Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Is it not interesting that the member Jonathan Young talked about infrastructure and all he talked about was bricks and mortar as if that will get us there. In the Commerce Committee we heard about economic development and what we heard was that the Government is cutting $24 million or about 4.5 percent out of economic development at a time when it is absolutely needed I would argue. But the interesting thing we heard in the select committee—and it is in the report. It talks about the Business Growth Agenda. The Minister talked about the fact that the target that has been set is that 40 percent of gross domestic product will be from exports. That is not a bad target. We would agree with that target—it is aspirational—but this Government has not got anywhere near that target at all.But the interesting thing is that it is not as if the Minister outlined how it was going to get there. In fact what happened was the chief executive said No in hindsight we got the target wrong." or it had been poorly put together poorly communicated or poorly designed I think was actually the word he used. But the thing is that it is not poorly designed. I think 40 percent of GDP as exports is the right way to go. We cannot say: "Well we're not going to achieve this because it's a poorly designed target or the target's wrong." What has happened here is that in fact this Government has not put the building blocks in place that allow our companies to actually go global. We have not got the R & D tax credits we have not got the incentives and we have not got the vision the passion the programmes in place that allow our companies to go from New Zealand which is the southern end of the Pacific Ocean and take on the world and do this. If you look at research and development for example as a percent of GDP we are one of the lowest in the OECD and it does not have to be this way.This is the thing that always astounds me about the National Government. It says it is the party of business. It says it is the party of growth. It has got something called the Business Growth Agenda and to be fair on paper it looks pretty good. But what the Government has not been able to do is translate the words and the vision from the paper into reality.I know that for 9 years spokespeople on economic development from this side of the House have been quizzing Minister Steven Joyce—who is actually now the Minister in the chair and who was the Minister for Economic Development for a long time—about what is happening how he was going to get us there and the answer has always been "Well don't ask me about that now. That's 10 years away." or "That's 15 years away." Well it is coming up fast and I just do not think it is good enough to say: "Don't worry about that. You know we're not concerned. That's 8 years away. We'll get there." Well we actually need to have a plan that allows us to get there. We need to see some progress because we are going backwards and to say "Oh no no. It doesn't matter because GDP's been increasing and therefore the measure has been standing still so overall as a percentage it's dropping." is simply not good enough.If we are to grow jobs and if we are to have sustainable economic development that creates wealth for our regions and our cities we need companies that are geared up to take on the world and win. Goodness me we have the intellect here. We have the businessmen and businesswomen. We have the tertiary institutions. We have the building blocks of what should be companies to take on the world but we just have not got it right.I would argue that in a country the size of New Zealand the Government does have a very important role to play in getting those settings just right. When I look at regional economic development for example this Government has committed $11 million a year to regional economic development. Labour has committed $200 million over 3 years—$200 million over 3 years—as opposed to $33 million over 3 years. What Labour has said is: "OK we back the regions. We back our businessmen and businesswomen in the regions. We know they are innovative but we also know that if the Government gives them a little bit of encouragement and helps them along the way then they could be so much better."I suppose that the main difference between the National Government and a Labour Government led by Andrew Little is that the National Government believes you just leave it to the market and the businesses will take care of themselves whereas Labour believes that we have a mandate—we have a moral mandate and a responsibility—to actually help these businesses grow. And when they do they will flourish. We are not saying that we will take control; we are just saying that we will help them on their way.I have massive faith in our businessmen and businesswomen right around this country. We have some shining examples of how we are taking on the world and winning. But after 9 years of a National Government we could be doing so much better and we will be under Labour."