Nash Stuart: Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Nash Stuart: Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:674;Page:20518] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 This election the people of New Zealand have a very clear choice. They can choose between a Government that wants to sell State assets and a Labour Party that has delivered a clear bold economic plan that will allow every single New Zealander to retain ownership of the assets they currently own and we will plug a hole in our tax system that at the current time is inherently unfair. There is a choice between a party that will give a hard-working New Zealand family $1000 extra a year—every single New Zealand family $1000 extra a year—and a Government that gave someone who earned $1 million a year $1000 a week. The top 700 people who earn over $1 million a year got $1000 a week in the hand when the good hard-working struggling people of Napier received about $11 dollars a week. The price of petrol ate away that let alone everything else. 
I would just like to run over some of the comments a couple of the previous speakers made. I tell Jonathan Young there is an expression and it goes “lies damn lies and statistics”. One can use statistics for anything one wants but we know there is only one poll that matters. To quote a former Prime Minister of New Zealand Jim Bolger there is only one poll that matters and it is the poll on 26 November. Jonathan Young told us what he thought. Well I do not believe that many people in New Zealand really care what Jonathan Young thinks. I do not think he has anything. But Jonathan Young did say that his Government took off the sharp edges of the recession for hard-working New Zealand families. Well I do not know about that because when the Government gave $11 a week back to the hard-working people of Napier the price of petrol went up by $15 a week. Yet those who earned $1 million a year got $1000 a week. That is not particularly fair as far as I am concerned. 
Aaron Gilmore stood up and said that the Government should not be in the business of owning businesses because of the risk. Well that is a tired old argument—it is a tired old argument. What I say to Mr Gilmore is: what about the risk of not owning our key infrastructure? What about the risk of foreigners owning our key infrastructure? There are many examples of foreigners who have come in bought our assets stripped them and raised up the price. Do members know who suffered? It was the good hard-working people of New Zealand. 
The last major piece of infrastructure that was sold was Contact Energy by Mr Bill English. Now what we have is $100 million— 
Hon Member 
: How much? 
STUART NASH 
: One hundred million dollars every single year flows across the Tasman to Australian shareholders. Personally I do not think that is a way forward. I do not think that is a great plan for growing New Zealand at all. Polling I say to Mr Young tells us that not many New Zealanders think that is a great plan either. 
There is the political risk which Mr Gilmore did not go on about. I think the current Government did not calculate the odds on the political risk of selling assets because polling tells us this is not a very popular policy—not a very popular policy at all. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: You don’t believe it. 
STUART NASH 
: I know Michael Woodhouse is sitting over there and I know that he has been told by many of his would-be constituents that this is not a good policy. 
I suppose the one who really does make me smile—and no doubt he would make Rodney Hide smile as well—is John Boscawen. John Boscawen stood up and for 10 minutes railed against the Government’s economic policy. He said how poorly it had managed the fiscal perimeters how badly it was managing the debt problems and what a shoddy job it was doing. Mr Boscawen wants to lead a coalition with the National Government. He is the same Mr Boscawen who stood up in a split vote and said that the ACT Party was voting for the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill because it was No. 2 on National’s pledge card. Well I do not think Mr Boscawen can have it both ways. He can either support the Government or not. What the House heard was the parliamentary leader of the ACT Party—which should be Rodney Hide—stand up and give a damning speech against the economic management of the National Government. I suspect Mr Key will be taking Mr Boscawen into his office and giving him a good hard smack around the ears. 
As I said there is a very clear choice at this election. Mr Key actually said himself that this election would be a mandate on asset sales—Mr Key said that: it is a mandate on asset sales. So the people of New Zealand can choose whether they want a Government whose only plan for economic growth is to sell State assets. That is the choice: sell State assets or do what the Labour Party has said needs to be done which is to retain our State assets in New Zealand ownership. We all own them anyway. These are assets that have been built on the blood the sweat and the taxes of the New Zealand taxpayer over generations and they will be sold on a declining market in the blink of an eye. They will be gone by lunchtime—gone by lunchtime. Do members know what? Once we sell those State assets we can never get them back. That is the travesty of it. 
What Labour did was to come up with an alternative because the Labour Party does not believe that the sale of State assets is a plan. We said there needs to be another option. So what we did was to present to the people of New Zealand a fair option. It is an option that allows New Zealanders to retain ownership of our State assets pay down debt just as fast as the National Government get into surplus just as quickly as the National Government would do if it sold State assets and plug a hole in our tax system. This is a capital gains tax. It is a capital gains tax that will affect only 8 percent of New Zealanders—only 8 percent of New Zealanders. Ninety-two percent of New Zealanders pay their fair share—they pay their fair share. Eight percent of New Zealanders will be affected by a capital gains tax; that is all. It is not an imposition on the vast majority of New Zealanders. 
The figures are not Labour’s—the figures are not Labour’s—they are from Business and Economic Research. In fact when Business and Economic Research came back to us with the figures for our capital gains tax we said “Goodness me this is a much more pessimistic outcome; a much more pessimistic forecast than National used in its Budget.” But Business and Economic Research said “No we stand by only these figures.” Of the money that will be raised from Labour’s capital gains tax 50 percent will go back in taxes to New Zealanders. Thirty-eight percent will go to pay off debt and only 12 percent of that money will go into programmes to help New Zealand families to help New Zealand children and to bring back programmes that have been decimated by that Government. We made sure that we came up with a fiscally prudent economic policy that would stand scrutiny by any independent commentator who chose to cast his or her eye over it. Do members know what happened? Many have and many have said that this works—this works. 
I would just like to reiterate one more time that the voters of New Zealand have a very clear choice: sell State assets and retain a tax system that favours the very wealthy or keep State assets modify and reform the tax system and have a plan for real economic growth. That is the plan of the New Zealand Labour Party and it is the only plan that can work for all New Zealanders in a sustainable way going forward. Thank you very much.