Goldsmith Paul: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is subject to correction 
Goldsmith Paul: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4191. Text is subject to correction.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I am very glad to hear from the member for “Struggle Street” Clayton Cosgrove. By my calculation he could get about 17 lots of shares worth $1000 each. 
Todd McClay 
: How much does that add up to? 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: About $17000 I recall.  
I was interested to read a couple of days ago of what was said of Mr David Parker: “if you closed your eyes and just listened to David Parker speaking—it could just as easily have come from National”. If only it were so. If only it were so of David Parker that if you closed your eyes you could think that he came from the National Party. If we were to contrast the Government’s Budget—we have this excellent Budget here which is about investing in New Zealand’s future stimulating jobs and delivering better services for families while keeping the Government on track for surplus in 2014-15 with what we would have seen if Mr Parker was the finance Minister aided and abetted by that great Australian Russel Norman we would be looking at a capital gains tax would we not? We would be looking at a partial capital gains tax which excludes the family home.  
It always amazes me to wonder how it would help grow the economy if we were to add a new tax on all businesses and small businesses in the form of a capital gains tax and if every farm had to pay a capital gains tax. How that is going to grow prosperity and encourage entrepreneurialism in New Zealand is beyond me given the fact that such a tax is in place in Australia the US and the UK and they seem to have had housing bubbles. How that is going to solve New Zealand’s housing affordability is beyond me.  
Another aspect is that we would be looking at GST reform right now would we not? We would be taking the GST off the asparagus that is flown first-class into my local fruit and vegetable shop at Jack Lum’s. We would be taking the GST off that in order to bring about greater social cohesion in New Zealand. I do not see how that would have helped New Zealand by any stretch.  
Mr Parker is now in favour of fiscal responsibility. Well it is one thing to talk about it; it is another thing to actually do it and actions speak louder than words. When we look at the last term of the Labour Government—when I was not nearby—it did not show much fiscal responsibility in my book. It increased incredibly the growth of Government spending and left this country pregnant with 10 years of deficits ahead of us. So those are the actions rather than the words. In terms of fiscal responsibility for Mr Parker and the Labour Party it seems to be all about not controlling spending but just raising taxes more and more in order to meet the never-ending desire for more moneys that they can spend.  
Apparently he is now in favour—this member who if you closed your eyes you could believe was a member of the National Party—of labour flexibility. Well I am not sure. Is Mr Parker now supporting the 90-day trial for workers? I do not think so but I hope he is because that would make good sense. That is the sort of flexibility that we need when employers are starting out and trying to grow their business—to have some flexibility about who they employ. That is how we grow the economy. At the end of the day it is businesses who think that they can sell something the world wants who will feel confident to hire new people and to grow their businesses. That is how the economy grows not by taxing hard-working New Zealanders even more in order to grow the size of the Government and somehow think that that is going to grow the economy.  
What about mining? I understand now that Mr Parker is in favour of mining. Well that does not seem to have filtered through to the Local Government and Environment Committee where Labour members are opposing the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Changes) Bill with everything they have got. The exclusive economic zone bill is all about balancing the needs of growing the economy and preserving the environment where the Government has come through a very careful balancing of those two aspects and Labour opposes it every step of the way. I do not know how he is in favour of mining on that score.  
Let us look at some of the other areas. Intensification and development of the agricultural sector? No Labour is not in favour of that. Australian companies moving jobs to New Zealand? No it is not in favour of that. Making welfare work? Well here we are having had the welfare system in place now for 70 years. It was supposed to end poverty when it was brought in by Mr Parker’s great—[ 
Bell rung 
] It was supposed to end poverty back in 1938 and we have not quite got there yet and we have entrapped 300000 families in the welfare system relying on the Government. Labour seems to think that that is perfectly acceptable and that it is a good thing.  
This Government does not. We have reformed and we want to continue to reform the welfare system not because we do not care about people but precisely because we do care and precisely because we do think we can do better and we must do better. That is what this Budget is all about in terms of focusing on getting more effective results out of the welfare system rather than just continuing to pour the money in: “Here’s your money. We don’t care anything about what you do with it. We don’t care how long you receive it. It can be for ever and a day as long as you like.” That somehow was supposed to reflect a caring Government. Well that is not a caring Government in my mind at all.  
What else would we be looking at here—$1.5 billion to invest in ultra-fast broadband in terms of opening up schools and businesses to the world. Would Labour be investing in that? No it would not be. Foreign investment in New Zealand? I have been surprised at the Labour Party which for a couple of decades now has been a party that has understood the importance of trade and there has generally been an awareness across the House that New Zealand makes its living out of international trade. Getting ourselves closer to free trade in a number of industries and environments is very important to the future of New Zealand but I cannot help but get a sense that Labour is backing away from that now. It is continually talking in a protectionist way about stopping the foreign investment coming into New Zealand and opposing that on every score. So how is that being supportive? Finally I just want to see whether if you closed your eyes and thought that Mr Parker was a member of the National Government he would be talking in the same way about the emissions trading scheme where Labour wants to extend that to farming and a whole range of other areas. I do not see how that is going to help New Zealand grow faster.  
So all in all when I look back and see what the Government has achieved through this Budget and when we stand and look at the international economic context of developed countries around the world struggling New Zealand in this context has continued to have growth—albeit modest growth but growth nevertheless—over the last 4 years. It has been a remarkable achievement and one that I am very pleased to be a part of in a small way. So I support the work of this financial element of the estimates debate. Thank you very much.