Robertson Grant; Pugh MaureenHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. There are many members on this side of the Chamber keen to contribute on Part 1 of this bill. I want to do two things in this call. I want to recap on two questions I asked the Minister last night that I have not had an answer to. The first of those is a very specific question on whether or not the Minister has had advice that there was anything in the dual mandate that caused the Reserve Bank to take its focus off reducing inflation. I asked that question twice last night and I haven't had an answer. It's a very important question because it goes to the heart of the Government's argument for why they are putting this bill and clause 4 in particular in front of the House. The argument being advanced by the Minister is that the Reserve Bank took its eye off the ball when it came to inflation. In fact what we heard from the Reserve Bank Governor himself on multiple occasions is that that is not the case and that the dual mandate did not affect the focus on inflation. So I would like to know again whether or not the Minister has had advice to the contrary on that because it is in fact the heart of what has been asked.The second question that I asked last night and haven't had an answer to was whether or not the Minister believes that the Reserve Bank should take into account matters to do with the impact of monetary policy on employment at all. We've established by the nature of the bill that's in front of us that the Minister doesn't believe it should be one of the two objectives of the bank. Having established that then the question we want to know the answer to is: does employment have any role whatsoever?Now as I noted last night it would be a radical departure by the Minister to not believe that employment had any merit for consideration and in order to help shape this discussion since the Minister declined to answer that question as well last night I refer the Minister and indeed the committee to amendments in my name to clause 4 that would try to meet the Government halfway. It says to the Government OK you no longer want two objectives in that clause that arguably"—and I don't agree with this but the Minister has argued this—"cause confusion." I think the people who work at the Reserve Bank are capable of dealing with two issues at once. But if we want to meet halfway I have an Amendment Paper that would make the maximum sustainable employment objective subservient or subordinate to the inflation control objective. Because that seems to be the issue that the Minister has raised in the House—that somehow or other there's this confusion.So if the Minister does believe that employment is a factor the Reserve Bank should take into account which as I say every Reserve Bank in the world does so if she doesn't believe that we've got a bigger problem and she should tell us that. But if that is what she does believe then here is the opportunity for the Minister to agree to the Amendment Paper that I have put up which would make the economic objective to achieve and maintain stability in the general level of prices over the medium term and subject to that subsection supporting maximum sustainable employment.So it does the thing that the Minister last night said she wanted which is a hierarchy of objectives. And this is a point too because the Minister relied a number of times last night on the letter that she has received from the Reserve Bank indicating their support for—and I believe this is the exact phrase—prioritisation.Now that's actually quite different from what the Minister's proposing because she's not proposing prioritisation; she's proposing getting rid completely of the maximum sustainable employment objective. So if she is so keen on the letter that the Reserve Bank Governor and the chair of the board sent to her here's an opportunity to fulfil that by taking on board my amendment which would create the prioritised list that the Reserve Bank are looking for.So just to recap on my contribution I'm still after an answer to the question of whether or not the Minister has any advice or indeed any evidence of whether the Reserve Bank's dual mandate meant that they didn't take decisions on inflation control that they should have and then secondly whether or not the Minister believes that employment should have a role in the decision making of the Reserve Bank when it comes to the official cash rate and its monetary policy. And if that is the case and she does think that then there is now an opportunity here for her to adopt my Amendment Paper. But I would appreciate an answer to those questions.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call can I just remind the member that if this is the third time he's asked that question it is leaning towards being repetitive.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order Madam Chair. With respect last night I raised a point of order on this exact subject with the person who was the presiding officer in the Chair. I agree and I raised it because I was concerned that a presiding officer would rule exactly the way that you just have. The new system that was brought in in last Parliament for the committee of the whole House relies on elements of cooperation around answering questions and I sought a ruling from the presiding officer that if a question was not answered referring again to the fact that it had not been answered would not be repetition. The presiding officer said that would be a factor that he would take into account. I'd be very concerned if the failure of a Minister to answer a question led to the closure of a debate."