Dunne PeterHon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Can I begin by expressing my congratulations to the Minister of Finance Steven Joyce on the production of his first Budget. I know how much he has been looking forward to today and how much effort has gone into its preparation and I just want at a personal level to congratulate him on that achievement. He is one of very few members in this House who will get the opportunity to present a Budget and he should savour every moment that he has in that respect.The next thing I want to say is that no Budget is prepared in isolation. Every Budget is a reflection of the context of the time and the context that lies behind this Budget is a very fragile one. Since about 2010-11 this country has been going through a period of steady economic growth—about 6 years. That is one of our longest periods of sustained growth in the last half-century or more. Six years—it is not very long which shows the frailty of the economic cycle.This Budget projects growth over the next 4 years. Time will tell the accuracy of those projections. But effectively what we have is a Budget that is a moment in time and I think that the approach taken has been a prudent one of saying that there are areas where we need to spend more where we need to make adjustments and where we can afford to because we have a surplus at this time but that cannot be where it begins and ends.I see this Budget as a building blocks" Budget. The work that has been foreshadowed in terms of the increased social expenditure in health education welfare and justice is good generally but it needs to be sustained year in year out while the surpluses remain. The family assistance package—the four steps outlined there are again positive but there is more to do in the future. We do need to be looking to a more fundamental reform of our tax system both in terms of thresholds and rates and the interface between the tax and benefit system for want of a better term. If you took the totality of expenditure across the family assistance package—Working for Families tax changes the income tax system etc.—there is the capacity for much more radical structural reform over a period of time but that needs to be well founded on a base of good economic outcomes.We have talked in this House for years about the infrastructure deficit. We know where the problems are. It is good to see a substantial commitment being made to addressing those. But again we have got to be very careful that we do not fall into the trap of saying: "We did all that in Budget 2017; we don't need to be worried about these issues for the next number of years." The point is that continuous improvement is what is going to continue to see this country progress and perhaps address that very short window of about 5 or 6 years being our maximum period in recent times where we have enjoyed economic growth and prosperity. I accept that a number of those factors are external and beyond our control but it does highlight the fragility that this economy is constantly exposed to and the need to benefit productively from the gains while we can. I think this Budget strikes a good and proper balance and I think what it does is foreshadow the types of improvements that could be made in the future.It has been a sobering contrast to listen to the debate this afternoon: an essential air of optimism from this side of the House—perhaps stated quietly but none the less clearly—versus a sustained barrage of negativity from the Opposition. The Opposition has no clear policies no sense of direction no purpose and a sense of bitterness that the areas that those members traditionally saw as their babies are being addressed today. I do not think that bodes well for the future of this country because there will come a time—there will come a time many years from now—when the political spectrum changes. If there are no ideas no optimism and no positivity then this country's essential economic frailty will be exposed and we will begin the process of restructuring all over again. I think if we are going to have an election campaign—as we are this year—it needs to be focused on a debate around sound ideas not about how we recreate a better yesterday.I was in Christchurch recently talking to social service providers down there and they told me of an experience they had with two senior members of the Labour Party about the social services that they were providing in Christchurch and the things that were being done. They said that these two senior members the deputy leader and the finance spokesman said to them: "Look that's all very well but you shouldn't be doing it." When they asked who should be doing it the Labour Party members said: "The Government." So butt out community butt out local people—big Government takes over! That idea went out in the 1930s and it is being recreated by the Opposition in a time when we have well moved on from that. If you contrast that type of big Government approach with the much more strategic approach that the Government's investment strategy ushers in where we focus on results and outcomes not on the quantum of expenditure—where we focus on the risks not on the silos of how Government services are delivered—the contrast becomes absolutely striking.What New Zealanders expect is a Government—it does not matter what its political hue is—that will deliver the services that they need in a way that they want them delivered not a Government that tells them: "This is what we think you need and we will deliver for you." It is the other way round and if the people opposite do not understand that they should look at the campaign recently fought by Emmanuel Macron in France. That is exactly what he did and look at the way he broke the political nexus in that country and stormed to power. There is a very important lesson in that—that the reaction to the extremism and the nationalism that is occurring in a number of countries is not to reinvent the past but to respond in innovative and flexible ways. We see signs of that in this Budget. Much much more has to come and the Government faces some huge challenges over the years.I will give you one example where there is a conundrum to be resolved. We do need to spend more to upgrade our prisons because we have more people going to prison and they deserve to be housed in dignity. But at the same time we have got to adopt a longer-term approach to make sure that the conditions that lead to people being in prison in the first place are being reduced. You cannot play the game of saying "We're going to be tough on law and order." by dealing solely with the consequences; we have to actually deal with the causes. What this Government has done and is starting to do more clearly through the investment approach that it is focusing upon is to address the deficiencies in the short term but also put much more emphasis upon progress in the longer term. The Opposition will not like that because those members' whole approach to politics is essentially a grievance approach: find an itch promise to resolve it make sure that you do not actually eliminate it—because you need a political cause for the future—but just resolve it keep it happy and hope it keeps bubbling for next time. The last thing they actually want is to see substantial social progress made because that actually addresses the fundamental problem that many people face.I do not think that this Budget is the absolute answer. I think it is a very positive step in the right direction. It deserves support for what it does but more importantly for what it foreshadows: the opportunity to use hard-won surpluses effectively for the benefit of New Zealanders; the opportunity to make sure that this economy is resilient to international economic shocks; and the opportunity to start to see big deficits in infrastructure and social spending addressed in a way that will benefit the people of New Zealand. Against that backdrop it is very hard to see any rational reason for any political party that claims to be credible seeking to oppose the Budget. But we will—we will find every sort of manufactured excuse to find it unacceptable; we will find every way in which we can say: "This is not what the people want."The reality if you look at the reaction so far that is already coming through is that people are welcoming the initiatives that are being foreshadowed in the Budget. They want to see them happen and they appreciate that they are getting some dividend for the struggle that they have been through in recent years. They are supportive and what they expect their parliamentarians to do is to give them the opportunity to enjoy those well-earned fruits of recovery not to be constantly saying "We're going to take those away from you." or "You're not really entitled to them." or "We don't really think it's fair that you get them because others get them as well." They are the politics of a bygone era and the really sad reality is to see them played out in the House this afternoon."