Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Madam Speaker thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill. So obviously at this late stage the position of the National Party has been made clear by previous speakers so—Matt Doocey: Yeah we don't like this.CHRIS PENK: —I don't intend to rehearse that too far. My colleague has said We don't like this." I just thought it would be worth indicating some of the reservations that we've had notwithstanding the good intentions that may have—and let's be generous—of course underpinned the intention of the bill.So whereas the purpose of course is to promote the prosperity and wellbeing of New Zealanders and contribute to a sustainable and productive economy we do nevertheless have some reservations about the extent to which this can actually be achieved. Of course we are concerned that there may be counterproductive effects indeed notwithstanding that we're told according to the legislative statement that it's a strengthening of the Reserve Bank's institutional arrangements that's intended as an enhancement of the bank's role as a prudential regulator and intended again to increase coordination and the regulation of the financial sector.So of course the context is the work that's been taking place in relation to the monetary policy amendment Act and the bigger picture is you know the Government's reasonably interventionist approach in this area. Our finance spokesperson Andrew Bayly has obviously been pretty hot on the heels of Grant Robertson in that regard. So while the Government's intentions as I say may have been positive to achieve consensus such as they were no doubt hoping for perhaps a more collegial approach across the House would have been good such that the Government could have reached out to us at a much sooner stage in proceedings.So we'd previously suggested a number of amendments. Those were not supported at the committee of the whole House stage as the record will note. Of course to have put forward those unfortunately belies the fact that we are comfortable with a considerable amount of the bill none the less.So the reference to efficiency that should have been in there that's something on which we've made our point pretty clearly so at this the third and final reading I don't intend to go into the detail much more than that. I'll just note perhaps one other aspect of the Reserve Bank activities that we thought could be handled better which was in the area of allowing the Minister of Finance to manage the risk of those activities where it would be said that those would negatively impact the Crown's financial position. So the National Party statement on that has been along the lines that we would require the Minister—the relevant Minister of course the Minister of Finance—and the Reserve Bank to agree a capital and financial risk management framework.So all that said I think as I say on this side of the House between the various stages of the bill between the committee stage at which we put forward those constructive suggestions we've made our position pretty clear. Of course we expect that it will pass in the way of these things because of course the Government can put through what it likes. But that if anything just reinforces the fact that with a bit more consensus seeking from that side of the House we could have ended up with a better result than this. So National continues to oppose this bill."