Williamson Maurice: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Williamson Maurice: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8752] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 What a great delight it was to sit in the House yesterday and listen to a Prime Minister’s speech that was actually full of substance about what would get this nation’s gross domestic product per capita—I know that is a ghastly phrase; the vast bulk of people out in ordinary television land do not really care about GDP per capita but it really translates for them as our wealth per person—back on track with comparable jurisdictions. Those are the countries we like to compare ourselves to. 
We remember that back in the early 1950s we were about second or third in the world; we were literally on the sheep’s back. With the Korean War raging and wool at a great price we were a wealthy country and back then New Zealanders had a level of expectation about the things we could afford as a nation. Sadly that expectation has not decreased along with the decrease of our wealth per person. So the plan yesterday was to get that wealth per person back on track to growing and eventually hopefully by 2025—we might not hit the target but we can at least have it as a target—getting back to being comparable with Australia. 
People like the Greens will say that we should not be focused on the economy and money; we should be focused on environmental outcomes. Others will say those outcomes are not so important but that social outcomes are. Well I ask any member of this House to look around the world and see the unbelievable correlation there is between fantastic environmental outcomes and wealthy nations. Members should go to the wealthiest countries and look at the fantastic clean water fresh air and clean rivers they have and then go to the poor countries the bottom-of-the-heap countries and look at the filthy rivers with sewage pouring down them the filthy air and the lack of infrastructure. I am really happy to say that by being a supporter of growing the economy I am also a supporter of getting better environmental outcomes. 
Indeed as Judith Collins said before in our law and order area there will also be better social outcomes. We get way better outcomes if we have an economy that is booming and that can employ people. Those people need to be employable to start with; therefore I will talk about what I think was great in the Prime Minister’s statement. There was a focus on lifting innovation and productivity. It is no good if we just keep doing the same old thing in the same old way; we will get left behind. Here is a little trick for the House. We think that we are not doing too badly in the world for our wealth per person our GDP per capita because we are about 24th in the OECD—the rich man’s club. However heaps and heaps of countries are not in the rich man’s club but are way wealthier than us already. It will not come as a surprise to members today to hear that Singapore which we used to help through the Colombo Plan because it was so poor has wealth per person that is nearly twice ours. That will not come as a surprise. Nor will the fact that Hong Kong is also wealthier. But what do members think about Puerto Rico passing us 5 years ago? 
Paul Quinn 
: 5 years ago? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The wealth per person of Puerto Rico its GDP per capita passed us 5 years ago and Slovenia’s passed us 3 years ago. We are not 24th in the world; we are 24th in the OECD. We are about 49th in the world for wealth per person so we have to lift innovation and productivity. We have to invest in commercialising good ideas—our good scientific ideas and our good views about what will make wealthy products that the world wants. I am delighted that there was a focus on that in the Prime Minister’s statement. 
There is another collection of portfolios and policies that make a nation work: labour laws that are fair and that give the worker some coverage and some protection but that do not discourage employers from taking on new staff. I have to say that if some of the lunatic left of this country got their way they would put labour laws and protections in place that in theory would look brilliant but not a single person would be employed because no employer would take those risks. I have a view about the minimum wage. There is the idea of putting it to $15 and everybody being wealthy but I ask why we stop at $15. Let us make it a hundred bucks an hour for everybody and we will be exceedingly wealthy. Of course everyone is starting to laugh; even Labour members are starting to laugh at that. They know that the moment we make an artificial per hour rate we stifle the ability for employers to employ so I am delighted that we have made only the small move we have on that issue. 
We need to ensure a well-educated population. I find it absolutely gobsmacking when I go around this country and talk to employers who say that they have got jobs and that they have signs out the front saying they will take on a general labour force but they have not been able to employ a number of people because those people cannot fill out their application forms. They cannot read and they cannot write. That is a national disgrace. We have compulsory education to the age of 16 and we are paying billions for an education system so it is a national disgrace that we are turning out people who cannot read and write. Twenty percent of school-leavers have no educational qualification up to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 1 and believe me even NCEA level 1 will not be enough to get them through. 
Again I am delighted with the emphasis on national standards—on identifying for all young children in this country where they are up to in their reading writing and arithmetic and how well they are progressing. I like Anne Tolley’s analogy. We like to have Plunket graphs for children’s weight and health. We want to know whether they are getting stronger and taller and we monitor that. If they are not we do something about it. So why do we not do that about their educational standards and their achievements so that we can spot where they are not making the grade and provide the necessary support and assistance? I am absolutely delighted at some of the things that have come out of those standards. 
In relation to the taxation system I have never heard anything like it. Who introduced GST to this country? Who was it? The Labour Government introduced GST. I will pay a tribute: I think that Sir Roger Douglas did one of the best things for this country. I like GST. I tell members that I like it and I think that David Lange’s quote that now even drug dealers have to pay tax means that it is right. I like the idea of a tax system that taxes bad and rewards good. I think that spending and consumption—buying new big plasma screens—are bad and investment and savings are good. Income is good. So I do not understand why we keep taxing the good things that we want people to do more of. I am a big fan of shifting the base to put more money into the hands of individuals by reducing the tax they pay and then starting to move that money—so that the revenue does not get totally eroded because the Government needs the money—by way of GST. It is so hilarious that Labour put GST up from 10 to 12.5 percent and back then— 
Paul Quinn 
: When was that? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I think it was back in 1989. So it was OK then but now somehow it is not OK. Well I like GST. 
The other thing I really really find galling is the Opposition’s claim that tax cuts are for our rich mates. I will give a little analogy. Ten people go to a restaurant. The bill is $1000 for the meal and one guy says that he will pick up $900 of it. The others say that that is fantastically generous. Another person says he will pick up $100—just two of them will pay. Then the maître d’ comes over and says that the manager was so delighted with their behaviour and how much they had spent that he would give a 10 percent discount. So the guy who was to pay $900 gets 90 bucks back and the guy who was to pay $100 gets 10 bucks back. All the others whinged that they were not getting anything back. That is what is going on here. The wealthy will be taxed less because they pay so much more to start with. People at the top end of the income stream are paying thousands and thousands of dollars—sometimes a week—more than others and they will get a fraction of that back. But the left-wing Labour green-eyed envy monster comes up and says that this is tax cuts for the rich. Actually we will take slightly less tax from those rich people than they were paying in the past and we will still reward people at the bottom end to make sure they are compensated for changes to GST. 
I was delighted also that the Prime Minister’s statement talked about things like getting a world-class infrastructure investment going. All one needs to do is come to our great city Auckland where what we used to use for lighting before candles was electricity. Members will think I have that round the wrong way but I do not. What we used to use for lighting before candles was electricity. We cannot rely on the electricity system any more. Sometimes it can go down for hours. It can cause major chaos to whole businesses to whole sections and even to the whole city. We have to lift this country’s investment in electricity networks and in roading networks to get the productive sector functioning. I am delighted that those things will be done by the Government. 
We must dramatically reduce the overheads and the burden of a Public Service bureaucracy that absolutely ballooned out of control under Labour. I have the numbers but I do not have the time to go through them. We need to rein it in. We need a well-performing efficient bureaucracy but we do not need the massive explosion that happened under that lot.