Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. Now there is a bit of a theme developing in this Government in that it's very good at great gestures and big talk and bold sweeping statements about their aspirations but the delivery has been very poor. So there's all talk but no delivery and when I think of what the slogan might be for the Labour Party next year I think it would be Labour—it's the thought that counts". That seems to encompass everything that we see in this Government: lots of very smart talk but no delivery. So this Labour-Greens proposal that we've got here to change the Public Finance Act is very much in that category because it's based on the false assertion that everybody prior to the arrival of this magnificent sort of saintly Government didn't think about wellbeing didn't care about anything other than the GDP was only interested in the raw data had no interest in social capital and all those sorts of things which is nonsense.Every Budget that's been produced under the fiscal responsibility legislation and the many Budgets before that have been focused on the wellbeing of New Zealanders and improving the standard of living of New Zealanders and improving what we do. And the Budget of course is not all of what Government does. Government has wide-ranging interests in preserving what is special about this country and our environment and our social cohesion and the many other things about it but apparently nobody's thought about this before Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern descended from the clouds and said that now we will focus on wellbeing. Well time will tell. It's also a sad reflection that this is an area where usually Governments have tried to bring about widespread support for changes to this legislation and this kind of legislation but no such real attempt has been made. Unfortunately we will not be supporting this because our concern is that absolutely countries should be focused on wellbeing but the purpose of the fiscal responsibility legislation is to deal with the way that the Budget is put together. It started in response to a long period of our history in New Zealand when Governments were frankly very murky about the money that they were taking what they were spending it on and the long-term sustainability of that. They would come every year with Budgets that didn't actually disclose the full liabilities and promises were made in election periods in election-year Budgets which said that we were going to be in surplus when it turned out we were in deep deficit. So we built up this robust framework which outlines clearly what Governments are taking in forms of taxation and borrowing what they're spending it on and a robust analysis of what they're actually spending and what particular programmes are going to cost over an extended period of time what the liability is for current taxpayers based on that and whether that spending stacks up and whether it's been done in a sustainable way. That's a very complicated area and quite a hard thing to get your head around and the point is that this Government is not doing a good job in that core area. They don't have any good track record on actually having a clear sense of what they're trying to achieve from the money which they take and allocate. They're marvellous at making big announcements. So if we looked at this current Wellbeing Budget there was $1.9 billion allocated to help with mental health. Most New Zealanders would say "Yes we should invest more in dealing with mental health issues." But this Government seems to think that just making an announcement that they intend to spend $1.9 billion on mental health is enough. Problem solved! They don't actually have any clear plans for what to do with it. There is no analysis about it. No evaluation plan—well there's actually no plan about how to expend the money. We've just had recent announcements that they've come up with $9 million that they're going to spend but the actual—Hon Andrew Little: The member's been living under a rock—what has the member been doing?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —process. Oh well I'm very pleased to see the Attorney-General has woken up and has continued to contribute to the debate but he hasn't made much progress so far. So if we think of the $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund for example an amazing situation where $3 billion is going to be spent and the only current plan of this Government to assess whether we're getting good value for the money that they're going to spend is that once they've spent the $3 billion they'll do a quick analysis over at the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to find out whether they've got anything for the money. I mean that's the way that this Government operates. If we think of the $2.8 billion spent on the fees-free programme what have we got for that? Fewer students. Think of all the tens and tens of millions of dollars that have been invested in programmes to help young unemployed Māori through the projects for people who are not in education employment or training yet at the same time they're doing away with the 90-day work trial which affects that very same group and makes it less likely that they'll get an opportunity to get a job. Then we think of $1 billion put into subsidising rail. So all these things that in the normal course of events any good sound sensible Government in a Budget would have a clear sense of what exactly they are purchasing what they're buying what we're going to get for it what sort of evaluation is in place and a clear sense of whether the overall spending of the Government is sustainable—we don't get a very good response on that. We don't get very good answers but what we do get is an enormous amount of waffle about the intentions that they have. So our concern with this legislation is that that is an opportunity for them to lose focus on the core task of the Budget process. That as I say is no way indicating that Government doesn't have much broader interests in what we serve to govern in Government. Of course we have a deep concern about preserving what is special about this country about our environment about our social cohesion and about the happiness of New Zealanders but all those things are legitimate concerns of Government and should not be thrown into the mix in the Budget process in order to dilute attention and focus on the simple clarity with which we go about the Budget process. They're replacing clear accountability with porridge and that will do us no good. So on that score this is yet another example of a Government that has lost its way. New Zealanders are seeing that and recognising that every day—that they are very quick to come out with great announcements are quick to make great claims about what they are going to do when they get a chance but the delivery and the focus on actually making a difference with the investment that they're making and being held to account for the progress that they've made have been woeful. Never before in my experience have I seen a Government come along with their major plan their major programme which in this case was KiwiBuild two years down the line—turning up and saying "Well yeah. We're sorry. We failed with that. We got it wrong and we're going to start again but trust us. We'll do it better next time." That kind of lack of delivery is the thing that is of concern to everyday New Zealanders who are just struggling to get ahead. They're conscious of the added costs that are being piled on through petrol prices and taxes and various other things. They want to see a clear sense of direction and a clear growth plan from this Government and all they see is vague statements that they don't understand and they can't get their heads around. This process will only make that worse and on that basis we will not be supporting this bill."