Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Well I'm slightly offended at the comments of the last speaker Deborah Russell when she suggested that anything over 50 was run down or worn out. I'm not sure about—I'm over 50 Mr Assistant Speaker. I don't know about you—you're obviously a younger man than me—but saying that anything that's 50 years or older is run down and decrepit? I'd have to disagree with that member.The report is an interesting one. It states clearly the situation as it is today but I think it is also useful and interesting because the main point for me is this report challenges us to think about the status quo or to challenge and question the status quo. It asks us to consider our assets and liabilities within a framework—within this Living Standards Framework—and that's a different way of thinking. So that's a good thing. I'm not saying the standards per se are the right standards but I'm saying that challenging the status quo is a good thing. If we look at our balance sheet we might think—it's a little bit disappointing hearing some of the speakers on the other side conclude from this statement that we need to put more money into say housing or that we need to put more money into schools simply because they're run down. That is not a conclusion that should be reached after you read this statement. The conclusion that we should be reaching is that we need to think differently about how to manage our assets and liabilities. If I can go through a couple of those assets and liabilities which have already been changed in the last nine years—I'm referring to ACC a very large asset on the balance sheet. As we know that is a very large asset on the balance sheet and as we know that is a fund that is now fully funded so that is a different way of dealing with ACC and it's changed in the last nine years. So that means people who suffer from accidents effectively pay for themselves from the levies that ACC have collected in advance. We don't collect the cost of the recovery of that person at the time. It's already been funded and that's a very good way of fully funding the ACC.Should we be funding the Department of Conservation differently? I know there is a lot of discussion around that. There is talk of charging for walkways across our conservation estates. That's a good thing that we're discussing in thinking about different ways of managing that asset. Should we be thinking about our healthcare our hospitals? A lot has been talked about the hospitals as being old—some of them—and therefore concluding incorrectly that the health system is broken. The health system's not broken. The buildings may be old and the owners of those buildings may not be the right owners—because this statement questions who should be the right owner of these assets. Who should be the owner of $30 billion - odd of social housing? We here work in buildings some of which are not owned by the Government. We have agencies and we have departments that reside and work out of buildings that are not owned by the Government and that's the way it should be. But why should all our doctors and nurses work out of a building that's owned by the Government? It makes no sense to me at all that the Government should be the owner of our hospitals. It's nonsense. As I say we here ourselves don't work and reside every day in a Government-owned building even though we are Government employees and work for the State. Similarly Government after Government after Government have proven that they are useless landlords as far as Housing New Zealand Corporation is concerned. We cannot and do not know how to manage $28 billion to $30 billion - odd worth of houses that house 65000-odd tenants. We've proven that.Hon Chris Hipkins: Well National did yes.ALASTAIR SCOTT: The problem with the opposite side is that they just cannot admit that Governments historically including the previous Labour Government were no better. In fact this side would say they were worse. At least on this side we encouraged private sector involvement by way of community housing providers. An example—exactly the right example—is where private investment owns the houses but the social services that those tenants require and need are delivered. They're still delivered but the business of ownership is not that of the Government. In fact in the Wairarapa we have no Housing New Zealand Corporation houses. They were sold about 20 years ago to a trust—the first community housing provider.So my point I think I've made is that we need to continue to think about who is the right owner. Now remembering of course that the Government spends about one-third—one in every three dollars in the economy is spent by the Government. We're a big business. We should be thinking about our business. In fact we should be thinking about what our purpose is. Is it to own buildings? Is it to own hospitals? Is it to own schools and social houses? I say no absolutely not. It is not the purpose of a Government to build big flash balance sheets with physical assets. ACC—absolutely the right thing; that's exactly what the previous Government has done to think about the way things should be funded. Superannuation: another problem that we all face on both sides of the House. It's a longstanding problem and it will continue to be a problem as our population ages and more of us are older. So let's think about a way of addressing that. Let's discuss it and put it on the table. This document asks us to do that. This document asks us to think about the way we look at our assets and liabilities. There is the New Zealand Defence Force. We could privatise our army but I don't think that would be a very good idea. Some might suggest that—I don't know if the Minister of Defence would suggest that but he's got a lot more experience of that than me. Of course there is roading and the New Zealand Transport Agency's role in this economy. Why does the Government have to own all the roads? Why does the Government have to fund 100 percent all of that tarmac? Why can't we use the private sector to help fund it? The same with the universities—we should be thinking about that asset. Is it a lazy asset? Do those universities own too many buildings? Do they own too many farms? We need to question ourselves about what assets we should own and what our purpose is as a Government to support our citizens. Just imagine if we sold $30 billion worth of housing assets and gave it to the 65000 tenants and said See you later. Find a place to live. We will still look after you. We will still wrap around those services. We will still take taxpayer money to support those who are most in need but we do not need to house you." I just wonder what those 65000 people might say. So that's the assets and liabilities. I think it's a good document because it asks us to rethink the way we manage those things. But I do have a few issues with the framework because now that's suggesting four pillars and even though we'd like to have all the pillars at the top—10 out of 10—that's just not going to be the case. So any decision that is made here I ask: how do we get the ratios right? It's going to be tough enough with the Reserve Bank looking after inflation and any other topic that Mr Robertson might task them with because you twist one and the other one pops up—you can't push them all. So my question is—and it's an interesting framework—how are we going to get those ratios right? To use Michael Wood's analogy of the wealthy family with a dirty stream and the sick family pet and the mentally ill teenager the wealth is important—it is really important. That family is going to be way better off than a poor family in the same situation so wealth is important but so is the dirty stream so is the sick animal and so is the mentally ill teenager. So we have to get a balance and we have to account and measure for it."