Jacinda Ardern Quotes

I need to play to the strengths of the team we have together. No one will question the strengths that the Green Party bring to this issue. Nor will they question the dedication that the Green Party will bring to this issue. My focus was bringing the best talent to the table, giving jobs to those who bring a huge amount of experience and making sure I utilise that best. That was my focus. [...] Because, as Prime Minister, I’m committed to climate change. Regardless of whether I hold that portfolio or not, this is an issue I’m absolutely dedicated to. I will work closely alongside the minister who holds that portfolio. But just because that minister sits outside of cabinet is not a reason in my mind to deprive them of the opportunity to use the experience they bring.

The Greens have a confidence and supply agreement, again with their own policy agenda that we will pursue together. But what I hope people will see when we release those full agreements in full is that there is synergy between those agreements, that, collectively together, we are focused on improving our environment, improving the outlook for families and their future, making sure that New Zealand is a place of great opportunity. [...] Certainly there are differences in the way that each party plays a role in the government that they are a part of. So, for instance, a coalition agreement – by default, collective responsibility provisions apply to that party as a coalition member. Confidence and supply – collective responsibility applies to where ministers are serving. So by default those arrangements are different. But in terms of the way that I will work with both leaders, that relationship will be exactly the same. It will be a relationship of respect. We will work closely together from the very beginning when we are crafting our agenda and developing the kind of government that we’re going to be. [...] It is fair to say we have absolute common ground when it comes to wanting to see the wages of our most vulnerable lifted.

For me, the measures of success will be both environmental and social. What I’d like to see us do is as a nation have a set of measures that we use consistently so that the public can hold us to account. But as I’ve also said all the way through this campaign, the measure of success to me is not how a financial commentator or an economic commentator from abroad views New Zealand, but how a New Zealander feels about their state of affairs, their hope and chances for the future.

My expectation is that our families package, which we will be introducing as a matter of priority will have the effect of lifting tens of thousands of children out of poverty. From there, though, I want to establish clear targets. We’ve always said that we want them put in legislation, and every year we will then report, as part of the Public Finance Act, on how much progress we’ve made. So, I can say now that, yes, I wanted to match their 100,000, but I want incremental goals to hold us to account. In my mind, some of the targets that we’ve set ourselves, some of the goals that we measure ourselves on as a society, don’t take into account the effects on individuals, on their wellbeing. This will be a government that takes into account those markers, and the wellbeing of people will be my sign of success.

The guns used in these terrorist attacks had important distinguishing features. First, big capacity, and also their delivery. They had the power to shoot continuously, but they also had large capacity magazines...
Today, I’m announcing New Zealand will ban all military-style semiautomatic weapons. We will also ban all assault rifles. We will ban all high-capacity magazines. We will ban all parts with the ability to convert semiautomatic or any other type of firearm into a military-style semiautomatic weapon. We will ban parts that cause a firearm to generate semiautomatic, automatic or close-to-automatic gunfire. In short, every semiautomatic weapon used in the terror attack on Friday will be banned in this country...
What we’re banning today are the things used in last Friday’s attack. It’s about all of us, it’s in the national interest and it’s about safety.

My plan is to introduce the legislation – it’s already drafted – which sets out what our measures of poverty will be. That’s been an often-disputed issue. We will finally have some agreement that will be in law. From there, we’ll go ahead and set those targets. Certainly it will be a matter of priority, but the legislation comes first.

Change is not a sentiment, although it certainly can start to feel that way in the midst of a campaign. The change we were talking about was meaningful. It was change for people’s lives for the better. It was about decent housing, being able to go to the doctor when you need to, being able to swim in a river. It was meaningful, material change.

One of my roles was consulting other political parties to ensure that support was there to pass a legislative agenda. That is absolutely not new. What has changed over time is the way that those relationships have evolved. The processes, I think, have become a lot more refined. We’re probably a lot more effective and efficient in the way that we conduct coalition governments now, and certainly you’ll see that I think we will make sure that we run a very efficient, effective government.

Oh, I’m ambitious that we eradicate child poverty. There should be no place in a wealthy society like ours for children to grow up without their being met.

No, not necessarily. Not necessarily. I think there’s nothing wrong from saying that, actually, there are interventions that are required and that we should be making sure that we are focused on generating well-being for New Zealanders.

[Y]ou’ll see absolute agreement between our parties on the need to improve water quality. For us, it was all around the way that you reach that goal. You’ll see in our final agreement the consensus we’ve reached in that area, but it is fair to say Mr Peters advocated strongly on that issue.

If that’s the way you want to describe a government that’s going to be active and focused on making sure that we have jobs in our regions, that we have infrastructure that’s well supported and that we’re growing our economy by ensuring that we are investing in our people, then that might be the way you describe it. I describe it as a proactive government – one that’s focused on people.

All of us have agreed that if we want to make sure we make progress on the enormous challenge of climate change, that we do need an independent body that is holding the New Zealand Parliament to account on the progress that we’re making, to the goals that, actually, we’re all signing up to. So, yes, we all agree an independent climate commission – one that gives us guidance, that actually suggests whether or not we’re following our own carbon budgets and whether we’re on track to the collective goal we’ve set ourselves of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, that we’re on track to achieve them. So, again, that guidance really helps bring together consensus on how we’ll achieve that goal. [...] We’re building the commission together. That’s something we designed together. I think you’ll find, though, that once you’ve got the goal in place, it all then comes down to the mechanism. And we can have a conversation around mechanism, but as long as we’re all signed up to the fact that we are collectively focused on the goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, everything else then just becomes your mechanism to deliver that goal. The climate commission will play a role in that; carbon budgets will play a role in that; the Net Zero Carbon Act will play a role in that. We’re all committed to each of those elements.

Look, the moment that you’re sitting at a table, you’re acknowledging that you’re going to give up seats, that you’re going to— In some cases, actually, where you agree, you’re going to give up acknowledgement of that fact that your policy’s very similar; you intended to do the same thing. But you’re acknowledging that other parties share those ideas and that they’re the ones that prioritised it and therefore they’ll be the ones acknowledged as having delivered it.

Well, of course it all depends on proactive a government is. When you have a , it all comes down to whether or not you acknowledge where the market has failed and where intervention is required. Has it failed our people in recent times? Yes. How can you claim that you’ve been successful when you have growth roughly 3% but you’ve got the worst homelessness in the developed world? How can you claim that growth is making people feel prosperous when most people’s incomes aren’t keeping up with inflation? So the measures for us have to change. We need to make sure that we’re looking at people’s ability to actually have a meaningful life and an enjoyable life where their work is actually enough to survive and to support their families. [...] We campaigned on the tweaks that we believe are required, but on my measure, if you have hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive, that’s a blatant failure. What else could you describe it as?'''