Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): It's my pleasure to take a brief contribution in which National will oppose the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill but can I first of all the breach the Standing Orders very slightly and acknowledge the distinguished guests in the gallery today. I never thought I'd see that crowd coming to hear my contribution on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act!My first point would be to correct the Hon Shane Jones the First Citizen of the Provinces". New Zealand First didn't campaign on this amendment to the Reserve Bank Act. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has campaigned relentlessly to change the Reserve Bank Act and bring in a dual mandate which was controlling inflation and the exchange rate. That obviously got lost in the coalition agreements. This is sort of a hybrid arrangement which brings in now a dual mandate on inflation.Hon Shane Jones: Detail—detail.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well it is detail. I accept that the Hon Shane Jones—it is detail. It's detail I'd have expected the member to know if he claimed he campaigned on it.Be that as it may the first point I'd make about this—and the very reason that National will oppose the amendment to the Reserve Bank Act—is there are two sayings that spring to mind "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and "If this is the answer then what is the question?". I want to take an opportunity here to congratulate the Labour Government—the Labour Government of 1984 to 1990—and the fact that they brought in the Reserve Bank Act 29 years ago. It's dated 1989. The independence of the Reserve Bank has served this country magnificently well now for almost 30 years.I did not see any reason that was given to me while I attended every one of the Finance and Expenditure Committee hearings as to why we need to change the Reserve Bank Act. It is about the potential to introduce political influence and that will ruin the independence of the Reserve Bank. Grant Robertson has given us a promise here today that he won't see any political influence coming here but then he points out that he alone has the ability to appoint members of the monetary policy committee. He alone has the ability in this legislation to set the remit of the monetary policy committee. Now Mr Robertson might come to the House and give assurances that he as Minister of Finance won't politicise the decision making of the Reserve Bank but he cannot talk for any future Minister of Finance. So I think today we're going down a very dangerous track.National will oppose the legislation. There is no need to change the Reserve Bank Act—it has served this country well. In establishing today in this legislation a dual mandate of controlling inflation and keeping an eye on what is termed maximum sustainable employment we are in danger of compromising the very focus of the Reserve Bank Act and the Reserve Bank Governor and his role of controlling inflation. When you get two mandates to follow inevitably there will be a time in the future when there must be a compromise between those two mandates.I can conclude with this comment: even when they were before the select committee no one could explain to me what maximum sustainable employment meant. I raised that question with the Minister during the committee stage in this House. He attempted to explain it. I couldn't understand it and I suspect that by the time the Minister himself sat down he had no idea what he had just told the committee of the whole House.I think this legislation is totally unnecessary. It is dangerous. It will be opposed by the National Party but it will fulfil yet another argument advanced by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in the coalition discussions after the election of 2017. The score is I would say again New Zealand First one Labour nil or to put it another way—because this has been a long argument between Treasury and the Reserve Bank—it's Treasury one Reserve Bank nil. Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker."