Tremain Chris: General Debate 
Tremain Chris: General Debate 
[Volume:642;Page:12447] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Conroy Removals is a nationwide removal company with its head office in Napier. It shifts furniture. It is a great business and I might say that it is one of a number of fantastic businesses based in Hawke’s Bay. Do members know that right now they could have a truckload of furniture moved from Napier to Christchurch for $4000? For $5500 they could have that same truckload of furniture shifted to the Gold Coast. Do members know where most of Conroy Removals’ business is going to from around the country? Unfortunately it ain’t to Christchurch as much as I would like it to be. It is going direct to the Gold Coast—to Australia. Do members know whom this removal company is moving? It is moving young hard-working Kiwi families with young kids with big aspirations and with big dreams. In fact just recently a family from my son’s rugby team picked up sticks and moved their kids to Melbourne. 
For Conroy Removals it has become a bit like Groundhog Day. One Kiwi family after another has been packing their bags and moving across the ditch. This has been exacerbated by Dr Cullen’s personal version of Groundhog Day. It is called “Tax Surplus Groundhog Day”. Last week Dr Cullen announced another huge surplus—$8.7 billion. This came on top of the $11.47 billion surplus in 2006 the $6.24 billion surplus in 2005 and the whopping $7.42 billion surplus in 2004. Over the last 4 years this Government has had tax surpluses of $34 billion. That equates to $8450 per man woman and child in this country based on a population of 4 million. According to Dr Cullen much of the $8.7 billion has already been spent with contributions made to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and to the purchase of new infrastructure. That aside even under the current Government’s policies there is still a $2.7 billion cash surplus available to give back to hard-working Kiwis—$2.7 billion has been unnecessarily collected off New Zealand taxpayers which is $675 per man woman and child. 
Under this Government taxpayers have had no tax relief. Taxpayers now pay an average of $2400 more in tax per annum than they did in 2000 despite their being no better off in real terms. National believes that at the very least that $2.7 billion cash surplus belongs to the taxpayer. It was unbudgeted; it should be given back. Tax relief is long overdue in this country. 
I also believe that New Zealand needs to debate the management of the State balance sheet particularly in regard to the use of the cash surplus to pay for our ongoing infrastructural needs. National has made it clear that the funding of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will remain unchanged—it needs to keep coming out of that surplus; there are no questions about that. But as a country we need to have a big debate about how we finance alternative ways of building our infrastructure such as through new roads new schools and new hospitals because right now we are paying for them with cash. 
I ask members across the other side of the House whether they paid cash when they bought their most recent homes. Well when I bought my last home I was certainly unable to pay cash for it that is for sure. Take the example of a new road for instance. Right now we are paying cash for it but the value of that road will be of value to the country for 30 or 40 years. Yet under this financial management we are paying cash for it upfront to pay for the value of that road for many many years when it will return value to the country for years. I think the country needs to have a debate about whether future taxpayers should contribute to funding that level of infrastructure. 
There is no doubt that a combination of the free cash currently available in the surplus a potential change in our approach to the way we finance the purchase of infrastructure and a reining in of the year-on-year increases to Government spending above the consumer price index will give our nation the headroom to implement tax cuts without there being a reduction in social services. Did members hear that? Without a reduction in social services! 
I would like to contrast the Groundhog Day Budget surplus—the “no tax relief” experience in New Zealand—with the Australian regime. The philosophy could not be any more different. Australia too has enjoyed Budget surpluses in recent years—surpluses of around 1.3 percent of GDP as opposed to our own surpluses which are in the vicinity of 7 percent of GDP. They have simply been whopping. Philosophically Australians have a totally different attitude to that of hard-working Kiwis.