 I'm probably one of the most privileged people in this room being able to work with Mike Taitoka and he hasn't shown you half of what he can do and he shared a little bit about where he's come from to join up with our crew who are really trying to hack the way we do impact investment. The other people who have joined us as co-founders, Professor Sean Hendi, who's going to rustle up the scientists, we've got Natalie Whittaker, some of you will know one of New Zealand's early stage investors who's been a force for good in social investment and doing platforms for communities to empower them and Robert O'Brien, some others of you will know who's doing a lot of the big thinking around the low level technology and that sort of thing. What I'm going to do is share with you a bit of my journey and why I'm here too and as Mike was saying, I'm going to talk about people because our people have been colonised too by a lot of wishful thinking and a lot of impact investment is not evidence-based and it can cause more harm than good sometimes and so I'm going to share the journey I took over the last 15 years trying to bring some new tools into government to make government accountable for outcomes. I'm going to show you just very briefly and quickly why if we don't do this we can have horrific outcomes yet all be very comfortable and complacent about how good we're doing our jobs and then I'm going to show you the value of actually having better evidence and what that can do. This is real data of a real person who we started looking at. That is a police referral to Youth Justice Family Group Conference and some time in the Youth Justice Residence. The people running the Youth Justice Facility would have met all their KPIs. As would have the care and protection people, the little green triangles and that there are notifications because that kid's been thought they might be being abused and being taken into care, taken off their whanau, taken off their family and they would have met all of their KPIs in their little silo as they would have done when this kid was 11 and got notified and was found with sexual abuse findings and was first taken into care or when they were eight and were notified and found with physical and sexual abuse findings but they got no service that time or when they were five or six and were notified multiple times with physical and sexual abuse or indeed I could keep going way back when they were three, they were first notified with behavioural difficulties. All of those government agencies probably met their hundreds of KPIs around delivering services and the wishful thinking around whether I found a group conference works or not only really becomes apparent when you start to join up the data and look at that person's life journey through the system being colonised by the system. They actually did quite well. We got a NCO level two then dropped out of school early but we know from joining up some of the youth services data that somebody tried to help that kid with a new dependent youth benefit and some services to help them. That's probably why they entered the tertiary education which is pretty remarkable given that kind of background but not remarkably enough because now they're in prison and we see this data all of the time. We found and we only started spending real money and getting real services to this kid when they're about 11 or 12. We found 10,000 people in New Zealand who'd been through this journey, most of whom had been through SIFs costing $5.6 billion and having appalling outcomes for them and their victims. And when we start unlocking people up, most of the people at a long-term lifetime service offenders have a journey like this. And I guess I want to say that most of what people are doing is meeting their KPIs and helping someone get locked up, getting your notification on time, doing your family good conference. The real outcome indicator is that. These are the real outcomes for the people who enter the state sector in these kind of circumstances. It's the same in health. We invest late. We invest in, you know, we could be investing a lot of earlier and early onset stroke of better rehabilitation and youth mental health and diabetes but we invest late. We invest in tertiary mental health. I sat with my data science colleagues around the state sector and we did a little bit of a straw poll and we think about 80% of the money spent in the government is going south. It's wasted. We don't think that it's getting value. What normally happens if you've got 10 people all receiving the same service? Four of them wouldn't have needed it, right? Because they were going to get better anyway. Two of them might have been affected by the service. And then the other, how many left? Six? Four? It doesn't work for them. So you're getting two out of 10, right? This is education data. The lines there represent three of the very highest needs programmes for kids in education who need help to get NCA level two. Trouble is, the kids most at risk are up the other end. They're only getting 10% of that funding. Most of the funding is going to the rich white kids who kind of are noisy and can stick up for themselves and get the money. I mean, it's the same everywhere. We're not spending money well. I want to show you what happens when you do. So this is a work search service, right? So the unemployment, if you get unemployment benefits, someone will give you a work search service, a seminar like this where you teach people how to do the CVs and things. We can now measure, they get $1 to any return on investment based on the ability to change two people's lives and how much that gives back to the pot. What happens when you then study, well, hang on. We're targeting this at four people who aren't being affected. If you didn't need it, they were going to get a job anyway. And the other four people who this doesn't work for, because English is a second language or something, you know, when you start to use evidence and target it at the people things most work for, you can lift the impact by four times, right? Get up to $4.60 return on investment. That return doesn't have to be fiscal. It could be returns on reduced suicide, better educational outcomes. We're just measuring it fiscally here because it's a benefit system. So both we don't use data well to look at and be accountable for what we're doing. Our outcomes indicators are appalling. I think the justice sector is just a big outcome indicator. And we don't need more money. We don't need to spray more money around the social sector. We need to start spending it accountably and spend it better and start learning what works and stop taking kids off their families when that's not working for them and then locking them up permanently, you know. So it looks double our impact by getting evidence-based. What's united, Sean Hendy, Mike Totoko, me, Natalie Whitaker and Robert O'Brien is a goal to allow impact investment to learn, to constantly learning about what works. And people say, you know, you shouldn't experiment on people to find out, you know, measure how well you're going. Actually, the tragedy is that every time you have a lovely, pretty idea about what's going to work and run that, you're doing an experiment on people. What's unethical is that you're not learning from it. Kia ora.