Williams Arena; O'Connor GregARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Oh thank you Mr Chair for the call. I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to the trouble that the committee finds itself in now. We've usefully had from the Minister of Finance a contribution around the amendments that this side of the Chamber has put up to Part 2 which seek to clarify the role of the monetary policy committee in its view towards the effect of unemployment. However the Minister has indicated that she will not be accepting those amendments and I think that's a problem because we still have a purpose clause which was introduced in the 2019 amendment to the principal Act.So if you'll allow me to take the committee through why that's a problem that we now find ourselves in should the Minister not accept the clarifying amendments that have been put up by myself and my colleagues the problem with that is that the purpose of the 2019 amendment which still remains in the primary Act and the purpose of the original 1989 Act are at odds. So now if the amendments that are being proposed by the Minister in this bill that we're debating today go ahead we're still left with the purpose clause which is in the 2019 amendment.If you'll allow me to take my colleagues through the context of this which is in the explanatory note of the amendment that was put forward in 2019—if you'll bear with me that explanatory note clarifies that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill had two main objectives and those were amending the objectives of the monetary policy committee to require consideration of maximum sustainable employment alongside price stability in monetary policy decision-making and institute a monetary policy committee to make decisions on monetary policy. We've got these two objectives of the 2019 bill. One is still something which the Minister herself seems to be supportive of; one is not. However that went alongside a new purpose clause in the Act that is not being amended and that's why we have a problem.I would ask the Minister: is she proposing to amend the purpose clause today? I would love to hear her amendment. Perhaps her amendment will say I'm the inflation-fighting Minister; let unemployment rip." or perhaps it will say "Unemployment is not a concern of the Reserve Bank." Now we need to have that explained because there is some confusion here and though the Minister has said that this is a circular discussion the committee now finds itself in a bit of confusion because of the Minister's answers on this topic. At one stage the committee is asking the monetary policy committee to have in its mind the impact of its decision making on working people on unemployment and on the stability of the real economy and on fluctuations within it and people's experience of the economy but at the same time it's talking out the other side of its mouth and saying that there will only be one focus.We've heard from the Minister that this is clarifying that so what we really need here is a proposal from the Minister to change the purpose clause. If she wants clarity in this bill she must amend it now. There is only one opportunity to get this legislation right because we are not going to select committee on this bill and so I want to hear the Minister's proposal to amend the purpose clause. I would like her officials to consider what their amendment will be because it does not make sense and this House will be passing legislation which says one thing and does another. This Minister is prioritising inflation over the concerns of working people. She needs to be clear with New Zealanders that she does not care if they can get a job she does not care that if they lose their job they will not be able to get another one.When the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) is single-mindedly focused on inflation like Graeme Wheeler was in the tale of the global financial crisis which this Government presided over we saw people in New Zealand losing their job and not be able to get another job. These were working people who had had experience in jobs. They had the skills that they needed to get employment in our rural sectors in our towns in our manufacturing sectors. The only reason why they could not get a job is because unemployment was at a level which was unsustainable in our economy. But the RBNZ at that time was not focused on unemployment. They did not see it as their role to make sure that people's experience of the economy was stabilised in some way.We need to have it clarified in this bill how the RBNZ is going to focus on those things and if we don't if our clauses that we have put up as Amendment Papers on this side of the Chamber are not accepted then the Minister will have to explain that to New Zealanders.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Tim Costa.Hon Members: Costley.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Costley—that's not bad; I got the Christian name right."