Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker for this opportunity to speak on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill. As we've heard from the previous two speakers the New Zealand super fund is a very important part of our financial system and as the Minister said it supports people having dignity in their retirement. So it is very important that any changes to the system—that we get it right.What we're wanting to do here is to improve the settings of the fund to make it more sustainable. As we've heard from the previous two speakers the fund has matured so that—and we will investigate this at the select committee—that avoidance of a controlling interest is no longer needed and in fact it's unhelpful and limits what the super fund can invest in. I appreciate from across the House there that everybody is wanting to support New Zealand's capital markets growing those and this is intended to be one way that will hopefully provide comfort for other investors.On to the bill itself it's a very small bill and it's amending the primary legislation. So really you need to look at both the Act and the bill together. The purpose of the Act is to establish this fund and to provide for Government contributions to the fund and that doesn't change.The main part of the Act that is changing relates to the section headed Investment of Fund" and that starts at section 58(1) which includes that "The Guardians are responsible for investing the Fund." and "(2) must invest the Fund on a prudent commercial basis and in doing so must manage and administer the Fund in a manner consistent with—(a) best-practice portfolio management; and (b) maximising return without undue risk to the Fund as a whole; and (c) avoiding prejudice to New Zealand's reputation". So that's not changing either. But then we get to section 59 "No controlling interests" and section 59A "Fund investment vehicles"—and the previous speaker Nicola Willis was talking about that section earlier and amendments made under the previous Government; and section 59B "Fund investment vehicles not required to prepare statements or annual reports". So these three sections get replaced by section 59 in clause 6 of the bill which allows for this change. So they will be replaced with new section 59 "Status of certain entities" and it goes through what the other speakers have already spoken about there. There's also a change to section 61 in terms of "Contents of statements" and the Minister spoke about that.I think what is important to speak about as well in terms of the previous speech is section 64. This is around "Ministerial directions" and is not changed by the bill. Hopefully it will give some comfort to the previous speaker but I do take her points that this is something that we do not want to get into ministerial interference. So section 64(1) says that "The Minister may after consultation with the Guardians give directions to the Guardians regarding the Government's expectations as to the Fund's performance including the Government's expectations as to risk and return." But then it says at subsection (2) "Despite anything to the contrary in the Crown Entities Act 2004 the Minister—(a) must not give a direction that is inconsistent with the Guardians' duty to invest the Fund on a prudent commercial basis in accordance with section 58; and (b) must not give a direction to the Guardians in respect of the Fund except in accordance with this section." Now I'd like to just reflect on the slightly unusual process that happens with amendments to this Act in that the Minister has to consult with the other parties. We've heard from the previous speaker that National is very interested in this bill and will be very engaged in the select committee and I welcome that we will have a very good discussion around this bill and I'm sure welcome submissions on it as well.Finally I do want to say that it's interesting that not only did the Minister have to consult with the members in this House with the other parties but he was also able to consult the late Sir Michael Cullen about it. It gives me some comfort that he approved of this process. So I commend the bill to the House."