Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair for giving me the opportunity to speak directly to the amendments proposed by both the Hon Grant Robertson and the Hon Damien O'Connor in relation to the commencement date of this bill.The reason I seek the call is because as the Minister has already said the Minister has advised that she does not want to change the commencement date and she still wants the commencement date to be the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. Commencement dates are incredibly important—incredibly important—and no more so if you are taking a bill through under urgency. You are effectively changing primary legislation and then you're saying to the public and do it straight away". Under urgency we haven't had a select committee hearing. We haven't had an ability to call for submissions.There are a number of mechanisms within the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act which allow for reviews over the years. In particular there is one around having I think a remit review within a five-year period. My concern is that because we went through Part 2 so fast I was unable to table an amendment to look at what we could do in terms of a statutory review. When you have new regimes or you have such significant policy decisions this affects our macroeconomic outlook. This affects how the Reserve Bank Governor changes the official cash rate and what they take into account for that.So without the ability to have a select committee hearing because we're doing this under urgency there is an inability for me to table an amendment for a statutory review which is sometimes the safety net that parliaments across time use time and time again—when there is piece of legislation like this they put in a statutory review.I urge this committee to approve a delay in the commencement date because we've heard from the Minister from officials from the regulatory impact statement from a number of speeches in the Chamber and from the Reserve Bank Governor himself that there is still a priority on price stability and that there is clear evidence that the maximum sustainable employment is actually almost like a hierarchy; it's secondary.But one of the main things—and again I thank the Treasury officials for that regulatory impact statement. And this is something where the Hon Shane Jones said in the House the other day "Details details details." Well I'm a details person and I'm a person that reads regulatory impact statements and I want to put that on the record for the Prime Minister who said that nobody reads them. I read them. And one of the footnotes in the regulatory impact statement—footnote 2—references a Treasury report drafted in 2023. It's Reserve Bank's 2023 monetary policy committee Remit Review - 27 April 2023 - Treasury Advice on the 2023 monetary policy committee Remit Review Information Release - The Treasury.Again Mr Chair this is relevant. It will go to why I urge for a delay in the commencement date. So I go back to the advice—you know "details details details." Well this is the detail. This is the Treasury report: Reserve Bank's 2023 monetary policy committee Remit Review. In here is the analysis and the background that Treasury provides to the Minister of Finance and I quote: "Monetary policy is currently operating in a challenging environment with inflation at multi-decade highs while the labour market remains tight. The current operating context reflects both demand and supply factors including the combined impacts of significant fiscal and monetary policy responses"—fiscal and monetary responses I quote—"during the COVID-19 pandemic and supply-side disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In New Zealand the monetary policy committee has raised the OCR at its fastest pace since prior to the Global Financial Crisis to contain inflation and anchor inflation expectations." Then it goes through two particular figures which show the projected Consumers Price Index and the annual inflation figures.Then at paragraph 8 of this important report it carries on and I quote "Monetary policy is expected to continue to face challenges in the years ahead including uncertainty about the future trend in neutral interest rates and the related risk of reaching the effective lower bound increased risks of supply disruptions associated with geopolitical tensions and regionalisation and the move towards more sustainable production practices in response to practices in response to climate change". And that refers to an earlier 2022 Treasury report.The key thing from that particular report which I take back to clause 2 is why I urge this committee to consider a delay and agree to one of the amendments on the Table whether it's the 18-month delay recommended by the Hon Damien O'Connor or whether it is the additional delay until 2026 recommended by the Hon Grant Robertson. It is for the key point that that report sets out which is in the detail which is in a footnote which is in the regulatory impact statement which again I read: "Monetary policy is expected to continue to face challenges in the years ahead including uncertainty about the future trend".Those amendments on the Table to clause 2 ask for more time because we are in a very uncertain period and that's why I don't agree with the changes obviously to the remit. We've had a lot of debate on that even though it was shortened because we had no select committee stage. But again I think having a delay in the commencement date allows in a period that we are in of high uncertainty for there to be greater stability because you're not changing the primary legislation.And I understand that the Minister did say we didn't want the Order in Council because you know it's secondary legislation—that was in response to one of the other member's comments—and that is exactly what's in the regulatory impact statement. That's exactly what the Treasury officials advised against—not to do that Order in Council.However she failed to remember that in the regulatory impact statement they also said "Don't change the primary legislation; do it through the remit." which is why I think it's incredibly important that you know—you don't necessarily have to agree with Treasury all the time. I know other Ministers in various Governments didn't always agree with Treasury. But we are in a period of uncertainty. We have a period where the country is going to be facing a number of challenges in the year ahead because of what's happening geopolitically both in our region and overseas.That's why I absolutely urge the committee to consider a delay to this primary legislation—because we are in an uncertain period. I'm not too sure whether I'll have an ability to scrutinise—or perhaps I could do it as a member's bill—and do a review. However in the absence of that ability—because we had urgency and we weren't able to table too many more amendments—I'm looking at having some time to be able to keep the primary legislation as it is with the dual mandate. That is not to say that in 18 months' time or in 2026—when actually there was going to be a review anyway; I think the last one was in 2021. It just allows the ability for there to be certainty in our markets and then our markets know in 2026 or in 18 months' time in the forecast that has been provided we are going to see more stability. It allows there to be that opportunity for the commencement date to be then. But if you do it now straight away in a bill that has not been to a select committee and has just been subject basically to the analysis on this side of the committee by various parties—unable to provide those amendments with no statutory review because we didn't have the ability to table that in enough time and because the process on Part 2 was so short. I urge the committee not to go through with it straight away on the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. Instead go either with the 18-month period as recommended by Damien O'Connor or 2026 as recommended by the Hon Grant Robertson because that allows us to be able to have some certainty over this period. And again monetary policy is expected to continue to face challenges in the years ahead including uncertainty about the future trend in neutral interest rates and the related risk of reaching the effective lower bound increase of supply disruption geopolitical tensions regionalisation and a move towards more sustainable production practices in response to climate change.This is not the time to go straight into the date being the day after the Royal assent—it is a time when we have a lot of uncertainty as set out by officials. We have a little bit of time to be able to stabilise things that we need to do because I understand you've got a laser-like focus on it. Allow for that stabilisation and then bring into force if you still want to do it that particular commencement date—either in 18 months or in 2026. I urge the committee to have consideration of that."