¾ÅÒ»ÐÇ¿ÕÎÞÏÞ

Fascinating read in the Weekend Herald as Liam Dan interviewed the Finance Minister Nicola Willis on Saturday.

Of course, she was supposed to be debating Ruth Richardson about how to save the economy, but Ruth bailed as the event became a circus sideshow.

But anyway, Nicola Willis's replies to Liam Dan's questions will be giving the taxpayers union and Ruth Richardson holiday nightmares, because it shows how little real difference there is between Labour and National.

In reply to questions about how much more she could cut in our spending, she defended herself. And in an appointed comment, she said, she keeps getting asked, ‘why don't you just get rid of the Ministry of Women's Affairs?’ Very common comment. She reckons that would save a whole $12 million.

So make no difference at all to our deposition, but likely to cost some women's votes. And that's important. for Nicola. On our debt position, she describes it as modest in comparison to the rest of the world. Heard that before? That's exactly Labour's line.

They use it to justify spending more. Nicola is using it as justification to cut less. She also is using that to dampen down the hysteria about our debt position, which I thought was a bit rich because that hysteria has been ramped up by the Prime Minister and herself.

 And then she talks about real spending like superannuation and working for families. She reckons if she cut working for families, like Ruth and the taxpayers union would like, she would leave 330,000 low-income families $180 a week worse off.

They would be poorer, and they vote. It would make the cost of living even harder for the poorly paid. You can't get rid of working for families and staying in government. And here's the thing I feel about working for families. Helen Clarke brought it in, John Key called it communism by stealth, and then when he got in charge, he actually increased its level.

And now we're dependent on it. It's suppressed our wages as employers use it to subsidize their workers instead of paying them what they're worth. They rely on the state to increase their margins. We could cut it, but we would suffer immense pain. It's artificial. It's artificially keeping wages up. I mean, there's only one way out of our mess, and that's for workers to be paid more and then pay more tax.

And the only way to do that is for employers to up their productivity, rather than hoping the government can wave a magic wand.

LISTEN ABOVE