Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. When a new administration comes down to the House with its first flush of a legislative package it tells you something about them. The first three pieces of legislation we're seeing in this period of urgency are about removing a focus on jobs and wages for ordinary New Zealanders and rolling back action on climate change. This speaks to the priorities of this Government and what it sees as its focus.I can only but feel for members on the Government benches—that they're coming down with the excitement of being in Government to pass legislation and all it is to do is to repeal; to undo. Not to put forward a vision not to put forward a positive change that they want to see for New Zealand but to say what they're going to undo and not what they're going to do. I will put that against our first package of legislation where we brought in a healthy homes guarantee a winter energy payment a Best Start payment and paid parental leave—all before Christmas in 2017. That is what a Government of action and what a Government with a vision looks like.I would before I get on to the substance of the bill like to take a moment to acknowledge the work of my friend and colleague the Hon Grant Robertson as his time as finance Minister of New Zealand. Not only did he want to modernise our monetary policy and not drag it back to 1989 like our current Government wants to do but he was a finance Minister that saw New Zealand through its darkest days of a global pandemic in better shape than most countries. Not only did our economy do well but also did our people.But one of the things that we know is that this is symbolic. So this is a Government that has chosen its first act of symbolism to be something it's not going to do rather than what it is going to do and telling us what we are going to see from a Government that is intent on dragging New Zealand backwards—as my colleague said Back to the Future".It is a Government that says it's going to be evidence based. Well all of the evidence the one regulatory impact statement that slipped through to the keeper under this Government and probably caused the end of them for the package of legislation that we're about to see states incredibly clearly that this is not the optimum way to do it. In fact we have never seen price stability as something that we didn't want to achieve through the monetary policy of the Reserve Bank. But for us in our core Labour DNA ensuring that we are also making sure that is in lock step with people having jobs and a decent wage is something that we are incredibly proud of. There is no evidence that these two things do not work in alignment. There is simply no evidence and the regulatory impact statement that the Minister saw made that incredibly clear.Dan Bidois: The election!Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I will take a moment as we're hearing a chorus from the backbench of the Government benches that we don't need regulatory impact statements because we had an election. Well newsflash: elections don't give you ultimate power. There still are requirements for you to do policy work and our Government did all the way through. This is a Government that has said it will not do the analysis; it will not put itself through the scrutiny required by a regulatory impact statement.This is a non-problem; this is a symbolic act. But what it does is it shows that this Government is removing that focus on jobs and wages for New Zealanders. I will finish with a quote from an opinion piece from a former Reserve Bank board member who says: "Just what the benefits of acting on a 'non-problem' "—the non-problem being what we're doing here tonight—"are [is] a matter for speculation. Perhaps if you crave a muscular reputation in the face of weakness elsewhere in your programme then making much of a 'non-problem' may be beneficial."Debate interrupted."