Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's always good on a Thursday afternoon—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Prime-time viewing!Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —prime-time viewing—to be speaking in the House on a bill such as this: the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill.I didn't have the privilege of sitting on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to hear submissions but I have been listening very carefully to the debate this afternoon and I particularly listened to the contributions of my colleagues the Hon Amy Adams Judith Collins Paul Goldsmith and Andrew Bayly who I think have made a very cogent case for this House needing to be cautious and concerned about change for change's sake which is unnecessary and potentially very scary for middle New Zealanders who have become very used to the benefits that come from certainty and stability in our economic model based almost entirely on the independence and world best-practice infrastructure that we have around our Reserve Bank.I've heard from a number of contributors to this debate this afternoon who are much younger than I am and I can well recall buying my first house when I was recently married back in the mid-1980s at a time then when my wife and I were both working—we didn't have children at that stage. I well remember having a first mortgage that was about 19 percent interest rate we had a second mortgage that was getting on for 19.75 percent from memory and then we had a third mortgage which was a solicitors' mortgage which had 20-something in front of it. I can well remember that during that period of rampant out-of-control inflation that was just the way it was—that was just the way it was.Then of course we had the changes that occurred in the mid-1980s which I think now we look back on as being fundamental to the success that our economy has had since then. One of the primary principal foundation stones of that economic change was the independence and certainty that was created by our Reserve Bank. Every New Zealander since that time has benefited from it and no New Zealander who lived through that period of time of rampant high inflation of house prices that were even more extraordinary in terms of relative incomes and in terms of mortgage rates than today's low - interest rate environment that we've become so used to would want to go back to that. So to fiddle with something that is considered internationally with such credit and is so highly regarded being accepted by other countries as being world's best practice I would say Why would we want to do that?".I notice that a number of stakeholders presented at the Finance and Expenditure Committee including folks from the New Zealand Initiative and from Business New Zealand. I'm drawn to one of the compelling arguments that was presented by Business New Zealand at select committee when they said "The bill can largely be seen as a solution looking for a problem." I think therein lies the nub of the issue with this bill. So the dual mandate is obviously of concern. I think the Hon Paul Goldsmith highlighted that in his contribution admirably. The conflict that exists when you have a dual mandate is going to lead to confusion it's going to lead to a conflict and we won't have the certainty and the continuity that New Zealanders have become used to in terms of our day-to-day economic lives and the certainty that business needs that New Zealanders need that investors need and that individuals need. So I'm naturally concerned about that as I'm sure there are other members in the House that are. Now Federated Farmers also presented at select committee and made a submission and they shared similar concerns. Their key concerns lay in the area of the dual mandate and they were very worried about the issues of price stability and that price stability would be compromised if a dual mandate was imposed as this bill seeks to do. So we have now a new inexperienced Minister of Finance determined to fiddle and tweak as much as this Government is doing in a whole range of other areas—just look at industrial relations for instance. What they want to do is put at risk a financial institution that has stood New Zealand in good stead since the 1980s and I think we fiddle with it at our peril."