Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Madam Chair. I've spoken to one of the amendments that I've put up to Part 2 and I'd like now to take the opportunity to speak to the second part—although I am still waiting for an answer from the Minister on the first amendment I put up around the mechanism that is going to be put in place to make sure that we can still have sight. And also additional to that the question I asked was about advice she received about what options there were or what international best practice there was for that.The only answer we've had from the Minister has been to say Well we're not having a union member because under your Government and under Grant Robertson you wouldn't have one either." But the mere fact of the matter that we had a dual mandate made that not as necessary. So the question for this Minister to answer—Hon Nicola Willis: Oh so that's why you had the dual mandate—for your union mates!Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —not just point to what happened under the previous Government is that given she is narrowing—Arena Williams: Point of order Madam Chair. I hope you can give the committee some guidance on Speakers' ruling 66/2. There's a convention that in committee members in charge of legislation should not take interjections given that the mike is in front of them and that they have an unfair advantage. I know the Minister is passionate about this topic but she had interrupted one of my honourable colleagues.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you to the member for that point of order. I think the message has been directed to the new Minister. Now that she's aware of it it won't happen again.Hon Grant Robertson: Further point of order Madam Chair—it's a technical one. The clock kept counting down through that. I think it was at 3 minutes 56 when my colleague took the point of order so I'd hope that would be added back into my colleague's time.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm sure we can add that back in yes.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No matter what we're still waiting for those answers from the Minister—given the legislation is to have a single and narrow purpose around that mandate what will she do to ensure that the bank and the monetary policy committee does not lose sight of employment or maximum sustainable employment or whatever she wants to call it when it comes to making those decisions. Merely to stand up and say that Grant Robertson did or didn't do it now the Minister actually holds a warrant isn't actually an answer. So the committee is still waiting for some clarity on that from the Minister in the chair.I'll take the remainder of this time to talk to the second amendment that I'm putting up in Part 2 of the bill and that is around a new clause 14 to insert the following new section which is a review of the Act: "The impact of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill 2023 on inflation employment and economic output will be reviewed by an independent expert panel after three years of entry into force." The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that there can be that independent and expert review into the efficacy of the bill in improving outcomes for all New Zealanders. This does support the purpose of the bill that the Minister is saying she wants to have which is that clarity to the Reserve Bank—she's making it crystal clear that people's jobs and employment aren't a focus that she wants her Government or the Reserve Bank to have in their sights—but it is also about how the financial markets and the public can see how monetary policy decisions should and will be formulated. That three-year independent review will also give an opportunity to check in about whether there has been a loss of sight around having a secondary and subordinate line of sight into matters of employment and making sure that people's jobs are something that are taken into account and the ability of people to work. My question for the Minister if she is not going to support this amendment is: what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that there can be scrutiny and that there can be monitoring to ensure that we are not getting into situations that we have seen in the past when the legislation did have a single and narrow focus where we saw the interest rate being raised when there was high unemployment? Members and my colleagues on this side of the Chamber have talked about and read out—and the Hon Deborah Russell read out a contribution from someone in her electorate—where the public has a fear that their jobs and their security are being sacrificed. How are we going to give the public confidence? What is the scrutiny? What is the ability of people to have that monitoring so that there is not a loss of sight of the fact that people's jobs and employment will be given some weight when it comes to decision making?So I'd like to hear from the Minister not only on what she's going to put in place but on what options and what advice she received around what we could do to ensure those mechanisms were in place and what it was she gave weighting to in decision making around this and what the criteria for the decision making were."