Ross Jami-Lee: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3324. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill. It is a relatively small bill but one that does have quite a positive impact on New Zealanders so that they can continue to see the New Zealand Superannuation Fund go from strength to strength. Credit must be paid where it is due and this side of the House is pleased to say that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has been performing well. It was set up in 2003 and has been doing well since. It started with $2.5 billion in cash and it has returned I understand over 10 percent per annum. At the end of March this fund stood at about $29 billion and the return over the past 12 months was 18.85 percent.The Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation however have been discussing over some time with the Government some changes to the legislation that they operate under. These changes are contained in this bill that we discuss today. The changes would effectively enable the fund to use fund investment vehicles to enable them to invest more efficiently and effectively in some certain areas where they have otherwise been inhibited in the past.Before I go on a bit further about what is in the bill I have to comment and rebut some of the comments that have been made today by our friends on the other side Mr Robertson and Dr Clark. They seem to think that we should have been going to the bank and borrowing even further to continue with our contributions to the Superannuation Fund. Yes the contributions that the Government makes to the Superannuation Fund were suspended some years ago. It was done for a very good reason. They argue that we should have continued to provide contributions to that Superannuation Fund but why on earth would the Government do that whilst at the same time it has had to borrow to maintain services for New Zealanders?Labour members like to stand in the House now and say that we should be getting back to surplus faster than we are planning to and that we are not doing the Superannuation Fund favours by not going back to providing contributions because we have not been able to make surplus so far. But I remember as many others on this side of the House remember during the election campaign and in speeches from the Opposition members during the past year or two when they continually came up with ideas for spending more money. Spending more money of course would have led to even more debt being accumulated by the Government—by the Crown—which would have made it even harder for Superannuation Fund contributions to have gone back to the way they were when the Government was making those contributions.So I say to Mr Robertson and Dr Clark please do not stand in this House and argue that we are not doing the right thing by ceasing Superannuation Fund contributions. Do not say that we should be getting back to making Superannuation Fund contributions faster than we are planning to because under Labour members’ prescription which they outlined to the public and which was rejected by the public there was a whole lot more debt there was a whole lot more spending and it would not have been good for New Zealanders. We do have a Minister of Finance who is working hard and has seen our economy continue to improve and continue to get back on its feet. I think that New Zealanders are pleased with that and are happy with the economic prescription that we have.The Superannuation Fund though is there effectively for the protection of New Zealanders and their retirement opportunity through the superannuation they are paid by the Government. This Superannuation Fund is there to protect the funds available to continue to make those Superannuation Fund contributions. The guardians of the Superannuation Fund do a very good job. They are providing very good returns for New Zealand taxpayers. I believe—and the Minister of Finance has outlined this earlier today—that their independence is fundamental to their ability to continue to provide those high returns.We are politicians in this Parliament. We are very good at arguing points of view. We are very good at going out and selling to the public what we believe is fundamentally important for this country. Some of us are better at it than others when it comes to elections as it turns out but I have to say that we—Iain Lees-Galloway: Oh don’t be so smug. Your time will come my friend.JAMI-LEE ROSS: Just talking about the election results Mr Lees-Galloway. We are politicians though. We are not experts on investing funds through the Superannuation Fund. We are good at arguing in Parliament but when there is $30 billion of assets sitting there that we want to continue to see increasing in size every year the guardians through their independence and through their structure are best placed to be making the investment decisions.The Minister of Finance has quite rightly outlined that he plans to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage. When we were considering this matter in the Finance and Expenditure Committee we did feel as though some extra checks and balances were warranted but those are worth exploring even further during the Committee stage and I look forward to Dr Clark—as he was saying—and the Opposition examining those as well.It is worthwhile just going to the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation submission which they made to the select committee. They outline quite well in their submission some of the reasons why they wanted to have these changes around fund investment vehicles implemented and some new legislation through this amendment bill. They believe that some of the costs that they have incurred by having to go through a relatively complex way of achieving the goals they want to achieve have led to about $30 million of cost to the fund. They believe that they could have effectively saved that $30 million if they were able to have the ability to invest through the fund investment vehicles that they are proposing.I just want to read out some of the comments that they made in their submission. They spoke about the fact that having the ability to establish and control fund investment vehicles “formed for the purpose of holding facilitating or managing investments” would allow the guardians “to negotiate a [more] specific mandate with an Investment Manager as opposed to being one of a number of investors in a pooled fund.” Again we talked about independence earlier in this Chamber and there is greater independence there should they be able to use fund investment vehicles. They would “have more say over the jurisdiction where the Investment Vehicle is located.” and that is important for the Superannuation Fund to be able to make the best decisions for New Zealanders through the fund. They will be able “to increase and reduce the level of investment over time.”—more flexibility which will enable the Superannuation Fund guardians to do better for taxpayers. Having this ability to use fund investment vehicles would “protect the fund from disproportionate liability” such as liability being limited to the value of the specific investments.What we have here is a group of people who are experts in their field who want to see the New Zealand Superannuation Fund increase at the high rates that it has. It has a $30 billion fund which in a relatively small country like New Zealand makes them some of the most significant fund managers in the country. For them to have more flexibility through fund investment vehicles and to look elsewhere for more opportunities is a very good thing and good on them for coming to us to ask for this.So the Superannuation Fund—yes set up by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen—has done well. Dr Cullen should be congratulated on the foresight that he had with the fund. However it does need to look wider as to where it invests in the future it does need to look for future opportunities and it is doing that.The Official Information Act provisions were seriously looked at by the committee too. We know that transparency and accountability is important for the public. We on the committee felt strongly that the current Official Information Act provisions around the Superannuation Fund are working well and that there was no need to progress those further and include fund investment vehicles. One of the very reasons why you would not do that is so there is greater flexibility available through those fund investment vehicles.I am pleased to see this bill go further through the House. I am looking forward hopefully to some good support from the Opposition on this change as well. It is sensible it is practical and it will enable the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to continue to improve and increase over time for the benefit of New Zealanders.