Point number four is around monetary policy and prudential supervision. One of the things that I think the bill is ignoring is there are learnings for New Zealand to take the approach that the English and Australians have done to prudential supervision and create either a separate organisation as supervisor, or a separate committee with independent members to ensure there is the appropriate focus. By doing that for monetary policy but not prudential regulation, is the Minister, effectively, saying one is more important than other—we'd like that question answered—and, if so, isn't that a backward step? 