Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I think it's a great opportunity just to put on record you know the acknowledgment for the Rt Hon Bill English for instigating the framework with Treasury. I think it's important at this point for the National Opposition to get a few things on record for those that are listening into the debate. This is not a debate about whether or not we think the Government should be supporting people's wellbeing; that's a no-brainer. Governments left right and every other colour had been doing that for generations. I made that point in my first contribution which unfortunately I think the Minister—so you know my point was actually that this is not a debate about wellbeing; this is a debate about whether wellbeing should be sitting in the Public Finance Act both in terms of the objectives in Part 1 and in this instance the report and whether or not it is a core function for Treasury to be doing that and producing a wellbeing report because actually there is a social wellbeing agency. It was previously the Social Investment Agency. So why is it that we have two different departments two different agencies potentially doing the same work?So this bill is all about the Public Finance Act and whether or not it should be changed to include the wellbeing objectives and the Treasury reporting back on progress. That's this particular debate. The debate isn't whether or not we believe as a party that there should be outcomes and there should be measurable progress towards the outcome because that was the Better Public Services targets. That was not just a function for a few people sitting in Treasury writing a report; that was a whole-of-Government approach. It was a whole-of-Government approach with Ministers taking accountability for the results being produced and the outcomes that my colleague Andrew Bayly was speaking about before the very people collectively our Parliament serves—whether it was reducing the number of victims of crime whether it was getting people into work whether it was reducing family violence whether it was increasing the rate of immunisation to keep children in greater health whether it was increasing educational achievement. So this is a debate about the mechanism.Actually in terms of wellbeing the architect of this the Rt Hon Bill English and the architect of social investment was all about the previous Government's focus on producing outcomes. So this is a debate about changing the Public Finance Act and saying actually you know most people would recognise Treasury's role in providing sound economic advice. So my questions now are: why is it that this work is being shifted to Treasury when we have a social wellbeing agency that actually has a role already and actually if anything their responsibilities have been stripped back? So when you have an agency that is dedicated to wellbeing why is it that you now have another agency that is writing the report? It's interesting because if you look at social development for example I think there are 111 people in their insights team. So they're measuring things all of the time. You now have—well it was the Social Investment Agency; it's now the Social Wellbeing Agency. So why is it that this change in legislation actually then means in this particular part that the wellbeing report sits with Treasury to measure the state of wellbeing in New Zealand? I've asked a series of questions there that I'd like the Minister to answer.