Burton Mark: Budget Debate 
Burton Mark: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16491] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) 
: 
 One of the great things about political life—and I have certainly seen a few years of it now having spent 14½ years as a member of Parliament—is that one gets to be around for milestones. Some of them are marked here as nationwide milestones and some of them are very local. On Wednesday last week for instance I spent some time with the Country Women’s Institute which was celebrating its 60th birthday in the fine town of Tokoroa. That was an important local milestone. The next day I was down here in Wellington for an equally important milestone—I think it was at least as important as the Country Women’s Institute’s 60th birthday in Tokoroa. It was the ninth Budget for Dr Cullen which I have to say is an enormous milestone in the life of this Government and of this Parliament and is certainly a profoundly important milestone for this country. 
We are engaged now in the 14-hour Budget debate following the delivery of the Budget. That 14 hours was allowed for even under the streamlined review of Parliament’s Standing Orders because in their wisdom those who considered the length of time allowed for debates obviously understood that the debate on the annual Budget is indeed a matter of great moment and of great issue and that it requires that parliamentarians have sufficient time to explore the Budget to challenge it and of course to offer their alternatives to it. I have listened and listened for an alternative Budget. I say that Mr Copeland whom I do not have a great deal of agreement with on a lot of matters delivered in his 10 minutes more policy alternatives and more ideas than we have heard during 4 hours of speeches from the National members of Parliament. There was more in 10 minutes from Mr Copeland than in 4 hours of droning repetition from the so-called National Opposition for goodness’ sake! It is an embarrassment—it is truly an embarrassment. The issue gets down to the fact that the Budget is about the Government of the day putting forward in detail a programme of what it will do and how it will do it. The job of a serious Opposition in any year—but in particular in an election year—is to put forward an alternative Budget. 
What have we heard? Well in Budget 2008 we have put forward a real plan and it is a plan of substance for a sustainable future for our country. This Budget brings tax relief and it tells all New Zealanders how we will do it what it will mean for them and that help is on the way for them in managing their living pressures. This Budget for instance rolls out a world-class broadband network proposition. It has the largest-ever public investment in science and research funding in the areas of innovation and of sustainability in food and in the pastoral sectors. Those are critical elements of New Zealand’s economy and New Zealand’s future. It is about putting food on the tables I say for the benefit of the member who is squawking from the backbench over yonder. I would have thought that member might be a little more careful because we have seen the danger of National Party backbenchers offering opinions this week. We have seen the real danger of Opposition backbench members offering opinions this week. We have instant policy noodles from Mr Key. It is sort of like adding hot water stirring and pouring out something that resembles a policy but that lasts only about as long as instant noodles last. It suddenly goes cold and before we know it we have a new creation passing itself off as policy. 
Planning for our response to climate change is a fundamental element of this Budget. There is also a real and serious promotion of our arts. Talking about the arts I listened to Mr Finlayson one of the members opposite get up and speak in this debate. Often Mr Finlayson and I have debated and disagreed with each other in the House but he is a member who I thought finally would be too ashamed and embarrassed to get up and simply regurgitate the same sad little lines that National’s research unit had put forward. But what did we get from that member? 
I will read this quote to the House. This was in an opinion piece provided by Mr Finlayson to GayNZ.com. He stated: “I am not interested in the abuse nastiness and petty point-scoring that consume my opponents.” Well I invite members opposite who were not here—some were—to read Mr Finlayson’s  
Hansard 
. They should read every word of the 10 minutes of it. They will find that if we strip out of it the—sorry; let me quote it again—“abuse nastiness and petty point-scoring” then there would be nothing left. It would have been a 10-second contribution to the debate in this House. There we have it. That member who I am given to believe has some potential had nothing of substance to contribute to this debate except personal abuse petty point-scoring and certainly nastiness. Sadly that is all we heard from that member this afternoon rather than finally a fleshing-out of the words that have been focus-grouped to death by the National Party. 
What did the National members tell us? What have they said in 4 long hours of this debate? They talked about vision saying they have a programme hope an agenda freshness and above all an aspiration. In every second sentence we heard about aspiration. I say to members opposite that the cat is really out of the bag. When we get New Zealanders into focus groups of course they say they like hope freshness and aspiration. They actually think there is something more behind the one-liners. But there is not. There is not a word of policy. As I said before the member of the one-member party who sits at the farthest reach of the back corner of this Chamber offered more policy in 10 minutes than there was in 4 hours of National Party contributions including one from Mr Key. 
Of course we know that this Budget was delivered in a time of serious economic challenges—many of them external to New Zealand. Commodity prices the cost of food petrol costs and all of those things are severely impacting on ordinary New Zealand householders. But is this Government in a position none the less to respond to the challenges faced by those families? Yes it is because of 8 years of careful stewardship of the New Zealand economy. We have seen 377000 new jobs created in this economy and 140000 fewer people are relying on working-age benefits. That is the legacy of a Government that has carefully managed the economy. It has conducted itself in its stewardship of the economy appropriately carefully and responsibly. 
Ultimately the question is why the National Party will not debate the Budget. Why is it that even when National put up Mr Finlayson one of its most experienced public debaters all we heard was 10 minutes of abuse nastiness and petty point-scoring? Mr Finlayson would not stoop to those things he said in his maiden speech in this House. Why did he do that? Because that is all there is. There is no policy. We have seen that from Mr Key’s endless flip-flops. In the end I suppose it is why John Campbell said to Mr Key: “I also think you’re as slippery as a snake in wet grass in terms of telling me where you’re going to get money from to pay for the tax cuts.” That is not what I am saying; I would not say that. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member would stop interjecting she would hear that it was a quote from Mr John Campbell on television. 
I say it is a tragic wasted opportunity that Her Majesty’s Opposition in this Parliament has failed utterly to measure up to its responsibility to front up to the people of New Zealand and offer an alternative Budget. This Budget offers a way forward. This Budget offers a genuine aspiration for a future. That Opposition is an utter abject failure.