Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): In the context of monetary policy I think it's very important we talk about the issue of the inclusion or deletion of the word efficiency" in the remit. I think it's very important Minister Robertson that we recognise that there is a role that was previously set out in the Act that in promoting the stability of New Zealand's financial system it should also promote efficiency in it. That was part of the original remit. Under this new arrangement "efficiency" is going to be deleted and as the Minister very clearly knows this was not widely supported and was certainly opposed by the banking sector because by removing the word "efficiency" from the monetary policy intent what that means is that there is no counterbalance towards just making sure that not only do we have a financial system that is stable but we also have no requirement to make sure that it operates efficiently. That's why the banks in particular were very much opposed to this.There are real trade-offs in terms—Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Chair. The matter of the question of the inclusion or not of "efficiency" was in Part 2 of the bill. Part 3 simply sets the process around the remit. So we've actually already dealt with the matter that the member is raising.Matt Doocey: Speaking to the point of order that's exactly the point I was trying to raise earlier when we had Supplementary Order Papers that hadn't been debated in the House—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I've ruled on it. I have ruled on that matter as the member well knows. You should sit down. The member needs to link what he has said about Part 2. I'm not going to rule it out but he should make it relevant to Part 3.ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you Mr Speaker. Well I think the issue of efficiency is paramount because we are talking about monetary policy statement here and the operation of it and part of that operation and how it's applied is at the crux of this issue. Removing the requirement of efficiency from that is actually quite a significant issue particularly when it wasn't supported widely by industry.I think the big differentiation is when you think about the deposit takers bill. What's going to happen is by all accounts this is going to be taken into account in that bill which we haven't yet seen this issue of efficiency and that is the problem. Because in terms of the efficient operation of the Reserve Bank we need a bank in pursuing its objectives to have regard for both maintaining financial stability and also financial system efficiency and those as I was saying before are real trade-offs. There is no hook now on the Reserve Bank to have regard for to take into account how they manage that trade-off because the bank will simply be no longer required to have regard for efficiency when it comes to implementing these issues that the Minister's referred to. I think it's a fundamental issue that should have been debated and needs to be debated as to why or not efficiency is no longer in there. What certainty can the Minister give us that in this subsequent bill that no one has seen we're going to see adequate representation or consideration of that in the bill that's to come forward into the House?"