Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): One would think that when a Government comes into power and declares that it has a 100-day plan to take steps that are urgent and that are needed that every single step they take would have an immediate impact. One would think that the first piece of legislation that a Government put into the House—the very first piece of legislation—would make a tangible difference right from the start. But this bill will not put a single cent more in people's pockets by Christmas. It simply won't happen.The Minister of Finance said that it was a highly symbolic piece of legislation. I put it that if it is a symbolic piece of legislation it is full of empty symbolism that achieves nothing. And let me tell you—let me tell the speakers on the other side of the House exactly why this is a largely empty bill and why it's pointless.First of all inflation is heading down. The Treasury's forecast predicts that it will be back within the 1 to 3 percent range—which has been our range for a long time now—in a few months within a few months in 2024. The need for lower inflation has already been met. That particular target is being met and it will be achieved. So this bill is not needed for that purpose and that is because inflation worldwide is trending down. Inflation was never ever a problem only in New Zealand; it was a worldwide problem in the wake of the global pandemic and like everywhere else it is now heading down.So there is no need for this particular measure. But then if we look at the substance of the bill if we look at the action—this is our first look in this House at what is actually in the bill. Now the clauses in the bill that do the work are clause 4 which amends section 9 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and it takes out the objective of achieving maximum sustainable employment. That's the first clause that does some work. But there is a second clause that does some work in this bill and that's clause 11 of this bill. I'm going to ask the members on the opposite side of the House to actually read that clause and more importantly to read the section of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act which it amends because it amends section 125 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. And the interesting thing about section 125 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act is it enables the Governor-General by Order in Council to direct the monetary policy committee to formulate and implement monetary policy for one or more economic objectives for a period not exceeding 12 months.In other words on the advice of the Minister of Finance the monetary policy committee could set aside one or more of its economic goals for a short period of time in order to achieve a short-term objective. This objective of saying that maximum sustainable employment should rank differently from price stability could have been achieved through section 125 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. That is the second reason why this bill is mere empty symbolism—there was no need to repeal this objective.The third reason as to why this bill is mere empty symbolism is something that my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick has already referred to. If we look at the regulatory impact statement because at least this bill has one it says that Treasury itself while it could support this approach would prefer to do it through the monetary policy remit through the Reserve Bank remit. There was another mechanism available to do this but that Government banking on symbolism and on empty symbolism at that has chosen to put this ridiculous bill into the House. It's its first piece of legislation and it achieves absolutely nothing.