William Terite: Labour and National, similar songsheet?

So both major parties have laid out how they'd run the country's books, and if you've been following their announcements, you might be forgiven for thinking: hang on, what's actually the difference between Labour and National?

Let's start with National.

A couple of weeks ago, Christopher Luxon was flirting with the idea of a bed tax, while Nicola Willis was talking about whether the banks should be paying more.

Now, National is pledging no new taxes.

So if you're ruling out new revenue, while also promising to push core Crown spending down towards 30 percent of the economy, what gets reprioritised to pay for the hospitals, schools and infrastructure you say you want to build?

Listen to Will's Word below.

Now Labour.

Chris Hipkins and Barbara Edmonds are promising a surplus by 2029/30, a long-term goal of bringing debt down to 20 percent of GDP, and a new parliamentary budget office to scrutinise the numbers.

This is Labour we're talking about here.

A party traditionally more comfortable with an active role for government is now putting a significantly lower long-term debt target at the centre of its fiscal strategy.

So are Labour and National actually singing from the same songsheet?

Because both seem to be treating government finances a little like household finances.

Get the debt down, balance the books, and be fiscally disciplined.

News flash: the Government isn't a household.

It doesn't retire, and it doesn't die. It does, however, have to keep its finances sustainable over time.

Arguably, what matters just as much as the debt we've racked up, is what we did with it.

And no I'm not suggesting we abandon fiscal discipline.

But borrowing to build infrastructure that lasts for generations is fundamentally different from borrowing to consume.

So that's what I want both parties to answer.

Labour: if your long-term goal is to get debt down to 20 percent of GDP, what are you willing to delay, reduce or abandon to get there in order to maintain high spending? A CGT isn't going to fix all our problems overnight.

And National: if you're promising no new taxes, what gets reprioritised (beyond the public service) to pay for the major problems you say you want to fix?

Because neither party has really given us proper answers.

And until they do, we've essentially got two parties reading from the same fiscal playbook.