Power Simon: Budget Debate 
Power Simon: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16568] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 We are debating Budget 2008 but I would just like to begin by genuinely wishing Mark Gosche well. If the wires are to be believed he has announced this afternoon that he will not be standing for Parliament again at the next election. I certainly wish him well and I know that the members of the National Party caucus do so as well. 
I must say that that speech from Louisa Wall was disappointing. When Louisa Wall arrived in Parliament members were led to believe that this was part of the new generational change in the Labour Party and I was expecting to hear a far-sighted view of the world under a Labour Government which that member loves and belongs to. Unfortunately the first 15 percent of that speech was spent talking about the same tired old issues that the Annette Kings the Trevor Mallards and Phil Goffs of the Labour Party have been speaking about for the last 15 to 20 years. So let us hope that at some point we will get some sense of where that member thinks the Labour Party will head and what direction she believes will make a difference to that party’s fortunes in years to come. 
We know there is great hope resting on that member’s shoulders. Members on this side of the House know that if the future of the Labour Party rests with Phil Goff and David Cunliffe it is not just the country that will suffer it is the quality of the Parliament that will suffer in that particular case. We would be left in the curious position of having a leader of the Labour Party who does not have the confidence of the left wing of the Labour caucus and a deputy leader who just does not get on very well with his colleagues by all accounts if what one hears in the corridors is true. 
I thought the interesting thing about the delivery of the Budget was the following two facts. Firstly it was just how quickly Michael Cullen delivered it. Now people know that Michael Cullen generally speaks quickly but he sped through that Budget at a rapid pace. It was almost as if it was something he had to get off his chest and get out there rather than something he was slowly and methodically guiding the country through and that he really believed in what he was saying. I have said this before and I will say it again: the most curious thing when we came to the big tax cut announcement was that the only thing that moved was the metaphorical tumbleweed rolling through the debating chamber. There was not one clap one “yahoo!” or one nod. Yes there was some applause when we got to the announcement around superannuitants’ entitlements which of course came from the tax cuts in any event but there was no recognition of those in the first instance. 
Secondly the most extraordinary thing happened. The Prime Minister got to her feet after the Leader of the Opposition had given his speech and started talking about the Springbok Tour in 1981 and the Budget speech of Robert Muldoon in 1984. I personally was waiting for her views on the Crimean War but they did not come as quickly! But the most interesting thing about the start was that although the Prime Minister had a platform there to sell to the country exactly what she thought New Zealand could look like if Labour was re-elected at the next election all she could do was cover the same old tired arguments that she has covered for the last 25 years. It is not that some of those issues are not important; they are but the country has actually moved on to discuss other issues. The most stark thing about that Budget speech was the generational difference between the Prime Minister and John Key in the way they approached the Budget. Mr Key was there on his feet optimistically talking about his ambitious view for New Zealand about recruiting home those thousands and thousands of skilled New Zealanders who have gone offshore and about not begrudgingly returning to taxpayers the money they had paid into the Government coffers but genuinely wanting to say to New Zealanders that we want to take from them only as much tax as we need in order to deliver the core services of the Government. 
Whereas all the Prime Minister could do was talk about battles of the past—not just battles fought in the last year or in the 1990s but battles that were fought in the 1980s. I remember 1984 well. I was in the fourth form in 1984. I remember seeing on the walls of my fourth form economics class the photos of the members of the new fourth Labour Government and their portfolios. Phil Goff and Annette King were there. These are the bright faces of the future of the Labour Party—people who first went to Cabinet when  
Miami Vice 
 was on TV. And these are the people we are expected to believe have a vision for a new fast-paced global New Zealand! They are backward-looking. 
The Budget showed us that Dr Cullen was prepared to deliver the tax cuts in it only to try to be the sly old fox and box National in—to begrudgingly hand back taxpayers’ money because that is what the polls and the focus groups were telling Labour to do. But is it not interesting that none of the Budget was fundamentally about what Labour believed the future of New Zealand needed to look like? That was actually the most telling point in the Budget this year. For example in the last few months we have seen Labour members of Parliament scuttle from the caucus and announce their retirements in a frenzy—a frenzy—to get off this ship. My friend over there the Hon Steve Maharey was smart. He left with his dignity intact. He could see the writing on the wall. He knew that it was time to go and now he looks like the calm elder statesman of the Labour Party while the panic ensues around him. I wish he would lean over and tell Rick Barker: “It is time Rick. Don’t put yourself through it!”. But we know that Mr Maharey is too clever by half. 
This Government has increased Government spending from $32 billion to $60 billion over 9 years. What have we got for that $28 billion? I will tell you what we have got some nice prisons! We did not bother having budgets for those by the way. We had a collaborative working arrangement where people sat around wearing skivvies calling each other “Reg” and decided that they would get in whoever they needed to complete the job because they were taking a holistic intergovernmental inter-sectorial approach to building these prisons. At every single public meeting that I have been to around New Zealand where I have talked about that half a billion - dollar prison budget blowout I have not come across one contractor that was against it. I tell members why: it is because the contractors were smart enough to know when to move in and make money while they could. 
The Prime Minister’s legacy will be determined by the passage of the emissions trading scheme. This legislation is lurching around in the Finance and Expenditure Committee with barely enough support to get it through its report back let alone through the next stages. We know that the Prime Minister is desperate to tick that box—not because it is good for New Zealand not because she thinks we should be a fast follower of Australia in this area but because the Prime Minister needs the entry on her CV for the next job she applies for. 
The Budget debate is coming to a close. There cannot be many speakers left—there must be the odd Labour speaker still to come. When that member stands I want to hear him or her talk about what the Labour Party believes New Zealand should look like in 10 to 15 years. I do not want to hear about the Springbok Tour again. I do not want to hear again about Robert Muldoon in 1984. I do not want to hear about the debates of the late 1980s and early 1990s. A generational change is at work in politics in New Zealand. John Key is leading that generational change. This Budget debate is nearly over as is the life of this Government.