Nash Stuart: Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 26 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3998. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): We heard a lot of statistics there but it reminded me of a great quote because that speaker uses statistics like a drunken man uses a lamp post—for support not illumination.There was a very interesting answer—[Interruption] Thanks for that mate. There was a very interesting answer that John Key gave in question time today to a question that was asked by I think Andrew Little. He talked about the number of overseas investors buying houses in New Zealand. Mr Key said: “You don’t know that fact. No one knows.” You know what? He is dead right and that is the problem we have got. No one knows how many foreigners are buying houses in New Zealand. Nobody knows the impact that foreigners are having on the Auckland housing market. So when John Key and Bill English come out and say that they are now going to require overseas investors to have IRD numbers and bank accounts what I would like to know is how they are going to police that.The reason I bring this up is that one of my shadow portfolios is land information. Land Information New Zealand is responsible for overseeing the Overseas Investment Act and the Overseas Investment Act is about making sure that those who come in and buy sensitive New Zealand assets or sensitive New Zealand land go through the right process. Looking through the Budget I made an assumption—I could be wrong here—that it would be the Overseas Investment Act that would be in charge of monitoring foreigners buying houses in New Zealand.The problem we have at the moment is that the Overseas Investment Office is way behind in consents. Technically it has to have a consent approved or a sale and purchase agreement signed off within 65 days of signing if it requires Overseas Investment Office consent. Technically there are a whole lot of sale and purchase agreements now in place with foreign investors that are redundant that have fallen by the wayside because the Overseas Investment Office has not got the staff to monitor this consent process. If it is going to be asked to monitor this new process—and I for the life of me could not figure out who else would do it—then I do not know where it is going to get the resources for it because there is not a cent extra in the Budget for this certainly not under Land Information or the Overseas Investment Office.One thing I would like to talk about is that I am a provincial MP and I get a little bit sick and tired of hearing people say that the provinces are failing because as you know yourself Mr Deputy Speaker the provinces are not failing. In fact there are some fantastic stories of businesses that are doing incredibly well in the provinces and certainly there is a whole number of them in my electorate of Napier. But they could be doing a lot better. My firm belief is that if we are to maximise economic development in the regions it has to be a partnership between local government central government and key stakeholders. So what I was looking for in this Budget and what I would have really liked to see is a commitment to regional economic development.If I was writing this Budget what I would put into it is a commitment to regional economic development. What I would have done if I was the Minister of Finance is set aside a decent chunk of money let us say $500 million and I would have sent a very clear message to the regional economic development agencies and the regions as a whole to say “You come to us with plans around what you would like to see in the regions around where you see benefit being generated around how the Government can partner with the regions and we will help you out.”I am the first to admit that we cannot expect the Government to throw money in the air at the regions watch it settle and hope it settles in the right place. That is not how Governments spend money. But what we do need to see is a commitment to the regions. By that I do not mean money thrown willy-nilly in an irresponsible way but what I do mean is a commitment to partner with those who make a difference in provincial New Zealand. This is not what we have seen at the moment. I would suggest that one way to deal with the booming Auckland housing market at the moment is to give businesses a reason an economic imperative to move out of Auckland—not all businesses but certain types of businesses—and into the regions.Let me give you one example. We know how much money it costs to bring a 40-foot container or a 20-foot container across the Port of Auckland how much it costs to transport that container from the port to a warehouse and how it much it costs to warehouse it and then distribute it around the country. It is about 40 percent more than to do that sort of operation in Napier where we have one of the most efficient ports in the country. Even Mr Foss will agree with me on that point. So there is a very very compelling business case for a number of these businesses to move out of Auckland and to the regions. But what we do need is a real partnership between central government and local government and that will come only when central government sends the right signals to provincial New Zealand and those signals were not sent in this Budget. It would have been easy to do.I wonder what the provincial MPs in the National caucus were saying to Bill English when he was putting the Budget together. I suspect they were not saying much because they did not know what he was planning. [Interruption] Exactly they had no idea what he was actually planning. But I would have thought certainly as a provincial MP as a number of my colleagues here are that the message we will send very clearly to our party and as a result the policy I think you will see us take into the next election is one of regional economic development and regional economic engagement.While we are on that topic one of my shadow portfolios is actually forestry. What the Government did announce in this Budget is $5 million to spend over 3 years on research into alternative species. I am not going to knock that because it is quite an important project of that there is no doubt but it does not deal with the fundamental issue we are facing in the forestry sector at this point in time. In the last 10 years we have gone from 6 million cubic metres or 30 percent of the logs cut to 17 million cubic metres or 56 percent of all logs cut going across our wharves without a single cent of value being added. Part of the problem we have got here is a lack of money going into regional economic development and especially into the wood processing sector.In fact one of the great policies Labour came out with and went into the 2014 election with was accelerated depreciation for those who want to invest in timber processing facilities. It was a fantastic policy and the resonance it gained in the processing sector was enormous. In fact again I would have thought that that would be something that this Government signalled in the Budget because it was a great policy that resonated right across the industry. We have got to do something about this. To be honest we might not need sawmills in the future and the reason I say that is that the size of the planted estate has dropped by 76000 hectares over the last 10 years. This is an industry in decline yet this is the only industry that is going to get us out of the problems we face with our carbon emissions in our global responsibilities as a clean green “100% Pure New Zealand” branded country that allows us—that gives us—a global competitive advantage.The sawmilling and forestry sectors really are suffering under this Government. As a man from the provinces that have a number of plantation forests I know that you yourself Mr Deputy Speaker must be bit a little frustrated with this.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not bring me into the debate.STUART NASH: I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker but you know I get passionate about the regions and I know you are as well so I do apologise. There have been about 6000 jobs lost in this whole industry.I would like to conclude by saying three things. First and foremost what this Government—what a Government—really needs to do is to start engaging with regional and provincial New Zealand and go out to them with an action plan even if it goes out to provincial New Zealand and says “This is what we would like to see from you.” There needs to be a level of engagement. That is just not happening at the moment. The second point I would like to make is that the forestry sector is a very important sector for a whole raft of reasons. First of all it can transform commodity logs into specialty products. Second it employs a whole lot of people in the regions where there is high unemployment and third it will actually help us meet our Kyoto or Paris commitments under the emissions trading scheme.The third point I would like to make is that we really do need to get a handle on who is buying our assets in this country; we really do. It is not a difficult thing to do. In fact it would be quite cheap to do. We would support it if it was done in a way that was meaningful. I think as parliamentarians we need to work together to provide New Zealanders with information around who is buying our houses how much they are paying where they are buying and what they are doing when they do buy. Thank you very much.