Australia, the country some of our political party leaders think we should aspire to match, learned of its Federal Government's new Budget this week and the contents must be worrying our Minister of Finance and his caucus colleagues.
On Thursday, Bill English will present the Government's second Budget, having for some weeks now been massaging public opinion with carefully contrived announcements, hints and leaks about rises in some taxes, cuts in others, warning of the country's vast debt and the consequences it is creating for public spending, and the need to cut costs in all directions.
But Australia, too, has recently emerged from the recession, and from a situation where Budget surpluses had been routine.
Its Budget, however, forecasts the disappearance of the government deficit in three years (ours, according to Mr English, will continue for at least a decade), and while achieving that, Australia will also fund tax cuts to stimulate the economy - and put another $A7.3 billion into (means tested) public health.
The deficit turnaround is perhaps the most riveting aspect of Wayne Swan's budget, for the estimated $A1 billion surplus by 2013 stands in stark contrast to the forecast deficit a year ago of $28.2 billion.
Australia's net debt, forecast in 2009 to reach $A203 billion and not be eliminated for a decade, is now anticipated to reach a maximum of just $A93 billion and be gone in seven years.
Mr Swan has achieved this because of the tax windfall from the best terms of trade in 60 years, mostly from Australia's mining boom, but also larger excise taxes (such as on tobacco products), cost-cutting and reduced government spending - a disciplined strategy that will continue with all new spending capped at 2% per annum until the surplus reaches $A10 billion a year.
The forecasts are also very good for continuing the revival of economic growth and declining unemployment.
And, we suspect, of keen interest to Mr English and his colleagues will be Mr Swan's further adoptions from Australia's tax review of two schemes which will be popular with voters: the tax rate applying to the first $1000 of interest earned from ordinary savings accounts will be halved; and from 2012 salary earners will no longer be required to lodge tax returns - they can opt to receive a $500 cheque from the Government, increasing to $1000 the year after.
Earners who think they can claim more will be entitled to try.
These measures will be largely funded by a "supertax" on the mining industry.
There is no prospect that Mr English can match this kind of redistribution, given present policies and the state of the economy, and politicians should, in honesty and fairness, cease attempting to convince New Zealanders that it is achievable.
The state of New Zealand's economy needs local solutions.
They are notably lacking from both National and Labour at the moment, and much attention will be focused on Mr English's proposals next week.
The Labour leader, Phil Goff, made his attempt this week to convince voters that tax cuts here were not necessary, Australia's top tax rate was higher than ours, and New Zealanders crossed the Tasman because of the higher wages on offer, he believed.
He suggested raising our top tax rate and redirecting the income to bigger tax cuts for middle and low income workers.
He wants to force the Reserve Bank to pursue broader policy goals and to put greater emphasis on incentives to increase savings and investment.
These proposals are likely to fall upon deaf ears, since voters - invariably ruled by their hip pockets - have heard them so often before and believe they result in few personal benefits.
He has not proposed discarding Labour's exceedingly costly middle-class welfare - "Working for Families", interest-free student loans, subsidised KiwiSaver, the inviting gaps for tax avoidance - which are burdening our increasingly frail economy.
The Government, in contrast, proposes austerity for longer-term benefit: bringing the Budget back into surplus, strictly controlling spending.
But how strictly? If it continues with Labour's generous middle-class welfare, the core problem of government spending will remain.
It appears to be proposing tax "cuts" and increasing GST which may turn out to be fiscally neutral while hurting the lower paid, baffling many wage and salary earners who may not heed the underlying reason, which is to promote savings.
If it does nothing about the costly addiction to property investment and its tax avoidance baits, then it will have conceded fiscal prudence for electoral favour.
As Australia has shown, getting out of debt is the fastest way to prosperity: it is a lesson every householder should know by now.
