MPs debate the long term, but even a week is a long time in politics

Kiora, Kofosmitho, now my kid to fight you, welcome to the house.

It seems a truth universally acknowledged that the National Party had an off-week last

week.

If the National Party had an off-week last week...

That was National MP Cameron Brewer, tempting fate, but we'll pick that speech up again

in a moment.

In an apparent response to the off-week, this week in Parliament, even more than usual

everything under discussion has been an opportunity for National MPs to attack the opposition

especially around Covid policy.

It's been a very attack-focused week for all MPs.

Governing coalition MPs have even attacked each other.

Here's David Seymour taking a swipe at a national backbencher who had quiped during his speech.

It would be good if more MPs did read them.

It would be good if people took public policy more seriously, unlike this member behind me.

That was during Wednesday evening's first business, a two-hour-long special debate into

the Finance and Expenditure Committee's report on treasuries, long-term fiscal position

and investment statement, something with a 40-year time frame, which is where we came in with

Cameron Brewer, the chair of that committee who was to introduce the report.

If the National Party had an off-week last week, isn't Labour having a terrible week this time?

The Emperor has no clothes, and today...

Today, Mr Speaker...

Today, Mr Speaker...

...topics-specific debate.

You should at least start the speech with some address to the topic.

Cameron Brewer had come prepared.

He had a 10-minute-long pre-written speech focused, it seems, largely,

on attacking the opposition, using ammunition from a third report.

Brewer's 10-minute-long speech took about 17 minutes to stagger through,

because there were so many points of order and corrections from the Speaker,

about his speech.

Honourable, Karen McKinnell.

Thank you, sir. You've just made it extremely clear to the House that the Insights

brief for the long-term Insights briefing is not part of this debate.

That's right.

The member indicating to the House that he intends to report back on that

is a direct contradiction to the guidance just given the House.

It is, and it risks termination to the speech.

Brewer's speech felt a bit like an anxiety dream.

Maybe one where you can't find your speaking notes in a public forum.

Although in this case, the difficulty was that Brewer had his written speech,

but it focused on something other than the subject of the debate.

No one even raised the fact that because he was listed to Speaker's committee chair,

he would generally speak for the whole committee and not attack half of it.

It was uncomfortable watching, but Brewer's aggressive opening it turned out was not unique.

The first opposition speaker was Labour's Deborah Russell, who had some rebuttals.

What people said at the time when the Labour government

was proposing spending money in order to get through Covid.

Here's one in April 2020.

It is necessary for the government to go further in terms of offering relief to those

businesses most affected.

So we support the government in this bill and we encourage them to go further.

That was Paul Goldsmith.

In an election year, it is difficult to look beyond the election.

This week, and this debate spent a lot of time on the past.

But not entirely.

Most speeches also pointed to current issues and the difficulties ahead,

actually to David Seymour.

Well, if we have a shock every decade that's about 10% of GDP,

we need to run a 1% surplus every year, just to catch up.

And that means 1% is about $4 billion of surplus every year, just to get ahead.

But the estimate from the Treasury is that we're running a 2% of GDP deficit.

And Green Leader, Chloe Swarbrick.

We have in front of us an unsustainable future.

What that means and what is identified in those reports

is that we are confronted with the challenges of an ageing population.

It was interesting to hear the divergent solutions offered.

For acts, David Seymour, it was shrinking the state.

For New Zealand First Change zones, it was increasing mining and ignoring climate change,

which he called an imaginary tonofar.

For the Greens, it was tackling issues that would make the future worse,

like climate change and poverty.

For Tapatemari, it was about addressing inequality and so on.

This debate, though, was asking MPs to think far beyond the next election.

40 years out, did he not know we're packing?

The outlook that we're expecting to hear in this debate

is way beyond try and your thinking,

governments and twilight settings, politicians.

It's meant to help the debate for big picture thinking.

And you'll note that not much of the debate has been that way,

because there's not a lot of big picture thinking in this place.

Reports to committees and MPs that encourage long-term thinking are important.

And I'm sure they do inform MPs and government's decisions.

It's just that that kind of thinking doesn't transform well into a debate speech.

Nationals, Vanessa Weining.

These briefings have a really important purpose.

It's that they force Parliament to move from just the reactive day to day,

political noise and look at the longer-term challenges that our country faces.

Which is entirely correct.

Weining did, though, then segue into the past with an attack on the previous government.

For everyone, it's very hard not to do that, especially in an election year.

Because at this point, it's all about November.

Barbara Edmunds.

We need a government who is serious about the long-term challenges.

And when Labour takes over in November this year,

that's exactly the government New Zealand will have.

You've been listening to the House.

It's a Fakaranga Kwaiki to Fade.

This programme is produced with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clock.

Matawa.