Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): That's very kind of you Madam Chair and it's great to speak on this element. We're talking about the finance side. Remember that this was called the botched Budget—the botched Budget. People might've forgotten. One of the things that of course we spend the money on Treasury for is to do the basics well which is to draw up a Budget and not put it on a website three days before the Budget so that everybody can see it and then turn around and complain about the Opposition doing their job which is researching about what the Budget spending is all about. Remember that this was a Budget—the first time I've ever seen a Budget delivered on a Thursday and the Prime Minister wasn't on the television news that night talking about the Budget. She was running a mile away from it because it was a shambles—the way that it was delivered. But then we come to the issues of the actual Budget and what it delivered for itself. I think things are crystallising in the hearts and minds of New Zealanders around the country as they reflect upon this Government's economic management or lack thereof at a time when the economy is slowing and business confidence is through the floor and people are wondering about where we're heading as a country and what we're achieving. The three issues that are crystallising are that this Government knows how to spend and there's no question about that but what is the quality of the spending? It's very easy to spend lots of money but it's much harder to spend it effectively and to actually achieve something purposeful with the money that's being spent. So the quality of the spending—that's one issue. The second issue is delivery. This is of course the year of delivery remember? We were told This year is the year of delivery." and we're just hoping—we're hoping against hope—that the only thing that they deliver is not a slowing economy. So we're asking every month: what are they going to be delivering with all this money? The third issue of course is the question of competence: is this Government actually competent? I want to go through these things. So spending—when we look at the spending what are we getting for all this money? Well Shane Jones is wandering around the countryside with a roll of twenties handing them out in a very loose fashion where he himself described the nature of the decision making as "To the victor goes the spoils." "To the winner goes to the booty." and when really pressed on the issue "That is the way the cookie crumbled." So that is the quality of the spending decision framework that we have for the $3 billion in the Provincial Growth Fund. Treasury which we're giving all this money to who are supposed to be focused on ensuring that there's good quality outcomes for the spending that it's responsible for—what are they going to do? To work out how effective the money that is being spent in the Provincial Growth Fund is what are they going to do? They're going to spend the $3 billion and then do a quick survey at the end to figure out whether they got any value for money. Now that's the way that this outfit is running the economy and no wonder people are nervous. Then of course we think of the fees-free programme and we all know that we've spent hundreds of millions on that and we've actually got fewer students than we had in the first place. We can all list examples of very poor quality spending and waste. Then when it comes to delivery what were they going to deliver? That is the question that's hanging around because this is a Government that seems to think that all they need to do is announce that they're going to spend a whole lot of money and then the problem is solved. You know a lot of people agree with the idea of spending extra money on mental health—$1.9 billion. Great but that is not the solution. Just announcing that you're spending the money is not the solution. They're having to go around the countryside and talk to people about how they should actually spend this money and what they should actually do. You would think they would've done that thinking before. So it's a question of delivery—that's the question—and why people are worried about that is because of the manifest incompetence that the Government has demonstrated so far in the way that they've done things. We think of KiwiBuild of course. Remember Phil Twyford stomping up and down the countryside? "What a bunch of idiots the National Party were. They didn't know how to build houses. We're going to build 10000 houses a year. We're going to build 100000 of them. This is easy—this is easy." Then we'd see him after the election and I'd go up to him and pat him on the shoulders and say "Thank goodness Phil Twyford that you're going to fix the housing crisis." And what happened? Well nothing actually. What are we up to? Matt King: 280. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Is it 280? I thought it was 73 but it could be 280. They've completely given up on KiwiBuild—it is a disaster and a shambles. We would've liked to have seen it succeed. Of course all New Zealanders would like to see some real progress on housing affordability. It's one of the great issues of the day and it's one of the great focuses of the economic discussion document that we released on Monday which I'll refer to—a great document which outlines how the National Party would go about restoring confidence reviving the economy and lifting our aspirations as a country both in terms of what we can earn but the problems and the challenges that we can overcome as a country."