2. Question No. 2—FinanceHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when she said If you're a Minister and you want to spend money you have to prove that you're going to improve intergenerational well-being"?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes I agree with the Prime Minister's full quote which while excellent is too long for me to repeat in this answer. But I do want to thank the member for the opportunity to reiterate that this year's well-being Budget represents a significant step forward in producing a Budget that is focused on long-term outcomes driven by a more joined-up Government. As the member knows there is a large amount of expenditure that is demand-driven or is the result of pressures that have built up over many years that will have to be met as well.Hon Amy Adams: So when it comes to assessing Budget bids and their long-term outcomes as he talked about as part of his approach does the Government regard avoiding diabetes as more or less important to New Zealanders' well-being than having contact with their neighbours?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the member is trying to do is draw together the targets that her Government set with the high-level objectives of the Government's Living Standards Framework. The member needs to remember that the Government's Living Standards Framework includes issues like social connections but also includes health housing knowledge and skills the environment jobs and earning income and consumption. On this side of the House we want to make sure that we're measuring all of the things that make up someone's well-being.Hon Amy Adams: In light of that is he aware that the new Living Standards Framework assessment model that Treasury have confirmed is being used for this year's Budget values avoiding diabetes at $3900 whereas having improved contact with your neighbours is valued at double that at $8500?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury is responsible for the weightings that they give various matters within the Living Standards Framework. On this side of the House we're committed to a more rigorous approach to assessing Budget bids than has ever happened in the past.Hon Amy Adams: Well why does that more rigorous approach include a cost-benefit model sitting behind the well-being Budget that treats making a new friend as having nearly double the well-being impact of avoiding a trip to the emergency department?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I appreciate that for members opposite the issue of making friends is a very difficult one politically speaking but what I would say is to quote Treasury's chief economist "The framework which sets out criteria for assessing well-being is now being used to assess bids for money as part of the Budget process. It will encourage more transparency and evidence for outcomes that Governments typically try to achieve."Hon Amy Adams: Well does he agree with the new well-being cost-benefit model that under this Government's priorities having an international tourist in New Zealand for a day is of greater benefit than providing a day of dementia care for a New Zealander?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is selectively choosing elements from an overall framework for assessment. This is assessment that Treasury undertakes independently of the Government.David Seymour: How does Treasury put a price on these things such as friendship?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Those are matters that the member should take up with Treasury which he would've had the opportunity to do if he'd bothered to show up to the select committee.Hon Amy Adams: So how can he or this House or in fact New Zealand have confidence in the processes behind his well-being Budget when it's underpinned by a cost-benefit model that assigns large value to things like joining a club making a friend or having more contact with your neighbours ahead of improving real health outcomes for New Zealanders?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I repeat my answer to the original question for the member. The well-being framework—which she has seen before—includes environment health housing income and consumption jobs and earnings and yes it also reflects other matters that are important to our well-being because the framework that Government used was what delivered us the world's worst homelessness terrible mental health outcomes and child poverty. I back this because we're actually going to address those issues."