Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Usually I'd take this opportunity to make a few rebuttals of the previous speaker Simon O'Connor but I can't at this point because actually I fell asleep halfway through because he was so boring and I didn't hear what he had to say in the last half. So what I'll do is I'll go back to the previous—Simon O'Connor: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek the leave of the committee to repeat my last two contributions for the benefit of that member.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I'm sure if I sought that leave it would not be agreed.DARROCH BALL: So what I'll do is to—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Let me call the member. Thank you Darroch Ball.DARROCH BALL: Oh I just didn't think that was a point of order at all so I was just carrying on.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I'm sorry that is not for you to determine. Darroch Ball.DARROCH BALL: Thank you Madam Chair. So what I'll do is I'll carry on with my previous story because it was a good story about Lawrence Yule and what he was saying and the quote that he made. It does highlight an important point about the social investment approach and the amount of Kool-Aid that he has obviously consumed.In the same speech that he gave he used two different definitions of what the social investment approach was and he didn't even know it—he didn't even know it. The first thing he said was for a small number of families a massive investment by the State and caring in a wraparound set of services would have been far better than a broad-spectrum approach." Now that's what they want people to understand the social investment approach is. He also said that that side of the Chamber would "proudly champion that through this term of the Government" and when they get back in the Government because it's "the best way of supporting my children their children and all of New Zealand's children." So that's according to them what the social approach definition is.In the same sentence actually he said "The Rt Hon Bill English saw that and saw the cost to the State the nation and us as taxpayers if [it] wasn't done properly." That is the absolute foundation and basis for which they actually have created the social investment approach and how they implement it. They are hiding behind smoke and mirrors around the definitions about what's best for the children and what's best for the country but when it boils down to it all it is is about fiscal liability to the State—fiscal liability to the State.Do you know what backs up my comments? How did they measure them? Better Public Services targets. How more blunt a tool can you get than a target that someone has to meet and if they don't meet it that's it—if they don't meet it that's it. They measure success in very isolated silos. Then we can start talking about data collection and information gathering and things like that and how poor that has been around the social services around the world. But they use Better Public Services targets—or they used to—to put pins in the map or on the graph about how well and how much money they are saving as a State long term—saving as a State long term. Yet the members themselves can't actually hide behind the smoke and mirrors for too long before the truth comes out. Just like Lawrence Yule said it's about how much it costs to the State costs to the nation on us as taxpayers if it's not done properly. The only thing that one needs to do is to look at some research about what the social investment approach is—especially in New Zealand and how it was conducted.I want to quote from Dr Simon Chapple who was a senior economist and held public policy roles in New Zealand and abroad including at the Department of Labour and Ministry of Social Development. Now his definition of what the social investment approach is: "the key unifying feature is managing and incentivising the welfare system in terms of reducing the future fiscal liability"—reducing the fiscal future liability. So it's got nothing to do with what's best for the children or what's best for future generations or how many people they can get off a benefit and what's best for those individuals; it's all about reducing the future fiscal liability. It's not Bill English's fault because Bill English was a businessman and he represents big business and small business and that's how they run a business. It's all about commodities it's all about profits it's all about how you can make more money; it's not about the people and all of the wraparound issues that go with them—the wraparound issues that go with them. He goes on to talk about the Better Public Services targets. "If you'd look at the government's relevant Better Public Services goal the performance target is about reducing the fiscal liability [in] the welfare system and the number of beneficiaries."—[Time expired]"