Tisch Lindsay: Budget Debate 
Tisch Lindsay: Budget Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13605] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is always good to follow the Labour Minister of Conservation who is so enthusiastic about handing out other people’s money. That is what we have seen in this debate from the Government members who have stood up and talked about how great it is to be able do things in some areas. That is fine but what they fail to realise is that it has come about because this Government over the last 5 years has increased the pool of funds to enable it to make the handouts that those members have been talking about today and talked about during the debate on the package before the recess. 
We are the only country in the OECD group of countries that has increased its rate of taxation. There are former Soviet Union countries that have actually reduced their rate but no when this Government came into office it increased the rate for those earning over $60000 from 33 percent to 39 percent. What did Labour say in its pledge card? It said that only 5 percent of people would be affected by an increase in tax—that 95 percent would not be affected. That figure is now running at over 15 percent. The thing about it is that if one has a pool of funds one can do wonders with it. How has it come about? It has come about because this Government has just run the largest Budget surplus in our history—a fund of $6 billion. The forecast for next year is also in the range of $6 billion. If I had $6 billion of other people’s money then I could do wonders with it. 
Unfortunately an opportunity to grow New Zealand’s economy has been squandered by the Budget. This was not a growth strategy Budget. There was nothing in it to promote investment and growth and to build up the skills and the educational levels that are required to have a dynamic growing economy. No there was nothing like that. There was nothing to increase opportunity nothing to enable us to become internationally competitive move onto the world stage and sell our products in an increasingly competitive world market. There was nothing in the Budget that talked about the biggest challenges that we face in New Zealand—that is our infrastructural challenges. Maurice Williamson talked about those challenges in terms of roading especially in Auckland. Neither was there anything about the source of electricity. The biggest hindrances to investment in New Zealand have been identified as the tie-ups and lack of infrastructure in terms of roading and our power resources. What was this Budget about? With $6 billion there were opportunities to grow the economy to build skills and to allow businesses to expand but they were wasted because this Budget was about wealth distribution. That is exactly what it was about. 
I am the champion of small businesses. We are a nation of small businesses. There are 297000 small businesses in New Zealand employing just under 600000 people. Who benefited from this Budget? It was not the young people who want to start a business. It was not the young couples starting off in life. It was not the middle-aged couple looking to save some money for retirement. It was not the superannuitants and it certainly was not those who are established in business. None of those growth areas and none of those people whom this Government should have been looking towards got any benefit out of the Budget at all. Only one household in five—that is 300000 households out of 1.5 million—actually got any benefit. 
I support those who are in the business sector. This Government does not take business seriously. It does not like small businesses in particular. It has a negative attitude to business. In fact if we look at the Queen’s Birthday honours list do we see anybody who came from a business background? There was not one there. This is a Government that does not take business seriously. Those who grow the economy were overlooked. [ 
Interruption 
] OK there was one person in Hamilton who was a worthy recipient at that but that is only one out of a list of a couple of pages. We need to create a culture of enterprise. It is desperately needed. My premise is that private property and free-market economies are superior to State ownership and central planning which are exactly what was in the Budget. 
What are some of the principles that National believes are important for growing the economy? Earlier John Key referred to those families earning $38000 who have two children and those earning $60000 who have two children. He said that when we consider the handouts to those earning $38000 we find that the actual differential between the two families is only about $2500. Where is the incentive for people to try to better themselves? Free people are not equal and equal people are not free. When I talk about being equal I am talking about economic equality. People are not free and equal because of the challenges we all face whether it be in the jobs we do or the talents we have. We have expertise in certain areas. Yet this Government is looking to say in the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill that if people are on an individual contract they cannot have a better deal than those on a collective contract. Well people are different in terms of their talents. For example sportspeople make a lot of money if they are very good. 
Equal people are not necessarily free. Socialist Governments always talk about wealth distribution and that is the point I made earlier. What happened in Cambodia is a great example. It tried to make all people equal and 2 million people out of 8 million died over a 4-year period. If we do not create wealth we cannot spend it. Where this Government has gone wrong is it has not created the right environment. With a $6 billion surplus it could have easily moved to create the environment for a growing economy. Tax rates do not make people more equal; they just drive the industrious people and the entrepreneurial people into other places. We have to be very very mindful of what happens in that field. 
People tend to take care of what belongs to them. What belongs to no one or to everyone tends to fall into disrepair. We saw that in the Soviet Union where there was central planning and State ownership. It minimised private property because it thought that private ownership was selfish and counterproductive. People should let someone drive their cars for a month then see what they are like when they get them back. If we want to encourage something to get more of it then we have to make sure there are some incentives. 
I want to dwell on the point about taxation. We consider increasing taxes on cigarettes and alcohol in order to discourage people from smoking and drinking so why increase tax on consumption if we want to grow the economy? It is a disincentive. The point we have made in previous speeches is that there was an opportunity to have a tax rate competitive with that in Australia. Reducing our corporate rate from 33 percent to 30 percent would make us competitive with that country. At the moment our tax rates are so high that 1 June was the day of liberation because for the first 6 months of this year business people were working just to pay the costs due to the Government. Incentives have been shackled by red tape and compliance costs. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh don’t be silly. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I look forward to when that member has a say because this Government is shackling initiatives. The latest survey states: “Red tape ties up growth”. There is plenty of evidence and plenty of surveys have been done to show that the red tape compliance costs and regulatory creep which this Budget could have addressed were not taken notice of. 
This Government has no interest in business. It does not understand what grows the economy and until it does we will see businesses in New Zealand suffer. I am quite prepared to stand up and be their champion because it is the National Party that believes in free enterprise. It believes in incentives for people to get up and do their own thing and make a dollar. If they are making a dollar they are going to be paying more tax. Under this Government an opportunity was squandered. Part of the $6 billion surplus could have gone into incentives such as a reduction in the corporate tax rate to allow businesses to grow the economy for the benefit of all New Zealanders.