Willis NicolaHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The member raises a very good question because what the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill recognises in new section 59(2) is that if the Official Information Act 1982 were to be automatically applied to any entity which had a controlling fund investment in it that would be significantly problematic because it could actually prevent the fund from wanting to make that investment in the first place. It would make it a less beneficial investor than others due to the additional disclosure obligations that would sit upon it. So that is specifically carved out in this bill.However what the member is now focusing on is the fact that the Official Information Act still applies to the Guardians in respect of the information that the Guardians hold. That is the case. However the Official Information Act—by way of I understand sections 9(2)(b) 9(2)(i)—does allow entities to withhold the release of information on a number of grounds relating to commercial sensitivity. That is entities can choose to withhold information if they believe that supplying that information would damage the public interest in a number of ways. Looking at the Ombudsman guidance on that this goes to whether or not it would prejudice a commercial position and in particular the information the release of which could prejudice a commercial position includes information that could disadvantage an entity vis a vis their direct competitor that could increase their costs that could decrease their income or profits damage their negotiating position damage their reputation leading to a loss of business or trade or damage shareholder customer or supplier confidence.Now I don't pretend members that I came to the committee tonight with expertise on the particular commercial grounds for withholding under the Official Information Act but what I can assure the member is that the operation of the Official Information Act as it has related to the super fund has included grounds for withholding information that I am not aware of there being any concerns about. As the member points out it would be another step for the entity itself to be subject to the Official Information Act (OIA) simply because the super fund was its investor and that would raise a new range of concerns. So I think that is an important point that the member raises.For members' interest the super fund does already have a number of direct investments in New Zealand in which is doesn't have a controlling interest but which it does have a direct investment. This includes: Kaingaroa Timberlands which obviously owns a large forest; Longroad; Datacom; Awanui; Kaha Ake; Fidelity Life; and NZ Gourmet—alongside significant property investments in hotels and land development. The point that I am simply making is that the super fund has been able to make investments of this nature while being subject to the OIA previously and that gives me confidence that when it later takes controlling interests in entities that could be similar to those it already holds this will not be prejudicial to its commercial performance in the way that the member raises.