It would be fair to say that for most of those decades it proceeded on its merry way, fulfilling its mission to regulate monetary policy, with few citizens giving it even a second thought.
We knew that the Reserve Bank printed money and guaranteed the banking system - vital functions both in times of economic crisis. But the inner workings and priorities of monetary policy passed over most people’s heads.
That changed in 1990 when the Banking (Prudential Supervision) Act came into effect.
At the time inflation was running at about 4% per annum, so the mandate did not have the political implications that it would come to have in latter years when inflation soared.
Further tinkering came in 2018 when the government, controversially, added a second imperative to the Reserve Bank’s mandate, to strive toward achieving maximum sustainable employment.
It also set up the bank’s monetary policy committee, a body which homeowners and savers the country over pay close attention to when the official cash rate - a major influencer of bank interest rates - is set.
Despite the Bank’s independence, these moves brought it even closer into political debate. The wisdom of a dual mandate was warmly debated, and the economically and electorally critical OCR has been a hot potato during the ongoing cost-of-living crisis.
The new governing coalition moved swiftly after its election to return the bank to the sole mandate of fighting inflation, and it has been swift to claim credit for the bank’s success in that area.
It is nothing new for politicians to adopt the victories of others, but in recent days concerns have been expressed about potentially more overt interactions between politicians and the bank.
The first was a storm in a tea cup, but a timely reminder to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon of the need for precision in his choice of words.
In an interview Mr Luxon expressed, as he is entitled to, that the OCR should have been more aggressively cut.
That comment, in itself, would have been unremarkable but the PM then went on to say that he had expressed that view in a meeting with bank governor Christian Hawkesby.
Mr Luxon followed that statement immediately with the caveat that he respected the independence of the bank but by that time the damage was done as people sought to position Mr Luxon’s words as evidence he had tried to put pressure on Mr Hawkesby.
Mr Luxon denied any such thing, and should be taken at his word - but the loose language was unfortunate.
Just as that squall from that untoward verbal slip seemed to have calmed down came news late Friday night that Reserve Bank chairman Neil Quigley had resigned.
His departure was not entirely unexpected: it followed months of speculation about how well, or otherwise, he had handled the resignation of former bank governor Adrian Orr.
But Finance Minister Nicola Willis then did not help matters with her comments that she had been concerned that the bank’s reputation was being impacted by the ongoing controversy, and that if Mr Quigley had not offered his resignation, she would have asked him for it.
Again, in isolation, Ms Willis’ statement might have seemed unremarkable, but following on from Mr Luxon’s interview it again raised questions about how much influence the obviously partisan government might have over understandably independent Reserve Bank.
The answer is most likely the one which one would hope that it would be: none.
But senior government MPs need to take care that their words and actions do not lead anyone to doubt that status quo.
By the same token, any time a politician comments on monetary policy it should not be construed as being an attack on the bank’s independence. They are trying to court public opinion, not the bank’s monetary policy committee.
The past fortnight has demonstrated words matter, and that they need to be used carefully in this context.
