Ward Mike: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Ward Mike: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10966] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I listened for indications in the Prime Minister’s speech that we are working towards a similar future. Words like “New Zealanders working together to achieve our full potential” and “a nation that New Zealanders are not only comfortable with but are proud of” are noble thoughts but they tell us little about the actual shape of the country or the things about our nation that we should be comfortable with or proud of. There is more detail in ideas like building a creative nation that cares for its environment values diversity and tolerance treats its treaty obligations seriously and is a good international citizen. Words like “more opportunities higher living standards world-class health education and infrastructure” or “making a difference for parents and children” are all concepts that nobody is likely to argue with. But I ask how those ideas are manifested in the things that we do—the reality of our lives and the way we behave towards one another—and whether the Government’s programmes are really likely to deliver that. How will the innovative growing smart economy address the issues facing New Zealanders who earn too little to live comfortably or facing the others who for a variety of reasons have not worked for generations? And if they do work have they simply joined the many families where while they have never had so much stuff so many motor cars or such large homes the kids have a mum and dad who are working so many hours that they no longer have time to do the things that it takes to be a family—old-fashioned things like eating talking and playing together? 
If we are serious about our concern for the family and the quality of life that concern must be expressed in policies that address the threats to the family and that quality of life. I am encouraged by Margaret Wilson’s drawing attention to the work-life balance and by Matt Robson’s success at adding a fourth week of annual leave. But if that fourth week becomes just another 7 days of shopping or accumulating debt in some foreign destination to be worked off by two jobs plus overtime during the remaining 48 weeks of the year then I look forward to working with this Government to come up with more imaginative strategies to create the kind of culture shift necessary if we are to move towards measuring our success in terms of the quality of our lives and the state of the environment rather than by the quantity of our possessions and the gross domestic product. While growing the economy and creating more jobs has a superficial attraction when too many people are working for too long and a sizable minority has no paid work sharing the work around would seem to be a more obvious solution. If supporting families achieving a work-life balance and increasing the sum total of human happiness really matter perhaps working less ought to be the focus of our attentions. 
I want to talk about waste. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recently reminded us we are among the most wasteful people in the world. We throw away around 4 billion kilograms of waste each year most of it valuable and much of it toxic. Clean and green we are not! One hundred percent pure? I think not. Morgan Williams’ warning about our wasteful ways is timely because while few of us in New Zealand have yet to take the issue seriously many of the countries we sell to do and they are beginning to expect similar standards from their suppliers. One thing that is worse than doing things badly is doing things badly and laying claim to 100 percent purity and clean greenness. The 4 billion kilograms of waste that end up in Kiwi kleensaks wheelie bins and landfills are but a fraction of the waste generated by our wasteful ways. For every kilogram of product that we purchase there are 70 to 100 kilograms of waste somewhere else in the world. Then there is the energy that it takes to deliver products and the time we waste earning the money to pay for the stuff we throw away. We can add to that too the tragedy of ecosystems habitats and species being sacrificed in order to feed the cargo cult that consumes our lives and our planet. 
We Greens take some pleasure and pride in our role in shaping transport legislation that addresses our wasteful transport habits and I welcome any opportunity to work with the Minister to achieve the intentions of the Government’s waste strategy and to beef up the packaging accord. Our proposals are not cutting edge. They have their equivalents all over the world—in the United States Canada Europe and as close to us as South Australia. The packaging accord defines “sustainable” as “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Meeting that definition will require a substantial change in our lives but rather than focusing on the things we may have to go without we would do well to contemplate a future offered by working fewer hours and having the time to make the choices that really do enhance life.