Ardern Jacinda: Debate on Prime Minister’s StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement[Sitting date: 10 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I wish to begin by joining those who have acknowledged Ngati Porou’s loss. There are certainly some leaders in this country who will not and cannot be replaced and “Uncle Api” was one of those people.I also want to welcome you back to the Chair Mr Deputy Speaker. You could be forgiven though for feeling like you never left especially listening to the Prime Minister’s statement at the beginning of the sitting of this Parliament. He started with a motion of confidence as is the practice in this House—a motion of confidence in his Government. He claimed that his Government is working for New Zealand.I decided to listen quite keenly to what evidence the Prime Minister had to back up the statement that his Government is indeed working for New Zealand. The first thing that he mentioned in his speech was—amongst the poor-taste jokes—job creation and this notion that this has been a Government that has somehow focused on creating employment. But just because you say it does not make it true. Of course no one is denying that there have been new jobs created in New Zealand. Of course there have been. Every time a new start-up employs a new individual—Hon Dr Nick Smith: 80000.JACINDA ARDERN: Yes 80000 new jobs—but how many jobs have been lost? How many jobs have been lost? How many unemployed individuals are there as a result? I think we need to correct your figure Mr Smith. There are 46000 more New Zealanders unemployed today compared with when that Government came into office—46000 more New Zealanders unemployed. Surely that is the number that matters. That is the number that represents individuals who find themselves seeking employment cannot get into work and have been in that situation as a result of lax policies around job creation. In just the last quarter the number of Kiwis out of work grew by 8000. The thing that is most devastating about those numbers is—as Andrew Little pointed out in his state of the nation speech at the beginning of the year—it does not have to be that way. If you make employment job creation and work a focus of your Government it does not have to be that way.The last Labour Government for instance maintained unemployment levels at 4 percent or lower for 4 straight years from 2004 into 2008. We had the lowest unemployment in the OECD. Today we are 10th. [Interruption] In amongst all of the other countries Mr Smith that have experienced the same global financial crisis we are 10th. That is not something to be proud of but we personally believe that we can be the lowest again if we focus on job creation. It is not just about the jobs we create though. It is also about the jobs that we hang on to. There are a number of jobs in sectors like manufacturing where we have had extraordinary job losses and it did not need to be that way. If we work with business if we work with unions if we work with entrepreneurs then it is possible to attain the goal that we are aspiring to as a Labour Party.We have put a particular focus on small business and for good reason: 41 percent of new jobs are coming from that sector. It is an incredibly important sector in the business community and yet we have had a tendency to pay mere lip service to the issues that are quite unique to that sector of the business community. The Inland Revenue Department is particularly focused for instance on consulting with larger corporates when their needs and their way of doing business are entirely different from those of the small to medium sized enterprise community. That is just an example of how we could be making sure that we tailor our response to not only policy but the basic day-to-day filing of forms. Interaction with the Government could be improved enormously if we just listened directly to that sector.There are some new challenges that we need to focus on as well. What are we doing to support businesses—not start-ups—that have actually been here for 10 years or more and want to go to the next level but do not have the time or the energy to ensure that they have the capacity to do that? What are we doing about them? What are we doing about businesses of the baby boomers who have not had the time to even form a succession plan and when they leave their business their business goes? What are we doing about them? There are so many opportunities that we just need to tap into and that is what Labour will be focused on over the next few years.The second piece of evidence I heard from John Key that this Government is apparently working on for New Zealand was the mystery higher incomes that everyone is meant to be experiencing. Notice that he always refers to “on average” when he uses that statistic. My one simple question is: higher incomes for whom? Because if for instance your income is outstripped by the cost of living and your ability to put a roof over your head does it count? Well the average New Zealander certainly does not feel better off. That is particularly exacerbated by the housing situation in Auckland in particular and there is no denying it.My challenge to Mr Key and actually to all of the National Government is to take five maybe 10 young people aged between say 20 and 35 and ask them how they feel about housing in this country. Ask them about the prospect that they have of owning their own home how daunted they feel about the possibility of their ever entering into the property market and how that threatens their financial security for the rest of their lives. This is not something being beaten up by the Opposition. If the members on that side of the House were talking to those young people they would know that it is genuinely in their minds an absolute crisis. How could a real genuine response from that Government be to simply sell State houses?This is something I also do not understand. State housing is one of the biggest issues that I have people coming into my office about. It is one of the most significant. There simply are not enough houses. I would really like to hear—genuinely hand on heart—National members tell me that the lack of State housing in their areas is not an issue. If they genuinely believe that it is an issue how is selling these houses going to improve the situation? I would wager that there are as many members on that side of the House who have as many qualms about this policy as we do. It is not just the tragedy of housing for those who are most vulnerable for my entire generation and for those who are yet to come into the housing market who are suffering under the lack of action from this Government.There were the other bits of evidence that the Prime Minister rattled off in his speech that were somehow meant to convince us that this Government is working for New Zealanders. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—international issues—was one of them. I take great offence at the implication from the Prime Minister in his speech that by challenging his plan somehow we do not care about human rights. We cannot shut down debate on the question of whether we send our troops into conflict to face dire consequences like death on the battlefield just because the Prime Minister thinks that by raising the debate we do not care about human rights. That is insulting.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just turn the other way.JACINDA ARDERN: That is insulting. Of course we care. The issue is not whether or not ISIS is brutal. That is not in question—of course it is brutal. The question is not whether or not the international community should react—of course we should. The question is what the most effective course of action is. That is the debate that we are under an obligation to put before that Government and it is yet to satisfy that question as to what the most effective course of action is. It is insulting Mr Smith that you think that by challenging the grounds on which you are putting this—the explanation and evidence under which you propose putting our troops into battle—we somehow do not care about human rights. That is absolutely insulting.Finally the Prime Minister mentioned that under the banner of helping children in poverty and vulnerable families—something we have been waiting 6 years to hear more from the Government on—the Government is finally “looking at ways to help families and children in material hardship”. Material hardship is only one of five measures of poverty. It is one of five. He has clearly used the words “material hardship” on purpose. If he were genuinely interested in looking at the poverty children are living in he would not exclude income poverty. That is where this crucial debate lies. Until we address that we will not address the hardship our families are living in.The Prime Minister may claim that National is working for New Zealanders but for which ones? Housebuyers? Those on zero-hour contracts? Children without enough to get by? Families working hard but going nowhere? Any Government that genuinely wanted to work on behalf of all New Zealanders should be doing something about them.