Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This first piece of legislation that the Government has brought to the House has gone through under urgency with no opportunity for submissions. However as people who have sat through the committee stage will know I have heard from a number of people about this bill. So I'm going to take this opportunity now to read what they have written to me into the record as their submissions on this bill. So coming from Greg Presland he says I wish to make a submission on the Reserve Bank amendment bill. If this Government is determined to do something about the cost of living then this is the worst possible thing it could do. The result of any change will be to increase unemployment and also increase interest rates as the Reserve Bank operates single-mindedly to decrease inflation. Both of these things will make matters worse for ordinary Kiwis. For those who are made unemployed their quality of life will be dramatically affected. For those whose businesses depend on their clientele having jobs so that they can continue to buy things from those businesses their profitability will be affected. And for those of us who have mortgages we will need to pay more to predominantly overseas-owned banks as interest rates increase. Please urge the Government not to do this." That was the first one.From Raema Inglis an accountant who wrote to me about this bill and had some views on it. She says "I believe the Reserve Bank should keep a maximum sustainable employment as something to consider alongside inflation when setting monetary policy. The aim to have low levels of unemployment is the best use of this country's resources—its people. Having inflation as the Reserve Bank's only monetary policy does a disservice to every person who would become unemployed. It has debilitating effects on those marginalised and vulnerable sectors of society including disabled Māori Pasifika and young people. High unemployment is an old-fashioned idea that should be left in the 1990s when we saw severe economic hardship in many of our communities. No one wants to return to those days. A visionary Government would recognise the importance of maximum sustainable employment. I encourage this Government to include not only inflation but also maximum sustainable employment when setting monetary policy." That was from Raema Inglis.From Margot Govers also an accountant—actually I know a few accountants. She says "I'm writing to you to encourage you to speak out against the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. I am particularly concerned about the Government's decision to remove the dual mandates of controlling inflation whilst also ensuring a maximum sustainable level of employment. To have a fair and just society everyone should have the opportunity to work and support themselves and their families. This gives them dignity or mana not to have to rely on Government handouts to survive. When the Reserve Bank has to only consider inflationary measures and because of their measures people lose their jobs not only do they suffer so do we as a society. Society is a group of people working and living together. With high unemployment not only are those who are unemployed unable to support themselves but the rest of society has a bigger burden to support them. I think removing the dual mandate is short-sighted. Having a mandate to look at both price stability and maximum employment will better lead to long-term growth and a more macroeconomic outlook for New Zealand."From Josh he says "I firmly believe workers should not be thrown on the scrap heap in an effort to get inflation down. New Zealand has had close to full employment for the last few years—thank you Labour—and has made our economy and society stronger avoiding the dislocation seen in other parts of the world. Repealing this incentivises the Reserve Bank to drive interest rates even higher risking the livelihood of employees and business owners in the process. The side effects of high unemployment are also too great to bear: worsened mental health less money to go around the economy and stimulate growth and a greater sense of alienation from society."The last one from Dr Sarah Paterson-Hamlin: "It has come to my attention that there is an intention to return to a single imperative for the Reserve Bank to reduce inflation and that reducing unemployment no longer will be part of their remit. I am extremely concerned with this regressive action. If COVID-19 demonstrated anything it is that prioritising human beings over the economy is not only the ethical choice but in the end also the best economical choice. I have been unemployed and I've worked with tāngata whaikaha—disabled people—who have been unemployed and I can tell you that the emotional toll is enormous. The loneliness associated with it has been proven to reduce health outcomes and life expectancy—see for example Holly Walker's writing and research on this. Even if we were to cynically look at human beings as only economic units then still reducing their functionality and working years by subjecting them to the soul-crushing reality of unemployment is a poor economic choice. I would argue however that to treat people as economic units rather than individuals with souls and hopes and dreams and history and whānau is morally bereft."That is some evidence and submissions that people said to me about this bill—submissions that that side of the House did not want to hear. That side of the House even tried to get rid of the most basic forms of evidence we get on bills from Government departments. "No RISes" they said—"We won't have RISes."—but the Treasury got one through.The Treasury put in a regulatory impact statement (RIS) on this bill. Interestingly Jonathan Milne at Newsroom wrote about this regulatory impact statement and he said it's something that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud of. The reason is that the language in this regulatory impact statement very carefully said to the Government "Do not do this—do not do this." If you want to prioritise price stability over maximum sustainable employment he says to use the remit process. There is no need to change the legislation. In fact Jonathan Milne provides some interpretations of the language in the regulatory impact statement. Here's what the Treasury says: that is important not to change the law but to use the remit processes. The RIS says "the Treasury puts significant weight on the value of a stable and enduring legislative regime for the Reserve Bank which supports public and market confidence in the independence of the institution." In other words says Jonathan Milne—interpreting for us—"Don't mess with an institution we've spent years building."In another place in the regulatory impact statement the RIS says that making this change through the mechanism of a law change and amending the Act "could be seen as reducing future barriers to legislative change"—fine words from Sir Humphrey Appleby. Interpreting that Milne says "Once you've started messing with the law every bloody politician will want to have a go."—keep the law stable is the real meaning there.Another thing that Jonathan Milne picks out of the regulatory impact statement—he says "The Reserve Bank's statutory framework is of considerable interest to market participants and changes to it—or the use of some options—may trigger market concern." Milne's interpretation of that: "Run for the hills!"In fact going through the regulatory impact statement and looking at the options analysis summary on the last page of it shows quite clearly that the best option would be to issue a new monetary policy committee remit. That is the best option and it is clearly the best option by some margin over changing the law but this Government nevertheless chose to do it. As one of their very first actions into Government it chose to do something that was completely unnecessary and to do something that was not the best option available to it.So what does that tell us about them? It tells us of this Government that not only do they want to do something that's completely unnecessary they do something that is harmful to workers that is harmful to full employment in this economy and coupled with the next piece of legislation that is coming to this House where they intend to repeal fair pay agreements all we can say is that this Government despises workers. What a shame it is to have a Government that like on the Treasury benches where they will not care for low-wage workers where they will not ensure that people have access to employment and where they will not look after ordinary New Zealanders. It is an elitist and out-of-touch Government not guided by evidence at all. This is a shameful bill and it is their very first piece of legislation."