 Hello, Kirsten. Hello, Lauren. Hello to everyone. Well, this is, yes, our, in theory, last webinar for this season. It has been a very strong partnership with the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and with parliamentarians for the Global Gold. The idea on how we created, how we organized this webinar has a different perspective. This is a time to wrap up, to bring all our knowledge together. We already spoke about the recovery for the COVID-19 pandemic, in terms of health, in terms of economics. We spoke about the gender perspective and sustainability, and we addressed SDGs as the most important solutions, and as a roadmap for recovering after the COVID-19 pandemic. But as parliamentarians, we have different responsibilities. We are lawmakers. We are also the ones who allocate budgets. And of course, we have to work closely with the governments in terms of cooperation, in terms of working together, but of course also in terms of oversight. The idea today is how we can bring all these ingredients together. That's why we invited the panelists today, because they have the experience on new perspectives, on how to make everything work together. For example, there is a new approach for parliamentarians and governments, needs to decide the budgets with not only thinking on economic growth, it has to be also related with people's well-being and happiness. How are we going to make countries with economic growth, with jobs, with salaries, but also that are capable on improving health, education, housing. Also, of course, how are we going to make more inclusive legislation, legislation that is not discriminating anyone, and again, budgets. Budget allocation sometimes seems like a very obvious thing for parliamentarians, but it's not that obvious. We need to analyze how the government is performing, which are the results, and of course, to understand the new realities. This webinar is especially important, because next year, we are going to have a very complicated economic year. This pandemic is not over. We still have the health related problems, and of course, we are going to need budgets capable of designing solutions for 2021 to have a correct, an adequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But also, as some countries are doing to protect jobs, to help women, to understand that violence against women is also growing. So that's why we are here today. Thank you very much to our partners, to Dr. Jeffrey Sachs. Thank you very much, Kristin Bordel. This is a very important effort. Welcome to all, and I hope that we are going to have a very productive session. Thank you, Gabriella. And also for me, a very warm welcome to returning participants, but also to new participants. As Gabriella was saying, this is the fourth webinar in a series that we have co-organized among the IPU presidency, the SDSN network led by Jeffrey Sachs and myself. And I am the initiator of the new initiative for parliamentarians that I called Parliamentarians for the Global Goals. My background is as a long-term member of the Danish parliament and also as a minister of environment in Denmark. And I founded an all-party group in the Danish parliament when I was in a parliament. And my experience was that we really needed a more continuous global dialogue on how parliaments can be more involved and how parliamentarians can take concrete steps and initiatives in their own parliaments to make sure that we move ahead with accelerating action for STGs. So that's the background for the initiative Parliamentarians for the Global Goals. And I'm of course very pleased to partner up with Gabriella and Professor Sachs to be able to offer you this series of webinars where we have zoomed in on COVID-19 and STGs and how we can use the STG framework as a tool, as a strategic tool to design the policies that will make sure that we build back better from the pandemic. So that has been the overall topic of these webinars. And I agree with Gabriella that today we will take a more deep dive into some of the concrete tools that have already been practiced in parliaments around the world. We will hear from experts who themselves have worked with how parliaments can measure progress in other ways than the traditional GDP growth. And this is something that, moving forward from this pandemic, we have an opportunity now. This is also, it's a moment of crisis, but it's also a moment of opportunity where we can try to look at different ways of building back our economies and building back our societies using a more holistic approach and a more holistic lens on development. So that is what we hope to get to you today. And I'll also say, like the previous webinars, we very much encourage all participants to share their experiences and their best practices from your own parliamentary work. We have people participating from all over the world. And we really want to also use these webinars as a chance for you to inspire each other. And after this last webinar today of this series, we will look through the best practices that have been shared throughout all the four webinars and compile those to the inspiration for all of you who participated. And hopefully, this will give you some ideas for concrete steps that you can take. And for parliamentarians, for the global goals, this is the approach that we intend to use. This has to be something that is directly applicable for you. And also, that is why I'm encouraging you to, if you would like to join parliamentarians for the global goals, please reach out to me and contact me so that we can have a conversation about what is it exactly that you would like to see from us, what is it that you need in your work to be able to progress with SGGs. So without further ado, we will move to our expert panelists. And as Lauren said in the beginning, once we heard from our experts, we will move to the moderated debate and Q&A session. And we encourage you all to be very brief. If you ask for the floor, we will give each participant two minutes to ask questions or present an ideal best practice. And I'll try to moderate that as gently as I can. So I want to ask Lauren if you have this time also a slide with the agenda for today so that people can follow what happens? I will confess that I forgot to make a slide. But if you give me half a second, I could pull it up online. Not a problem. It's just for people to be able to follow. But all of you should have received the concept note with the program. And I'll try and run us through it. We will hear from Dr. Xiong Wang, who's the professor at KDI School of Public Policy and Management. And he will talk about measuring well-being on how to improve outcomes. Then we will hear from Mr. Roberto Gil Suat, the former president of the Mexican Senate about his experiences with budgeting for agenda. Also his work on COVID-19 and the SGGs. And thirdly, we will hear from Dr. Deborah Russell, who's the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee of the New Zealand Parliament on Inclusive Budgets. So first, let me give the floor to Dr. Xiong Wang, please. We're pleased to have you, Dr. Wang. Thank you. Let me share my slide. Hello, everyone. Good morning and good evening. I mean, I know you guys are from all over the world. I'm very honored to be invited here to introduce how can we measure the subject well-being or, in our words, happiness for our public policy. I've been working in Korea for a couple of years and now I served as associate editor for the World Health Report, which is one of the UN SDSN's flagship I know product. Well, we know that all the countries are measuring our well-being. For example, we are measuring GDP per capita, GNI, GDP growth rate, employment. So we already know that many countries are suffering a lot from the pandemic and there is a very big reduction in terms of their economic growth rate and employment. So most countries have been relying heavily on the objective well-being measures to know how the economy is going and what's the levels of people's well-being. Well, we have been using those measures for a long time. Well, we also know that there are limitations of those kind of objective measures. Let's take GDP as an example and there are a lot of concerns nowadays that what should be included in these indexes or what it should be excluded and how we know the weights of those kind of elements in the measures who really can represent our well-being. For example, the important aspects of life may just outside of the scope of those measures. There are many important things like social capital pollution, the quality of the governance, the volunteering work, and some shadow economy. They are not captured by our GDP measure. There are also some goods and services which are part of our GDP, but they may not reflect our well-being. For example, if there is more pollution, which may lead to a higher price for some values, the values of some existing like clean water or land, then which may result in even higher GDP. We know that this is not right. And also the economic indicators may not distinguish between the production of the good products and the bad ones. For example, like the prisoner service we know is part of the GDP, but we are not sure whether this really reflects our well-being. So there are many concerns about validity of the current measures for our well-being. Well, there is another issue is that the heavy emphasis on the economic indicators may make people more materialistic and less attentive to other important aspects of our life. For example, our friendship or social connections. Those are also important elements in our daily life. We know these kind of limitations of the material well-being measures, which may not be complete, may not be perfect. Therefore, we are trying to find some other better measures such as human development index, which is proposed by UNDP. This measure will cover more elements than GDP. For example, they have three elements, the income per capita, the education, and the health. So there are three elements. So it's more broad and more comprehensive than the traditional GDP. But the problem is which demands should we cover? And who should decide which elements are important for our life? Well, here they just cover three elements. But we don't know that, only just three elements are important for our life, for our well-being. And another technical problem is how could those information be integrated? And how do we adapt them? We need to create a one single-dimensional index. How do we do that? And also, for many measures, we have the measurement problems like education. We know the years of education in different countries, but how do we know the quality? It's very hard for you to compare the quality of education across countries and across regions. So, therefore, there are still many unsolved problems with those objective well-being measures. Therefore, in recent years, economists and psychologists start to argue that we can use the subjective well-being measures as very important compliments to our objective well-being measures. Well, this subject well-being, it's like subject, kind of different from the objective ones. Generally, there are three main categories of the subject well-being measures. The first main group is called a life evaluations. It's like, how do you evaluate your life in general? It's an overall assessment of life. It's based on people's self-assessment of their own life. And sometimes it's also called an evaluative happiness or cognitive happiness. We have three measures which is commonly used to measure the left evaluations, which are left satisfaction. It's general satisfaction with your life, or the overall happiness, or the last one is called a country ladder. It's proposed by the psychologist country. Later on next slide, I'm going to introduce you how they ask you the question. So these three measures are often used in different surveys to capture people's evaluative aspect of our happiness. Well, there is another one which is called emotions or effect. It's like, it captures people's feelings or emotional states, which is typically measured with reference to a particular point in time. For example, we're happy yesterday. It's like about yesterday or last week or last moment. It's like moment to moment, about short-term feelings. We have many names there, as you can see. Effective happiness, hedonic well-being or experienced happiness. These names are used extensively in different fields like psychology or economics. Basically, there are two broad categories there. One is positive effect, another one is negative effect. Positive means like whether you're happy yesterday or enjoy yesterday, enjoy your life. You laugh a lot yesterday. Inactive effect include sadness, worry, anger, depression, those kinds of negative feelings. The last big group is called millions of life or purpose of life. It's also like eudaimonia. It's a sense of meaning or purpose in life or good psychological function. But these days, we don't use it one very often because we found that it's highly correlated with the left evaluations. It's like if you feel you have a purpose in your life, generally, we'll be very satisfied with your life. They're highly correlated. So we generally use the first two broad categories to capture our subject well-being. Let me give you an example. As I mentioned, the work had to report. Nowadays, every year, we publish this report by the UN SDSM. Here, we use the data from Gallup Word Poll to make the rankings of the happiness in a word. We know that Denmark is often ranked as number one or number two, something like that, very high. Well, the main measure we use is country letter. The question is asked this way. Imagine a letter with steps number zero to 10 on the top. Zero means on the bottom and 10 means at the top. So which step of the letter would you say your personal feel you stand at this time? It's like it's a number between zero and 10 to indicate how satisfied are we with your life. And we also have a couple questions on positive effect and negative effect. So for the ranking, we mainly use the country letter because we found that this is much more relevant to our social and economic environment. Well, we have a couple of advantages of using such measures. First, this subject well-being can comprehensively measure people's experience and also evaluations. Anything that is important in our life would be reflected in such measure. So we don't need to list many important things in our life like our income or friendship or marriage or children, blah, blah, blah. We don't need those stuff. We just need one measure or one group of measure which may capture everything there because everything is important will be reflected in those comprehensive measures. So therefore the subject well-being provides us a common metric that can be used to compare different outcomes. We could measure like the impact of this policy or that policy because we have the same measure, same outcome. It also provides the weights necessary to convert diverse indicators into one aggregate measure of the course of life. We don't need to worry how to assign ways to different elements in our life. We can just use the one measure. And it also allows for a diversity of opinions about what makes a good life. Different people may have different opinions. Well, I don't care. If you feel happy, you are happy. We don't care what makes you happy. So this allows for freedom about different countries or different people's choice. Every road may lead to wrong. So we allow for different roads if we use this kind of measure. Of course, there are criticism and concerns. People say, oh, whether can we trust it? Is this measure really valid? Is it reliable? Because it's based on self-reports. Well, actually we have been used a lot of such kind of self-reports in our daily life. Are you satisfied with your service in a bank? Are you satisfied with your co-workers, with your supervisors? Are you satisfied with your professors? We have been using those kind of subject measures a lot. Well, we just use here that how you satisfied with your own life. Well, we have more and more empirical evidence to pose the reliability and also the validity of such kind of measures. The reliability means the extent to which measure may yield consistent results. And the validity refers to the extent to which a measure may actually assess what is supposed to assess. We want to know whether you are really measuring people's happiness. Well, in terms of reliability and validity, in both areas we have done a lot of research in psychology or economics and sociology. Well, for example, to measure the reliability, we may ask respondents the same way we have been questioned twice, or even more times within a single interview, but in different parts of the interview, to cross-check whether they answer the question consistently. We also examine the internal consistency of multiple items subject well-being scales. And we can also ask the questions over a longer time intervals. It's like I asked them many times in different times, time periods, to check the consistency. Well, for the validity, we can see what extent they are explained in terms of the left environments or other kinds of variables. So basically, we correlate them with other important elements in our life and see their correlation. We can also evaluate the extent to which they are correlated with other subjective and also object measures of development. We can also see whether and how the measure predict subsequent outcomes and behaviors. So there are many ways and methods to check the reliability and the validity. So anyway, it's not a perfect measure, but it does capture a very important aspect of our life. Well, we shall measure the subject well-being for the purpose of making a better public policy. There are a couple of reasons for that. And first, the national happiness itself is a policy goal. Because why should we develop our economy? Why we want to have a clean government? Why we want to attract investment? The ultimate goal is to make people have a better life. I think nobody will just, you know, disagree with this. We want to, we want everyone to have a better life. But what is a better life? Well, the SDGs have given us a lot of elements there, you know, clean water, you know, better social connections, inclusive groups, no poverty and education. But everything, all the elements there want to give people a better life. While here, national happiness measures is an indicator of a better life. If people feel happy, they are happy. Moreover, this kind of subject well-being measures is also very useful for economic analysis. For example, we can use this measure to identify the key determinants of our subject well-being. How income is important for our happiness. How education is important. And we also can evaluate the non-market goods, service and costs. For example, if the air pollution increased by a certain level, how much monetary cost would that be? So how much money should we compensate for the loss? Well, there are many measures, you know, developed by the, you know, scientists. Well, this subject well-being measure gives us another option. We can compare the relative values of your income versus the non-market goods such as air pollution. We collect the data from individuals and we run some regressions. We can value, you know, give the value to this kind of air pollution or other kind of non-market goods like disability, something like that. We can capture the monetary value. Therefore, using the measure, we can use the measure to improve the governmental or organizational effectiveness when they make their decision. We can evaluate the trade-offs of different policies or, you know, multiple factors. We can evaluate the impact of the public goods and service. And we can even, you know, set the fines or compensation for the loss of welfare measuring, as I mentioned. If people, you know, are luckily got disabled, how much you should compensate? Well, currently, we just based on their loss of the income or some, you know, or some other kinds of measures. But using such a method of the subject well-being, we can capture or measure how much happiness they are. They can, they will be lost from such kind of disability. And compared to their coefficient of the income, then we can calculate the monetary values of the disability and other kinds of, you know, illness. Therefore, we know the monetary values we should compensate the people. This, at least, can be used as an alternative measure or a method for calculating that. And we can also identify the vulnerable groups in the society, like the old people or the young children. Because we know that if you look at the mature well-being, the East Asian kids are quite good. They have generally wealthy families and the mature well-being is quite good. But if you look at their mental illness or subject well-being, they're quite unhappy because they have a very heavy burden for their coursework. So without using such kind of measures, we don't know that. But there are many ways to use subject well-being measures. Let me give you some examples for the policy purpose. First, as I mentioned, we can use those measures to evaluate the monetary cost of noise, air pollution, and congestion. And we can use the measures to find that the impact of unemployment actually extends beyond the unemployed people and their family. They even affect their community where people live in. Why? Because people may worry about being unemployed, even they have a job. Well, you know, with this kind of subject well-being measures, we can capture the impact. So therefore, economists find out that the tradeoff between unemployment rate and inflation rate is not one over one. Well, traditionally, we assume that the harm done by unemployment rate and inflation rate is the same. So then we add up them to create something called a military index. But actually, nowadays, we find out that the unemployment have a larger impact than inflation rate. It's not one over one. It's 1.66 over one. That means we may tolerate a higher inflation rate to lower the unemployment rate. Well, this may be used to guide our national policy on these kind of interest rate or other policies. And we also found out that the workplace environment, not just income, matters a lot, such as the trust and the support of supervisors matter a lot for people's job satisfaction and left satisfaction. I think you guys may have this kind of perception that if you are working in a pleasant workplace, it's not just a matter of money. It's a matter of whether you have a very good relationship in the workplace. Those steps matter a lot for our job and left satisfaction. In turn, a higher job satisfaction and left satisfaction may lead to a higher productivity and lower turnover rate. This has already been proved by many studies. Well, how to track the subject well-being during our COVID-19, because this topic is related with COVID-19. Let me give me the last two minutes to finish up my presentation. Well, actually, we know that the COVID-19 has been host to very severe challenges on our well-being, both objective and subjective. But not so many government efforts have been spent to track people's subject well-being. Almost nonexistent. But we do know that there is a very big negative impact on our emotions, our living valuations, and the mental health. Our WHR team, the World Health Report team, has been working with a couple of institutes like UCF and UCL and other Harvard University to track the people's behaviors and happiness during the COVID-19. So we are preparing a couple of articles and papers for next year's World Health Report on this topic. And we also exploit the text-based big data to measure the expressed emotion from, like, in the Twitter, Facebook, or China versions of Twitter, the Google trends, we can check how people, you know, say on their, you know, SNS to infer people's feelings and emotions. Well, we already know that some governments have been moved towards this direction, like the UK Office of the National Statistics has launched their own survey about people's subject well-being since 2011. And some governments appointed the Minister of Happiness, for example, the UAE, started from 2006-10. And the Chinese government announced that their policy goal is to bring happiness to its people, to make citizens have a strong sense of fulfillment, happiness, and security. And as far as I know, the Korean government also takes the happiness of people very seriously these days. But still, we need more actions from both governments who are non-governmental organizations to treat the people's subject well-being more seriously and consider it as a very important measure to guide our policies and actions. And I think our guests here are, you know, have the, you know, the power to influence the policy. You should consider this kind of stuff when you design some policies. And we need the official statistical agencies to collect the subject well-being data in a more consistent way and continuously in a larger scale so that we know better about the current status of the subject well-being. And here there are references here. If you got interested, you may read more books on this, you know, happiness policy and happiness. There are a couple of, you know, research here for your reference. All right, that's a very brief introduction to the measures of the well-being for public policy. I'm very glad to share all those kind of stuff with you. So please feel free to ask me questions later. Thank you. That's it. Thank you very much, Dr. Wang. This is very interesting hearing your thoughts and comments about sort of the pros and cons of the subjective happiness index. So thank you very much. And we'll make sure that your slides and references are also shared with the participants. So thank you very much. So the next speaker, let me see here, is Mr. Robato Gil Suat from the Mexican Senate. He'll be sharing his experiences on budgeting for gender COVID-19 response and the SCGs. Please, the floor is yours. I don't know if you can see the slides. Yeah. We can see them, but we can see them in your PowerPoint window. They are not yet full screen. Let me give you one minute, please. Yep. No? Yeah. Beautiful. Perfect. Thank you. Good morning for everyone. Hello. And thank you very much to the Sustainable Development Solutions Network for inviting me to this relevant conversation with such distinguished speakers and guests. Thank you, Mrs. IPU President Gabriela Cueva. You shall feel very proud of your work at the IPU because your country, Mexico, is very proud indeed. So I send you a hug from your country, President. So yes, definitely, COVID has shaken us in many ways. In many more ways we could have ever imagined. As Dr. Juan pointed out, COVID has forced us not only to alter the ways that we work, learn, and live, but also to look at some social problems in a more complex way. Also, I will add, it has shown how good political representation is crucial in fighting such a crisis. Bad political representation is costing too many lives. I will talk about how I believe we can change, how, I will talk about how I believe we can change this representation in parliament, specifically how congressman and congresswoman can be a part of redefining policy objectives, instruments, and accountability, taking into consideration the lessons COVID-19 has taught us. My first somewhat bold statement will be that legislators are actually policymakers. We tend to believe that policymaking is a little monopoly of the government, that is the executive branch. But I believe that this perception is wrong, or at least is a false proxy for the true value of the democratic process. Legislators are not only the representatives drafting and approving laws or building democratic consensus around decisions. Legislators are in fact policy makers. And the budget approval is perhaps the process that best proved this statement. Let me explain. This process has three main stages. First, objectives and policy priorities are defined in the political process. This discussion generally involves human rights, economic development, and democratic principles. That is, what do we want to solve and why? Secondly, how do we think we can solve it? That is, in a context of economic scarcity, we need to choose the best tools means to serve our goals. As parliamentaries, you do not only have the choice between approving or not approving the budget. You actually have a myriad of policy options to satisfy the objects of that budget. So democratic consensus around the best options, again, means, first and most importantly, choosing the instruments and secondly, convincing a majority to bet on it. By choosing, you also exercise political representation at its core. It is actually said that there should be no taxation without representation. It's the core of the parliament. Assigning money to different programs is precisely putting a face to representation by benefiting some constituents over others. This allocation is again policy making. History tells us that the ancient parliaments will only comply to monarch witches. The time for passive parliamentarians is long past. You now need to be proactive in this debate. Third, the process entails overseeing and accountability. This is a very important part of the process. All year around in legislative committees, through technical and specialized work, and then after the fiscal year, by auditing expenditure and evaluating if policy and programs were useful to meet their ends and if some changes need to be made for the next budget. In my opinion, choosing ends and means, building consensus around budget allocations and accountability defines the core of the representative function of the modern and democratic parliaments. So I hope I have convinced you. You are all policy makers. And as some famous guy from New York used to say, with great power comes great responsibility. And what is your responsibility in the context of COVID-19? In my opinion, COVID has shown us that social problems are much more complex than we thought. We used to think, for example, inequality was mainly a matter of income, and we approve programs that will help generate income. But COVID showed us that the devil is in the details. Inequality reaches many more aspects. For example, two women. And I choose women because just because of their gender, they will face an initially inequality. But say a woman who has a good education, is able to work from home and take care of her children, has a technological means to be connected. She can maybe call some service to have food, she has savings, she has medical insurance, she can call a private doctor in case she feels sick. She has a very, very different situation as another woman who, for example, has to work in essential services, cannot stay at home and take care of her children, and has no technological means for them to attend online classes, no savings, no medical insurance, and she cannot miss her job if she falls sick. So inequality cannot be understood as just an income problem anymore. And it should have never been understood in such a simple way. But COVID has forced us to see how limited our policymaking is if we don't consider these different aspects in tailored inequality. And I will go further as to remind us that the state in most countries facing this pandemic has shown to be insufficient to accomplish its main goal, providing security. Why? Because security can no longer be understood as only the absence of a limitation or a threat anymore. Security now has to mean having the condition to develop life projects. And this is how we should be thinking the context of the next year budget. We have the means, we have the technology, we have the capacity, and we have the institutions to change our objectives, our instruments, and our indicators, as Dr. Sun said, of well-being. The only remaining question is if we will have the will to do so, and if the Democratic Parliament is prepared to do so. And I certainly hope that the answer for everyone is yes. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for your insights. And everyone, we will also make sure we share your slides. Thank you so much. And then we will move to our last expert speaker, Dr. Deborah Russell, who is Chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the New Zealand Parliament. Please, Dr. Russell, the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you very much for the invitation to speak. And what for me is it's about Court 1 in the morning now, so coming to you from down under in New Zealand. And just an apology, I have a teenage daughter who is out late and she may walk through the back of my screen at some stage. But our New Zealand Parliament has made a big emphasis on including parliamentarians' children in the parliament, so that might just be a manifestation of that. We have in New Zealand explicitly included well-being in our budget processes. I've got here with me a copy of the Public Finance Well-being Amendment Act 2020. What it did, this act did, was it amended our Public Finance Act. And in particular it explicitly said that every four years our Minister of Finance, who is the equivalent of the treasurer in some systems or the Secretary responsible for treasurer or so on, but our top finance parliamentarian must every four years present to the parliament a report on well-being using indicators prepared by our Treasury, reporting on the state of well-being in New Zealand, on how it has changed over time, and sustainability of well-being in New Zealand. So that is now incorporated in our law as something which must be done every, at least every four years. The same act also includes in it requirements for our annual budget, that our annual budget must have within it a report on how well-being objectives have guided the government's budget decisions. And in particular those well-being objectives must relate to the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being and to other matters that the government considers support long-term well-being in New Zealand. So that's a piece of legislation that went through just this year. It was finally enacted this year. It was actually working its way through the legislative process for six or eight months before it became actually enacted. It wasn't our first step in terms of including well-being in a budget process. Our budget cycle means that the annual budget is usually presented in about May each year. So it's under preparation from December through to March, April when final decisions are made. In 2019 our budget was the well-being budget. And what it had was very, very explicitly a focus on well-being. So within that the government chose some priorities that it was particularly interested in that it thought was a special priority for the year would have been the 2019-2020 year. And its priorities were taking mental health seriously, improving child well-being, supporting Māori and Pacifica aspirations, building a productive nation, transforming the economy and investing in New Zealand. So those were its priorities but it saw them all through the framework of well-being as well as looking at traditional economic measures. And you might say well then the question becomes and it was a question that Dr Wang talked about a little bit. It's how do you actually measure this well-being and what is going on with it? And they are quite beautiful words well-being. We can all talk about happiness and eudaimonia or flourishing and well-being and those sorts of concepts. But actually measuring it is a very tricky and difficult task. Fortunately in New Zealand the part that I'm part of came to government. Our Treasury had already been working on a living standards framework. And that living standards framework actually worked really nicely in with the well-being objectives. So what I want to do at this stage is I hope this is going to work is take us through to our Treasury's website where we have now the living standards dashboard where we can actually measure what's going on in a variety of domains that relate to well-being. Or just try the sharing screen. Right now Ken have I are you seeing my screen my living standards framework screen now? Not yet. It looks like you haven't started the sharing. Let me try again. Sorry. So we've got the living standards. So what you're seeing in front of you now comes from our Treasury. You can go on and look for it yourself at some later stage and see what's going in there. And what is sitting there in the Treasury is the living standards framework dashboard what we're measuring in our country. And we do that across 12 domains. I've got to take you through to those domains now. And in each of the domains that we work in a civic engagement and governance cultural identity environment health housing you can read them down the left hand side of the screen there. So going from there and through into I'll just go into civic engagement in government. It's right up the top. So that's the reason that I've chosen it. And what we try to do there is to have a variety of indicators that are related to civic engagement and governance. In particular the indicators we've got here are saved corruption trust in government institutions and voter turnout. So they're all ways of measuring civic engagement in government. And they can be broken down by population groups and in fact we can go on screen we can go on to the dashboard at any time to see how many people trust government what our voter turnout is like what perceived corruption is like and so on. And they are all ways of measuring civic engagement. We can do the same sort of thing with cultural identity. And again we have a number of a couple of identity measures here. One is a capacity to express identity. But the second one which is very important in New Zealand is the number of people who speak to Rio Maori and lots of us New Zealanders will use plenty of Rio Maori words and the like but actually speaking it is a different matter and so it's an important measure to us. So as you can see we have a set of measures there where we are trying to measure well-being. And just to go straight to some of the stuff that Dr Wayne was talking about we do have measures for subjective well-being as well. And it's been measured over family well-being and general life satisfaction and a sense of purpose in one's life. So that's what we're doing across all these domains and I do invite you as parliamentarians at some stage to have a look at this because it's one of those really attempts to do something quite new really in terms of actually measuring well-being across a variety of indicators. And the government is required to try to improve those in particular. I'm just going to go back to stop sharing now. The final point I wish to make here in respect of this ways that we are trying to measure well-being is that it's not perfect. It's not right. It's the beginnings of ways of understanding how to measure well-being. When we were first starting to talk about a well-being budget and working off our treasuries living standards framework which they had already started developing as the part of the finance and expenditure committee at parliament we had a series of briefings on living standards and how they measured across the world and all the sorts of research that is going on into well-being. And we had some fascinating presentations but the one I thought was most valuable was one from Professor Marilyn Waring whom I'm sure some of you know in the context of counting women's work and unpaid and unvalued work. And Professor Waring talked about how when she had been a member of parliament and chair of the finance and expenditure committee and she had got interested in the measurement of GDP and of course these days we regard GDP as almost fixed in stone. We know what it is. We can describe it. We know what goes into measuring it but when GDP or gross domestic product was first introduced as a measure it was deeply controversial and no one quite knew what should or shouldn't go into GDP and over time the sorts of activities that were included in GDP expanded. And so one of the things we have to remember as we set out to measure well-being and to develop our understanding of it and to include it in our national accounts and the way we do our budgets is that we are making the first steps in doing this. They're not baby steps, they're big giant steps and they're taking place all over the world as countries are grappling with this and trying to do it. And over time we will get better at doing it and our very first attempts are not necessarily going to be brilliant but they are a very good start and we've got to start somewhere on doing it. I have a final thought to add here and I do want to talk about in terms of COVID-19. I mentioned a few moments ago that in terms of New Zealand's annual budget cycle the budget cycle starts in about December and the really significant work where ministers are meeting and making budget proposals and trying to get stuff funded and alike happens in February-March but by March the budget is settling down into a fairly final shape. Of course March is when, well maybe not of course, but that is when COVID-19 hit New Zealand. So we had a budget underway and then we went into a four-week lockdown and the budget that was under preparation got thrown out and an entirely new budget was prepared instead in order to try to deal with the effects of COVID-19. But what led that budget was the thought that we needed to lead with a health response and if we could get a health response right then the economic response would be right and that has been the sort of leadership that has I think has given us quite a good outcome we hope in New Zealand there's a way to go yet and of course we don't know yet. So it is still a well-being budget that was prepared earlier this year but now it was focused on rebuilding together and it was driven obviously by economic concerns as to how to deal with a pandemic but also driven very much by the need to ensure that we maintained and if at all possible enhance New Zealand's well-being and that's what's sitting in the 2020 budget. Thank you. Thank you so much Dr Rossell. This was incredibly informative and I think really innovative and useful to see like the measuring and the dashboard that's it's very truly inspiring. Thank you for sharing that.