Tabuteau Fletcher: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill Taxation (New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income) Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill Taxation (New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income) Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 20 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7373. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): As much as it pains me to stand up in defence of Government legislation—and it does pain me—just in response to what the Green Party member Julie Anne Genter was just talking about she was assigning a kind of personality or proclivity to what are generic fund investment tools. They are simply a mechanism for the purchasing and management of investments. What the Greens have insinuated in their contributions this evening is the suggestion that the tools in and of themselves allow and contribute to tax havens or tax evasions. Unfortunately that is just simply not the case—or fortunately as the case may be because New Zealand First absolutely supports this legislation.We did take note of what the Greens had said in their previous contributions around tax havens and tax avoidance. I did spend a lot of time investigating the inference that they raised and the reality is that it is only an inference. There are examples of fund investment vehicles being used injudiciously and inappropriately but that does not make them bad tools in and of themselves. Used well by our guardians in this legislation New Zealand First is absolutely confident that they are the right tool to be used in terms of moving forward.I now want to address just some of the statements from the Minister of Finance. I want to agree with him in the main because the very first thing he said was: “It’s taken us a really long time to get here.”Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Yeah them—big time.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yeah true. It has taken the National Party a really long time to get here and I cannot understand it. You have had consistent support from the Opposition parties right from the start.Chris Bishop: A busy Government.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: No it is not a busy Government Mr Bishop. The Minister pointed out—and again I will come to this in the body of my contribution—that the Government must maintain its independence or politicians must remain removed and ring-fenced from the decision making of this fund in particular.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Apart from David Bennett. He’s an expert.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yeah well Mr Bennett is an expert in his contributions to the House and I do enjoy listening to those contributions. But originally it was suggested that the Minister have the right to intervene. New Zealand First asked the question: is that necessarily appropriate? It was great to see the Minister himself actually come back and say—well probably not to our querying I have to admit but in response to the general outcry: “Actually it’s not appropriate. We do need to remove this provision for the Minister to intervene into the Superannuation Fund.”The issue here is what we have been seeing. Until we pass this legislation the guardians themselves will be restricted in what they can do. They have said it themselves and I will provide some detail very shortly. But what we like in this legislation—what New Zealand First likes I should more appropriately say—is that it does give the guardians an ability to make decisions around investing in New Zealand business. For us particularly when you have this premier investment fund to be able to do that is great not just ideologically but fundamentally for our economy moving forward. It is an essential device in terms of promoting and enabling investment into this country.The other thing the Minister said was that the fund investment vehicles themselves are a tool and a device that provides the guardians with a simple approach. It will provide flexibility for the overseers in reducing costs and allowing for greater returns. For us again for New Zealand First that makes perfect sense. You reduce your operational costs you allow the guardians to get in there and make wise decisions simply and effectively and in doing so you allow for greater returns to this fund. It is not only logical it is just common sense.We agree with Mr English. The less intervention he has into this fund the better. However contributing to it has been another issue entirely. I do think it appropriate to raise in this debate that the National Government has in terms of the total contribution to this fund contributed only 2 percent of that total contribution. That is entirely inappropriate.The Minister uses reverse logic which the Government uses to attack Labour on its discussions around the management of the Budget. The Government uses some kind of reverse logic there to insinuate that Labour has got it backwards. The Minister has done the same here with this piece of legislation. The simply reality is that this is a lost opportunity on the part of the National Government. New Zealanders whether they are retiring now or in the future have as a very bottom line missed out on at least $10 billion in extra funds that would have been there if those contributions had continued.In terms of just talking about the detail the reality is—and I have hinted at it just previously—that the legislation basically removes the quite restrictive operating parameters that the guardians are currently under. It does restrict and it has restricted their ability to invest particularly in New Zealand. New Zealand First has always maintained that these funds provide the premier opportunity for good investment into our own country not only to boost existing businesses but also to create—well that is a tricky word.Chris Bishop: Oh come on “Professor”!FLETCHER TABUTEAU: To enable businesses to become New Zealand businesses perhaps once again may be the politically correct way of saying it without offending Mr Bishop’s ideological principles too much.As I mentioned in my reply to the Minister this should not and cannot mean direct political intervention. I would like to acknowledge the fact personally that here is an example of the Government actually talking to those stakeholders involved in this decision. So it went and actually talked to the guardians and said: “What’s the problem? What’s going on? What do you need?”. The irony of ironies is that it listened and we now have this very sensible piece of legislation in front of us.So just to summarise New Zealand First does support this legislation. It is good it is sound and it may be called old school but the reasoning for it is just because it is common sense. It allows the guardians to make good decisions using modern investment vehicles and in our mind will enable greater and more efficient investment into New Zealand which can only be a good thing in our mind. Thank you.