Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Thank you very much Madam Chair and a pleasure to be back debating this this morning after a late one last night. I still have a few points that I'd like the Minister to address and I think that they are really salient points because while it may seem as though we're kind of splitting hairs here with this debate the devil really actually is in the detail because what this bill does is remove the dual mandate of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand—the focus on price stability and on maximum sustainable employment. As the former Minister was just elucidating we have quite a strong reliance on a report on the remit and the mandate from June 2023 from the monetary policy committee which spoke about the need to have a potential hierarchical ordering of that dual mandate. That is I think what is largely reflected in the letter which the Minister has now tabled.So to that effect I just really think it's important to drill into and to get some real clarity from the Minister on whether she thinks that employment or maximum sustainable employment or any iteration of that should be included within the considerations of the Reserve Bank when setting monetary policy. I heard from her very clearly in her answer last night that she does not believe that it should be obviously put in this legislative dual mandate but the question still remains as to whether she thinks it should be within the broader monetary policy committee's remit the likes of which house price sustainability has also currently been considered within.I also have a further and important and interesting point on whether house price sustainability should continue to be considered within that remit too. Secondly and it may feel like we are labouring this point but this is a really really important one because it goes to the heart of the question of the purpose of this legislation. Again we have had this over-reliance on this letter from the Reserve Bank Governor on the fact that there needed to be some hierarchical ordering of that dual mandate or a prioritisation of the mandate and that financial stability should always take that primacy.But again I do ask the Minister if she has seen any evidence as to whether that dual mandate has changed the focus or has meant that there has been a deprioritisation of price stability. Because if that is the case then the words we have heard from the Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr in the Finance and Expenditure Committee hearings over the last three years are to be taken as untrue and that's a pretty serious allegation which underlines the proposal herein.The third thing is about that point of perception and I think this is an important point that the Minister raised last night and obviously it's reflected in the regulatory impact statement and also in a number of contributions from members of the Government. It's about how perceptions of the Reserve Bank's focus on inflation and price stability in turn impacts the behaviour of market participants and that those market participants then may behave in ways that result in more inflation or less thereof or otherwise.So I was just wondering if the Minister could elaborate on that point. I'm not here seeking to be obtuse but I think that it is a really relevant point. When we're talking about the economy which as we all know is just all of us and the things we create and what we trade and the value that we produce and the earth that we live on—and you know we have quite different ideological standpoints on how and where we should go and how we should create those rules and regulations. But none the less who are those market participants and what kind of behaviour are we scared of them participating in which then results in that greater potential or inflation? What is the evidence that this decision is being made on? I think that is a valuable piece of information that the general public should be able to take from this that's currently being debated because once again it's a fundamental premise of this legislation—that perception is really really important to the behaviour of those market participants. So who are they and how differently are they behaving as a result of this dual mandate?And just to potentially help move things along here with regard to getting more evidence on the table and therefore having a more thoroughly informed debate in lieu of not having a select committee process the Minister has referred to the letter from the Reserve Bank Governor—and I thank her for tabling it—but may I ask her to table the letter that she wrote to the Reserve Bank Governor because it feels as though there were a few options laid on the table therein which means that potentially we could have a more informed debate if we were to understand what options she was seeking advice on and got a response upon.So just to be really clear on those points I'm asking about. They are: what is the place for employment within the consideration of the Reserve Bank and the monetary policy committee when it comes to setting monetary policy? Is it to exist within the remit and as an addendum to that where does house price sustainability sit within that if the general broader thrust is that there needs to be a laser-like focus on price stability solely? The second is this outlying question—a question that still remains on the table—as to what evidence she has seen on whether the dual mandate impacted or meant that there was a lesser prioritisation of the price stability point of the mandate. Because again if that is the case then are we to take it that Adrian Orr was not being forthright upfront or honest with the select committee? That is quite a serious underlying allegation. The third thing is: who are those market participants and what is this perception that we're scared about?