Will safer banks mean higher interest costs? Maybe.
Then again maybe we could avoid the kind of costly government deposit guarantee we needed in the global financial crisis.
I don't know. I don't claim to be an expert in Tier 1 Capital requirements - but I do know a thing or two about corporate spin.
I also know the Reserve Bank's new capital ratio proposal is an important topic for national debate.
And it is becoming one-sided.
The sheer weight of PR power pushing for the status quo - ultimately the interests of Australian bank shareholders - is what leaps out at me in this debate.
We're seeing the screws turned on the Reserve Bank by numerous financial institutions, lobby groups and even opposition politicians, in a way that undermines the process.
This should be a discussion about our collective appetite for risk.
We do these debates quite well on less esoteric subjects.
Road safety is currently in the public eye as we debate the value of a lower road toll versus the economic costs of slowing down traffic.
Pragmatism dictates there must be a balance. Is it time to adjust the balance?
Opinions vary but people get it.
There has also been some good public debate about government debt.
But when it comes to private debt we seem stop thinking collectively.
The risk of personally paying higher interest costs weighs much heavier than the collective cost of a major banking a failure.
As a media narrative it's a tough sell for the Reserve Bank.
Presenting worst-case scenarios around interest rate rises is a great headline grabber.
Numerous financial institutions and banks have been happy to do just that.
That's seen the spotlight turned back on the Reserve Bank.
Embattled, bunkered and defensive – these are words that commentators seem to like using to describe Reserve Bank Governors.
The previous Governor copped it too.
To me, Orr and his predecessor Graeme Wheeler both seem to be intelligent, philosophical thinkers of a kind that is sadly all too rare in the upper levels of the New Zealand political sphere.
Both were, and are, passionate about serving New Zealand.
Perhaps surprisingly, both are laid-back and relaxed in person.
Wheeler was softly spoken and criticised for not being open with the public.
Orr, certainly more verbose, is now under fire for speaking too much.
But despite different personal styles, they are not fundamentally so different in their beliefs and motivations.
So what gives?
Why is the Reserve Bank always embattled these days?
It's been one of our most competent and least scandal-prone institutions for the past 30 years.
It seems unlikely it's about monetary policy.
As complex as the inputs for interest rate setting may be, the outcomes are very transparent.
Rates go up, rates go down or rates stay on hold.
When the Bank gets it wrong it tends to be pretty obvious.
That happened in 2014, rates went up three times in the belief that inflation was returning to normal.
It was caught out when the global oil price collapsed.
The Bank had to reverse, with cuts through 2015.
I have doubts about cutting rates this year. Controversial? Not really.
Neither this Governor nor the last has been troubled by differing views on where interest rates should be or what inflation is doing.
It's monitoring Financial Stability – an area which used to be the boring part of the job - where the battle lines are now drawn.
Since the Global Financial Crisis and the government's deposit guarantee, the subsequent surge in house prices and private debt, the Reserve Bank has dared to challenge the freedom of the major banks to operate here.
Under Wheeler the Reserve Bank regulated risky lending with the introduction of loan-to-value ratios.
Wheeler didn't have much support from the John Key's Government, which seemed happy to let the good times roll in the property market.
That tension between Wheeler, finance minister Bill English and Key spilled over into the media.
For some reason many local commentators made assumptions about the Governor being the prickly one.
Under Orr the Reserve Bank plans to hike the required amount of higher-quality Tier 1 Capital from 8.5 per cent to 16 per cent.
It will likely make our banks lower-risk, lower-return, investments.
That means shareholders face lower profits or will need to pass on higher costs to borrowers.
Aussie bank bosses, like Westpac chairman Lindsay Maxsted, have described it as inconceivable that their shareholders "just take that on the chin".
They have threatened to hike rates, lend less or even pull back on their investment in New Zealand.
Fair enough, banks and their boards have a fiduciary duty to one group and one group only - their shareholders.
Meanwhile, the Reserve Bank has a duty to the people of New Zealand to worry about our collective debt levels.
The Crown accounts might look good with debt at 20 per cent of GDP.
But our private debt levels are approaching half a trillion dollars, or nearly 200 per cent of GDP.
Despite the rate of growth slowing, as the housing market cools, the total is still rising.
The majority of that debt of that is concentrated in residential housing.
And, across the housing, farming and business sectors, the vast bulk sits with four big Australian banks - four big, powerful institutions that see changes proposed by the Reserve Bank as overly cautious.