Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): If there is an image that defines the Labour - Greens - New Zealand First Government coalition it is the image of the Labour Party component of that coalition coalescing together for their two-day conference and the Prime Minister with the television cameras there working from table to table extolling them that this is the year for delivery which as an aside makes me wonder what last year was. The year of pre-delivery? Oh the year of being I guess delivery-adjacent.I know what it was. It was the year when that side of the House had to work out what they were here for because they hadn't planned it. They spent most of the time working out how the swivel chairs worked and what the buttons were for and in the meantime sending 200 working groups—[Knocks over glass of water]—oops—away.Greg O'Connor: Counting how many bills haven't been paid.TODD MULLER: No this is called climate change! The water's rising—you should know that being a good man from Ōhāriu. So what is absolutely clear is that they weren't prepared. They hadn't done the work hence as my good colleague Louise Upston mentioned we have all these working groups. But what was more spectacular was that they went from that moment to a press conference where the Prime Minister looking down the camera said This is our year of delivery." and then turned to her hapless housing Minister who said "You know that we said 100000 homes in 10 years to be built in KiwiBuild—you know we said 10000? Well yeah nah it's about 60. And actually it's too hard to have a measurement of building KiwiBuild houses each year and so we're going to scrap it."In that vignette you saw the flaw of this Government in that when they were given the opportunity to stand behind a commitment that was front and centre for their election campaign they have completely failed—completely failed—because they hadn't done the thinking and hadn't done the work. In all of these systemic challenging complex issues that Governments exist for to solve on behalf of New Zealanders they have kicked to working groups to do the work for them because they didn't have the application while they were in Opposition.Another example of such lightweight thinking from my perspective is this extraordinary rhetoric that we're hearing emanating from the other side about the upcoming well-being Budget. I can tell everyone listening that I have a sense of what it's going to be. For a start there will be an extraordinary amount of money splashed out. They have $17 billion more in tax receipts expected than when we left as a Government. Off the back of their promises expect a huge amount of money that they will flood around and they will wrap it with an extraordinary amount of emotive language. They will say "We care." because in their view the function of leadership the function of caring is how much money you spend not the actual impact you make on individuals.We had Better Public Services targets across the public sector. They were unyielding. They were tough. They were uncomfortable when we had to report against them every quarter. They've got rid of them because they don't want to be held to account for delivery. They just would like the opportunity to stand in front of New Zealand and say "We care." because they believe leadership and being in Government is a function of the warmth of your speech not the ability to actually deliver an outcome.The other aspect that sits I think quite strongly behind their well-being Budget rhetoric is a fundamental sense almost of paternalism—that actually well-being is something that is conferred by the State and well-being is something that is a function of Government effort and contribution. They don't have any sense that actually for lots of New Zealanders well-being is something that is in their essence. It is who they are. It is what they bring to their communities to their families and to their lives. They don't need to be anointed by Jacinda Ardern for well-being; they have it in essence in who they are.That is a key philosophical difference in their view which has well-being as rhetoric and well-being as emotive language that you can wrap around people in speeches but no appetite at all for hard difficult uncomfortable measures that actually drive you to perform. All of those that were already in place that our side when we were in Government found difficult and hard to deliver against because that was their purpose—they've all gone. It's much easier to give a warm speech; it's much harder to deliver as Phil Twyford knew as he looked down that camera and said "No not 100000 homes; no not 10000; no not 1000; actually 62." That is woeful—absolutely woeful.The other area that I'd like to cover off is an example that we have touched on already today and that is Phil Twyford's obsession with light rail at the expense of my community. We heard it earlier. It is roughly $3.7 billion although we don't have the numbers. We don't have the business case. We have some theoretical assumptions of how many passengers might be impacted and we don't know when it's going to be built and we don't know when it's going to be finished. I represent a community that had the numbers. I represent a community in the Bay of Plenty who were told "$520 million April 2016 seven kilometres off Tauranga north". The tender started in the middle of last year and Phil Twyford and that Government took it off the table and said to the Bay of Plenty community "We would prefer our little tram project in Auckland rather than your needs." He doesn't come to Tauranga doesn't come to front the community and then will talk to the occasional local government representative and thinks that that's actually delivery. It is hopeless it is failure and you have completely let down my community Mr Twyford and our community I'm sure will have a very long memory when it comes to that.The previous speaker referenced China. My view is that this Government's approach to that critical relationship is inept and clueless because over the last nine years under the John Key - Bill English Government what you saw were two leaders who understood the power of relationships and understood that if you have a critical relationship like we have with China you actually have to invest in the relationship. You have to build it and from that strong relationship you can deal with the challenging issues that come along. But you have to have trust first. You have to have the connection first. This Government doesn't believe in that. This Government is caught between the virtue signalling of Jacinda Ardern who in her heart finds the projection of China influence and power very uncomfortable and reflecting back on her socialist youth thinks "Oh I'm not really happy about this."On the other side Winston Peters who has built a career in my view of having an inbuilt anti-Chinese bias that would often come to the fore who knows more than most people in this House about the power of words and the power of language and when to say it and when not to say it—and he is very deliberately sending a signal around where he thinks the priority relationships are because that's where his essence lies. He is not someone who is naturally aligned to the growth of China and the opportunity that that economy and country has delivered for my community and for this country.It would all be funny if it wasn't so important and critical to the lives of so many people in New Zealand but they do not have the capacity to manage the relationship that they now find themselves in. You can see it in their eyes when we ask them questions. There's that look and you see it when people are in over their depth.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't actually see it.TODD MULLER: You could see it in the Prime Minister's eyes when we were pressing questions yesterday on this topic. They know when they are in over their depth and at the moment on this issue with its sensitivity and the impact on this country and our economic fortunes they're making a complete hash of it because they are caught in that half-pie student politics of "Let's say what we think sounds good on television." versus the responsibility that sits on that side for actually governing for all New Zealanders and governing with a capacity and capability that articulates a vision for these critical trading relationships around the world.They don't have that vision. They don't have that capability and we are seeing it in terms of their failure of delivery not only in a foreign affairs context not only in a housing context and not only in a jobs context. We left the economy with 10000 jobs a month; now it's 600. Climate change will be a very big test of their commitment. So far it's rhetoric with the exception of oil and gas which is thumping Taranaki and actually from a net greenhouse gas global perspective runs real risks of taking us backwards. Failure—an "F" for failure.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now I understand this is a split call."