SpeechLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill. I wish to reflect on what a couple of my colleagues have said prior to me taking this call and that is that it's all very well setting targets and it's all very well incorporating wellbeings but what's more important is what you actually deliver on and how you measure yourself.So the principal difference I think between both sides of the House is that National has had targets when it was in Government. It had 10 Better Public Service targets. They were measureable and effectively they measured a whole lot of things including reducing welfare dependency increasing participation in early childhood education increasing child immunisation rates reducing assaults on children increasing NCEA qualification rates reducing total crime and reducing reoffending. That was a set of targets they were measured they were looked at and they were reviewed on an annual basis. We also had a whole heap of targets in the health sector which sought to measure the performance the number of operations the number of electives. This Government came in and basically chopped all that out and said We're kind and caring and we're different to the last lot and we are going to make a fundamental difference."In reality on just about every single measure I can think of probably every measure I can't see any of that being achieved. Whether you're talking about housing whether you're talking about mental health big promises have been made but there are no specific targets to measure any of it. As a result over time we have learnt through written and oral questions from Ministers the rate of delivery. The housing one's a classic—the housing one's a classic: big promises at the election but a spectacular failure nearly three years into that first term of Government. Light rail's another one—big promise.Dan Bidois: How's that going?LAWRENCE YULE: I don't think it's going anywhere. I don't actually think there is a plan and it's certainly not going to have been started by the start of this election.So if you look at all those things it is very easy to bring in a wellbeing sort of set of measures in the Public Finance Act and all you do is dilute and diffuse the objectives of what the Government's doing because there's no measurement around it; there's no long-term sustainable targets. We're just going to look at a series of things and it's going to influence our policy. What New Zealanders need is delivery of things that they are promised at the election from any political party. Our party—this party that I'm part of—have sought out to name and list some pretty significant targets and the Rt Hon Bill English was largely responsible for that because he saw over his time in Parliament decades of people talking about doing things and nobody ever doing it because it wasn't measured. We oppose this bill on the basis that it just adds fluff—as the Rt Hon David Carter has said previous to me—just adds fluff to a whole lot of stuff and it'll make no difference whatsoever to anybody in terms of delivery. Who's going to look at it who's going to listen to it who's going to read it?In relation to Mr Jamie Strange who spoke previously to me about the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals I've been to New York a number of times and I've sat in those meetings and they're all laudable what they want but fundamentally what New Zealanders want is a job somebody to love them—as I think Deborah Russell said—some shelter and a sense of safety; that's really what they want. They're not interested in what the United Nations is saying—they're not interested in the United Nations. When you boil it down all this is is diluting targets that the Reserve Bank and a whole lot of other people have to measure because the fluff gets so murky that they don't know who the master is.We oppose this bill. We had some set-out clear difficult targets to achieve but we had them on the basis that they made a difference to New Zealanders' lives and as such we oppose the bill."