Smith Nick: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 17 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5954. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution in this debate because the differing views on this bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill really do identify the difference between the rational sensible economic policies of this Government compared with the voodoo economics and the snake oil that we hear from parties opposite. It is firstly fascinating to hear the Labour Party say that these are the new ideas—the new ideas for taking the New Zealand economy forward. Well they are not very new. I heard them in 1990 when I arrived at this Parliament as a young pup. I heard them regurgitated again by Winston Peters in 1996. I heard them again in 2002. These are old tired ideas that have little relevance to the challenges that face New Zealand today. 
I actually want to recall what occurred in 1996 so that people can understand the level of snake oil that is going on in this debate. People will recall that in 1996 Winston Peters campaigned on changes—these very same changes—to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. When he became the Treasurer in 1996 he sat down with the Governor of the Reserve Bank—a very well-known person Dr Don Brash. And do you know what Winston Peters said about these changes to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act when he became the Treasurer in 1996? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What did he say? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He said: “Well now I’m actually the Treasurer that was all just political sales stuff to get me some votes. You don’t really think I believe in any of this stuff? Don just carry on with the sensible monetary policy that has been practised for the last 6 years.” And so we did. 
It was very telling on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to hear that well-respected Governor of the Reserve Bank Alan Bollard only a few weeks ago. There was a universal respect around the select committee table for the job that Alan Bollard has done for New Zealand and equally there were unanimous congratulations for the significant appointment that Alan Bollard has as the new executive director of the APEC Secretariat in the Asia-Pacific region. I would point out that Alan Bollard was not an appointment of this Government. In fact he was appointed to that role as Governor of the Reserve Bank by the previous Labour Government. 
I think it is particularly significant when you have retiring people making their comments. I would note that some of the very best speeches that we hear in this Parliament are from retiring members. People say things as they are not trying to please any particular audiences. We put to Dr Bollard whether the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that we currently have is fit for purpose and whether changes like those proposed in this bill would in fact have either a significant effect on the exchange rate or help New Zealand with its challenge of jobs. Dr Bollard was absolutely plain and frank in his advice to all members of the select committee and that was that proposed changes of this sort to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act would make no material difference—no material difference—and that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act even post - global financial crisis was fit for purpose. He advised all parties—all parties in this Parliament—against the sort of bill that we now have before us. 
You see what really worried me over the adjournment was the claim by the Green Party that somehow you could solve New Zealand’s problems by just printing money—by just printing money. Do they really think New Zealanders just came down in the last shower? Next minute they will be telling us that there is a money tree down by the library next to the parliamentary buildings. That is the extent of the integrity of this bill. It is rubbish. The House should reject it.