Swain Paul: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Swain Paul: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7778] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I have just a couple of quick comments to make on Craig Foss’ contribution. He bemoans increases in Government spending but forgets that virtually every single one of his colleagues is promising to spend more wherever they go around the country. I will quote some of those colleagues a little bit later. Craig Foss says it is all about luck. For about 8 years now we have heard from National members that Labour has just been incredibly lucky. I remember the great golf quote: “The more I practise the luckier I get.” That in fact is what the Labour Government has been doing: practising hard in the interests of New Zealand and the New Zealand economy. 
Craig Foss also said that the chickens are coming home to roost and that it is all doom and gloom. To be frank for about 8 years we have also heard National members saying that at last the economy is going to fall over as if in some way economic underperformance is a good thing for New Zealand. He repeated that line as well. Of course this doom and gloom is always going to come. It is always going to be this year next year or the year after. Of course the reality is something different. 
One of the things people might have forgotten is what exactly the Budget Policy Statement is. It is what we have been debating. The Budget Policy Statement is really an indication from the Government about roughly what is going to be in Budget 2007 in a couple of months’ time and beyond. It contains a very important statement that people should reflect on. The basic statement is that the Government’s overall objective is to continue New Zealand’s transformation into a more dynamic knowledge-based society that is underpinned by the values of fairness opportunity and security. New funding has been prioritised for policies that will further New Zealand’s economic transformation continue to improve the well-being of families and strengthen national identity. 
You see there is a vision for New Zealand—and I like that. I will buy that. That sounds pretty good to me. There is a bit of a vision about where New Zealand needs to go to continue the work we have already started and to put funding into some critical areas. Of course we never hear anything like that from National. I will come back to talk about that in just a minute. 
The economy has been performing well—much to the chagrin of the National Party. Employment numbers are up as we all know and tax revenues are up as a result. What is happening as a result of that? Debt has been reduced and we are squirreling away our money for the Superannuation Fund which of course National opposed at one stage I seem to recall. Now it is supporting it and we have heard some comment about the fact that National might dive into that in order to fund its tax cuts which will be a great worry for the voters of New Zealand. We are funding social services health and education which were run down by National when it was last in Government 8 or so years ago. And we are supporting policies and those kinds of things that lead to this vision. 
I think the problem we have in this debate is that it is so one-sided. We never hear anything from National about what it is going to do. If one compares the National Party now say with the Labour Party as it was in 1998 one will see that Labour had been in Opposition for 8 years and we were fizzing. We were ready to go. We had policies for Africa we had leadership settled we had the team organised and we were ready to go. We were actually ready in 1996 but finally we got there in 1999. We set out the path and the agenda and we have not stopped since. 
And here we are with National after 8 years still flogging around trying to get a policy—one would be good—and now the Leader of the Opposition 8 years after National started to be in Opposition says he wants to set up a brains trust to see whether he can get some ideas. The National Party is not ready for Government. That is the point. A party cannot be in Opposition for 8 years and then ring a few mates and ask for some ideas for policy because it does not have any. I want to talk about that in just a minute. 
The problem the National Party has in these kinds of debates is that it is always whinge whine grizzle and groan from the members but we never ever hear what National is going to do. Let us take some examples. What is the National Party’s policy on tax at the moment? What is it? I see we do not know. Is it big tax cuts and now—which I think it was from Don Brash? Or is it little and later which are the weasel words I have heard from John Key and Bill English the co-leaders of the National Party who are slipping and sliding on that issue? 
Here is another example: what is National’s health policy? Could someone give me one policy apart from spending more on everything? Spending more on everything is what the National Party wants to do. No one at all has an idea about what National’s health policy is. In my view it should not be smoking cigars in people’s faces and then bopping someone in the face for complaining. It should not be about that. The National Party should not put that in its policy. Notwithstanding the fact that its health spokesperson sometimes practises that I do not think it should be in the policy. 
Here is another example: what is National’s education policy? Could someone over there summarise National’s education policy? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I don’t think they’ve got one. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I do not think it has one. National members are all silent because it does not have one. This is after 8 years in Opposition. It has had 8 years to try to sort this out. There is no education policy. I wonder what the National Party’s policy is on the police. It just wants more of them. But hang on a minute was National not the party that cut police numbers when it was in Government? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s right. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes it was says my colleague Ruth Dyson. Is this not funny? Eight years ago National cut police numbers and now it wants more of them. 
What is National’s policy on transport apart from wanting more roads? But hang on a minute relatively speaking did it not cut spending on roading over the 9 years it was in Government? Hang on National members criticise the Labour Government but was not a National Government going to sell the roads? That was a great idea! I wonder whether that is still the policy. That went down really well with local government! Local government really wanted National to flog off its roads! Yes that was a great winner! Probably one of the many things that actually saw the demise thank goodness of the National Government was flogging off the roads. That was a brilliant idea! It was one of Maurice Williams’ better ones. I wonder whether we will see that in the National Party policy on transport. I doubt it. 
When will we see these policies? That is what I ask of National members. They should just give us a couple so we can have a debate about it and say: “That might have a bit of merit but what about that?”. Instead all we get is whinge whine grizzle and groan about what the Labour Government is doing and when push comes to shove we should spend more on whatever. That seems to be what National members are saying. 
 We have problems with the co-leaders of the National Party. John Key wants a loose fiscal policy. He wants tax cuts all over the place and then he wants to spend up large because everyone is saying that. Bill English on the other hand criticises Government spending. He wants a tight fiscal policy and he wants cuts in social services. The problem is that the tighthead prop and the loosehead prop both in the same scrum are not pushing together. The tighthead prop is not pushing the same as the loosehead prop. What happens then is that the scrum always wheels and we make no progress because the scrum has to be set again. 
It is hopeless trying to have this debate with the National Party because there is nothing to debate from the National side—whingeing and whining are not going to do it. That will not get the National Party into Government nor is getting a brains trust together made up of people like Jenny Shipley—how is Bill English going to relate to Jenny Shipley? Can members remind me did not Bill English get rid of Jenny Shipley? Oh that is right he did. I also heard that Jim Bolger—a good bloke Jim Bolger—might be invited to be a part of that brains trust. Now did not Jenny Shipley get rid of him? Is that not how that worked? So we have all these people with old grudges hanging around and being invited by the National Party to be a brains trust to help it with policy making. 
Labour has the direction and the vision. The National Party has no policy nor a philosophy. It is trying to get people in to help with its policy making. The National Party is not ready for government.