SpeechRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you Madam Speaker and it's always a great pleasure to follow the New Zealand First member Fletcher Tabuteau colloquially known around the House as the Professor". I just hope that when he was in front of his students in a former life he was a little clearer with his arguments than he managed for the last eight minutes in this House. But let me take you through the Venture Capital Fund Bill as I understand it. First of all as has been stated National will support it to a select committee but with caution and I want to outline some of the reasons why this particular legislation does have a worrying trend about it. The first point I'd make—and I know it will be the subject of a lengthy debate after this particular bill is voted on—is the surprising instruction from David Parker the Minister in charge of this legislation to rush it through a select committee process. That worries me for a start. Fletcher Tabuteau made the comment that this legislation will be good for the New Zealand economy and I hope he's right but he would be naive to think that this legislation doesn't also carry risk for the New Zealand economy. Therefore they are the sorts of issues that the Finance and Expenditure Committee should have the opportunity to tease out correctly and it shouldn't have to be done in a truncated process with the Minister insisting it be back here and I think the date is 2 December. So it's rushed considering the other work before that very busy select committee. I acknowledge that it is important legislation and that there is a clear gap in the market for venture capital to be obtained by emerging companies and there is no better example of that than two companies I'll talk about: Rocket Lab and Synlait. Now they are completely different businesses I acknowledge but Rocket Lab went to obtain further capital within New Zealand and was unable to do so. I think I'm right in actually saying that it went to the other Government-established organisation for venture capital that already exists the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund (NZVIF) and I believe NZVIF actually turned down Rocket Lab as a premature naive type of idea that was not worth investing in. We actually had the privilege of actually having Peter Beck the chief executive of Rocket Lab speak to us at a recent National Party conference in Christchurch and what an impressive individual he is. What an impressive business he has developed. It is now truly an international business and a business that New Zealand could have had an investment in if the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund had thought about it more wisely. The second company I mentioned is Synlait a Canterbury dairy company that struggled in its initial formation to develop to the scale that it is today. It went to the New Zealand market certainly on one occasion I think for a public float and maybe on a second occasion if I remember correctly. The New Zealand capitalists were not prepared to support Synlait. It subsequently went offshore and got investment from offshore allowing it to develop to its full potential and is now a very very significant contributor to the Canterbury economy and elsewhere within New Zealand. They're currently trying to develop a substantial dairy processing plant in the Waikato. It is a huge success and another example of where it presented to the New Zealand market it was not able to obtain the capital it needed it went offshore and New Zealand is the poorer for the fact that that investment opportunity was overlooked. I accept the need for venture capital. There are many many companies we've come across in our time as members of Parliament when we visit various fledgling businesses that are looking to expand and the opportunity to do so is not willingly provided by banks who are becoming more and more risk-averse currently. Certainly that is being driven also by the current Reserve Bank Governor's personal campaign I think to tighten up capital ratios for banks which is making them even more concerned about some of the ventures they're prepared to fund. So why isn't the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund NZVIF an avenue that could provide the venture capital? Why do we need two organisations? That is certainly something that I want to tease out in the select committee.The second point that worries me is the size of this particular fund at $300 million. The first point I'd make is that is exactly 10 percent of the money that's been given to Shane Jones for nothing more than a slush fund as he goes around the country with his $3 billion spraying it around like confetti for the required photo opportunity for him to present himself in the local provincial papers and it's all about a very cheap nasty scheme and designed to ensure the survivability of New Zealand First at the next election. Here we've got this important issue of a $300—Fletcher Tabuteau: So bitter. So sad.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Fletcher Tabuteau interjects and says it is so sad. I agree because that $3 billion is hard-earned taxpayer money and under no circumstances should it be used so recklessly—so recklessly—in a forlorn attempt to ensure the survivability of the New Zealand First Party at election 2020. I can assure Mr Tabuteau or "the Professor" that New Zealand voters will not be so gullible.And then the second point I'd make in regards to $300 million is they have already instructed the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to make $240 million of the $300 million available. I think again that is a very dangerous precedent. The New Zealand super fund has been a remarkable performer and it has been a remarkable performer because of the guardians of that fund—and I respect them for their business acumen their financial acumen. But what we have here for the first time is a political interference in that fund whereby this Government—Labour New Zealand First and the Greens—are interfering with the decision-making ability of the New Zealand super fund and insisting that it makes $240 million available to the new venture capital fund and that again is something that I want the opportunity to tease out in the select committee process. I think it's a very very sad day when we see interference like that for the New Zealand super fund. It has been a remarkably successful organisation but if this Government's going to interfere and direct it as to where it must invest that is a danger for (a) the fund and (b) for New Zealand.I conclude with my final comments and again take a quote from professor Tabuteau. He said "This legislation will be good for the New Zealand economy." Well I hope he's right. It could be good for the New Zealand economy but—Hon Member: He is right.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: In fact the Hon Kris Faafoi just interjects and says it will be good. This is a risky business that any investor goes into and as Andrew Bayly so clearly said out of 10 projects one or two might be winners. But if Kris Faafoi is naive enough to believe that every investment this fund makes will be a world better will be highly successful then he fails to understand—and this doesn't surprise me—the risks associated with business in this economy and that perhaps is exactly why. In fact this is the very first piece of legislation you could even say they've advanced in this House that's got any focus on business at all. This legislation is not without risk."