Robertson Grant: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4905. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you very much Mr Chair for giving me the call. I want to help out my colleague Mr Scott and I think the best way of being able to do that is to work through a little basic statutory interpretation exercise for the member. I want to refer him—Chris Bishop: Here we go. Grant the lawyer. Grant Robertson QC.GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you very much. That sounds like a good name for a TV programme. I think I may do that—reality TV. Clause 6 of the bill talks about section 59 being amended and what is really important is what section 59 of the Act currently does.Hon David Parker: “No controlling interests”.GRANT ROBERTSON: It says that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation of the fund can have “no controlling interests”. That is the whole thing we have been discussing tonight: the fact that the fund when it was established allowed for this complete arms-length relationship. The Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation was there to have the overall control of the fund and what a good job it has done of that.But if we look at what clause 6 is it is a new subsection (5)(a) and it reads: “This section—(a) does not apply to a Fund investment vehicle referred to in section 59A …”. So it is changing things Mr Scott. That is the point of the law. Why would the law be proposed if we were not changing anything?Hon Member: Wasting our time.GRANT ROBERTSON: Well it could be. It would not be a big surprise if the National Party came here to waste our time on a piece of legislation but actually this one clearly says it does not.And then section 59A goes on to establish the fund investment vehicles and describe what they can do: “All or any of the investments of the Fund may be held in an entity that is formed”—for Mr Scott—“or controlled by the Guardians for the purpose of holding facilitating or managing the investments of the Fund (a Fund investment vehicle).” So something new is being created here. Something new that is different and requires us to amend the section of the law that says that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation have no controlling interest—Hon David Parker: So they can have it.GRANT ROBERTSON: —which means it can have controlling interests. It goes on which is why sections 59A(1A) and (1B) were added by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.I want to refer members to the words the committee used in its report. The committee considered these amendments would “provide a suitable balance between allowing the Guardians access to new vehicles to invest the Fund efficiently and effectively as it grows and complying with the Act’s intention that the Guardians not be involved in the business operations of the entities in which the Fund is invested.”The select committee “considers it desirable to reinforce the intention that FIVs be passive holding entities but we also accept that considerations of diversification and risk management might make some classes of asset a desirable investment for the Fund so the question of effective control of an operating entity might arise.”So to help reassure the member on one count subsection (1B) of section 59A which the Minister is now seeking to remove talks about the Minister’s approval being required for classes of investments or entities not the specific investments themselves not the specific entity that may be created but classes of them. It is to give a little bit of reassurance that the fund is not going off in a direction that taxpayers would be uncomfortable with but it is not about the Minister specifying a specific investment or controlling whether or not a specific investment would be made.That is exactly why those words of the committee that I have read out were unanimously endorsed by the committee because this does fundamentally change an original premise of the bill.Chris Bishop: It does not.GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes it does—of the Act. Yes it does Mr Bishop. Why would section 59 be changed? Why would it be changed if it did not do that? Why would it say: “This section does not apply to a Fund investment vehicle …”? Because the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation came to the select committee and said: “This is now a mature fund. This is now a fund that we believe can do more to invest in New Zealand.” I think one of the things they said when they first came to us was the possibility of using these fund investment vehicles for investing entities for real property assets e.g. timber farming and investment property assets.Andrew Bayly: You are so confused.GRANT ROBERTSON: I am confused? Mr Bayly says I am confused by this law. Mr Bayly should turn round and ask Alistair Scott whether or not anything changes because he got up and assured the Committee that nothing is changing—nothing is changing here; we should be completely reassured. Well what is the point then? Mr Bayly tell us what the point is.