Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. So just continuing with my discussion before did the Reserve Bank come to you seeking the change or was it something you responded to as a result of Treasury suggesting—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Not the Speaker.ANDREW BAYLY: Sorry. Did the Minister respond to requests from Treasury? That's the first question I'd just like him to consider.The second aspect is I think we've ended up with a structural change in this bill which is quite significant. As you quite rightly pointed out before the last bill was around—now an Act—dealing with the issue of the monetary policy committee which has the governor as the chair of that committee. What were the options around the change or alternative governance structures that could've been in place? Because what was presented in the bill was a certain outcome which has basically been followed through into this bill. But for instance if I put up another option why didn't—or did you consider—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!ANDREW BAYLY: Did the Minister consider that you might have established a financial policy committee to deal with the other aspects such as prudential policy non-bank deposit takers and insurers? What we've been presented with is that all those activities are now being handled by an executive board. So to what extent were other options canvassed and considered and did you actually particularly have regard for that specific issue?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Just again conscious of making sure we debate the bill that's in front of us in terms of the broader reform process we campaigned on it in 2017 so I'll take responsibility/credit for that. When we got in we worked through with both the Reserve Bank and Treasury the scope of that we brought in an independent expert advisory panel and then we launched into a very comprehensive consultation round which we've now done three separate consultations on. As I said in my earlier intervention the feedback we got as we did that was that people welcomed the opportunity to modernise and refine the bill as is on the public record released in many many documents through the proactive release process. On not every single issue was there unanimity between the bank Treasury and myself or the expert advisory panel—that's to be expected—but on the vast bulk of what we are putting through the House we did have clear agreement from across those institutions about what should be done.Yes we did look at a range of options and again they're not covered in the bill so I won't go into detail on them but they all are covered within the consultation process and the material that's being released publicly. It is our view that in terms of the governance model we've chosen this is a model that people will be familiar with in terms of Crown entities with slight tweaks in order to acknowledge the particular role of the central bank and therefore we think it is appropriate.When it comes to the question around monetary policy and the way that is done there is an absolute obligation in my opinion for us to uphold the principles of the Act around operational independence and that's what's helped that decide. But again for the member's benefit those broader issues are not necessarily the ones in this bill and particularly not the ones in Part 1.