Mapp Wayne: General Debate 
Mapp Wayne: General Debate 
[Volume:673;Page:19611] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 We have certainly heard Labour’s plan now. It will put an extra $500 million of costs on employers into the economy—$500 million extra costs on employers. What would that do? It is quite simple really. Essentially it would reduce the productive capacity of the economy. This is the choice New Zealand is really faced with at the moment: the economic plan. We heard one part of Labour’s economic plan: add costs into the economy. Labour members actually think that that is a plan. They think a sympathy approach to the economy will do it. I have to say that that is simply a cynical and bankrupt attempt to grow the economy.  
This is what Labour’s plan seemingly is. First of all Labour would increase the minimum wage which would mean $500 million extra against employers. Second Labour would increase borrowing. Third Labour would increase departmental expenditure. Just about every spokesperson across the House has made some promise or other to increase departmental expenditure. Labour is against efficiency. It is against broadband even. It will have the opportunity later today no doubt to decide whether to vote for that infrastructure investment or against it. I apprehend based on the debate that I have heard so far that Labour will vote against it. It is against broadband it is against infrastructure and it is against irrigation. It consistently opposes the plans to expand irrigation in the Canterbury region.  
What other things is Labour against? It is against the sale of State-owned enterprises. Yesterday when I was listening to the debate Labour’s core argument was that New Zealanders already own those assets. That is a complete misunderstanding of what it is about. We could have said that about a Polish shipyard. The people already owned the Polish shipyard. What did the Polish people do? They decided in common with every Eastern European citizen that their already owning it was not the way to prosperity. In fact the way to prosperity was to actually have a personal share in that business. Our mixed-ownership model will build the capacity of the New Zealand Exchange and give New Zealanders including KiwiSaver account holders the opportunity to directly own and to have a personal stake in the economy of New Zealand. They will personally see the gains. It is well known—and Labour should know this; at least Mr Mallard knows this—that having some private sector ownership increases efficiency and increases effectiveness. Of course it enables the Government to invest against borrowing.  
We have already heard about what Labour sold when it was in office in 1989. Would Labour members seriously suggest today that New Zealand taxpayers should own Telecom? Would they seriously suggest today that it would be a good idea to have a network of State hotels? Would they seriously suggest today that we should have a rural bank finance banking system? Would they seriously suggest today that it would be a really good idea for the Government to own New Zealand Steel? That is the space they are in now. They are now in the space of saying that anything that is publicly owned must always remain in public ownership 100 percent. The reason for that is that we already own it. To Labour members that is the complete answer. It is a mantra for them. Yet from their own evidence based on their record—including Mr Mallard—they know that there are some situations where it is better frankly to have private sector ownership. Most of us would agree that that balance already exists with Air New Zealand and we can see the advantages of that. That is why National is going to go out to the public with that plan.  
Another issue I want to raise is science and innovation. There was the big speech at the Labour Party conference where Sir Paul Callaghan well known and well regarded for his ideas on innovation who wrote an excellent book called  
Wool to Weta 
 was present. And what did Labour members do? They said they would bring back a $160 million tax credit. What will they fund that with? The bringing-in of the emissions trading scheme 2 years earlier than planned for farmers. That is a zero-sum game. Labour has no plan. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.