But, as I said earlier, a key concern that we have, apart from these three levels of decision-making accountability—governor, MPC, board—and the potential for interference, is the context in which all of this is happening. I want to put on the Hansard the record of what we have been seeing in recent weeks in relation to the conduct of the Reserve Bank and the Minister of Finance's influence on it, because it is absolutely pivotal to the way in which this bill will operate. So just a few weeks ago, Andrew Bayly, National's spokesperson, said that he was concerned about the Reserve Bank's funding-for-lending programme—$28 billion to be pumped into the economy in order to keep things going—and he said, "Well, wouldn't it be better if that went towards productive uses rather than simply into housing?", and he gave some example of where that had been the case offshore. The Minister could suggest this through a letter of expectation. Now, what we then had was this huge overreaction from the Prime Minister, saying that that was Muldoonist, which it strikes me as very relevant to this debate, because here we are changing the very institutional settings in which the Reserve Bank operates, allowing the Minister of Finance to appoint a new board, to change its remit, and to change the way it operates, and yet the National Party, through suggesting a letter of expectation, are somehow the ones that are encroaching on independence. 