Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. We heard from Minister Sepuloni about their view on social investment which was more of a new-age feel-good Kumbaya" sort of approach towards social investment. I'd be interested to hear from the Minister that's currently in the chair Peeni Henare about what he sees as what social investment is. So while they've talked about the fact that it's all about the people and not about the money can I say to the members that are over there and the Ministers that they'll find out very quickly—and I'm sure they have—that the money is just as important as the approach they are taking.Can I remind the Government of the day and the members across the Chamber where that social investment actually came from and the line of inquiry—because that's what they call it: it's a line of inquiry—as to the reasons why we ask the questions that we ask.Diane Robertson who was the previous commissioner for the Auckland City Mission did a study called the 100 study. What it was was 100 clients that had come through their services. In that study they'd ask them the questions about the services that they received over a period of around about three months. As the review came back the study was then amended and then also brought forward so that we could understand under the executive summary what were the key issues and what were the key findings.It was out of one of those studies in particular that the Rt Hon Bill English—and I do take a bit of an exception to Greg O'Connor talking about the fact that there was a little bit of a flippant approach to social investment because out of that approach here's one of the findings of that story. There was a mother who had two children. One of those children had Asperger's. So when she was looking for the social health and medical support that she needed—in a period over three months in particular—she had 22 different service providers that she went and approached. Now out of those 22 95 percent of them did not give her the service that she needed were not hospitable and were not commendable to actually help her in any other way bar one service provider. And here's the one service provider that not only met her needs but accommodated for her and her children and found a way for her to achieve what she needed to achieve: that organisation was Instant Finance.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Is Instant Finance is this bill?Hon ALFRED NGARO: I'll tell you what this is a true study. It has to do with the bill—this is about social investment; it's about the bill that's in line here.Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. As entertaining and as interesting as it is this has nothing to do with the bill. It's not a debate on social investment; it's a debate on a bill.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That is solely for my judgment. This is quite a wide-ranging debate now that we are taking it as one part. Social investment is certainly part of the discussion around the dissolution of the Families Commission.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you Madam Chair. I think that'll be a great learning for the bearded elf on the other side. He may learn a little bit.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member knows very well that he is to refer to other members by their proper name only.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): He does indeed. Thank you.Hon ALFRED NGARO: I withdraw and apologise. The point that I'm trying to make which does relate to the bill—and this is about research and evaluation and the member can look at that; that's the reason why it's called the social policy evaluation and research unit—was about the line of inquiry that the social investment approach was taking. It was not based because it was policy people that came together; it was based on actual practitioners and stakeholders that were on the ground working with family and whānau. What they said was this: the system needs to change. In other words there's a line of inquiry that needs to ask some pretty tough questions to the system.The reason why the Rt Hon Bill English took this—and it's been part of his legacy that he leaves behind here in Parliament and in New Zealand—was first of all to hold the mirror to the system itself to all the Government departments about the fact of how do we know that we're making a difference.So here's the question: for every dollar that we invest for every dollar that's taxpayer funded into a system called the Government departments how do we know it's making a difference for family and for whānau? That was the line of inquiry that was asked—hence the reason why it was holding them to account. While Mr O'Connor gets up and talks about how it's about the Public Service putting their feet up—no it wasn't but it was asking them that hard question: how do we know that we're making a difference? That's the line of inquiry.This is not about feel-good. This is not a "Kumbaya". This is more than just about the people; it's about how the system best serves the people. So I have to say the question now to the Minister who's sitting there is this: will they continue the same line of inquiry? Yes you've said you're going to take up the social investment. You've then appropriated the different roles and responsibilities to the Government of the day. Sorry Madam Chair—they've appropriated different roles of responsibilities out to the different Ministers the joint Ministers that are responsible. The question that I have is this: will you still follow the line of inquiry that asks the tough questions to Government departments? Will you then say to them this: "How do you know—". Oh sorry Madam Chair I do apologise; I've been using your name.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress.Debate interrupted.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill and no progress on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m."