Nash Stuart: Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Nash Stuart: Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5173. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I stand in support of the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill. I support the bill because I recognise we need a tax system that is simple and easy to understand by as many people as possible. I also support the need to align rates across investment class because that is very important. I also support the bill because it is a Labour bill. Like the vast majority of good bills passed by the House it is a Labour bill but we all know that the Labour Party is the party of tax efficiency without a question of doubt. After all what party last cut the company tax rate? 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Labour. 
STUART NASH 
: Who? 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Labour. 
STUART NASH 
: I tell you what what was the party before that? 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Labour. 
STUART NASH 
: The last time that Labour cut the company tax rate the Nats voted against it. Those guys voted against cutting the company tax rate. That is unbelievable. National calls itself the party of business but it is not. The vast majority of good bills that have been passed by the House since I have been here in my limited time have all been Labour bills. When we look at the big National bills they are bills to build thermal power plants the 90-day “fire at will” bill the Auckland governance legislation and the Budget which has cut adult community education and the training incentive allowance. That is hardly building a productive economy I must admit. The irony is that the training incentive allowance was cut by a Minister who by her own admission dug her way out of adversity through education by accessing the training incentive allowance and adult community education was cut by a Minister who was an adult community education tutor in Napier. That irony has not been lost on many New Zealanders. It is dreadful. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Tell us which classes. 
STUART NASH 
: I was in a class last night where the ages ranged between post-retirement to just-left-school. That was a night class that will be cut and they could not believe it. They were learning a very important skill. They were socialising. For a lot of them the class was the highlight of their week. The government is getting rid of it; it is cutting it. We tried to find a logical argument. We could not find any logical argument for cutting it. This is a Government of cut; it is cutting it all. But do not worry; if people are wealthy enough to send their children to a private school then they did get a boost. They got a $35 million boost because that is what the Government gave to private education. That is unbelievable. In fact people who are lucky enough to send their children to private education were probably in the top 3 percent who got 33 percent of the tax cuts. I repeat: 3 percent of taxpayers got 33 percent of the tax cuts. Is that fair? 
Kelvin Davis 
: No way! 
STUART NASH 
: That is not is fair at all. It is a travesty. [ 
Interruption 
] Talking of equitable I challenge the ACT member Mr Boscawen who holds himself out to be a people’s person in the financial regulation area the man who will solve it all to come on board for Labour’s investigation of the banking sector. He has done it for the finance sector; he should come across and help us be part of this. He wants to do it; he is an independent MP within the ACT Party he acts independently he should come across and be part of the banking inquiry that ordinary New Zealanders want to see happen because they are hurting. I tell Mr Boscawen to come across—no do not come across be independent voice your will; you are one of us I know that. When it comes to the banking sector Mr Boscawen wants to know what is going on with the banks. 
But let me tell members a little bit about this. I think the Nats find it quite confusing because they keep talking about “stimulus”. Let me tell you about stimulus. There is something called Keynesian economic theory. Sam Lotu-Iiga might have studied this at Cambridge; I am not too sure. He is on the wrong side of the Chamber and he knows it. He should come across here. Keynesian economics is mirrored by such philosophers as Hyman Minsky for example and echoed by Paul Krugman for example—he was the winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize for economics—and by Ben Bernanke in the United States. Do you know what they said? What one needs to do is stimulate supply by creating demand! How do we do that? How do we create demand? We give money to those who spend it to those who desperately need it. What should not be done is to give money to those who have a whole lot of money—the top 3 percent of taxpayers—because they tend to save it or they tend to retire debt. At this stage of the economic cycle what we do not want is people taking this so-called stimulus package and taking the money out of circulation by sticking it in the bank. That is called supply-side or Friedmanite economic theory—what used to be known as the trickle-down theory. And it does not work. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Neoclassical! 
STUART NASH 
: Sam knows that. You sat around that National caucus table when they announced these tax cuts and you must have been shaking your head thinking: “The people in Maungakiekie will crucify me when they see this.” I feel sorry for you mate. If you are a New Zealander and you earn under $40000 and you are a taxpayer you received nothing. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wish to raise with you that it seems rather often that you find yourself drawn into this debate at the moment. I wonder whether you might remind the member that the use of the word “you” brings the Speaker into the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is quite correct. The member is making reference to “you” and “your”. The Speaker in the Chair is not responsible for Keynesian economics or a range of other things and the reference should be indirect. I invite the member to continue. 
STUART NASH 
: Mr Assistant Speaker is right of course because he is a believer in Keynesian economic theory as is anyone who has a social conscience in this country which I do not think many people on the other side of the House have. But that does not matter because hard-working tax-paying New Zealanders who earn under $40000 a year did not get a tax cut. In fact one would have to be in the top 3 percent to get 33 percent. But it does not matter. John Key received $120 a week in his tax cut. Someone on a medium income with children received nothing. At the Finance and Expenditure Committee—Sam was there—we asked Mr English— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On the first occasion that I noted that the member was using only part of one of the member’s names we let it go. But the member is still using the member Sam Lotu-Iiga’s name incorrectly. I ask you to remind the member of the convention of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member’s point of order is quite correct. Members are to be addressed correctly and their names are to be used in full. There are no short-cuts in this matter. Although we like to be familiar on occasions this is not one of those occasions. 
STUART NASH 
: As I was saying at the Finance and Expenditure Committee we asked Mr English whether given the state of the current economic climate which all the financial commentators from around the world are saying is getting more dire by the day he will implement the tax cuts. Mr English said yes he will because it is what the people of New Zealand voted for. I wonder whether the 190 people on the East Coast who lost their jobs today voted for that. I very much doubt it. Seventy-five percent of people in the Napier electorate did not receive a tax cut. I wonder whether they voted for that. 
It is bad luck for the owners of high-tech businesses. National cut the research and development tax credit to fund tax cuts. What is the vision? Where is the aspiration? The New Zealand biotechnology and agricultural sectors have been left behind. We pass free-trade agreements in this House yet we do not support our businesses with research and development in order that they may take up the opportunities and optimise their potential. 
I will give members some startling figures. The National members talk about aspiration research and driving growth. Let me tell members that as a percentage of GDP Australia’s spend on research and development is 1.15 percent Japan’s spend is 2.62 percent the UK’s spend is 1.1 percent and the US’s spend is 1.89 percent. The OECD average spend on research and development is 1.56 percent of GDP. New Zealand’s spend is 0.51 percent of GDP. We talk about productivity. I wonder what Dr Brash had to say about that when he cut the research and development tax credits. 
The KiwiSaver incentives have been cut for workers. Now a worker has to earn over $50000 or contribute more than the current 4 percent before he or she gets the maximum Government allowance. This is a time when savings rates are shocking. There is a dilemma: we want people to save and we need people to spend in order to stimulate demand. However the National Government gave no money to those who need to save and not a dime penny or cent to those who would have spent it. It is a backward step. It is unbelievable. Where is the logic? Where is the plan? 
Another 60000 to 80000 job losses is the prediction. About 1300 people per week are joining the dole queue these days. Businesses are struggling and families are stretched. So what will this Government do to help people? It failed to deliver when it mattered. It failed the people of New Zealand. During the 2008 election people turned blue whilst holding their breath waiting for a vision promised by the Nats. But now people are turning red with rage. Like Mr Key I cannot wait for the 2011 general election either. Thank you.