White Helen; Pugh MaureenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to ask you Minister about what I heard last night from many of the speakers on the Government side of the House. They talked about helping hard-working New Zealanders and I wondered how that was possible if the mechanism used puts such New Zealanders out of work and that is my concern. I come from a background of employment law and I know how important it is that people work for their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their families but I also know how important it is to the economy that people keep working. My understanding of the Reserve Bank is that ultimately it's there for the public good so it's incredibly important that what it's achieving is done mindful of the full employment of people if at all possible. My understanding of the term maximum sustainable employment" is that it's a particular term used because the "sustainable" part of that is that if there is any tension between full employment and price stability price stability wins out. There is in fact a hierarchy built into the term itself. I wondered when you talked about the objectives being intention whether you'd taken that into account or had any advice because my understanding is that there is no tension and that is why the Reserve Bank Governor has always been clear that there has been no problem. Now I do take on board that there is an issue raised about the perception of others but I wondered and I wanted to ask you: isn't it our job as a Government and as a Parliament to lead not to sap up the way that people misconceive things? We need to bust myths not assist them. So I ask you this: do you agree that it is our job to make sure that people understand that the maximum sustainable employment part of this commitment is for the public good and is in fact a nod to the fact that they are incredibly important to the economy and that we run institutions like the Reserve Bank and in fact the Parliament for the wellbeing of people? Aren't we actually in a situation that will lead to the alienation of the very people that we seek to support if in fact they lose their jobs in great numbers because the Reserve Bank is untethered from any concern about their wellbeing through work—and isn't that what we're all here to do Minister? Aren't we here to make sure that hard-working New Zealanders stay engaged and stay empowered by the fact that they can earn a decent living and isn't that absolutely critical to whether they survive the economic ups and downs and the tides of inflation that we've seen around the world? I want to know what is it that you think the Reserve Bank is really about: why is it there and why do we have any measures at all in this? I heard the Hon Grant Robertson talk yesterday about an earlier historical occasion which really concerned me. It concerned me because a Reserve Bank Governor actually paid—people paid the price in their work because the mechanisms of the Reserve Bank were being used to drive down inflation at the total expense of workers. That's the last thing that I want to see and I wondered whether it is the last thing that you want to see Minister. Do you want to see more unemployment if in fact that means that there will be a lower inflation rate and at what point is that unacceptable to you? That's my concern—where is the commitment? So I wondered whether you would consider that and why you would reject the amendments that have been put up that focus on a compromise here which makes it very clear that the Government and the Reserve Bank remain committed to full and stable employment. That seems incredibly important to me and it really matters to people out there. It's all very well to talk about helping hard-working New Zealanders—and I heard your colleagues say that over and over again—and it's all very well to talk about how there is this scourge of theft through inflation but the greatest theft is actually the capacity isn't it Minister—CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired."