact on the number of pokie machines – not necessarily on one site, but globally – is going to be and what other benefits-

SHANE So when you talk about a reduction in pokie numbers, are we talking about across the country, or are we talking about across Auckland?

PETER No, I’m talking about across the country, but you obviously want to look at what the trend is going to be and is that going to be adversely affected by a decision that might be made in respect of that venue. But until such time as I see the detail, Shane, I can’t really start to talk about, ‘Well, if it’s this number or that number or if they’re here or there.’

SHANE But I’m interested to explore further your reduction policy, because are you talking about a reduction here in Auckland?

PETER No, no. I’ve just said as a result of the 2003 legislation, we’ve seen a significant number, about a third I think, from memory, of the number of pokie machines that were in place at that time, come off in the last decade. I want to see that trend maintained.

SHANE So would you be ok, though, if the pokie numbers were to increase here in Auckland?

PETER Well, it depends what the total picture looks like, both in terms of the particular site, the region and the country. Until a deal is put on the table, I can’t give you that answer.

SHANE Can I give you some figures? And these are from Internal Affairs. They say that the average amount of money that we’ve put into a pokie machine is $47,000. The average amount of money that we’ve put into a pokie machine at Sky City is $140,000. $47,000 versus $140,000. Doesn’t that prove that were you do put these pokie machines, it does matter?

PETER Yes, it may well prove that. But then you’ve got to say almost, ‘So what? If people are putting money in pokie machines and enjoying them, so what?’ Now, you will say to me, ‘Ah, yes. Problem gambling.’ I’m the minister responsible for problem gambling. We have about 6,500 cases a year, which is a very small number. I’m not minimising the impact on those people who are affected. But compared to the number of people who play a pokie machine, buy a Lotto ticket or whatever, it is a very small number. So my counter to you would be to say if you’re putting in significant sums of money through those machines, you then have to say are the negative consequences sufficiently great to limit the opportunity for the majority? I’m not saying I’m indifferent to their concerns – far from it. But it’s a balancing act as well. We have far more people, for instance, if you take the analogy, who would have alcohol-related problems because of the amount they drink in proportion to the total number of drinkers than problem gamblers.

SHANE But you want fewer pokie machines, and, yet, as we’ve seen, the amount of money that’s being put into them is going up. That’s got to say something.

PETER I think it shows that at one level, people quite like the opportunity to have a flutter, and I think we’ve got to be very careful when we make policy that we don’t impinge upon people’s rights to enjoy themselves to an unnecessary extent. If those machines are attracting that level of patronage, it’s because people obviously like to be able to do that. Then you’ve got on the other side of the coin, of course, a large number of community activities that currently benefit from the proceeds from the various trusts etc. So you’ve got to balance the community benefit at that level out against the cost to the individual out against the benefit to individual operators.

SHANE It sounds a bit like you support the deal.

PETER Well, I haven’t seen a deal, so I can’t give you that answer, Shane, until I see a deal. All I’m saying is these are the parameters within which the decision would have to be considered. Then the next issue that arises is will it require legislation in Parliament. That’s not clear yet either. So when you start to talk about where my vote might count, you actually need to talk about what the issue is, rather than just a generality.

SHANE Finally, because we have to start wrapping up, I know it’s two years away, but I wonder if you’ve decided whether you’re going to stand again at the next election.

PETER I’ve always made the position of determining what I do at an election about a year out or so from the next election. So I’ve made no call either way, and I guess I’ll probably think about it sometime next year. But at this stage I’m more than happy doing what I’m doing. I’ve got a lot of challenges on my plate, a big workload, and that’s what my focus is.

SHANE Is there anything stopping you at the moment from standing again?

PETER Oh, there’s nothing stopping me. There’s nothing actually on the other side saying to me, ‘You must do it.’ It’s an open book. But I’ve always said that to be the case. That’s been the case since 1987 when I first had to make this call. But, as I say, my priority at the moment is my workload, my portfolios and the job that I’m doing.

SHANE So you could go either way?

PETER Oh, who knows? Who knows? Time’s got a long way to unfold yet, and I think it’s utterly premature to even start speculating about, A) when the next election might be and, B) what individuals will do in respect to it.

SHANE I’m also wondering if you’re likely to stick with John Key and National if you decide to stick around.

PETER Well, let’s see again what cards are dealt after the election. I mean, one of the things that I’ve learned, and I’ve been through a few of these confidence and supply negotiations now, is that you wait to see what judgement the electorate offers, what the likely makeup of governments might be. Then you look at them and say, ‘Ok, if it looks like this grouping, what policy compatibilities can we have or do we have? Is it feasible?’

SHANE But you could stick with John Key?

PETER Absolutely. It’s been a good working relationship for the last four years. I think that if you look at the things we’ve had in our 2008 and 2011 agreements, we’ve been able to achieve, in respect of ’08, everything. In respect of the current agreement, we’re well on track. And that’s really what it’s about. It’s about achieving outcomes that are important to your particular party in terms of what you want to advance.

SHANE What about David Shearer and Labour? Could you work with them?

PETER Well, I have worked with Labour in the past.

SHANE What about David Shearer?

PETER David Shearer is someone I am getting to know. I think we have common ground on some issues. Certainly he supports our flexi superannuation policy, for instance. So there are issues we could work on together. Whether, of course, that will come to pass depends on the judgement of the electorate in both our cases and also on what other options are around at the time.

SHANE Let me put it this way. Could a Labour-Greens-NZ First-United Future Government be good for New Zealand?

PETER It sounds a bit like a smorgasbord, doesn’t it?

SHANE (CHUCKLES) Would it be good for New Zealand, though?

PETER Well, any government is good for New Zealand if it works effectively. I think that the makeup of that particular government in that composition might just have too many differences. Mr Peters has been fired to date from every government he’s been in, for example. Would you want that to be part of the mix? Because it’s a recipe for failure. The Greens have never been in a government. Untried territory there. So who knows? But the cards lie in the hands of the electors.

SHANE A great place to leave it. Peter Dunne, thank you very much for joining us.

PETER Thank you, Shane.

by Pete George on July 9, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on July 9, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/07/09/peter-dunne-on-qa/

United Future protects against Peters/Brash/Banks

The reality of the election has become clear. If you don’t want National to rule on their own there are obvious choices. Two of those choices are worrisome, one is safe.

  • If you don’t want Brash and Banks holding the balance of power and pulling National right vote United Future.
  • If you don’t want Parliament and the country being held to ransom by Winston Peters vote United Future.
  • If you do want the continuation of a steady reliable government in precarious economic times vote United Future.

And wait, there’s more.

  • If you want sensible policies vote United Future.
  • If you like a family friendly party vote United Future.
  • If you value continued access to the great Kiwi outdoors vote United Future.

The media likes drama and division. United Future demonstrates common sense and working together.

It’s a no nonsense no brainer – vote UnitedFuture.

by Pete George on November 24, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on November 24, 2011

http://yournz.org/2011/11/24/united-future-protects-against-petersbrashbanks/

Critical choice – Winsome’s ransom or United Future

The polls show voters are looking to an alternative to National ruling alone. Labour are lost in bewilderness, Greens look strong but have limited their options with National and Act have self destructed.

That – and a media obsession with him giving him oxygen – is why Winston Peters has surged in the polls. But once voters assess what that really means will New Zealand First hold up to scrutiny?

Winston has a history of playing political games and doing different to what he promises – the infamous baubles switch in 2005 a glaring example, and his No means Yes sign.

In difficult economic times – and possibly much worse if Europe crashes – it is essental we have steady stable government, a government that can react to international shocks without being held to winsome ransom.

If voters want a safe reliable alternative to National withiout taking a huge risk, UnitedFuture with Peter Dunne is the obvious option.

United Future is an alternative that can be relied on.

by Pete George on November 21, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on November 21, 2011

http://yournz.org/2011/11/21/critical-choice-winston-peters-or-united-future/

11/11/11 prediction

In 11 days:

11% – Labour
11% – Greens
11% – United Future

by Pete George on November 11, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on November 11, 2011

http://yournz.org/2011/11/11/111111-prediction/

Poll signals Labour’s disaster, United Future’s opportunity

The latest Fairfax poll shows Labour’s collapse has started – down to 25.9%.

This isn’t unexpected as they continue to flail around with futile policy disasters. They have started to attack Key much more which signals their desperation.

National are still holding steady at 52.5% – it’s likely this will dip late to somewhere under the 50% mark closer to the election.

Greens have surged to 12.6%, not surprising as they appear much more assured and assuring than Labour. Many voters quite like the Greens but don’t want them having too much influence in government, some of their policies are too idealsitic and not realistic.

So what are the options for balancing National power? It’s not happening for Act.

It’s not out of the question that Winston Peters benefits and survives to sit on the cross benches.

The only other option to restrain National power is UnitedFuture, and the party that is often ignored as too sensible is starting to emerge as the logical middle vote.

It’s going to be an interesting couple of weeks.

by Pete George on November 9, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on November 9, 2011

http://yournz.org/2011/11/09/poll-signals-labours-disaster-united-futures-opportunity/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers