New Zealand is paraded as a case study of how it is possible to roll back the social gains achieved since the Second World War.

The architects of the New Zealand roll back in 1984, who were the leading politicians of the Labour Party, are now highly-paid consultants on the world business circuit outlining what is to be done. These consultants advise a lowering or elimination of taxes on the rich, dismantling tariff barriers, dismantling social services and education, the need to drive up interest rates to attract hot speculative capital and to sell-off all state-owned assets.

These propagandists do not provide however, the other side of the so-called success story: mass redundancies in the privatised industries with the costs borne socially; the gross deterioration in public health, education and social services as a consequence of the tax cuts for the rich; high interest rates which cripple farmers, small businesses and home owners; the success story is for the upper classes with crumbs to some privileged sectors of the middle and working classes.

In New Zealand, the way was cleared by the Labour Party and the inability and unwillingness of the union leadership to fight back. In a few short years from 1984, the Labour Party dismantled a progressive tax system and introduced a consumption tax, abandoned a universal social security system and introduced ever-increasing fees for education and destroyed subsidised public housing provisions for low-income workers.

By dropping the top rate of marginal tax of 66 cents in the dollar to 33% on the rich and flattening the tax scale, Labour supervised a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

With zealotry they carved out the profitable sectors of state enterprises and handed them over at bargain basement prices to New Zealand and foreign capitalists in this way telecommunications, state banks and insurance companies, forests, rail, electricity, oil and gas and whatever could not be nailed down was handed over.

The result of the consequent efficiencies were sackings and asset stripping. In 1990, our conservative party, the National Party, proclaimed a program to the left of Labour and declared that they would restore the social wage and end the sale of assets. They took this program into the 1990 election and won with a landslide. You won’t be surprised to learn that they did not carry this out.

At the same time a split in the governing Labour Party saw the emergence of the NewLabour Party pledged to progressive taxation, a social wage, retention of state owned assets and restoration of universal social services, public health, education, a policy of full employment, an end to environmental vandalism and resolution of the grievances of Maori.

The NLP leader, Jim Anderton, once president of the Labour Party, retained his seat with a greatly increased majority, and in 1991 NewLabour was joined by four other parties to form the Alliance Party: the Greens, Democrats, Mana Motuhake and the Liberals.

By 1996 the Alliance, with 10,000 members, under the new proportional electoral system gained 13 seats in a Parliament of 120 in a one-chamber system. The Alliance has used its parliamentary platform to campaign against the neo-liberal agenda. We campaign in and out of Parliament for full employment policies and a progressive taxation system, to fund free health and education.

We advocate the rights of immigrants and refugees in the face of anti-Asian campaigners, the most notorious being that of New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, now deputy prime minister ion the 1996 election. We vote against increased police powers, which have been introduced in a atmosphere of hysteria and law and order.

We explain that a justice system which has the second highest percentage of prisoners in the western world, outside the US, reflects deep inequality and racism given that 50% of inmates are Maori and Pacific Islanders.

We demand that the government’s financial cap of NZ$1 billion be taken off for Maori grievances and compensation claims and that an adequate budget be brought down so that each grievance for land, cultural loss or injustice be adequately compensated.

We measure the $1 billion offered to Maori against the $35 billion already made in profits by the privatised industries. We point to the need for public transport and strict environmental laws to make the polluters pay.

And in international affairs and defence we advocate a withdrawal from aggressive military alliances and advocate policies of solidarity with the aggressor. We introduced a bill into Parliament to end all military assistance to Suharto and to give full support for the right of self-determination in East Timor.

In the attempted war on Iraq the Alliance alone condemned New Zealand¹s participation which gave cover to the United States led aggression. The Labour Party said it would be all right if the UN agreed.

Now as a junior partner of the club of the rich nations New Zealand is to host the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation [leaders summit] in September 1999.

APEC is the forum of the Asia-Pacific rulers’ group, including the United States, which plans the economic policies that oppress our peoples. Hand in hand with the economic policies go the military machines that are in place to police the interests of the aggressors.

The New Zealand government is keen to have a successful conference for Howard, Clinton, Suharto and the other Asia-Pacific leaders. Preparations are well underway, but the New Zealand government wants a stage managed conference as made clear by a recent speech by foreign minister Don McKinnon: At the same time some of our fellow citizens seem to be rather unnerved by what lies outside our borders. International organisations such as the WTO or APEC seem to be regarded as stalking horses for a great multinational conspiracy. International capitalism seems to fall into the same category. And I never fail to be astonished by how many seem to subscribe to the maxim that the more powerful a country is, the less it is to be trusted.

As most of you know, Indonesia is currently experiencing a time of great need. I am reflecting on how we might most appropriately assist Indonesia, as well as considering actively what other contributions we might make to the region as the countries concerned work their way out of the current difficulties. We are part of the Asia-Pacific region. Some of our neighbours are in trouble. We must continue to respond to their needs in ways which are meaningful and effective.

I would now like to turn to APEC. New Zealand assumes leadership of this vital process during 1999. Hosting the APEC process will offer one of the most exciting opportunities New Zealand has ever had on the international stage.

The 21 APEC Leaders who will gather in Auckland on Monday September 13 next year will be the most powerful group of world figures ever to assemble in New Zealand. They represent more than half of the world’s population, and more than half the world’s economy.

Apart from this essentially political benefit, APEC’s core value lies in its pursuit of a regional community with rising standards of living. Trade and investment liberalisation are key means of realising this vision. At their meeting in Bogor, Indonesia in 1994, leaders established a target for free trade and investment in the region, by 2010 for developed countries, including New Zealand, and 2020 for developing countries.

Economic turbulence in the region has not so far caused a major rethink of our joint long-term goal. This does not mean to say that we are indifferent to the troubles that Indonesia, Thailand or Korea now find themselves in. Far from it. But we do not see a case for a wholesale change of tack. Rather increased attention to appropriate policy settings and regulatory frameworks are important ingredients in the recipe for allowing these countries to build their way out of their difficulties, with the support of the international community and their regional friends.

What will hosting APEC next year mean for New Zealand? Firstly, it is a chance for us to make a contribution to this critical international process, as we should. It is our time to be host to our friends, and to play our part in taking the process forward. I believe that most New Zealanders are now aware how important it is for us to trade energetically and successfully with the outside world in order to secure the employment and incomes we seek. APEC is a critical means by which we can open new opportunities for our firms in the enormous markets of our region.

There are some who query whether or not New Zealand should play host to APEC as we have committed to do or those who say we can spend the money better else that the inevitable burden that Auckland in particular will carry is too much and not worth it. There are even those who question whether or not trade liberalisation is a good thing. Frankly this astonishes me.

Well, it is time for a wholesale change of tack. And as part of that change of tack we are calling for a separate conference in Auckland, New Zealand. On our agenda will be:

– Collaboration in trade policies for the benefit of the majority.
– Economic and social justice.
– Environmental and labour issues.
– Abolition of oppressive military pacts and alliances.
– The alternatives to the policies of global capitalism.
– The development of unity between progressive and left parties and movements.

In a speech to the UN in Geneva on human rights recently Cuba’s foreign minister said that there should be a logical and collective solution to the very serious problems of world capitalism.

On behalf of the Alliance, I issue a call to all of you to help build a successful conference in September 1999 in Auckland as an alternative to the policies of APEC and to therefore progress that logical and collective solution.