Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. All I can say is thank goodness that we do not have a supply side economist as the Minister of Revenue—we would be in a hell of a lot of trouble as a country and an economy.The last speaker Michael Woodhouse gave us or tried to give us a very brief philosophical lesson about what certain tax economics thought about this and what has been—Hon Dr David Clark: Not brief enough.Hon STUART NASH: Dead right Dr Clark. What has been proven over the years is that supply side economics simply do not work. They're great in a textbook. Milton Friedman is so last century I believe that even the Chicago school got rid of his name off the business school. Even Chicago have ignored Milton Friedman and said Sorry we got this wrong."What demand side economics says is you give money to people who will spend it because what that will do is create demand in an economy and we absolutely believe that. We went out to the electorate we stood there—I was with Minister Grant Robertson—and we signalled very very clearly that the top 2 percent—not 98 percent; the top 2 percent—would pay a little bit more tax because we understood we were in a unique situation and we were signalling that you know we've all got to play our part. We've all got to play our part. Ninety-eight percent will not see any difference whatsoever and we've made that extremely clear.But what we have also been very clear about is that in order to keep this economy going we would provide money to people who found themselves in a really difficult situation in this one-in-100-year event. So we did that in the form of the wage subsidy. That is what demand side economics is about: 1.8 million Kiwis actually received money because we knew if people who weren't working or who found themselves in reduced hours or businesses who found themselves in a position where they couldn't trade—if money kept coming into the pockets of the workers and that cycled through the economy then we would do OK. What have we seen? First of all we were the first country in the OECD to get money out the door. Secondly we are on about 5.8 percent unemployment. Now sure that is higher than it was pre-COVID. We knew that was going to be the case. But the Treasury forecast unemployment was going to be over 10 percent. In fact I was reading a brief recently which was very early on in the pandemic that talked about between 13 and—worst case scenario—20 percent unemployment. But what we did is we got money out really fast to those who needed it so they would continue spending. If Michael Woodhouse had been revenue Minister or had been part of the economic team as he highlighted just in his last speech what he would have done is he would have said to the top taxpayers "We're going to cut your tax." and to those on the bottom "You get nothing"—you get nothing.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Straw man argument.Hon STUART NASH: Mr Woodhouse that is what you said—that is what you said. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!Hon Michael Woodhouse: No that's not what I said. That is absolutely not what I said.Hon STUART NASH: "We will cut taxes."—we will cut taxes. That's what you said—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will resume his seat. In saying "you" the member brings the Speaker into the debate.Hon STUART NASH: Point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that but I thought there was a ruling from Speaker Mallard that said if you were using "you" in a context that was readily understood by everyone in the—anyway I understand—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No no. Thank you. The member is correct. "You" can be used to address the Chamber as a whole but directing "you" at a member is against Speakers' rulings.Hon STUART NASH: Understood. Thank you. So all I am highlighting here is that what the House has seen in the last two speakers is two fundamentally different approaches to how separate Governments would deal with the situation we find ourselves in. Under Mr Woodhouse taxes would have been cut and those at the bottom wouldn't have got anything. Under this Labour Government under Jacinda Ardern under Grant Robertson what we decided is we would give money to those who absolutely needed it in order to stimulate the economy—demand side economics—and those at the very top that 2 percent would pay just a little bit more. I believe that history will show that we have made the right decision—that Grant Robertson as the Minister of Finance that Jacinda Ardern as the Prime Minister made the right decision in the way that this Government handled the pandemic. I am very proud to commend this bill to the House. It is the right thing to do. Thank you."