Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Madam Chair thank you very much. Part 2 of the bill makes a large number of consequential changes as a result of Part 1 and the narrowing of the economic objective down. What it means is that a large number of sections in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act where there has been reference to the dual mandate will now become null and void.I want to begin my questioning of the Minister in this part by asking her the question as to whether or not she believes that there is anywhere in the other parts of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that the concept of maximum sustainable employment could be incorporated. The reason I ask this Madam Chair is because in Part 1 as you know we didn't get an answer to the question from the Minister as to whether or not she believed that the Reserve Bank should take into account concepts—be it maximum sustainable employment or any other concept—of employment as being a relevant consideration in monetary policy. As we know this is in fact the view that the Reserve Bank stated to the Minister in the letter that she tabled to the House last night. It's a question of prioritisation not a question of exclusion.So my question to the Minister here is that there are a large number of sections of the Act being amended in Part 2 and would the Minister consider that within those sections there is scope to at least give the opportunity for the Reserve Bank to be able to speak more about employment or consider employment more in the work that they do?I mentioned earlier on in contributions on this matter that other central banks around the world certainly do do this. Now they do it in a number of different ways. So a further question for the member is what consideration she gave to international examples of the way in which employment considerations are reflective. This is relevant to Part 2 because it is in these clauses that this becomes effectively operative as noted by the repeal of a number of words by the Government in these clauses.I will shortly table a number of amendments that would give an opportunity for the Government to be able to express that the Reserve Bank does in fact have a role when it comes to employment. There would be for example the ability to amend section 130 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act which would require a report on monetary policy to look at the impacts of the monetary policy committee's approach on economic development and employment. That amendment I believe will be tabled in the name of Deborah Russell when the time comes. It's an example of the point I'm making here and the question I'm asking the Minister as that would give an opportunity for at the very least a report to be made by the monetary policy committee to talk about employment.Because we come back to the very beginning of this discussion: the Minister has presented no evidence to the committee that there is any conflict between the two. We've now gone through Part 1 and the objective has been narrowed. Here's the opportunity for the Minister to actually acknowledge that people's jobs the wages that they earn are important to take the point that both Damien O'Connor and Chlöe Swarbrick made in Part 1: the economy is more than just the numbers on the page. It's all of the things that people do in their day-to-day lives and most importantly in this case the work that they do.So here is an opportunity for the Minister to take up the idea that the Reserve Bank like all other central banks around the world should at least consider employment and the clauses being amended in Part 2 are the place where the Minister can insert that. So I invite her to answer the question: is she prepared to take on the idea that employment is important and significant for a bank and use these clauses in Part 2 to be able to add in references to employment and ways in which the Reserve Bank could take them into account? If she doesn't that signals a very radical departure from what has been monetary policy over many years.