Clark David: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Sitting date: 02 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1885. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I rise to comment on a few of the things said by the previous speaker David Bennett. He was trying to encourage us to believe that this current Government has a credible plan for growth. Well the evidence does not really support that. Under the last Labour Government the economy grew by 25 percent in real terms. This Government has actually shrunk the economy in real terms on a per capita basis. People have less money in their pockets and they have more that they need to spend it on. Our economy is going backwards under this Government.  
The Budget Policy Statement which we are debating contains a statement that would maybe lead people to believe that the mixed-ownership model that the Government is proposing—otherwise known as asset sales—is a sensible way forward. Today I sat in a Finance and Expenditure Committee meeting and heard again from people who thought that was a terrible idea—simply a terrible idea. Today we heard another 20-odd people and every last one of them thought that this was a stupid plan. Treasury’s figures suggest that the Government will go backwards by $94 million per year when these assets are sold off—$94 million per year. We as a country—us taxpayers—will be worse off from the loss of dividends which means that we have less income as a result.  
This is not a plan—this not a plan—but it is what we have come to expect from the current Government. It is desperate sweet sugar hits and quick fixes but not a long-term plan. Previous speakers have said it and it is true: a zero Budget is what you get when your economy is failing. Mr Speaker I do not mean you of course. But it is what we have and what we have to put up with when our economy is failing.  
Today we heard from various people at that select committee who opposed this measure proposed in the Budget Policy Statement. We had people phoning in from Norway to express their discontent at this proposal—Kiwis overseas worried about what they will find when they come home. We had a first-time submitter with a broken arm an elderly woman who walked through bad weather to come and tell us how bad this proposal was that is in the Budget Policy Statement. We had the Ohariu Citizens’ Select Committee come and present to us representing 412 people. They had not been heard by their member of Parliament who refused to hear their submission that this asset sales proposal is a dog. They had been refused an audience by Peter Dunne to even hear their views on the asset sales proposal. The one man whom we know did not campaign for this proposal—in fact many of the things he said would have led us to believe he stood against it—and now he is standing there currently supporting the Government’s proposal to sell assets. It is the very same proposal that Treasury tells us will take our economy backwards by $94 million per year.  
 We have also heard in the debate from Mr Hayes who was trying to argue that one of New Zealand First’s proposals was too costly. He shed some crocodile tears. Well this morning in the select committee he described as “petty cash” the $100 million or so that we suspect that Treasury’s mishandling of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme has cost. That is how we know those were crocodile tears. He described that $100 million that was potentially lost as “petty cash”.  
We have heard from speakers who lack credibility but they contrast with the members of the public whom we heard at the select committee. We heard from Mr Les Howard representing Grey Power in Temuka who said: “There is no doubt in our minds; people will die from cold because of this bill.” He was worried about rising power prices as a result of these asset sales. Mr Les Howard was representing the people of Grey Power. We heard him and we understood what he meant. The National members who sat opposite were not happy with the submissions they received on the asset sales. They look uncomfortable they look like they are defending the indefensible and they do not want to do it. It is in the Budget Policy Statement. It makes no sense and I submit that it is not the only thing in the Budget Policy Statement that will take our country backwards. Thank you.