6. Question No. 6—FinanceHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 6—Finance6. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that her Budget will have less verbiage fewer pretty pictures and a lot more substance"; if not why not?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. When I said that I was particularly thinking of this document called Wellbeing Budget 2023 which has a pretty picture on the front a forward from the Prime Minister a forward from the Minister of Finance a highlights page a chapter on spending—called "investments"—a chapter on wellbeing outlook and approach all interspersed by multiple pretty pictures. I can assure members that none of this verbiage or pretty pictures are in Budget 2024.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does her Budget contain less verbiage because she cannot explain how the additional $12 billion in borrowing is not for her tax cuts?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.Hon Dr Megan Woods: How does her Budget contain "a lot more substance" when her own chief economist could not point to any specific evidence that her Budget improves productivity?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The substance in our Budget that I would highlight for that member is the more than 240 savings initiatives summarised in the summary of initiatives wiping out low-value spending from the previous lot so that New Zealanders can keep more of their own money and we can make investments in things like schools hospitals and cancer drugs.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is one of the "fewer pretty pictures" international credit rating agency Fitch being unimpressed with New Zealand's worse than expected economic and Budget performance?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: One of the pretty pictures that isn't there is this cracker from 2019—remember that one? That was the one with the couple who left New Zealand soon after being featured on the front page of her Budget.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is one of the "fewer pretty pictures" our climate outlook as the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research today said there has been a clear prioritisation of tax relief at the cost of climate outcomes?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The point of my statement has clearly completely escaped that member which is this: we actually had six years of a Government that stamped "wellbeing" on every document that they could who used hundreds and thousands of words to describe how pure and good their intentions were but failed to deliver and that is the point. That is what New Zealanders will judge this Government on. It's what they judged your Government on and it's why you got voted out.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I think my point of order's clear—that whilst it was a political exchange there was no place for a lecture on the previous Government's achievements.SPEAKER: With all due respect when a question contains a word like "excessive verbiage" what would you expect?Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order.SPEAKER: No I'm sorry; I'm saying your point does not stand. It's a reasonable exchange that is going on.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Those were not the Opposition's words; they were the Government's words.SPEAKER: That's right but they were in the Opposition's question today. Supplementary question the Hon Dr Megan Woods—and we'll have quiet while the question is asked.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is one of her "fewer pretty pictures" the fact that her operating allowance for next year is $2.4 billion but cost pressures will be at least $2.5 billion which can only mean even deeper cuts to the public services are still to come?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: But wait there's more. We have the pictures of New Zealand from above—that didn't make any difference to New Zealand's inflation rate or productivity. We've got the picture apparently Grant Robertson spent his time taking—that didn't make any difference to waiting lists in the hospitals. We've got this pretty picture of a beautiful lake in New Zealand and that didn't lift educational achievement. Our Government is focused on results.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker although my supplementary did contain a quote from my primary which was a direct quote from the Minister I asked a very clear question about the operating allowances for next Budget. While the Minister showed us some interesting images from Budgets gone by she did not address the issue of the operating allowance for next year's Budget.SPEAKER: I can't agree with that because the question was about the $100 million gap between the allowance and the projected expense pressures. The member pointed that out in her question. The answer came that pretty pictures don't make a difference when it comes to Government expenditure.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether or not those pretty pictures contained one of the Marsden Point refinery which Megan Woods requested be closed down much to the shock of the ownership of Marsden Point not known until now?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question.SPEAKER: Sorry?Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question.SPEAKER: No we've got to hear the answer.Hon Chris Bishop: She did.SPEAKER: Oh did she? Well there was so much noise I couldn't hear it. Please answer again.Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.SPEAKER: Ah good. OK. That's clear. The Rt Hon Winston Peters—oh sorry; the Hon Chris Bishop.Hon Chris Bishop: You're not right on that either!SPEAKER: Well you know you want to watch that mirror-image stuff.Hon Chris Bishop: Was one of the pretty pictures referenced by the Hon Megan Woods in her original question a picture of the fantastical Auckland light rail project of which the previous Government published many?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No but I have it on good authority that that was from the same file which had the picture of Wellington light rail that was also contained in the same file—SPEAKER: That's OKHon NICOLA WILLIS: —which had the picture of the Waitematā crossing—SPEAKER: All good. Thank you. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and other such fantasy projects.SPEAKER: Very good."