Russell Deborah; Pugh MaureenHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): We got there in the end. I have been seeking the call all morning so I thank you for giving me an opportunity now. I have been seeking it because we did not have a select committee stage on this bill and so if we don't have a select committee stage for new members the usual practice is to have a pretty extensive debate in the Chamber and certainly more debate than has been allowed until now. So we do want to canvass some pretty serious issues in the Chamber given that we were not able to do it in the select committee. Because we weren't able to do it in the select committee we weren't able to hear submissions from people who had a real concern about the bill but I have sought opinions from people who have views on this bill and I want to bring one of those. To me it's written here; I've received it the last couple of days. It speaks particularly to a new clause that I have suggested for this part of the bill. I have an Amendment Paper there inserting a new clause which suggests that there should be compensation for workers adversely affected by monetary policy. So in support of this particular amendment—here's what a westie a west Auckland person Michael Bain wrote to me about this bill. He started because he was concerned too. He said I have heard that the Government is attempting to rush through the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill which is of concern for me as any changes to this must and need to go through the select committee process as a bare minimum." So in lieu of that bare minimum I'm going to read some of his submission which goes directly to this amendment that I have proposed. He points out that only focusing on inflation means that unemployment is used to keep inflation artificially low—used to artificially keep inflation low. He says "artificially" because although low inflation rates look good on paper it does not take into consideration the impact and harm done on people whānau and communities where people have lost their jobs. It goes on to say high unemployment is damaging to our country and having economists say that we need higher unemployment for a stronger economy is a morally reprehensible and irresponsible stance. It is also the stance of someone who has never had to line up at Work and Income to ask for help to cover the costs of schooling for a child or to explain why childcare costs are more this month than they were last month. Then Michael goes on to say "I remember the economic policies of the 1990s under Jim Bolger's and Jenny Shipley's Government where high unemployment was used as a tool to keep inflation rates down. I had just graduated from university and it was really hard to find a job at the time. I ended up spending a number of months on the unemployment benefit now called jobseeker support. Every week I had to go to a Work and Income office and explain what I had been doing in seeking work. It was embarrassing and degrading to have to go in every week. It felt like I was being interrogated and I was being judged for not having a job—Hon Nicola Willis: What does this have to do with Part 2?Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —or for not trying hard enough"—it goes to my amendment— "despite doing everything I could. I heard from a number of my fellow university graduates who were going through the same thing and were struggling with the same feelings of being judged and not being considered worthy enough." No one should be forced into that scenario. So employment purpose it gives people motivation it gives people hope and it gives people inspiration. Unemployment is the opposite; it sucks hope out of life it steals purpose it drains motivation and it kills inspiration. Knowing that the Government and the Reserve Bank are using unemployment as a tactic to make the economy appear better than it actually is is dehumanising. Then he asked me to really push this in the House and here's the line that really got to me: he said "We cannot see a return to 1990s ideology where people's jobs and livelihoods are sacrificed on the altar of a low inflation figure." That is why I have proposed this amendment. If we are going to sacrifice workers if we are going to force people into unemployment in order to adjust around inflation then he says there should be compensation for those workers who are used as a tool in the economy. That is why we actually need to retain both maximum sustainable employment and price stability in the objectives for the Reserve Bank. So this goes to the heart of this bill.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired."