Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Minister for that response. I'd just like to straighten the record slightly: the issue around the funding of the Reserve Bank was that it's highly highly unusual to see a 50 percent increase in the Budget without undue scrutiny. I think that was the issue that we were raising because we are careful managers of the economy and we are also particularly concerned that we get value for money from our Public Service. That was the issue. It doesn't necessarily mean or should imply that we don't think this is an important role but thank you for raising that issue Minister. So I am looking forward to that answer that you said you would address.I suppose the other issue deals with the designation. So as I understand it there are basically two courses and it relates to whether you as a financial market infrastructure (FMI) are systemically important and then you obviously have tier 1 and tier 2. So as I understand it you can either elect an FMI—I can elect to become a systemically important one and therefore tier 1—or the Minister and the regulators can impose that on the FMI. So I'd be interested to know what that process is and how he sees that working and who will be the lead particularly in the second aspect. Will it be the Reserve Bank in the lead of that or will it be the Financial Markets Authority?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Just popping back to the member's earlier question that he asked I'm informed that there are no appeal rights per se but that within the legislation that we're passing today and within the framework of regulation that the two regulators use they are obliged to take into account for example the impact of compliance costs do assessments overall on the impact of the changes that are being made here. So no there's not a direct appeal arrangement possible but I think the track record of both agencies would indicate that they are ones who will not be putting undue costs on those that come before them.In terms of the second matter as I'm sure the member is well aware the flexibility that we've built into this means that actually both the Reserve Bank and the Financial Markets Authority are in a position to be able to do that. Primarily it will be the Reserve Bank I suspect because at that point it is about the prudential importance of a financial market infrastructure (FMI) to the overall system.Madam Chair I don't propose to take long calls here because actually this bill is largely agreed but I do think while we've joked around a little bit during the process of this bill about what FMIs are if you think about the significance of payments systems to the way we go about commerce—and I mean commerce in all its senses; individuals' work all the way through to banks and beyond to other financial institutions—those payments systems are genuinely important to the operation of our banking system and of financial stability. Therefore the Reserve Bank is likely to identify those FMIs that it wants included. The ability in the law for people to self-identify is actually important I think for building confidence in the public and I suspect for those who are interested in this area for some FMIs there may be an incentive to do this because they want people to see them as important and systemically important. That will then be a decision for both the regulators to be able to take but it will primarily be the Reserve Bank because of the prudential rules.