Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to speak on behalf of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill. It's worth noting that the person who created GDP said when he created the tool of measuring economic activity Do not use GDP as a measure of welfare of a nation" and for the illumination the elucidation of those on the other side it was Kuznets the economist who said "Don't use GDP as a measure of wellbeing". So after all this time of economies around the world going back to the simple number because it was a simple sales technique—actually full credit to the members opposite the National Party there. They used that one number GDP quite effectively in their sales pitch to New Zealanders whether it was 1.9 percent or I think they got as high as 3.6 percent—I'll be corrected if I'm wrong—Hon Tracey Martin: For a short period.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: For a very short period. They sold to New Zealand this figure of GDP. But what we have to ask ourselves and what we have asked ourselves in this House is what is it that we as a Government and that we as the people of New Zealand use to measure success? The man who created GDP said "Don't use GDP" so what is it that we use? We've asked ourselves well what is wellbeing? What is it that New Zealanders should be able to stand up and proudly affirm and say that we have achieved these things for New Zealand and we are proud to be part of a country who has done this great work and contributed to an economy.For the benefit of the previous speaker David Carter I just want to touch on some of the issues he raised about the Budget which was slightly off topic but kind of on topic when you speak about wellbeing. This Government is focused on wellbeing. How are we doing that? We refuse unlike the previous Government to use population growth and house prices to define success in this country. So what we're saying through this Wellbeing Budget and actually through these mechanisms here in the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill is to ask ourselves well what is success? I put it to this House that investment in infrastructure in a planned coordinated way over the next few decades so that businesses in this country know what they can commit to know that they have business that they can do with this Government and invest in and invest in their people and invest in this country themselves—that is a measure of wellbeing.We can ask ourselves well what else can we do for our businesses in New Zealand so that they are more productive and they can pay their employees more? We can ask the fundamental question about why has New Zealand for so long because of the apathy on the other side of the House not invested in research and development and said to businesses "Actually we want to encourage you to do more in the R & D space so that you can ensure that you are more productive and you are competing on an even platform around the world" and so that is what we have done.I suppose one of the great measures of wellbeing and one of the indicators that we will use is the distribution of wealth amongst New Zealand. So one of the fundamental questions to that—which I'm proud to say New Zealand First asked of both parties quite a while ago—was "What are we doing for the regions?" So investment in the regions is a measure of success not only for a Government but the people in the regions—the wellbeing of the people in the regions themselves.So this Government proudly stands on its record already and it has done more than the Opposition did in nine years. We focused on wellbeing and we've done so much. I think—Hon Member: What does that mean? What does wellbeing mean? How do you measure it?FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Here we go for the member opposite who hasn't read the legislation—I forget his name it's been five years—but what the bill does—[Interruption] Simpson—Simpson? We know that achieving genuine enduring change requires establishing a public finance system geared towards a new way of working. The Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill does so by requiring the Government to set wellbeing objectives and explain how those objectives will guide the development of its Budget. So what we're doing is asking "What does success look like?" and then we're going to the Ministers and asking the fundamental question "How does this measure up against the Public Finance Act and the measures in wellbeing? Why Ministers are we going to give you money in internal affairs in finance in immigration in children—why would we do that?" So the fundamental question comes back to the questions we ask through this Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill: "What are the objectives that will guide the development of your work?"So Treasury will report back and actually—Matt King: Here we go—here we go. FLETCHER TABUTEAU: You can tell the members opposite are excited but I don't want to get them boiling too soon. You don't want to peak too soon members opposite. I put it to those members opposite that this Wellbeing Budget unfortunately and what we're setting here through the Public Finance Act is about fixing kind of the mistakes and actually the non-action of the past. I was in the electorates of several of those members opposite who are the most vocal right now—and I do appreciate the egging on. I was in their electorates having conversations about gangs and P and so this is the context and what I'll end on for this evening. They are now finding this Government is doing work on trying to get rid of that scourge that blight on our society that is gangs and the insidious work—or they call it work—in terms of distribution of drugs in our society. Good people from their electorates are coming to us and saying "What are you going to do about it?" and the problem with that question is what was done in the past and what is it that we're trying to deal with now because funny guys on the other side of the House—because this isn't funny—they failed to invest in police they failed to invest in our Customs Service and they failed to invest in our children and schools and in mental health. So what does that mean? Well right now we here on this side of the House are dealing with the outfall of that—the negative externality of their inaction. For every $1 they presumed to save we're spending $10 now to fix it up and that is what we're dealing with in this Wellbeing Budget. So thank you to those members opposite for egging me on because they reminded me why I'm so proud of being on this side of the House and why the work we're doing is so important for this nation and our regions. Thank you very much Madam Speaker."