Ardern Jacinda: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: General Debate[Sitting date: 18 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2360. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Before I begin my contribution I just want to point out that the Prime Minister today in this House stood up and claimed that he had personally asked children about their access to things like raincoats and lunches and that he then had the Minister of Education call schools individually to ascertain the availability of lunches for students in the schools. Then we have the Minister who just resumed her seat Anne Tolley pointing out that the most important thing we have to do for children living in poverty is to make sure that we do not stigmatise them. If that is the case what is the Prime Minister doing standing up and individually questioning children on whether or not they can get school lunches or have a raincoat to wear to school?If we were serious about not stigmatising children the Prime Minister would not base his and his Government’s policies on anecdote and on his personal surveying of children and their families. Yes talk to principals; yes ask principals what is going on but we already have every report we need. Multiple reports have been conducted into this issue. If that Government is serious about addressing issues then surely the reports that say that 17 percent of children are living in material deprivation—a figure that that Government uses itself—would be the basis on which we design our policies. Listen to the evidence. That is all that we are asking.You know that things start getting a little bit rough in a Government’s third term and we have got multiple examples of that not least the fact Craig Foss is managing to get a patsy question in almost every question time. If that does not demonstrate that things are little bit off then I do not know what does. But it is not just the Opposition that experiences the torrid nature of a third-term Government; it is the public that does as well and no more so than the people of Northland. The Northland by-election demonstrates how badly this Government is willing to put politics before people. It is an extreme example of a Government that is not listening to the real needs of the people on the ground but is simply trying to dangle electoral bribes. They are not even particularly good electoral bribes at that. We have had $70 million worth of bridge double-laning proposed as part of this by-election—some of the lowest-priority building projects. And that Government would know that if it had talked to the people on the ground. If it had talked to the people on the ground it would know that road sealing filling in potholes and even funding for the polytech are higher priorities for the people of Northland than double-laningbridges that the candidate cannot even name except for the one that he can see from his back door. If that does not demonstrate that it is politics before people even politics before the people that National is campaigning amongst then I do not know what is.Hon Maggie Barry: Like Labour’s campaign in the north—non-existent.JACINDA ARDERN: If the Government wanted to do something meaningful Ms Barry it would provide jobs. If you wanted to do something meaningful you would provide jobs for the people of Northland. The Government would make sure that wages were being lifted for the people of Northland. It would make sure that the schools in Northland had everything they needed to provide adequately for the children of Northland. Seventy million dollars could go quite a long way in making a difference for those people.If we want another example of politics before people I would use the numbers that were displayed in the New Zealand Herald today around access to justice. Judith Collins in 2012 decided that she was going to crack down on legal aid.Hon Maggie Barry: Support Labour’s candidate.JACINDA ARDERN: Listen up Ms Barry you might actually learn something meaningful. In 2012 Judith Collins decided that she would send out 47000 letters on outstanding debt—47000 letters. A quarter claimed that they had an inability to repay that debt—11000 people went back to the Ministry of Justice and said they could not pay. The Ministry of Justice substantiated those claims in how many of those 11000 cases? In 10000 of them. If that is not a red flag that that Government needs to look at legal aid thresholds then I do not know what is. If you will not listen to us listen to Frances Joychild listen to Justice Winkelmann. They have all raised red flags over what is happening to access to justice in this country. This Government needs to make sure that it puts people before politics or is it that the justice system needs a by-election to get a little attention?