 Our economy is tracking absolutely matters. Look, in New Zealand, we're roughly projecting 3% growth, our unemployment's at 3.9% on traditional measures, budget surpluses, people would look at us and go, you're doing okay. But we have homelessness at staggering rates. One of the highest rates of youth suicide in the OECD. Our mental health and wellbeing is not what it should be. So our plan is through the wellbeing work that we're doing, a living standards framework, and our wellbeing budget, where if you're a minister, you wanna spend money, you have to prove that you are going to improve intergenerational wellbeing. We are hoping to embed in actually what the public is asking us for, to address the societal wellbeing of our nation, not just our economic wellbeing. And did you have the same problem as the US? I mean, GDP went up and up and up, but the disposable household income went down. We've been caught during the post-GFC environment, we were caught a rock star economy. People look to us as an example, I think of an economy that recovered quickly, and yet during that period, some of those statistics were exactly that staggering, and not a measure of success, I think, that we would hold ourselves to. The trick for us is not just using wellbeing and some of the OECD work around different measures of wellbeing as a scorecard, because it would be very easy, I think, to just say, well, here's some new things that we're going to create data sets around. Instead of just scoring ourselves, how do we embed it in our decision-making? And I think that's what New Zealand is doing differently. This year, our wellbeing budget is one example. We're also changing our Public Finance Act to say you must include wellbeing priorities. We've even said, for instance, we now have to report on child poverty numbers every time we deliver a budget. We're fundamentally changing the way that we do policy-making to make sure that we deliver on wellbeing, not just economic success. And do you do surveys, your own surveys? We do, we do. For instance, we do our own household income surveys to look at material deprivation for children and households. We want to know whether or not you can afford healthy meals, whether or not you're sharing rooms in your home, whether you can afford multiple pairs of shoes, indicators of quality of life. So we do do that work. But what differentiates us probably from others is what we're doing around our budget. So usually, as you all know, budgets in the past perhaps looked at simply inputs. Yeah, how much are we spending on health? Now over the years, many economies have changed that to be able to communicate that better to the public. So instead of just saying we spend the X, you know, millions or billions of dollars, that then translated into how many operations are we purchasing and delivering. Now we're actually starting to say, well, actually, does that necessarily, is that a good indicator of the health of our people? So now we are looking at outcomes, not just how much we're spending on health and how many operations, but actually how well are our people? What's their life expectancy likely to be? And when you start looking at things in that context... So you put more money into education? Well, actually, no, it's not just... You stop looking just at health. So if I'm saying how healthy are the New Zealand people and what's contributing to their health, we might then start looking at some things like the work we have out of our longitudinal studies. We, in the 1970s, started studying the well-being of our kids from birth right up until their adulthood. And what we learnt from that was a child that grows up in poverty is more likely, even when they come out of poverty, to have the health impacts later in life. So if we're looking at how healthy our people are, we're not just then looking at how many surgeries will form of them. Actually, we then go right back to the beginning and saying, are they a child living in poverty? Because if we don't fix that, our health system picks it up later down the track. So in practical terms, what does it mean? Well, this budget, any minister who wants to deliver a bid and say, I want to spend some money here, has to show how it will benefit us at an intergenerational level. They also have to work with other ministers. So the Minister of Health might want to work with the Minister of Child Poverty and start delivering interventions that make a difference 30 years down the track, whereas politicians aren't going to benefit from some of that intervention. And so some of the work we're doing now will probably, will spread the benefits 20 years time. But if you start looking at a lens of politics through what we like to use, kindness, empathy, well-being, then actually it doesn't matter what happens just in a political cycle, it matters what happens over decades. But I think the reason we need to start taking this work seriously, and you're right, in the early days, I think it was... Yeah, because a lot of people do this fluffy thing here. What are you talking about? It was treated as woolly, nice to have, experimental. I think the OECDs really added some heft. But there's another reason I think it needs to be taken seriously. Right here at the World Economic Forum, we've heard discussion around what's happening to global growth rates, discussion around what's happening to trade. Now, those might be conversations we're having separately, but actually if you distill down what's happening to trade and some of our tit-for-tat trade wars, it's become a proxy for dissatisfaction, domestically. Some might argue that's what Brexit is. Some might argue some of the other populist rises that we've seen within Europe, that they are proxies for dissatisfaction. Our people are telling us that politics is not delivering and meeting their expectations. And so this is not woolly, it is critical. This is how we bring meaning and results for the people who vote for us. And it's not ideological either. It doesn't have to be something just progressive governments do. I think it is about finally saying this is how we match expectations and try and build trust back into our institutions again, no matter where we are in the world.