Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's always a pleasure to follow a Green MP. Some of the ridiculous comments that were made I do have to comment on them if I may. For a start the suggestion that National Governments would like to see more oil spills because it creates an increased GDP is just absurd and just makes that member look more ridiculous than she already has been. And to suggest that either side any side of the House does not care for the people of New Zealand is again an absurd statement. To suggest that the National Government did not have targets for immunisations for kids; targets for hip operations for example; concern about the number of jobs in the economy; the unemployment rate; all of these things including GDP—to suggest that we didn't care or are concerned for ordinary everyday New Zealanders is quite frankly offensive and just makes that member look stupid. I'd like to turn to the bill specifically now. There are concerns and I find it quite ironic that we're talking about a bill that sets targets talks about living standards frameworks sets targets in financial the natural environment human and social—so that's the money as the Minister said—people and community; all those things that make up who we are and what we do in New Zealand. I find it ironic that these targets are being set today and have been set up by this Government but then they remove a whole bunch of other targets and goals and ambitions that were in place. I'm talking about things like the number of hip replacements—I'm going to say that again—it's not clear how many are being done and where they are being done; the number of people who are leaving New Zealand because they're finding a better place to live is not clear because that target has been removed by this Government. So there's a bunch of targets that have been removed which would enable us to run this place better and measure ourselves from year to year in a more efficient way. SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I'm going to remind the member of Speaker's ruling 121/7 which indicates that the member cannot speak at length about what's not in the bill.ALASTAIR SCOTT: So what is in the bill is these targets living standards frameworks. The Minister talked about how this framework can be adapted from Government to Government. We on this side of the House could emphasise one or more of those pillars and subsequent goals and objectives. That's fine; that's a good thing. That gives flexibility doesn't tie every Government into performing the same acting in the same way. But then we've got the Treasury that comes in every four years and reports independently completely independently apparently. I have a concern that that's going to be I would say impossible to do because you can imagine the Government of the day has reported against their own framework. They're going to report and set themselves goals which they think they can achieve. Some will be very soft targets. You know what we like on this side of the House is hard targets hard numbers that we can account to and take responsibility for. The previous member suggested that we don't care about the environment. But you will recall if I may we on this side talked about water standards and put minimum water standards under Nick Smith's leadership. That is a hard number and it talks about water and that is a target that I would like to see in the framework that deals with the environment for example. So when we have the Treasury coming along every four years and they're independent what emphasis are they supposed to put on that target or that goal or that pillar even? Who's to say that the environment is more important than the social community connectedness? How is the Treasury supposed to say which level is more important than the other? The answer and the Minister said it is they are to do it to their best professional ability—their best professional ability. But as David Carter alluded to earlier it's going to be very difficult for the Treasury not to be sucked into the Government of the day or of that period—and it might be two Governments—and to judge those Governments of the day because of the emphasis the Government of the day has put on various pillars. How is the Treasury supposed to act completely independently? I didn't get an answer from the Minister. Should there be surveys every two years every year? And the Treasury surveys the people of New Zealand. Should they be surveying Australians' UK's Canadian's global wellbeing? How do we fit relative to other countries? Have we declined or improved in our wellbeing? Well that's very difficult to establish when we don't know what wellbeing means. It's much easier to compare ourselves internationally for example with a GDP: GDP per capita GDP gross GDP unemployment rate number of people on benefits of certain types. These numbers are much harder and easier to measure obviously and to account for and to take responsibility for. So the problem with this bill is it's quite redundant. It's unnecessary. All Governments on both sides are already and have always been concerned with the wellbeing—I talk about the standard of living—of New Zealanders. You know the previous Government talked about social investment and that's talking about the people who are at the bottom of the pile the most vulnerable having a strategy a five- 10- 15-year strategy to turn the tide for some of these people in our community. That is what we have been doing in the last Government and I know that is what the current Government is also endeavouring to do and aiming for. So this bill is redundant in that regard. They are what we are looking for and I'd like to highlight the difficulty that the Treasury is going to face when they look from Government to Government over time because these targets will move. So it's very difficult to report on a target when it keeps moving. The goalposts will keep changing over time as Governments emphasise different aspects and in fact over time as Treasury staff and the people within Treasury decide what is important in their independent view. That's a problem with this bill in my view because it doesn't lock in a number and I could be criticised all day for talking about numbers and being accountable for numbers but numbers actually do matter. Numbers do matter. GDP numbers do matter. That's not the only number absolutely. And if you only looked at GDP—it is a very blunt instrument—GDP per capita doesn't do much better. Unemployment rates are indicative but they're not as hard as they could be but numbers do matter and we on this side of the House would like to see wellbeing defined in whatever way. It might be environmental numbers: let's measure the water quality in this place this place and this place and let's see the improvement in that water quality over time. That's an example of what should be in this bill and in the Act and in the regulations that that might follow. A redundant bill vague not hard enough for my liking has some issues around the conflicts that Treasury will face every four years. That is why I cannot support this bill.