Prasad Rajen: Address in Reply 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Address in Reply 
[Sitting date: 14 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:343. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 The first thing I want to say to the member who has just sat down is that clearly he is not an economist. Because he chairs the Finance and Expenditure Committee he might like to think that he is an economist but he is not. He believes only the two things that the friend of his the economist said were important—only those two things. I say to that member there are many more things that a responsible Government has to address and it cannot be just those two things.  
That is the problem with the Speech from the Throne. This society has as a right to look at the set-piece speech from the Government about its strategic intent—its statement of its aspirations—and to find a place for itself within this statement. This is a statement for all New Zealanders and one that we all should be able to look confidently at to see how the Government intends to advance our interests—everybody’s interests. So it is a fair test of this particular statement to see how it addresses the needs of all New Zealanders and how it reflects their point of view.  
In the Speech from the Throne the Government states that its driving goal is to build a more competitive economy with less debt more jobs and higher incomes. We should hold those three things in our minds. That was the goal of the Government throughout the last 3 years and here it is restated in a slightly different form but it is the same statement. Over the past 3 years we have not seen less debt; in fact debt has ballooned under this particular Government. No matter how it tries to explain it and no matter what reasons it finds the fact is that the debt under this Government has mushroomed. It has borrowed like there is no tomorrow. There is not any less debt and there will not be for some time.  
We have not seen more full-time jobs; full-time jobs are down. No matter how the Government tries to package that fact the fact is that full-time jobs are down. The number of hours worked is down and 100000 people need more hours to make ends meet. Maybe the Government does not care that some people are job-weak in the sense that they do not have the hours. They work less time they do not have enough money and they live in a sense suboptimal lives. We have already been told in this debate that 83000 people are not in education work or training. How could that be a judgment of the aspirations and performance of that Government over the last 3 years?  
As for higher incomes that applies only to those at the very top of the income scale. Ordinary people have not seen any meaningful increase under the stewardship of this Government and the programme it has outlined in this document will not do it for them either. Tax cuts notwithstanding—that gave advantages to one side. So by the Government’s own statements—less debt more jobs higher incomes—it has failed.  
This was a Government that promised it would make the boat go faster; it borrowed that from the America’s Cup challenge. However what it intends to do is actually sell the boat. That ain’t going to make it go faster. The Government knows that it does not have wide support for its asset sales programme and yet it intends to persist. It has no mandate. That has been well established and just because it won an election that does not mean it has a mandate for this one policy.  
There are two points about the Government’s asset sales programmes that need to be made. The first is to ask when a Government takes the views of the public into account in setting such a major policy goal. Does the lack of wide support for the asset sales currently reflected in surveys and opinion polls demonstrate to the Government that the level of support for such a radical policy is just not there? The Government knows it is just not there. It tries to say it has a mandate but it does not. Clearly the support is not there and it has no mandate. If it wants to test that then perhaps it should have a referendum and test that out and we know that the majority would not support it.  
The second point is that there is no agreement that selling State assets that currently produce a good rate of return for the Government is a no-brainer. It is a no-brainer selling those? Not many people see the logic of this policy expect perhaps those who would benefit directly from it. Many more will pay through higher prices for electricity. Many ordinary New Zealand families cannot afford it at the moment but the Government does not care for this particular group. The policy is entirely driven by ideology. This is the belief that the State has no business owning strategic assets for all New Zealanders. The Government will drive this ideology no matter what because only its supporters are likely to benefit. Why does the Government not govern for all New Zealanders? Certainly it is not there for the average citizen and this does not benefit them. The same applies to the privatisation of accident compensation in a sense or opening up those accounts. Charter schools are the same sort of stuff. It is ideologically driven and the facts are not there.  
Clearly this Government does not have a plan to meet its own goals of less debt more jobs and higher incomes. When challenged about this last November it hurriedly put together a 120-point plan in the last days of the election campaign. That seemed like a desperate act at the time but somehow it was promoted as a new idea. I have had a look at the 120-point plan which many speakers opposite have spoken to and see that only 21 percent of the 120 are new proposals. The rest have already been completed or are under way and many of them are the ragtag group of ideas that the Government promoted over the last 3 years. It has put them together and now it is a plan. This confirms that there are few ideas; selling State assets does not constitute a real plan for growth and progress towards a smart clean clever country.  
This country has already been judged as one of the most unequal in the OECD. This is a terrible indictment but where in this statement is there a real commitment to change that a real commitment to move much faster to make this a more equal society? There is a whole raft of anti-worker legislation which reduces their incomes. How does that create a fairer society? How does that create a more equal society? There is nothing in this plan that addresses our low-wage economy. In fact the Government policy is designed to make that even more difficult. I wonder how members of the Government go to bed comfortably at night knowing there are many others out there living lives of quiet desperation who have not been fed well that night and whose children are probably hungry and not looking forward to the next day. Yet this statement is the Government’s plan to address that. Those who are hungry and poor cannot wait.  
One of the changing aspects of New Zealand’s society is its culture and ethnic diversification. There are almost half a million people who identify as an ethnic group other than Pakeha Maori or Pasifika. They play a critical role in New Zealand society and given the social capital they represent they are well placed to make a difference—a real difference—to this country’s growth and well-being. But there is no reference to them in this particular document at all. These people are faceless and you would have thought that in the strategic statement from the Government to guide its 3-year programme there would be a reflection on at least the diversification of New Zealand society and what new ideas this Government had that might address them much more directly.  
This country has to invest much greater thought than it has to date in harvesting the potential of the ethnic sector. This is the new New Zealand particularly in Auckland but in other cities as well. Given this one would have thought that there would be some reference to their interests in this plan. So far we have become familiar with ethnic celebrations and ethnic elements or culture like food and entertainment but their interest in New Zealand is much greater than that. There has to be a much deeper level of engagement and involvement with the ethnic sector and with all New Zealand society about our ethnic diversification. I thought as this change is so important that in this strategic statement it would be addressed. There has to be a greater level of dialogue with and regarding the ethnic sector as well as with all New Zealanders.  
We are all reasonably well informed about the plight of our children in this country. This document says very little about our most vulnerable. We know that there is a correlation between abuse neglect and poverty yet this document is quite silent on many of those factors. There is a belief that somehow the trickle-down will trickle down to their interests as well. 
In conclusion this is a disappointing and bland Speech from the Throne. It will not give comfort to the many or reward them because their interests are not addressed. Instead it will advantage only the few who are already advantaged. I guess New Zealand will have to wait for a Labour Government to once again lift all boats through a clean green and clever programme. Thank you.