General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The rain has been pouring down. There is snow in the south and gales in the north, and winter is well and truly settling around New Zealand. Kiwis are battening down the hatches, and it has made me think of my 89-year-old father. I picture him at this moment, sitting at home, trying to keep warm. He will not have his heater up very high, and he will not want to do what he calls “run up a power bill”. But I know that he will not be on his own. Thousands of older New Zealanders will be doing exactly the same. They will be worrying about how they will get through this winter, and how they will pay their bills.

They are also wondering why John Key wants to sell our assets—our power companies—and they are bemused as to why John Key thinks selling something they already own and getting a one-off chunk of money will make New Zealand better off. They know it is a done deal by this National Government. They know that the money from the sale of their assets has already been banked in the Government’s Budget documents. They know that the consultants have already been engaged and are rubbing their hands with glee as they hear “ker-ching, ker-ching”. The cheques are flowing, and dozens of officials are getting the assets ready for sale as we speak. All the while the Prime Minister, John Key, is using those honeyed words and sleight of hand to reassure New Zealanders that they get to choose whether the assets are sold, at the election. Well, “you can’t fool all the people all the time”, and you certainly cannot fool older New Zealanders.

John Key might think that those in Grey Power and those who are retired do not quite understand, are out of touch, and do not count, but I think he has made a terrible mistake. Older New Zealanders know that they paid for those assets that he wants to sell. They know that they own them already, so it is no surprise to me that Grey Power, which has a membership of over 77,000, has come out very strongly opposed to the State asset sell-off. It has made very clear in its recent Grey Power magazine that it is opposed to it. Grey Power had this to say: “How the Government can imagine that selling off more of our assets is going to improve anything is beyond reason and totally unacceptable.” That is from the major organisation representing older people in New Zealand. Older people know that the rhetoric about them getting to buy a piece of the assets is nothing more than hogwash. They know that according to Statistics New Zealand, 81 percent of older New Zealanders live on the pension alone and they do not have other money to go out and buy what they already own: our power companies that they went out to work and paid taxes for and bought over time.

They know there is no such thing as the mum and dad investor, a term that is being sold to New Zealanders as a ploy by the National Government to sweeten the sale of assets people do not want to sell. They also know that those who are going to buy these assets are the big overseas investors. They know that because they have watched the sale of Contact Energy and have watched their power prices go up far more under that privately owned company than under the State-owned companies. They know that Contact Energy is not owned by mum and dad investors today. In fact, it was bye-bye mum and dad investors and bye-bye New Zealand ownership. If there is one thing that older New Zealanders want, it is to retain the things they paid for in their working life here in New Zealand.

I am very pleased that National in this House today pooh-poohed the idea that Grey Power does not want to sell our assets. It tried to make out that Grey Power was very happy about the mixed-ownership model. Well, I ask National members to think again, because they will hear plenty from older New Zealanders in the very near future.

Hearing a lecture on asset sales from Annette King is like taking tips from Jack the Ripper on home safety. That member while in a Labour Government in the 1980s went through the Ayes door to sell assets more times than I have had birthdays. The big difference is that John Key has been up front with New Zealanders. Labour promised not to sell a single asset, yet sold over 20.

I want to talk about the good news for Kiwi families and businesses from the big drop in accident compensation levies announced this week. Families will be better off by $250 a year, or five bucks a week. Business levies will be reduced by 22 percent—a saving for the average Kiwi small business of $1,100 a year. These changes will put $587 million a year back into the New Zealand economy and help the recovery.

This is the dividend for competent financial management. It is part of this Government’s plan for growth, which is about reducing business costs, improving living standards, and giving exporters in New Zealand the competitive advantage to be able to grow markets internationally. These accident compensation changes will help on every front.

In contrast, Labour members are still in denial over their reckless spending and financial mismanagement while in Government. Labour has claimed that we have manufactured the large accident compensation scheme deficits we inherited from the previous Government. They have become so desperate to hide their incompetent management that they have resorted to conspiracy theories. The audited accounts of the Accident Compensation Corporation show that the scheme lost $2.4 billion in 2007-08 and $4.8 billion in 2008-09. That amounts to $4,000 for every New Zealand household.

The most remarkable claim by the Labour spokesperson on accident compensation—that that loss was manufactured—overlooks the fact that the annual report showing that loss has the signature of Maryan Street, Labour’s Minister for ACC, on it. The 2008-09 report was prepared by exactly the same officials under exactly the same methodology and audited by both Ernst and Young and the Auditor-General. Nor can Labour members deny the official inquiry that concluded that they breached the Public Finance Act when they did not disclose those massive accident compensation losses in the pre-election fiscal update.

The truth is that in so many areas of Government Labour let costs get completely out of control. I am still looking forward to a Labour member explaining how claims costs in the accident compensation scheme grew by 50 percent—or $1 billion—in the last year of their Government. The truth is that foolish policies like free physiotherapy saw it grow out of control—a lack of focus on rehabilitation saw numbers grow by more than 20 percent.

In order to be credible, Labour members need to come clean. They need to admit that the reckless spending they indulged in, not just in accident compensation but over all the areas, did so much damage to the New Zealand economy. Instead, what is Labour’s answer? It is more spending and more tax. Those members have learnt nothing. Spokespeople on education, health, welfare, arts, aid—every area—are promising more and more spending, and to fund it they are going to hammer our most important industries and our economy with more costs and more taxes. They want to bring forward the date when the emissions trading scheme will apply to the agricultural sector, socking our most productive industry. They want to whack extra taxes on businesses and extra taxes on households. The irony is that the origin of every one of those policies is the Green Party. Labour is so bereft of ideas. The choice for New Zealanders at year’s end will be a vote for growth or a vote for more tax.

Five months ago at the dawn service held at Te Whare Rūnanga on the Treaty grounds at Waitangi, Prime Minister John Key praised the courage and wisdom of those who signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, which gave New Zealand a founding document. That same courage and wisdom is just as vital now as we chart our future onwards as it was at the time of the signing. The reason why was articulated clearly in Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and Identity—otherwise known as Wai 262. Justice Williams’ letter committing the report to the Government’s good care described New Zealand as poised at a crossroads both in race relations and on the quest for a mature sense of national identity. A crossroads offers choices but, as Justice Williams pointed out, “a future marked by interracial rancour must be emphatically rejected. We say that not just because to choose a path of conflict is morally wrong, nor even just because it is the antithesis of the Treaty’s vision. We say this because it would be economically and socially destructive for the country.”

It was therefore bitterly disappointing that only days after such an important statement the ACT Party launched a campaign intent solely on polarisation and inciting racial disharmony. This was a campaign that resorted to labels such as “Apartheid Aotearoa” or “The Māorification of Everything”, as a ploy to gain political appeal. They got it terribly wrong. The crossroads we face today cannot lead to a dead-end street where the only highway is Don’s way. This is about the ongoing and continued existence of Māori as tangata whenua, the people of the land. Let us be perfectly clear: we are not going away. This is our home and we are here to stay.

But our survival is not just about he tangata, he tangata, he tangata, as critical as this is. Chapter 2 of Ko Aotearoa Tenei states the case that protecting taonga species and mātauranga Māori, or Māori traditional knowledge, aids the survival of Māori culture itself. That is why these things are important enough to justify protection in law. The call of Wai 262 claimants was to see mātauranga Māori emerge from the domination of one cultural system, a Western world view, and to be supported to flourish again in Māori hands. This is, up front, a Treaty right, the protection of the rangatiratanga of our taonga katoa, all that we treasure. We have a traditional saying: kei raro i ngā tarutaru, ko ngā tuhinga o ngā tūpuna—beneath the herbs and plants are the writings of the ancestors. It is a vivid emblem for how we understand ourselves to be interconnected with the flora and the fauna and, indeed, the greater environment. This is who we are. This is our past, present, and future, but our survival as Māori is also important on other fronts. The first is the critical role Māori culture plays in New Zealand’s national identity and, of course, in our international reputation. As we prepare ourselves to surrender to the impact of the Rugby World Cup, it is timely to remember that our unique Māori culture is a cornerstone of who we are in this country. An authentic cultural experience is one of the key reasons that tourists come to our shores.

But protection and preservation of things Māori are also basic citizenship rights. The modern State is driven by the twin imperatives of educating its citizens and sustaining their culture and heritage. This is relevant to Māori culture and any other aspect of our unique national heritage. Furthermore, Māori are becoming an increasingly significant proportion of New Zealand’s population. Whether it is in the bedroom or the classroom, New Zealanders have to have the conversation to forge the relationships that are now a vital part of our national identity and culture.

Before I address the substantive issue of my speech, I want to cover one point in respect of Nick Smith and his comments about ACC. There is a very interesting way that one can save money in ACC, and that, of course, is if one restricts the resource to folk. I make this point, and I ask the Minister for ACC a question: how many constituents have walked into his Nelson office and told him that they cannot get an operation because ACC has told them that their operation is based on anatomical wear and tear, but they are only 21 years old? Apparently, someone can be 21 years old but the problem is wear and tear, not an accident. So I say to those members opposite that if no one has gone into Nick Smith’s office—or David Carter’s office, when he is around—then the fact is that they are all lining up at ours. We are seeing 21-year-olds who are saying: “Hang on; I’ve got wear and tear from old age, and that’s why I’m not getting my operation. It’s not considered an accident.” But I will move on from the ghost who walks over there and resides near the hills somewhere in Canterbury.

Let us deal with the thorny issue of asset sales, which has been canvassed here today. We have heard the Minister of Finance talk yet again about mum and dad Kiwis being first in the queue. Then he was asked how he will guarantee that the shares will not be onsold to foreigners after mum and dad Kiwis sell their shares—as they have in the past, because they are scratching for a bob—when somebody from foreign shores comes to them and says: “I’ll make you an offer you cannot refuse and buy your shares.” How will we prevent that from happening? Oh, we are going to trust the people. Then he tries to construct a sort of elegant argument whereby if we do not trust the people, then there is something wrong. Well, of course we trust the people. We trust the people to do what is right for them in terms of looking after themselves and their families. If those lucky individuals who, according to Bill English, are awash with cash—he thinks there is cash everywhere in the household budget—whip down to the stockbroker and buy a share in the assets they already own, which the Government, in a benevolent way, will offer them so they can buy them back again, then I do not blame them. If there are mums and dads out there who have that cash, I would not blame them if they bought those shares. If they were made an offer they could not refuse, they would know they can make a few bob. So they would sell those shares and apply that money to the necessities of life for their families. I trust them to do what is in the best interests of themselves and their families.

But the fact remains that no one on that side of the House, from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Finance to any of those great geniuses who sit in Cabinet, can tell us how they will prevent onselling, how they will prevent foreign domination, and how they will guarantee that mum and dad Kiwis will be first in the queue. Bill English read out a list from the Contact Energy share register—Origin Energy and a couple of other names I cannot recall—and he said: “Well, we can’t tell what they are—mums and dads.” That is exactly the point. We cannot tell; we do not know. There was no mechanism to stop onsale or foreign domination—none.

I ask members opposite about a real couple in my electorate whom Annette King and I met—and I have never seen a $36 a month power bill before—who earn $40,000 a year, and who are struggling to make ends meet. I had never seen a $36 a month power bill in my life until I went to this woman’s house. I asked her how she did it—and these people are scratching for it. I said: “How’s the tucker?”. She said: “My husband has two meals a day.” This was reported in the local rags. Oh, members opposite are all quiet now. How many of those people have fronted up in Ms Wilkinson’s office when she is around, or in David Carter’s office? That women and her husband are struggling. He has two meals a day. They have meat twice a week, if they can afford sausages. The last time they went out for a bit of a do was down to the Kaiapoi Club 2 months ago to have one jug of beer between the two of them, luxury souls that they are. I ask how that mum and dad will be awash with cash. The members over there think it is funny. David Carter thinks it is a real hoot. When was the last time that member had sausages? There are a few sausages on that side, no doubt, and a few meat patties ground away, but I say that that member would not have bumped into that woman or her ilk in many, many years.

So how do those mum and dad Kiwis actually afford to whip down to the stock exchange and buy what they already own, given that they are awash with cash? I say this: if a couple in New Zealand today are struggling to make ends meet and a husband and wife can afford only a couple of meals a day, and they turn the lights out, then we have a problem in this country. We have a problem in this country when a couple can turn on the hot-water cylinder for only 2 hours a day. We have a problem, and the Government is it.

We do have a problem in this country, and the problem is that we have not focused the economy on real growth. I hope that when Phil Goff returned from his lengthy Greek holiday he had taken some time, while lying on the beach in the Greek Isles, to think about the economy of the country he was visiting. The Greek economy is in desperate trouble and it is threatening to send the rest of Europe into continuing recession. The reason it has got into trouble is that it forgot about the importance of a growth economy.

As National came into Government at the end of 2008 the New Zealand economy was out of balance. What is not well recognised is that the tradable sector of the New Zealand economy had gone into recession in late 2004. It was masked completely because the then Labour Government concentrated on growth in one area and one area only, and that was in Government spending, which went up a massive 50 percent in 5 years.

That was a totally unsustainable situation, and there was no way we could to hope to continue to deliver the standard of living that New Zealanders expect unless the economy was reversed. This Government has a very simple growth plan. It has six simple steps, and if we devote time to all of those six steps we can turn this economy round. We already have the tradable sector performing substantially more strongly.

Let me go through those steps. We need a tax system that enhances growth and rewards enterprise. We certainly do not need a new tax, which is what the Labour Party is about to deliver in its manifesto tomorrow—a tax on capital gains. We need a better education system that will deliver people the skills they require so that they can be part of our economy. We need substantial expenditure on infrastructure, and this Government has so far committed $7.5 billion for roading, broadband, and issues like water storage, which are so critical to New Zealand’s primary sector.

The fourth point is that we are rationalising the Public Service, which grew so massively during Labour’s period in Government. We are about less regulation. A lot of the regulation that is in place does not give the economy the ability to grow and it needs to be changed.

The final point relates to science, innovation, and trade. Under the guidance of the Hon Tim Groser we have made huge progress. China has signed its first free-trade agreement. I acknowledge that it was signed in 2005, but China is now New Zealand’s second-largest trading partner. Since 2008 we have completed free-trade agreements with Malaysia and Hong Kong, and talks are under way with India, our Trans-Pacific Partnership, Korea, and Russia.

We have a very good story to tell in the science and innovation area: the Primary Growth Partnership. We now have $477 million worth of research specifically devoted to our primary sector under way. That is the largest spend of its type ever in the history of New Zealand, and it has been criticised by only one faction in New Zealand—

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Who would that be?

The New Zealand Labour Party. One of the reasons the economy is going well is that farming is performing well. I note what the Labour Party proposes to do if it gets a chance to attack the farming sector. We know that Labour members are Hobbit haters, but many New Zealanders did not realise how much they hate the farming sector.

Stuart Nash was quoted in a story on the front page of the Dominion Post in which he said that farmers did not pay enough tax. The man who is meant to be Labour’s revenue spokesperson did not know the difference between profit and turnover. He argued that farmers should pay income tax on turnover, not on profit. It was absolutely dopey. Then Mr Goff came out and said: “Let’s slug the emissions trading scheme into farmers in 2013.”

Labour desperately needs $800 million. It sees a target, so it says it will gouge it from farmers, which would cost every genuine sheep, beef, and dairy farmer in this country $33,000. That is why there will not be a farmer in New Zealand who will back the Labour Party at the next election.

We have just seen a Minister of the Crown, the Hon David Carter, stand up and say that the National Government is focused on growth. The only real plan the National Government has put forward is to sell State assets—it is to sell State assets. Is selling State assets a plan for growth? It absolutely is not, whatsoever.

The Minister said that National was focused on developing infrastructure. In Hawke’s Bay, in Napier, that Government took $71 million—$71 million—out of the roading budget that was earmarked for Hawke’s Bay. The provinces have gone backwards under that Government, yet Government members have the nerve to stand up and say they are concentrating on infrastructure. I challenge the Minister to hold a public meeting in Napier and tell the people of Hawke’s Bay that the Government’s taking $71 million out of their budget is good for growth.

Then the Minister said that the Government is concentrating on research and development. Labour put in research and development tax credits. The Minister of Revenue in this Government voted against removing the research and development tax credit. Treasury advised the Government not to remove the research and development tax credit, yet the Government did. That is not a plan for growth. The Government removed the one vehicle that New Zealand companies grabbed hold of and embraced to drive forward growth in this country.

As for taxes, I will back up my colleague Clayton Cosgrove. The Government gave $1,000 a week to people earning $1 million or more a year, but it gave less than $10 a week to the average mum and dad “shareholder”. How the hell is a New Zealander on the median wage going to be able to afford to buy shares when the Government sells assets? Quite simply, they will not be able to.

💬 Jonathan Young: KiwiSaver.

KiwiSaver! That is the answer. Who put KiwiSaver in place for New Zealanders?

If there is one thing I have learnt about New Zealanders it is that they do not ask for much. They very rarely complain, but what they really hate is the feeling that they are being ripped off, that they are not being treated fairly, or that they are being taken advantage of. New Zealanders hate that. So, imagine how hard-working New Zealanders feel when they are told by John Key that he will sell assets they already own back to them. Hold on a second, how does that work? He is going to sell us what we already own? That is not only a travesty but also a con. But it gets worse. John Key wants to sell assets that New Zealanders have built up over generations through blood, sweat, and their forebears’ taxes.

But all is not lost. There is absolutely a solution: vote Labour. Phil Goff and the Labour Party have said that we will not sell State assets—no ifs, no buts; there will be no State asset sales. This is not like when Mr Key stood up and said to the camera that National would not raise GST, but then he did. Phil Goff has said that Labour will not sell State assets. It is a very clear choice—a very clear choice. The plan of John Key and the National Government is to sell State assets and to sell New Zealanders’ assets. The plan of the next Labour Government will be to not sell State assets.

Let us be honest. We all know that if State assets are sold, the shares will not be held by ma and pa investors. We all know that—come on, let us be honest. The vast majority of these shares will go to overseas investors. They will be sold to foreigners. They will be sold to foreigners, and the dividends will go offshore. The choice is very, very clear. National will sell State assets; Labour will not sell State assets.

Despite a worldwide global recession and two devastating earthquakes in Canterbury, the New Zealand economy is now much stronger than it was 3 years ago. It is far better placed to meet future challenges, thanks to the National Government. When National took office 3 years ago, the country had already been in recession for 9 months and the economy had flattened out completely. Government spending was out of control, Treasury’s books showed continuing Budget deficits into the future, and Government debt had spiralled out to 60 percent of GDP, plus some. Why? Labour’s unsustainable increases in Government spending—

💬 Brendon Burns: Brought on by an international recession.

—they do not like to hear it—which had risen by an unbelievable 50 percent in the last 5 years of a spend-and-hope Labour Government.

The National Government has improved our tax system to one that is integrated and balanced. For 3 years the National-led Government has provided the responsible economic management so badly needed after the 9 long years of Labour. It is a tax system that encourages work and savings. It is a tax system where 73 percent of earners are paying income tax at no more than 17.5 percent. Our across-the-board tax cuts, the biggest reform of the tax system in 25 years, have put more money in the pockets of hard-working Kiwis and more money into households at a time when it is really needed.

I applaud the Government’s broadband initiative. It is already under way, with $1.5 billion being spent on the broadband initiative over the next 5 years. There is also a rural broadband roll-out to rural schools, rural communities, and rural households.

The Prime Minister continues to work to open up overseas markets for our New Zealand exporters and New Zealand businesses. John Key’s trip to India was an outstanding success, with the export sector and education providers—to name just two sectors—set to capitalise on the benefits in years to come.

The Government continues its focus on maximising our economic opportunities, with a strong focus on lifting educational achievement in schools, reforming the Resource Management Act, and shifting Government spending to providing services on the front line, where people benefit. There are 400 extra elective operations in hospitals per week. There is $1.4 billion for early childhood education this year, which is the most ever. There are 300 extra police on our streets, and there will be another 300 by the end of the year.

I am proud to be part of a National Government that values rural New Zealand. The impact of the investment in rural growth, research, and innovation is considerable, with more than $477 million in the Primary Growth Partnership, $45 million in the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, $50 million over 4 years in the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, $321 million over 4 years in research and science, and $35 million over 5 years to get irrigation projects under way, with a further proposed $400 million for equity investment in regional irrigation projects.

An increase in irrigation impacts the economy in three ways: an increase in off-farm capital infrastructure costs, an increase in on-farm capital costs, and an increase in agricultural production. But beyond the economic benefits, a number of social improvements occur in communities due to irrigation development and its associated land use changes. I will outline just a few of those. There is population growth, there is an increase in the proportion of young and working-age people in our rural communities, and there is an increase in the proportion of residents with a tertiary qualification in our rural communities. I commend this Government for its investments, particularly in irrigation. Thank you.

Good-hearted New Zealanders were shocked when their Prime Minister so bluntly rejected the appeals of Tamil boat people who had arrived in Indonesia on the Alicia to come to New Zealand. John Key said: “Our very simple message to them is they are not welcome here,”. It is so much against the New Zealand character to be so heartless to people who have probably experienced great tragedy in their lives and are fleeing ongoing persecution. Those Tamils on the Alicia probably had family members among the estimated 40,000 Tamils killed in the final phase of the Sri Lankan civil war. They may have been displaced from their homes or they may have relatives among the thousands of Tamils still detained in prison camps.

To add insult to injury, John Key attacked the boat people as being “queue jumpers”. This was odd because John Key’s own mother was an asylum seeker, who fled from Nazi Germany to Britain in 1939. For Jewish refugees like her, there was no queue to join. They simply took their chances and fled, often crossing borders illegally and without passports, to seek refuge in places like Britain. John Key said yesterday that when asylum seekers “land at our airports”—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to interrupt my colleague at this point, but I note that Government members have not. It has generally been a matter of taste not to bring family members into debates in the way that the member has. I think generally it has been frowned upon in the House because members are elected, not their family members.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a good point. I did not stop the honourable member, because I was listening carefully to see whether he said anything negative about the member’s family. Despite that, I think the Hon Trevor Mallard has raised a good point. It is best not to bring family members into a debate.

Speaking to the point of order, yes, I did think about that when I formulated this speech, but I am not in any way criticising John Key’s mother or her relationship; I am just drawing what I think is a friendly parallel. That is all.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have not stopped the honourable member; I just ask him to bear in mind the valid point raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard.

John Key said yesterday that when asylum seekers “land at our airport, we turn them back,”. It would have been very bad if John Key’s mother had been turned back into Hitler’s Germany.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is, in my view, getting into unfortunate territory. I think that is unhelpful. We do not bring family members into the debate, and, especially, to use it against a member is, in my view, not good. I ask the member to desist from that.

John Key has forgotten that we are required under the 1951 refugee convention to process all asylum seekers arriving at our shores and to accept those who are genuinely in danger of persecution back home. There is really no difference between refugees who arrive directly at our airports, those who come from refugee camps in Thailand or Kenya, and those who are processed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees when they arrive in Indonesia on boats.

Last year we took in several Sri Lankan Tamil boat people who had been taken aboard an Australian boat, the Oceanic Viking, and processed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. John Key—and he may not be conscious of this—is in effect playing up to a redneck gallery of xenophobes who see refugees, and sometimes all people of other cultures, as a threat to our society. The truth is the opposite: refugees starting a new life in New Zealand are highly motivated to achieve and to have their kids achieve. The Sri Lankan Tamil community, which has a significant portion of refugees, is one of the highest-achieving communities in New Zealand. It is full of doctors, engineers, and other professionals. Campbell Live had a story last night on how well the Afghan Tampa boys, boat people who were taken in 10 years ago, are prospering in New Zealand.

John Key also raised the spectre of hordes of boat people swamping New Zealand. He said that: “If you are going to take this boat, there are just thousands and thousands of other boats which will come.” That is so silly. Of course refugees want to come to New Zealand; it is a great place. Our reputation as a hospitable place was enhanced 10 years ago when we took in Afghan boat people from the Tampa after they had been callously rejected by John Howard’s Australian Government.

Yet in the 10 years since then not a single asylum seekers’ boat has made it to New Zealand. Why is that? Because it is cheaper and easier to travel in a smaller boat from Sri Lanka to Indonesia or Australia. It is possible that a boat might make it to New Zealand—a couple of boats have made it to Canada—but thousands and thousands of boats? That is not really on.

We should welcome the fact that asylum seekers want to come to New Zealand. It should warm our hearts to be so appreciated. If one or two boats happen to turn up sometime, why should we not give refuge to those on board if they are genuine asylum seekers? There is room in our country for more Sri Lankan asylum seekers. In the last 3 years we have not even filled our annual refugee quota of 750 people. We took in 700 in 2008-09, we took in 709 in 2009-10, and we took in 527 in 2010-11. Why not do it? We can arrange it through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It would also be good for us to continue to cooperate with Australian authorities to take in some of the many boat people who arrive in that country’s waters, as we did last year when we took in some Sri Lankan Tamils from the Australian customs boat, the Oceanic Viking.

I ask members to picture 47 years ago a 19-year-old young Scot called Chris Auchinvole arriving in New Zealand. He came here, he joined his brothers, because this was a country of egalitarianism and entrepreneurialism, it was a country that offered personal reward for hard work—Jack was as good as his master—and there was a supportive, hands-off Government. That is where we were and it is where we need to be. It is where we will get to with a National Government and a continuation of the excellent policies we have seen over the last 2½ years.

The business and aspirational banner of New Zealand under Labour had been battered, bruised, and trodden on by a Labour Government that used its base to grow government, not the wealth of taxpayers. National has picked up the banner. Nowhere have National policies worked better than in the West Coast - Tasman electorate. West Coast - Tasman—that absolute jewel of an electorate—defies a lot of analysis other than that one has to love it, and it is a hard-working, revenue-generating electorate.

Labour walked away from the West Coast - Tasman electorate from 2002 through to 2005. In 2008 the electorate responded by voting overwhelmingly for National in the party vote and I was privileged to be elected as the electoral MP in the electorate vote. The West Coast - Tasman electorate voters are a canny lot. They sensed, and contributed to, a change of Government. They decided that they would be best served by having a Government MP as their electorate MP. They are still clearly of the same mind.

What are the drivers in West Coast - Tasman? There is tourism, dairying, modern mining, and timber on the West Coast, and there is tourism, horticulture, dairying, and timber in Tasman. There are tandem interests. People often say that West Coast - Tasman is an electorate of two halves. In fact, there are more similarities between the two regions of the West Coast and Tasman than there are differences. Neither has a tertiary city of its own, both are rural and small urban communities, and both have similar challenges in topography, demography, and geography. They do very well because they have entrepreneurial skills. They flourish, and have flourished, under a National Government and the policies that are offered.

What are those policies? My colleague David Carter gave voice to them. Let us check them over again. First, there is a tax system that enhances growth and rewards individuals. That is nice for the West Coast and Tasman because as people have more of their own money left in their pockets they spend it in their small, local communities; secondly, we have an improved education system, which will continue to improve under a National-led Government; and, thirdly, we are expanding our infrastructure, and we need to expand it further. We have to rationalise government and rationalise and reduce regulation. We need more science innovation and more infrastructure.

On the West Coast there is a recovery in forestry. That is something Labour largely walked away from. We have brought it back to a point where we are practically breaking even. There has been a large investment in forestry, and it is well on the way to giving a solid, sustainable service for years to come. Economic recovery is expected within 3 years—the West Coast and Tasman will play no small part in that. Picking up the banner, the West Coast and Tasman will raise it, restitch it, restore it, and make it resplendent. They will continue to vote for a National Government, they will continue to be canny, and they will continue to have their National MP as their electorate MP. Thank you.

Coming from Canterbury, like many members of this Parliament I know that New Zealand has a lot of challenges ahead of it. To meet those challenges not just in Canterbury as a region but in New Zealand as a nation we need a Government with a plan. We need a Government with courage. We need a Government that gives our citizens leadership and vision; a Government that is prepared to take bold initiatives to get New Zealand back on its feet. We have not got that Government, but roll on the end of November and we have a chance to change the Government.

National has no plan, it has no leadership, and it has no vision. It is letting down New Zealanders and it is wasting the opportunity we have to be better as a nation. We need coherent and courageous policies from our Government, but what are we getting? The great leap back to the late 1980s and the 1990s—asset sales. It really beggars belief that National thinks the failed policies that have people like Sir Roger Douglas and Don Brash salivating should be reintroduced into this Parliament.

I really thought we had moved on from those tired, old, failed policies, but that is what we are getting from National. Of course, those members are dressing up the asset-sales message with their poll-driven slogans. I can tell members that those slogans are just not working with New Zealanders, and Steven Joyce, Bill English, and Tony Ryall know that they are not working, because they read more polls than just about anyone else in the country.

We know that the mums and dads whom Steven Joyce, Bill English, and Tony Ryall talk about already own the power companies that National wants to sell back to them. We do not want to buy something we already own. We do not want our power companies, our lakes, and our dams to be bought by overseas companies. We want those assets—our power companies, our lakes, and our dams—to stay in our ownership.

The other thing that I think is hugely frustrating is the dishonesty of the Government. It is not being honest about privatisation. Treasury released its Budget advice—which the Government will have received; it may not have read it, but it will have received it—which stated: “Significant participation by foreign investors will be essential to achieve the Government’s overall objectives.”

When we hear from National the mantra that New Zealand mums and dads will buy our power companies, we know it is not true. According to the National Government’s own Treasury advice it will need to sell them to overseas investors to make the money that it has put in its Budgets for outgoing years. Last week Bill English misled the House. He said he had not received any advice from Treasury that said exactly the words I have just quoted from the Treasury document. Bill English should have come down in the House at the next possible opportunity to withdraw the comment, apologise for it, and correct it, because it was wrong. He has not done that yet, but it is on the public record, because it is Treasury’s published advice.

We should not be surprised by this dishonesty, because it is exactly what we heard in 1999 when the then National Government said it would sell Contact Energy to mum and dad investors. What happened was that Edison Mission Energy bought up 51 percent for nearly $1.7 million and made a huge profit on its original purchase. The majority shareholder in Contact Energy is not the mum and dad investor that National promised us in 1999 when it sold it off. The majority shareholder is Origin Energy, which is an Australian-based company.

I do not mind overseas investment in New Zealand. In fact, I welcome it. But there are some strategic assets, some important parts of our infrastructure, that New Zealanders own currently, and they should remain in our ownership.

On the eve of Labour’s big announcement of its big grab to take more from New Zealanders, I am proud to say that one of the Government’s key platforms for economic growth is to take less from, and give more back to, the pockets of New Zealanders. This is good news for the people of New Plymouth, because we are an innovative and hard-working electorate, and National believes in rewarding people for their effort. We are big employers with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. We are big exporters not only of dairy products and oil but also of high-quality engineering and manufacturing. We export education and tourism, and shortly we will be the premier arts and cultural attraction in New Zealand.

We heard Mr Nash today talk with the typical attitude of envy that comes across from that side of the House. He railed against John Key’s mates, who Labour says got a tax cut of $1,000 a week on 1 April this year. Labour says that is unfair. Mr Nash would have done the figures, but he never brings them out: in order to qualify for that level of tax cut, one would have been paying in the order of $336,000 a year in tax already. What happened to that person in terms of that tax cut is that they are now paying $284,000 a year in tax to this country. And Labour talks about fairness!

Mr English said that 10 percent of New Zealanders are paying 70 percent of our tax. We are saying that in order for this country to get ahead, we are putting more money back into the back pockets of New Zealanders. People like that, who are relatively few in our country, are more likely to invest their money than spend it, which is probably why they are high-income earners in the first place. They are the sorts of people who create jobs. Money creates opportunities, and these people would do that.

When one considers the broadness of our tax reform, when one considers that 73 percent of New Zealand taxpayers pay only a 17.5 percent marginal tax rate and that a family of four on an income of $50,000, after receiving Working for Families, effectively pays no tax at all, one has to see that we have a fair and robust tax system. The Opposition often quotes the OECD when talking about capital gains. But the same organisation states: “New Zealand’s tax system is one of the most neutral and efficient in the OECD. Bases are generally broad and rates are moderate.” It said that back in 2001, before the taxation reforms came through at the end of last year and started on 1 April this year. That was before we underwent the most extensive tax reform in the last 25 years.

The Opposition wants to take more of New Zealanders’ money because of its “we know best how to spend it” attitude. You work for it, you sweat—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is referring to the Speaker.

That is what they would say. The people of New Zealand work for their money. They sweat for it, they worry for it, they do the long hours of toil, and they spend their weekends in their offices and in their workshops, but Labour says that it will spend the money because Labour knows best.

Last Sunday morning on Q+A, on the innovation episode, it was significant when Paul Holmes asked the studio audience of New Zealand’s top innovators and entrepreneurs whether they supported a capital gains tax. Not a single hand went up—

💬 Jo Goodhew: David Shearer.

—with the exception of David Shearer, Labour MP for Mt Albert, because he had to. Not a single hand moved from the nation’s top innovators and entrepreneurs. There was not a flicker of a finger, and not a raised eyebrow. The best that David Shearer could say was: “Wait until Thursday.” New Zealand’s brightest entrepreneurs and New Zealand’s brightest innovators essentially said to the Labour Party: “Don’t take anything more. We can do something better with the funds that we have than you can.”

When National took the reins of office, New Zealand had been in recession for 9 months, which was well before other countries and well before the global financial crisis. The BNZ performance and manufacturing index stated that in February 2009 the manufacturing sector went into recession. That was not good for New Plymouth.

I am very pleased to follow the current member for New Plymouth, and to tell New Plymouth that good news is coming, in the form of Andrew Little.

I turn my focus today to an issue about asset sales. As I was preparing for this speech, I picked up from my desk an amendment that I put up when we were debating the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill 3 months ago. That amendment states: “In developing the Recovery Plan for the CBD, the Christchurch City Council must not propose the full or partial sale of any assets which it or any of its subsidiaries hold.” The reason I put up that amendment was my fear that the Government may well push Christchurch City Council into selling assets to fund earthquake recovery debt. If I needed any confirmation of that fear, it came yesterday in the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the estimates for the finance portfolio. It stated: “As the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 allows the sale”—allows the sale—“of Christchurch City Council assets to fund the rebuilding of the city, we asked the Minister of Finance whether he could guarantee that this would not happen.” The Minister of Finance did not take up the opportunity in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to give an assurance to the people of Christchurch that their assets would not be sold—

💬 Hon Sir Roger Douglas: What? You don’t want it to be rebuilt?

BRENDON BURNS:—as we struggle with the issue of the debt that the earthquake provided.

I am listening to the member opposite, Roger Douglas, who obviously favours asset sales. I say this to him: those assets in Christchurch have generated over the last few years a huge flow of income. They have kept down the rates of Christchurch by 15 percent per annum over many years. One asset alone, Orion Networks, our power network company, has in the last nearly 20 years delivered nearly $1 billion—$1 billion—to the ratepayers of Christchurch. That is about $1 million a week of return from one of the assets that the Christchurch City Council and its ratepayers currently own.

I challenge members opposite from Canterbury like Kate Wilkinson and the junior Government whip to stand up and take a call in this debate or in any debate and say what their views are on whether Christchurch should be forced by this Government—because it has this philosophy—to sell its assets. We know that those comments from the Minister of Finance, recorded at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, took place before two events. One event was the 13 June aftershocks. The other event was when the Christchurch City Council and the Waimakariri and Selwyn district councils lost their insurance cover. That means that across those three councils is the risk of $5 billion, or thereabouts, of infrastructure costs.

This Government has stood up time and time again to defend the rationale of asset sales—time and time again—in terms of Government-owned assets like our power generators. Therefore, I ask this question: why would this Government, when it is faced with $5.5 billion in rebuilding costs, not force the hand of a reluctant Christchurch City Council to divest those assets? Again, I ask members opposite like Kate Wilkinson to stand, take a call, and give us her view. What would she say to the people of Christchurch? Would she support the sale of their assets, which have returned in the instance of one asset—one asset—alone over the last 20 years nearly $1 billion?

Those assets include the port of Lyttelton, which is currently expanding by metres a day as the rubble of Christchurch is used to refill the port. They include Christchurch International Airport, where a major renovation is under way to cope with its expected and projected growth. They include Enable Networks, the only metropolitan broadband network upgrade that did not go to Telecom. It is currently held by the ratepayers of Christchurch. I challenge members opposite, again, to tell us that they will stand and join the Labour Party and me to say that we will not accept the sale of Christchurch City Council assets, because they are too important. We are facing a 7.5 percent increase in rates this year as it is, and that is, if you like, held back by a 15 percent dividend from those assets.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.