Mapp Wayne: Budget Debate 
Mapp Wayne: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3290] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 For the benefit of listeners that was Darien Fenton’s strategic vision. Her strategic vision which she spent hours and hours working on was all about the merits of the Labour Government’s policies of exporting New Zealanders. That is the big plan—the great merits of sending New Zealanders offshore to build up the expatriate community for the everlasting wealth of New Zealanders. I guess that when one has 38000 people leaving New Zealand for Australia this year one would try to make a virtue of that would one not? Actually it is a good thing for New Zealand if half its population went to Australia; they benefit we benefit we all benefit! That is the big strategic vision of the Labour Government—to send New Zealanders to Australia. 
Well New Zealanders actually say no to that. That is the point Labour has missed about National’s concerns. We are saying that the Labour Budget is sending New Zealanders to Australia. Labour thinks that is a good thing. Labour has just spent the last several minutes saying that that is a good thing. I have something to say to the Labour Government: it is a bad thing. That is the point we were trying to make. We say that the future of this country does not depend on exporting all the best New Zealanders to Australia. We want to keep those people here. We want them to have a future in New Zealand and that is the point I wish to make. 
I draw members’ attention to the tax issue. Labour goes on about its Working for Families package. It says how wonderful it is. It has been saying that families get this and families get that and so forth. Obviously it is a good thing for people to get extra money. Labour even calls it a targeted tax cut. Do members know what the real problem of the package is—and this problem was really the point of National’s attack on it? For example there is a family with a couple of kids that earns $38000—an average income probably a bit on the low side—and the principal earner receives a big promotion to $60000. One has to work damn hard to get a promotion or new job that takes one from $38000 to $60000. Do members know what would actually happen? That family would get an extra $2000. That is the problem is it not? That is the incentive killer of the Working for Families package. The package kills incentive it stifles initiative and that is why New Zealanders are saying that actually there are better opportunities in other countries. 
We are not saying that one should not have any sort of family tax credit but one has to deal with the issue of the marginal tax rates. When there are 90 percent marginal tax rates—because that is what the Government’s package delivers—we say that that is wrong. There is a better way and that is a package of an overall lower tax rate. When one has an $8.5 billion surplus which is 5 percent of GDP— 
Anne Tolley 
: How much is it? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Five percent of GDP—it works out to $2000 for every person in the country. When is there ever a better time to have a tax cut—an overall across-the-board tax cut that does not kill incentive? I ask members who agrees with that? The Prime Minister. She said that the conditions that were required was a 1 percent GDP surplus. We have 5 percent yet she says that now is not the time. She has actually sold out to Michael Cullen. She actually said that today did she not? What was her answer to Dr Brash? “Well actually I got rolled by Dr Cullen. I really wanted to have a tax cut in the last 2005 Budget but I got rolled by Dr Cullen and I defer to him.” She got rolled again last week. I have to ask who rules in that party? Is it the Prime Minister or is it the Deputy Prime Minister? Normally in that kind of contest there tends to be one ultimate winner and it is not usually the Deputy Prime Minister. So I have to say that he is on the way out because he just about killed off this Government. 
Do members know how good it got for the Government? One of its big catches was Darien Fenton because that was the great success of the Cullen Budget last year. Do members know who else Labour could have got? They could have got Charles Chauvel. They could have got Louisa Wall. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: They might get them! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well actually they might. Unfortunately Darien will not be resigning however but there you are. But that Budget destroyed their own future. That Budget destroyed their own renewal. So the Prime Minister is now desperately going around saying: “Mr Russell Fairbrother we’ve got a great job for you. Perhaps the Law Commission.” Actually he would be a very good person on the Law Commission he would be excellent and I tell Russell that it pays more for that matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please use the member’s full name. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I want to turn to a specific issue and that is this. Lianne Dalziel was given a big opportunity yesterday. Last Thursday the Minister of Finance said that on Monday there would be a special announcement by Lianne Dalziel on compliance costs. It was her big opportunity to make a really big splash and she did that last night. She had a special conference speeches press releases and all that sort of thing. Do members know what she announced? 
Hon David Carter 
: A committee! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: A committee another review—yet another review. That is as good as it gets under Lianne Dalziel. In her speech she talked about rules. She does have rules and these are the rules: rule No. 1 do not talk about employment law; rule No. 2 do not talk about the Resource Management Act; rule No. 3 do not talk about occupational safety and health. So what is left? What can one talk about? Well apparently one can talk about shop trading hours—a big issue. One can talk about the Sale of Liquor Act. I know there are thousands and thousands of retailers who say that the Sale of Liquor Act is the top of mind issue for them; that is the big issue they want to focus on. 
There was one good thing. They said that they would talk about the Holidays Act. Does that mean Lianne Dalziel will deal with the real issue in the Holidays Act? Does that mean she will deal with the issue of relevant daily pay? Air New Zealand’s 2004 annual report said pay would cost the company $17 million per year. The figure for the meat industry is $50 million. The reason for that is that it actually pays to be sick. A person gets more money by being sick than working. Darien Fenton knows that is true. It was discovered in a plant in the South Island that there was an unofficial roster of sick days. People had worked it out. They all wanted a slice of the pie; they all wanted to be paid more for being sick. So there was an unofficial deal and sick days were shared around. That is not what the legislation is intended for so I ask the Government whether this review of the Holidays Act will deal with the real issue which is relevant daily pay. 
The Small Business Advisory Group gave the Minister a mark of zero out of 10 on employment issues. She wants to do better; in her speech she said that last year her mark was 5.3 which was not too good and she wanted to do better. The employers—the Small Business Advisory Group—said that the biggest single issue for small businesses was employment law and she got zero out of 10. But employment law is not on the list of things that are allowed to be talked about. No it is totally banned. 
Darien Fenton spent a bit of time talking about employment law and she talked about Australia and all sorts of things. She talked about a bill I have promoted that is about probationary periods for new employees. The Small Business Advisory Group wanted a 12-month probationary period but I suggested a 3-month one. The reason for this is that in every single country of the OECD there are probation periods. These are not the sorts of probation periods that currently exist in the legislation but a real probation period that does not lead—as soon as the employment does not work out—to a tariff of thousands and thousands of dollars to pass go. It is a genuine trial period. I chose 90 days for the very good reason that it is a moderate and reasoned approach; the period is the norm in the OECD. I acknowledge that 12 months is probably a bit long. I looked seriously at a 6-month period and there is a big argument around a 6-month or 3-month period. A lot of businesses would prefer 6 months but I understand there is a range of views in Parliament under MMP so 3 months was chosen as a reasonable proposition. 
I say to Government members—and to Lianne Dalziel specifically—that they should take their heads out of the sand and do something worthwhile for small businesses by giving them a decent probation period.