Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll pick up actually where I think the member from Manurewa was continuing and it was really around the disproportionate impact of the economic tightening and austerity on our lower socio-economic areas and in particular on Māori Pacific women and those as well who are disabled and generally are younger because I'm pretty sure that the stats in parts of Porirua were very much the same as the stats in Manurewa.That is why I think we need to again just remind the committee of the history in relation to why we moved from one mandate to a dual mandate. A number of members in the House have brought up the history around the Governor Graeme Wheeler in 2014 when again he started to hike the official cash rate (OCR) even though inflation was only running at 1.5 percent; it basically increased the unemployment rate. And again even though inflation's at 1.5 percent and the unemployment rate was at 5.6 you saw the disproportionate impacts again on lower socio-economic areas on those particular groups like Māori Pacific and disabled people who were heavily impacted. That's why I wanted to be able to take a call and then also to ask the Minister some procedural questions in relation to this but also a call to support a couple of the amendments that have been proposed by members on this side of the Chamber.If I turn to the amendment by Arena Williams in relation to new section 117(1) inserted by clause 8 after the words—she is suggesting that the House look at continue to take a flexible approach to monetary policy that improves welfare by ensuring that monetary policy does not exacerbate periods of economic decline." And also specifically to clause 12 an amendment that the member is proposing to replace "economic objective" with "economic objective which stabilises the real economy for example in helping to reduce fluctuations in unemployment." Again I take the committee back to 2014 when that Reserve Bank Governor under the one mandate decided to still increase the OCR despite the high record numbers of unemployment.I want to also rise to speak in support of another amendment that has been brought forward by the member the Hon Dr Megan Woods. I'm just trying to find that amendment but nevertheless I always support what the honourable member Megan Woods proposes in amendments.But probably a tip that I want to—and again I recognise our Treasury officials who wrote a regulatory impact statement even though they didn't need to write one. To the new members of Opposition who are here in the Chamber probably the reason why—you know you could speculate as to why the Prime Minister and members of Cabinet didn't want to have a regulatory impact statement. But if you actually have a look at the analysis in the regulatory impact statement the advice from Treasury was despite what the Government wants to do through legislation which they clearly made through their coalition agreement they still recommended that the Government just change the remit not the legislation which is why we have got back here into the House where we're having to suggest a number of amendments to the second part of this bill because our concern on this side of the House is we're going to fall back into that 2014 period where again the disproportional impacts of increasing the OCR will impact on those more vulnerable members of our community in Porirua and in Manurewa.So to the members I looked again at the regulatory impact statement—this objective advice that's been provided by Treasury. And again just saying—I think it's paragraph 16; it says "the Treasury's recommendation is to issue a new monetary policy committee remit only. In making this recommendation the Treasury has weighed more heavily the need to achieve the Government's policy intention to restore focus on price stability" which the Minister confirmed in a previous contribution "and the importance of an enduring and consistent legislative regime." I think that second part of that first sentence in paragraph 16 of the regulatory impact statement is incredibly important because what you don't want to do is to have Governments come in and have such huge swings and changes in such important policy. Because what that indicates to the market—and we've already seen actually a number of examples worldwide of what their views are on this Government. What that indicates to our international partners is that we're going to be swinging heavily—so what that indicates is that Treasury is saying to the Government: keep the legislation as it is but you have these tools in the monetary policy remit to change it.However this Government has chosen to change the legislation the primary legislation and you can acknowledge that yes it was part of the part of their coalition agreement. However the uncertainty that they could provide to the markets is something that I don't think this committee has paid enough attention to. But that's why we have regulatory impact assessments. It's to be able to make sure that we can debate it in the committee. Because unfortunately we don't have a select committee process as part of this which is why you'll see a number of members on this side of the Chamber trying to understand the policy intent. And the policy intent that I heard from the Minister was around—was it "laser sharp focus" on inflation price stability? But again your own officials are saying "Don't do it through the primary legislation; use the remit."So as you keep going through the regulatory impact statement they also say that "The Treasury puts significant weight on the value of a stable and enduring legislative regime for the Reserve Bank which supports public and market confidence in the independence of the institution"—the independence of the institution. And unfortunately what we have here is a bill which because it removes that dual mandate we on this side of the Chamber are having to put amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment and amendments to amendments just in case one amendment fails or if one amendment passes. That's what happens when you don't have the ability to take it through a select committee to be able to have those submissions from the public from actually a number of experts.I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee with the Minister—actually I haven't actually said congratulations to the Minister for your new role. We had time and time again the Reserve Bank Governor come to us and the Minister was very forthright in her questioning of the Governor at the time particularly around these mandates. For me to be able to not have that ability to do that scrutiny through a bill and instead to be passing it through urgency means I'm on my feet having to ask questions and having to support amendments in relation to this.So my question really for the Minister—and I want to absolutely acknowledge that these amendments have just been tabled but again we're in a position where we don't have the ability to be able to scrutinise it further. My question is: given that the Treasury advice was around changing the remit rather than the legislation and now we're in a position where members now are having to do amendments to the bill through the different clauses what are the other ways in which the Minister other than the remit because I know the Minister has said that the remit will come after this legislation—but actually I want the Minister to provide some assurances now to the New Zealand public around how will the Minister continue to take that flexible approach if we go back to 2014 where Governor Graeme Wheeler had one mandate there wasn't the flexibility. How do we have that flexibility? How is that flexibility in relation to this monetary policy?Because again that's why I stand in support of Part 2 clause 8 amendments put toward by the member from Manurewa.Arena Williams: They're good ones.Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Very good ones. And again as well her amendments to clause 12. Because if you don't have the flexibility because you're going back to the one mandate—and yes the remits do follow. There are mechanisms within the Reserve Bank Act to ensure that there are reviews. I understand there was meant to be one for five years as well for the remit review but I think there was one just done in 2023 that started in 2021. What is the flexibility if you look back to 2014 when you had a Reserve Bank Governor who only had one mandate? What assurances can this Minister provide that there will be some flexibility and that if not now but in the future we won't get to the position where a Reserve Bank Governor will keep increasing interest rates increase keep increasing the OCR even though it's just outside the 1 to 3 percent? It was 3.5 under the Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler but yet unemployment was rising and rising above 5 percent. Those are the types of assurance in the absence of a select committee that I would like to seek from the Minister."