Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Can I just first acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark who has just sat down. We're in the same part of the beautiful Bay of Plenty. She has brought to this House a remarkable personal contribution to our community with respect to protecting against family violence and I just want to acknowledge the comments that she has made. But I do have to say that the speaker before Ginny Andersen takes the cake. The idea that this Wellbeing Budget should be compared to a box of chocolates is something else again—absolutely stunning and particularly the way that she framed it up that it provides a sugar hit. It has an initial taste that hits the back of your throat and then it sort of makes you go Urgh!" after you look into it. I thought that's a very good summary of this Wellbeing Budget actually. The only problem is that before they got to open the chocolates Simon Bridges came and stole half of them. I do want to talk about the broader theme that exists in this debate that we've had over the last day or so and it relates to a Government that has at its core a philosophy of overpromising and under-delivering. We have seen that again in this remarkable conversation that we've had as we've stepped through what was actually delivered in this Budget. Can I start first as an example of promising high and delivering low with the area of climate change. My colleague Erica Stanford took some of my points actually earlier when she highlighted the fact that a year ago the Government on the back of its victory said that climate change was the pre-eminent issue of this Government it was the nuclear-free moment of this generation and it needed to be addressed with urgency and the emissions reduced first forthwith. The key plank in the last year was the establishment of a Green Investment Fund. Chris Bishop: How'd that go? TODD MULLER: Well thank you for asking Mr Bishop. It was officially opened for business last week—51 weeks after being launched finally they get to the point where actually now we're prepared to start having a conversation with New Zealand. Guess what New Zealand—guess what our emissions did last year? Oh they went up. So here we have another contrast between the rhetoric on that side and the reality on this side. Whilst the last Labour Government was in power emissions lifted by 20 percent. In the time that John Key and Bill English were the Prime Ministers emissions were flat despite the fact that our GDP lifted by 25 percent and our population lifted by 10 percent. That doesn't fit the narrative does it? Emissions were flat under the last National Government and in the previous Labour Government it went up and what has happened in the first year of this Government? It's gone up. What does James Shaw say in terms of what the trajectory of the emissions is? It will continue to go up and it will go up year on year on year on year on year until the mid-2020s. That's what he says—the emissions will continue to go up until the mid-2020s. The rhetoric is the sky is falling. The reality is actually their policy response is woeful. The green financial fund hasn't even opened for business one year on and now we talk about—as we have and I've given voice to that—establishing a Climate Commission that's going to advise us appropriately and we support that as a concept around how over time we wrestle our emissions down. The point is that the climate change section of this Budget is woeful. The money is just setting up an institution. There's no policy around what we are actually going to do to reduce emissions because it's much easier to stand in front of the parliamentary forecourt and feel the young people's anxiety that the country isn't wrestling down emissions yet say the right speech and say "Yes we hear you. I'm green and I hear you." but actually the record is nothing short of a disgrace. They've been in here a year got $100 million for a Green Investment Fund and it has only just opened. By the way the partner just on the other side of the House that we never look at they got a billion dollars a year—a billion dollars a year—and another billion dollars for rail. Well they'll say "That's OK though because as long as it's an electric train we'll be OK."That is the sole contribution that this Budget delivers to the Green Party and to the issue of climate change. It's really easy to stand up and say around the country and give speeches at the back there: "We should declare a climate emergency." They have no ability to describe what it means; no ability to say "Actually this is the policy response we are going to deliver so New Zealand actually reduces its emissions." Oh no that's too hard. It's much easier to stand up and say "Look we care about this and caring is enough. Don't judge us on our record. Judge us on our emotion."Well I'm sorry but we are not going to let that slide. We're the National Party. We're the party of evidence and delivery on behalf of New Zealand—those quiet New Zealanders that Matt Doocey talks about. When he made that point I could see the reaction across the other side because down here you know right? It's all very well being affirmed when you go around the country in your small little groups—as Labour and Green in your little echo chamber of support—and say "Yes no that's quite a good policy." But the great swath of New Zealand who get up every morning and work put capital into business and actually want to see a Government that gets their challenges gets the challenge of being New Zealand in a global environment which is challenging and difficult—they are looking for leadership. They are looking for a party that can actually say "Here's the plan and this is what we're going to do." Not willy washy wellbeing because—Michael Wood: "Willy washy"? TODD MULLER: Well that's exactly it. Willy washy wellbeing—that's what it is because that's the point isn't it? That's the point. At the core what that party wants is—but it sounds good to say. It sounds good to give a speech on it—"Just don't judge us on our actual record of making a difference for New Zealand. Don't judge us on what actual outcomes occur in regional New Zealand."When I look about the electorate that I represent of the Bay of Plenty and one of the fastest growing cities in the country where is the delivery for them? Where is the 24-hour accident and emergency healthcare for Papamoa? Not there. Where is the road that connects Ōmokoroa to Tauranga that had already been budgeted and that was already out to tender? That has been cancelled. Where is that? It doesn't exist. This is hopeless. We have a city that is the fastest growing and it has no road infrastructure or investment. It has no additional healthcare for those who want 24/7 care. The Minister of Health stood up yesterday and talked about the fact that in the mental health spend there's going to be addiction and health services for Gisborne. I acknowledge that that is a step forward for Gisborne but where is Tauranga's? We have been asking for it for years. Where is it? Where is it? You said this was a key plank. You said you're spending the money—$1.1 billion—on mental health. Where is the solution in Tauranga? Just because it's blue it doesn't mean you close the door on it because Simon and I are coming. We are going to make sure that that city actually gets some investment and is not sort of waved at saying "Well that's actually a city that we are just going to ignore."Where are the schools? Where are the roads? Where's the healthcare? There has been no investment. Darroch Ball: For how long? TODD MULLER: There has not been—Darroch Ball says "For how long?" So here we have a city and for the people living at home in Tauranga that is the question that they've said—Darroch Ball: What's Simon been doing? TODD MULLER: Oh so what did National do? Let me tell you what National did. There was an infrastructure deficit when we took over that was eye-watering. We put in $500 million for the Tauranga Eastern Link $500 million of infrastructure in Maungatapu and the back end the Kaimais a commitment for $500 million that had already gone to tender on the Northern Link and you guys—sorry the Government stepped in and cancelled it. We put more investment in hips and knees because we invest in the people that actually do the operations not the back-office bureaucrats who sit there and say "Oh we've got another project to be invested in." It's delivery Labour New Zealand First and Greens. It is not the function of the warmth of your speech; it's the delivery for a community. What are the actual additional hip and knee and cataract operations? We had increases year on year on year and what does this Government do? It takes the targets away. They take the target away because it's much easier to front New Zealand and say "We spent X billion now we're spending Y." but it's much harder to say "And here are the additional hips and knees and cataracts and other elective surgeries that we commit to doing." because that's accountability. That's your feet on the public fire of expectation and this Government has failed. It is a botched Budget it is woeful and as my colleague said the quiet New Zealanders are coming."