THE MILLENNIUM AGENDA

HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR, CHRISTCHURCH

President Geoff Thompson, Vice Presidents, Ministers, MPs, delegates, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for the welcome.

Thank you for acknowledging Joan who carries a considerable workload and whose support and help make it possible for me to do my job.

Let me repeat my thanks for your patience and understanding.

Thank you for endlessly explaining why we are in a Coalition, for pointing out, time and again, that the National Party is still on track and delivering on our policies.

While we all prepared for the new era of MMP it still was a case of learning on the road as well.

But as I said in my opening remarks yesterday, we have learned quickly to adapt to the new demands of MMP and Coalition Government.

The same is not true for the Labour Party.

Labour MPs, in their third consecutive term in Opposition, are not a happy lot.

Their front bench is fighting, their policy base is in disarray and their philosophy unclear.

They see their only hope of getting into Government is with the Alliance, and that's a scary prospect.

You need a strong heart and strong stomach to contemplate Canterbury's own panel beater John Wright as Minister of Finance in a Labour/Alliance Government.

The uncomfortable fact for the old left is that worldwide politics has moved to the right.

Witness the political programme of the United Kingdom's new Labour Government.

First they borrowed our Reserve Bank Act as a model and last week they announced changes to tertiary education, including a student loans scheme that sounds just like ours.

Those who remain on the old left like New Zealand's Labour and the Alliance are political misfits in today's world.

The centre right Government we helped form last December is not a stop gap.

It can be the beginning of an extended period of centre right Government in New Zealand.

Helen Clark knows that well led, well managed Coalitions tend to last longer than single party Governments.

That's Labour's nightmare.

As far as the Coalition is concerned, we are getting on with the job, addressing big and difficult issues.

Yesterday Doug Graham spoke of the work that is going on in the area of Treaty settlements.

That work is detailed and demanding, and I thank him for his considerable effort and achievement in this area.

I acknowledge that all are not comfortable with Treaty settlements and many wish that these issues would all go away.

The fact that we continue to deal with this demanding legacy of the past confirms this is a different Government from the National Governments of the 50s, 60s and 70s, but then so is New Zealand a different country.

The great strength of the National Party is its ability to grow to meet new situations, to respond to different circumstances.

In times of great change to stand still is to die - that's what's happening to Labour.

Today I also want to highlight the work of Foreign Affairs Minister Don McKinnon in bringing around 70 Bougainvilleans to Burnham Camp for peace talks.

We daily hear of the deaths and carnage that happen in Northern Ireland - and we all want this last effort at peace talks there to succeed - but there have been more people killed on Bougainville these last nine years than in Northern Ireland over the same period.

Don had a delicate and difficult challenge to persuade people who had been fighting each other to put that to one side and sit down to talk about bringing peace to the Island.

The negotiations also provided the release of five hostages.

There were, and are, high risks involved but that is not an excuse to do nothing.

I want to acknowledge and thank Don McKinnon for his great effort in promoting peace on Bougainville.

As you know the Coalition Agreement committed the Government to holding a referendum on superannuation.

That will be held by postal ballot in the three weeks leading up to 26 September.

It is said that the only two things certain in life are death and taxes.

It seems New Zealand has added interminable superannuation debates to that list.

This annual conference has seen many such debates over the years.

>From the heady days when Rob Muldoon promised everyone 80 per cent of the average wage at age 60 years, through the painful debates on the surtax and the decision to lift the age of entitlement from 60 years to age 65 years and reduce the payment from 80 per cent to 65 per cent of the net average wage.

All these changes were driven by economic necessity but they have been divisive, as people have been forced to change their expectations.

I don't want that to happen again.

This time it is sensible to look forward and prepare in advance for the next century when the number of citizens over age 65 years will increase from today's 450,000 to around 1.1 million.

That arithmetic means the workforce per retiree will more than halve and in the absence of change, the cost of the current superannuation scheme will more than double as a percentage of GDP.

These are massive changes unlike any we have seen before and it is right that politicians should ask you, the public, what you are prepared to support.

The issue of an ageing population won't go away, it has to be faced.

The Todd update on the existing superannuation scheme was released on Thursday.

The conclusions and recommendations from the Interim Report require careful reading to distil the message.

They regret the removal of the surtax, and note that this decision breaks the linkage between public and private provision.

The report says the linkage must be re-established in some way.

The only way I know to do that is to re-introduce some form of income testing.

Importantly, the report also states that there is a need to establish public agreement on how change will be managed in future, and it wants to achieve that by the review in 2003, only six years away.

The report says change should be on the basis of retirement income being a shared responsibly, a mix of both pubic and private provision.

Again that requires targeting or, if you like, income testing.

The report also suggests raising again the age of entitlement and future tax increases.

They confirm, in gentle language, what we all know: namely that the present New Zealand superannuation scheme is not sustainable in its present form on into the future and that it will require quite wide ranging change over many years.

It is up to New Zealanders to decide whether, the necessity of future changes to the existing scheme having been confirmed, they prefer to move to a compulsory funded scheme or not.

My over-riding objective is that when people vote they will understand what the 'yes' and 'no' vote means when change comes.

The good news is that the decision will be made not by politicians but by all New Zealanders in the privacy of their own homes, filling in their postal ballot.

I wish them well.

The strength of the economy is of course important for superannuation and all the other areas of Government spending, particularly for future tax cuts after the tax cuts we will all get in 1998.

Achieving a much higher level of economic performance has been a top priority issue for the National Party.

We have had very considerable success since 1990 as Bill Birch, Jenny Shipley, Lockwood Smith and John Luxton outlined earlier.

You will be pleased to know that I don't intend to go over it again. It is pleasing that confidence in the economy has bounced back.

I underline the points they made and reaffirm that we are not standing still and that we have an active programme to bring through even better performance in the future.

One of the most important new issues before us is the Land Transport Pricing Study.

Government decisions on this will have a marked influence on competition between various modes of transport, CO2 emissions, and possibly property rates.

These important decisions will be made later this year.

Our economic programme will underscore our commitment to dismantling barriers and opening up trade.

While traditional markets will always be important the real growth in trade is going to be in the Asia/Pacific region.

As trade barriers come down the concept of sovereign national borders in business and trade get swept aside.

We are then in a position to use the trade expertise we have marshalled over the years to gain better deals around the world.

In this emerging world the large mega corporations will dominate business news.

We must not be distracted by that.

It is the world of small business that provides opportunities for the next generation of entrepreneurs and it is small business that creates the new jobs.

Keep the environment right for small business and New Zealand will get the jobs it needs.

That's our approach and we won't be diverted.

I want to thank the economic team for their presentation this morning.

This conference is being held under the banner 'Stronger Communities - Stronger New Zealand'.

That theme has led to us to invite a number of Ministers and invited guests to speak to the broad concept it covers.

After my Divisional speeches on the theme of 'social capital' many asked for more details and more examples.

Various speakers have, or will, give such examples while I propose to explore the concept further.

I start from the position that Governments that want to be around for more than a term or two have to avoid being captured by the headlines of the day and the issues of the moment.

At the Divisional Conferences I spoke about the issues of tomorrow, about the type of nation we could become.

A fully independent nation playing a full role both within our region and the wider world.

The most important message was how we in Central Government had to trust the community more if we were to build stronger communities and build up the 'social capital' of New Zealand.

About how much emphasis had previously been on building up economic capital, and how we now needed equal emphasis to build up our nation's social capital.

I am certain we can have economic policy that preserves tremendously strong market incentives while at the same time developing a new approach to social policy.

My concept of 'social capital' draws not on old fashioned, discredited socialism, but on my conviction of the strength, goodness and commonsense of communities.

It is the absolute opposite of old fashioned socialism which trusted no one and ran everything through large over-regulated departments.

The theme of those Divisional conference speeches struck a cord in the community.

The speeches were the most sought after and the most widely quoted I have given, since then many have spoken about social capital and held seminars to discuss and define the concept.

My working definition is that 'social capital is all that's good in society'.

My message today is that to succeed we must prepare to embrace the new century with a new set of objectives.

We can take confidence from all that we have achieved but we must embrace a bolder agenda.

An agenda that will positively transform aspects of our way of life.

That will bring with it a new and welcome vitality to all corners of our land.

People are crying out for more than economic success, though economic success is essential.

What they want are answers to difficult questions.

They want to know why they don't feel as secure any more, why they are fearful of being mugged or worse, or how it is their children became hooked on drugs?

Why are so many parents feeling it's too hard and why are they and our schools failing a percentage of our children?

What has happened to the dream of our forebears, the dream we inherited?

These are the questions the public want us to address. Down to earth issues that affect them at home.

There is no one answer because there is no one cause.

But there are answers and first among them is that we must learn to trust again.

In particular Governments must learn to trust communities.

We can't solve every problem, avoid every risk by a new piece of legislation.

Let me give you a thought to ponder.

Has the Privacy Act solved more mischief than it's created?

Last week, I was told the story of a small voluntary sector organisation assisting children with disabilities.

The organisation is funded by a government agency for various therapeutic activities, including riding, and each year the agency undertakes an audit of the organisation's activities.

During their last visit the government agency requested that in addition to keeping information on the date, place and number of children riding each week, they also wanted the voluntary group to record the names of the children on the form supplied.

The social worker reminded the agency that due to the Privacy Act he was unable to release the form with the children's names on it.

"That's fine" said the person from the government agency "fill in the form with the names and when we want to see the forms all you have to do is white out the children's names and send it to us."

The Privacy Act is well intentioned but much needless frustration and a sense of citizens being powerless is created by people in authority hiding behind it.

The Human Rights Act is intended to be a clear piece of legislation to protect people from discrimination.

We all agree with that but, slowly and surely, those who administer it will replace commonsense with nonsense.

My argument today is not about unreasonable or petty application of the law - that's for another time - rather it's that we must rely more on people working together than on ever more prescriptive legislation.

The National Party would rightly argue that, as a Government, we have achieved a great deal in the last seven years, especially in the economic sphere where we literally led the world.

But we cannot as yet claim to have created the 'decent society' we promised when we swept to power in 1990; that goal still lies before us and I'm determined that we will make progress towards it.

But you, as political activists, should be warned that change only happens when we, deliberately or accidentally, step outside our personal comfort zone.

For many the advent of the MMP era and Coalition Government was, and is, an unnerving experience.

But we adjusted to it and managed the nation's transition to a radically different form of government.

In short order we have created stability where the doomsayers had predicted only chaos.

Now - as we approach the new millennium - we must once again be prepared to step outside our comfort zone to effect necessary change.

The founder of the Salvation Army, William Booth, put it another way: "you cannot change the future without disturbing the present."

In 1990 and 1991, we had to step outside our then comfort zone to reform the economy.

We had many debates about it at the time.

I recall the 1991 Conference here in Christchurch with the party divided on the inside and the protesters banging on the walls on the outside.

We have continued to step outside the comfort zone of many in seeking Treaty settlements, in responding to MMP and by going into Coalition Government.

We stepped outside the comfort zone of many in bringing through a new honours system.

We will need to step outside the comfort zone of many if we are to bring through other constitutional change, like having our final Court of Appeal in New Zealand not London, like moving to a Republic within the Commonwealth.

All of these issues are important and all reflect a maturing society, but in my view the most important immediate step away from our traditional comfort zone is for Central Government to trust the community more and so build up the social capital of New Zealand.

That sounds simple, but what I am arguing for is nothing less than we must reverse the trend of decades if not centuries of Central Government amassing greater and greater authority over the lives and actions of people.

The dawn of the new millennium is only 881 days away.

This is a great time to be planning bold deeds.

All around the world countries large and small are planning great edifices to mark the occasion.

I am told the British are to build the largest ferris wheel in the world.

Others will spend hundreds of millions on projects.

Our millennium goal should be radical in its simplicity - hand more decision making power back to the people.

That would be a far greater gift to the people to remember the new millennium than any building, monument or edifice.

We have already started the process.

Wyatt Creech, Bill English and Roger Sowry will set out many such initiatives to give greater power to the community when they speak this afternoon.

Each is to be commended for the way they are working to involve the community more.

Wyatt Creech encouraging schools to make more of their own decisions; Bill English in the demanding health portfolio showing that while many only see negative change in health delivery, that much that is good and innovative is happening; and Roger Sowry advancing the small revolution that has started in the delivery of social support.

At the core of the new agenda is the devolution of power.

I want people to enjoy the sensation of participation and empowerment that goes with the transfer of authority.

The most significant development in democracy in the first decade of the 21st century could be the transfer of greater authority from Central Government, to local communities.

There are a number of reasons for this, one of the more important of which is that information technology is placing far greater knowledge in the hands of the individual and of the community.

We are entering an era when anyone with a personal computer, a modem, and the energy can be very knowledgeable on any subject they choose.

They will no longer be interested in hand-me-down solutions; they will demand that they make more of their own decisions.

How many times have we heard the cry "Why does Government make us do it this way when it could be done much better another way?"

I suggest we should accept the criticism, welcome the demands to get involved, and accept that a new world is coming.

There are two apparently contradictory trends emerging.

Business trends are about a borderless world and the movement of capital and goods without hindrance around the globe, whereas individuals and communities want to have the comfort of a greater say concerning events that affect their immediate environment, in their community.

To bring order to this apparent contradiction requires:

redirecting the bureaucracy and re-examining the spending and regulatory influence of Central Government; and

encouraging civic structures which are capable of exercising new powers efficiently and responsibly.
To make all this work will require that we see the responsibilities of Local Government, voluntary agencies and citizens in a new light.

As big Central Government redefines, note I say redefines not abandons, its role we are going to have to work more co-operatively and constructively with the voluntary agencies which add so much value to Government social spending.

It won't happen overnight but we will have to both empower them and purchase services from them in a manner which we have not been willing to do in the past.

After I visited Father Des Britten's Wellington City Mission during the election last year, I raised the question of why we didn't buy more services from them.

They do a great job, as many like them do, whether they are associated with a church or community group.

They in turn will need to consider their own policies and structures so that they can show proper management in spending taxpayers' money.

Individual citizens are also going to have to face a different set of responsibilities in the future, from those which they had in the past.

A few years ago we had what was labelled the 'Me Generation' - an unbridled celebration of selfishness which came to a crashing end in October 1987.

Then came the 'Generation X' - so named, perhaps, because nobody knew what it stood for, but only that it was different from what had been and what would follow.

What must follow is, what I will call, the 'Us Generation'.

Ever since I first started discussing social capital, in the Auckland speech, there have been those who have said, "Yes, that sounds all very well, but what is this grand vision?"

Well, I'm not sure about the term grand vision - it is simply a fresh approach to issues that the existing order doesn't provide adequate answers to.

I strongly believe that social capital is not about the Government simply throwing more money at society's most stubborn problems.

And, social capital is not about individuals waiting for someone else - anyone else - to solve their problems.

Social capital is about us - the Government, Central and Local, the private sector, the voluntary sector and individuals - as a community talking and listening effectively with and to each other to identify society's problems.

Social capital is about the community working together, in a relationship of trust, towards addressing society's problems.

And, building social capital is about the community successfully achieving progress towards solving society's ills.

In the recent past the social planners with their blank cheques led us astray.

The radical left monopolised political debate relating to social justice, and the rest found it easier to let Government step into the breach.

Well, so much for that approach.

Big government proved a big disappointment and the problems facing society only got bigger.

Let me give you but one example of that increasing dependence.

In the last ten years the number of people receiving sickness, invalid, unemployment and domestic purposes benefit has increased from 167,000 to almost double, at 319,000.

I am not satisfied with progress under the old order and I don't imagine you are either.

As a nation, we have reinvented Government over the last decade or so; revolutionising government structures and rewritten the rules of economic policy.

We must now find common cause as New Zealanders and take our revolution one step further and rewrite the rules of community involvement in the delivery of social support.

I said earlier that the transfer of some responsibility to community organisations was not a case of Central Government abandoning its responsibilities, it was a case of acknowledging that the community wants to be involved and in many cases is better placed to deliver results on the ground than any government agency.

It's a case of building social capital by redefining the relationship between Central Government and the community.

Again the precedence was set in the economic sphere where over the last decade we have completely redefined the relationship between Central Government and business.

What I want to see happen is that we tap into the energy of community organisations by trusting them more, and that in simple terms means developing a more co-operative approach than a master-servant approach.

I am sure the necessary goodwill is there, now we have to develop the necessary protocols to make greater community involvement a reality.

If we do that there is no reason why we should not become the model upon which other nations fashion themselves - and not just on economic policy this time.

I am sure we will hear more of this when we hear from invited guests on the subject 'Community Programmes that Work'.

Another item on the millennium agenda I wish to refer to is the complex and sensitive issue of the development of the New Zealand identity.

I do so because I want to help breakdown whatever barriers exist between New Zealanders.

We are not all the same - our common link is being New Zealanders.

And while we travel and enjoy returning to visit the lands from which our forebears came, New Zealand is home.

In many ways the characteristics that identify us trace back to our migrant history.

From when the first waka beached on these shores to today's new arrivals - there has been a common thread of people looking for a better life.

In many cases coming to be free of prejudice and discrimination.

Having enjoyed freedom in New Zealand we instinctively support those committed to working for a better world.

Because of our forthright views on world issues, from trade to nuclear disarmament, our reputation as an international citizen has never been higher.

In defining our identity, we must seek to retain those aspects of the past which are intrinsically New Zealand, but which we may have lost or be in danger of losing.

At the most obvious level this means the protection of historic sites and buildings; the art, literature; and memories of our pioneering past and of our various cultural traditions.

An aspect of the New Zealand personality which we all respect was forged on the slopes of Gallipoli, in the fields of Flanders, in the Western Dessert, in the march up Italy, in the angry skies of the Battle of Britain, and in the jungles of Asia and the Pacific.

And it was after those conflicts had ended that we moved to further define ourselves as New Zealanders, not British.

It was in 1949 that the first New Zealand passports were issued and we travelled the world as New Zealand citizens not British citizens - even though our passports were marked "British Passport" until 1965.

For much of our history we were portrayed simply as a farm for Britain.

It's amusing to recall that in 1948 the British Minister of Food expressed disappointment that New Zealand planned to send only 97 per cent of our export butter to Britain.

The notion of being a farm for Britain suffered a severe reversal when Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973.

Much has happened since as our relationship with Britain, while still close, has evolved and our status as an independent nation has matured.

Now we have to avoid the pendulum swinging too far the other way and if we are not careful we will be portrayed only through the eyes of Maori culture.

As important as it is, Maori culture is but a part of our collective history.

Each of us draws on his or her cultural roots.

It is the bringing together of all the strands of our cultural heritage that helps define us as New Zealanders.

I know that many feel that I have moved too far out of their 'comfort zone' when I talk of New Zealand becoming a republic within the Commonwealth, that we will move to the position where a New Zealander is the Head of State of New Zealand.

Put that way it is hardly a radical suggestion.

The new Labour Government in Britain has commenced a more radical programme to re-establish a Parliament in Scotland, devolving some authority to a new Welsh assembly, electoral reform for the House of Lords and possibly even proportional representation.

As in Britain it is time for us to consider further our constitutional arrangements, including a broader based understanding of the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and how we protect the rights of New Zealand citizens.

We possess in this country a blend of cultures and traditions that manifest themselves in a uniquely New Zealand approach.

While we all want a measure of financial and other success for ourselves and our children, New Zealanders retain a deep seated concern for those less fortunate than ourselves.

We possess, as well, a deep seated belief in the value of the community, in individual freedom.

We possess a commitment to compassion as well as to enterprise.

These are values with which New Zealanders have long been associated here and overseas.

They are qualities that have earned us respect and influence in excess of our size.

The millennium will give New Zealand an unparalleled opportunity to present the face of a modern, forward-looking, humanitarian nation to the world.

We will host both the America's Cup and the APEC Leaders Meeting, our biggest international conference ever.

We will be superbly positioned to take advantage of the Sydney Olympics, and be the first to see the sun rise on the new millennium.

The 90s will be seen as the decade in which we have improved our economic infrastructure, kept the economy growing and provided jobs and opportunities for more New Zealanders than ever before.

The goal of the first decade of the 21st century must be to continue to successfully manage economic issues, define our national identity in a way we are comfortable with and most importantly build up the social capital of New Zealand by trusting and encouraging the community to take greater responsibility.

But before the millennium we have to fight and win an election.

We will not do it by advocating the policies of a century that is dying.

It is said that 'the past is a different country' and the same is true of the future.

By again stepping outside our comfort zone we can be first with new policies for the new century.

There is no reason why all that we have achieved so-far should be but the beginning.

If we have the confidence to do what is right then our truly great years still lie ahead of us and we will continue to be New Zealand's pre-eminent party in the 21st century.

ENDS