Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair.David Seymour: Madam Chair point of order. You gave three calls in a row to the National Party. As far as I'm aware in two hours of debate you've given—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. The member will resume his seat. I want to thank the member for the point of order. By way of enlightenment for the committee we have an hour set down as members will know. I take calls based on the proportionality of the Parliament the relevance of the questions the length of time for each intervention and I'm being extremely careful to follow those tenets in this debate.ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you. Well I think that the response that we've just had from the Minister of Finance to David Seymour's question just shows the simplistic argument that he always runs which is either it's all or nothing. And the issue is that as my colleague pointed out New Zealand had the second-highest response to COVID in the entire OECD—basically the world. So we have had a Government—and I'm looking at you the Minister of Finance—which has allowed an incredible amount of money to be pumped into this economy. And my first question is really—look with Mr Seymour's question it is not that we shouldn't have done wage support. I'm sure Mr Seymour supported the wage support mechanism. That was a $25 billion package. You were right Minister: other people including myself asked for more support for businesses because we didn't think it went far enough. There is probably another $10 billion roughly I don't know—take a guess of it—that was good quality spending. But when you look at the totality there was another $20 billion to $25 billion of absolute crap spending that has delivered no benefit to New Zealand. And that is the issue that we're raising. It's not we should have not spent it; the question is we should not have spent all of it. And there are 150 projects we identified that literally have delivered no benefit to New Zealand. So it's not an all-or-nothing debate; it is a question of quantum and the Minister is overseeing a huge spend up on basically a whole range of wasteful projects.Now I want to return to my good colleague's questions about the large-scale asset purchase (LSAP) programme. I find it an absurd proposition that a Minister claims that the advice that they looked at and must have received from Treasury but took into account and chose not to take into account is that interest rates would not rise over the medium to long term. I think it's absurd. And he said it would get to 1 percent by 2024. In the case the Reserve Bank was buying back 10-year bonds—up to 10-year bonds—the proposition that interest rates would not rise over the 10-year period is an absurd proposition and I think shows an absolute naivety of the Government. So my question to the Minister—and I am trying to ask some questions—is: why did you not think longer term given that 10-year wind-out period? Or did you not require or seek any advice as to what would be the wind-out provision of the Reserve Bank buying all these bonds? First question—and if so what was that? The second one is why didn't you put some conditions around the LSAP indemnity? Why didn't you say to the Reserve Bank You can do up to $20 billion but then come back to us?" What conditions did you put around it? My understanding—and we have asked the Reserve Bank countless times—is it seemed like an open-ended indemnity. Maybe the Minister can highlight some of those issues."