Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you and I'd like to thank the Minister for his contribution there. I want to turn to a related topic which is clause 130. This deals with the issue of confidentiality orders. I must admit I get worried when the Reserve Bank or any entity—in this case it is the Reserve Bank—has written its own legislation and writes in a clause that says (3) The Bank may make the order"—and that's in respect of confidentiality orders—"on the terms and conditions (if any) that it thinks fit." So this is a very significant power and I can see the Hon Phil Twyford looking at me saying "Oh I didn't notice that one before."What I'd like to hear from the Minister is whether this is proportionate particularly when I'm going to talk about fines in a second but just bear in mind that the confidentiality orders the bank may require that which prohibits the publication or communication of any information that discloses or is reasonably likely to disclose the exercise of a power under this Act—oh that's a wide one—and secondly that is provided or obtained in connection with any inquiry investigation or other proceedings of the bank under this Act. So the bank may make the order on its own initiative so to what extent are these powers fettered? Can the Reserve Bank—it's now divine God I presume and can make its own decisions and impose anything. Maybe the Minister can help me where the constraining elements of this power is under clause 130.But the other reason I raise this issue Mr Chair—because I know you're very keenly following this debate—is the issue of the fines which of course my good colleague Mr Simon Watts was talking about in his previous excellent contribution. In this case there's the same sort of level of fines. There's total fines of $5 million for a corporate or an entity. In this case if you happen to disclose the information that the divine right of the power of the Reserve Bank has deemed shouldn't be disclosed either you've done it in contravention or you've done it recklessly which means—whether in fact that may mean you haven't shown enough constraint over your PR person in your large PR team as sometimes happens with Ministers when they press the wrong button and all their press releases go out to a member of the Opposition which happens from time to time. Whether that might be deemed a reckless situation—and I hear Nicola Grigg laughing there in the background. It does happen doesn't it Nicola Grigg from Ministers. So would that be deemed reckless and therefore potentially someone would be in the case—was it the poor PR person in the entity—Nicola Grigg: Don't blame the press secretary. ANDREW BAYLY: The press secretary or was it in fact the Minister? It might be Mr Grant Robertson—the Hon Grant Robertson—who's reckless. In what situation is "reckless" defined?But the big point about this is that: "I've got it wrong I blew it—I've blew it." That individual is now up for a fine of up to $100000 or $2.5 million for the entity. Of course I heard the Minister say this and it's always these soothing words: "Oh that's the maximum but don't worry we'll never go there." It's a bit like—I heard that earlier today at the Finance and Expenditure Committee when Minister Parker said "We're not going to use that really extensive power of inquiry because we're never going to ask those questions." But yes we do. So there seems to be a lack of proportionality in this in terms of the fines but also there does not seem to be any fettering or control or restraint around these powers and I would very much like to have a contribution from the Minister as to why he thinks this is absolutely essential in the form that it's been presented in the bill."