Ardern Jacinda: Address in Reply 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Address in Reply 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:186. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I have been paying quite a bit of attention not only obviously to the Speech from the Throne but to the Address in Reply speeches that have come since and in particular John Key’s address to this House. I have been left with one particular question and that is where has all the aspiration gone? As I recall back in 2008 the National Government was absolutely brimming with it but now today we are left with some pale imitation called “muddling through”. That is what the aspiration has been replaced with. It is a hands-in-your-pocket approach to economic management and despite that member over there saying that they have a 120-point plan the average New Zealander is feeling no benefit from that 120-point plan. Instead all they feel is the muddling through. So I think instead that it is timely to remind the National Government of what it is it seems to have forgotten that it promised New Zealand.  
We were told that we should not be tenants in our own country. Now from where I am sitting it seems to be the Prime Minister who has been inconsistent when it comes to his rhetoric and then his policy. There is no finer example of that than the Crafar farms decisions which that member has just touched on. That is the ultimate example of where decisions are being made that are not in the best strategic interests of New Zealanders. We had a local group willing to purchase that significant parcel of land and that member on behalf of her constituents claims that they are happy with the decision that has been made around the Crafar farms sale. I would really question that; in fact I would like to see a survey of those constituents. Obviously I do not believe that member is in fact speaking on behalf of those constituents involved with Ngati Tuwharetoa because they take a very different perspective on that sale of land.  
In Labour we have been absolutely clear and indeed we were in the election. We need to start making decisions that allow us to own our own future particularly when it comes to these strategic assets. We are not a party against foreign investment; in fact we recognise that in New Zealand because of our poor savings we cannot afford to invest in ourselves. When it comes to research and development in particular we do need investment from abroad. But there are clear distinctions between the example that the member brought up around a strategic milk project and the sale of this strategic asset. I do not think we could be any clearer.  
 What else has the National Government told the public of New Zealand since 2008? Well we heard that education was key—it was key to aspiration and it was key to providing opportunities particularly to our youngest New Zealanders. And what do we see now? We see now Treasury suggesting that we should have larger classrooms in order to improve our education system— 
Hon Annette King 
: Larger class sizes. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Larger class sizes. And as the member pointed out in question time who can name one parent who thinks that that will improve educational outcomes for their child? Not only that but the major platform that this Government campaigned on around education was to tell 6-year-olds that they were failing in primary education before they even started. Now we are going to ignore international evidence in favour of a coalition deal by bringing in charter schools. That was the aspiration this Government has delivered in education. 
What about the aspiration around building assets? Members in this House may remember that John Key said that that was the track we were going to go down. Instead we see ourselves paying an extraordinary amount to sell them with no guarantee as to whom. Not only has that sparked a debate about the future of the Treaty clause as it relates to our State-owned enterprises but there has not been unfortunately enough discussion about the removal of the social responsibility clause. That Government may claim that this is a strategic public-private partnership of sorts—partial privatisation—but when you remove from any dictate around the way these assets are run anything that says that we will continue to have a public interest in the way these State-owned enterprises operate that is just a private deal. That is privatisation in costume. We have consistently pointed out to this Government that that is privatisation by any other name. 
What about the aspiration that National had to keep families in New Zealand to try to stem the tide of Kiwis going to Australia? You need only ask members like Parekura Horomia how many families have been lost on the East Coast and are travelling abroad for better opportunities. That is because the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia has grown by $32 per week since this Government came into office. How is that aspirational for New Zealand? Not only has our economic credibility been downgraded—we are facing an $18 billion deficit—but this Government’s expectations and aspirations for itself have been downgraded considerably. 
I believe it is time New Zealanders asked for what they were promised. It is time they asked where the better life they were promised by this Government actually is. I am not talking just about the most vulnerable New Zealanders—I think their plight is probably plain for all to see. I am talking about the people in the middle. I am talking about the 66 percent of the population who earn $40000 or less per annum the people who cannot even save let alone own their own home. It is time this House acknowledged that we have reached a tipping point in New Zealand. Gone are the days when parents believed that they could leave their children better off than they themselves were. In those days hard work was enough to get ahead. Poverty did not have to last for longer than one generation. Those days sadly are gone. Now according to the Ministry of Social Development’s briefing for the incoming Minister two out of every five children living in poverty are in households where there is a full-time worker. This is not about just families who are reliant on benefits to survive; this is also about families who are working every hour they are given and still cannot get ahead let alone give their own children a decent start. Where is the aspiration for those families on behalf of that Government? 
We have to also acknowledge that that means that choices are being removed from families. It is no longer a choice for many families as to whether or not one parent works and one parent remains at home. Choices are now being made not necessarily for their own interest or the interests of their children but out of desperation to survive. It is time that we strived to give choices back to those families—choices for them to make in the best interests of their children. 
But what has the Government’s response been to the situation we find ourselves in—this dramatic change in the make-up of the way New Zealanders are having to operate and the fact that many families hold down not just one job and not just two jobs but multiple jobs to survive? What has its response been? Well in the last term of Government we saw an increase in the most regressive form of taxation we have and we now see that families as a result are suffering because they spend most of their discretionary income directly on GST. We have seen inflation increase dramatically while income levels stagnate. We have seen the Government tinker around with the minimum wage even though the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged that he could not survive on it. So I ask again: where is the aspiration for New Zealand families? This is not a Government I believe that is in the process of giving hope. A Government that stands on the sidelines and waits for the trickle-down theory obviously is not a Government that can offer these New Zealand families much hope. That is something that we stand against and in fact in direct contrast we think it is time to tackle these significant issues. It is time to tackle the fact that a full day’s wage can still equal poverty. It is time to tackle the fact that families no longer have many of these choices.  
Instead of relying on a ministerial inquiry into poverty which the Government agreed to because the Maori Party asked for it as part of a coalition deal—and I question whether it will continue if the Maori Party removes itself from this coalition—we want to see more rhetoric. You will hear this side of the House talk about higher wages not just racing to the bottom; better jobs not more jobs by one person to make ends meet; a boat that will go faster not a boat that we are putting up for sale; and a clean green clever New Zealand to achieve all of that. That is aspirational and that is what the Labour Party stands for.