EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Prime Minister has committed government to increasing the consideration of wellbeing across all policy, with an expectation that policy processes and priorities will evolve to better achieve wellbeing outcomes and enable greater governmental accountability for those outcomes. The policy infrastructure supporting this commitment is under development, and arguably includes four key initiatives at this time: • The Living Standards Framework (LSF), which aims to provide a high level framework for measuring and analysing intergenerational wellbeing; • Whānau Ora outcomes, which aim to articulate dimensions of Māori wellbeing and that Te Puni Kōkiri has recommended an overlay of the LSF; • Indicators Aotearoa, led by Statistics New Zealand, which aims to identify a comprehensive suite of wellbeing indicators; • Various departmental and issue specific approaches to identifying the dimensions of wellbeing, many of which include a distinct or integrated reflection of tikanga Māori. It appears these four types of work are being progressed in parallel, with less than optimal co-ordination between the work streams, as well as ambiguity about the respective objectives and potential operation of the frameworks. This report aims to provide a view on a potential relationship between the prominent frameworks: the LSF, Whānau Ora and He Ara Waiora. He Ara Waiora emerged as an issue specific wellbeing framework, specific to the tax system, but has since evolved into a framework that aims to reflect a mātauranga Māori sourced approach to the concept of wellbeing that can be implemented as a comprehensive framework to measure and analyse intergenerational wellbeing. The report argues that while all three frameworks have merit as a way of understanding, measuring and analysing wellbeing, we believe there should be consideration of using He Ara Waiora as the parent framework that the LSF, Whānau Ora and Indicators Aotearoa are integrated within. Our rationale includes: • That the LSF, while it is supported by OECD precedents, has a reductive and fragmentary approach to identifying the dimensions of wellbeing. We consider a framework that provides aspirational direction, while also including practicable elements to guide policy development, is preferrable. • We consider that He Ara Waiora provides such direction to the concept of wellbeing, and importantly, provides guidance as to the inter-relationship between the dimensions of wellbeing. • We strongly emphasise that it is not possible to retain the integrity of mātauranga based approaches to wellbeing if the LSF is the parent framework, due to the inherent relationality within mātauranga that the LSF will inevitably and improperly disaggregate. • We also recognise that adopting He Ara Waiora as a parent framework for wellbeing would be a bold step for Aotearoa New Zealand, but we consider that if carefully approached it would be of high value to all New Zealanders. We also note that He Ara Waiora is currently an incomplete framework that requires further development and a wider engagement process. He Ara Waiora to date has been developed through a principled engagement process with Māori that we consider is the best example of government partnering with Māori. The critical element has been that pūkenga Māori have driven the design of the model and have effectively been ‘incubating the framework’. We strongly recommend that Māori continue to incubate the model, supported by The Treasury, and that if there is subsequent engagement with Māori on He Ara Waiora that the engagement process is led by the pūkenga Māori involved in the design. We caution that if either of these elements are disregarded that He Ara Waiora will have a fatal loss of legitimacy within the Māori community and that the LSF will be exposed to concerted Māori criticism as failing to appropriately recognise Māori concepts of wellbeing.