Bishop Chris: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBishop Chris: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:707;Page:4899. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS BISHOP (National):This speech has been very hotly anticipated. I do not think I have had a speech more anticipated since I spoke to Todd Muller’s SuperBlues group in Tauranga. It is good to see that members opposite are so looking forward to this. Quite to the contrary of the assertions from Mr Robertson I was not on the select committee that considered this bill although the Finance and Expenditure Committee did do a good job of considering this bill.I want to make a couple of prefatory remarks. The first is that this is clearly a sensible bill. Despite the heat and the sort of venom from members opposite there is actually support for this bill. It is a prudent bill that will allow greater flexibility for the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation to improve the returns of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which it governs on behalf of all New Zealanders.The other prefatory remark I want to make is that the Superannuation Fund has done a good job. I think that you know some time ago that would have been controversial to say in National Party circles. It would have been somewhat controversial to endorse and praise the New Zealand Superannuation Fund or the Cullen fund as members opposite like to talk about but it has done a good job. That does not mean that we should have borrowed money during the global financial crisis and put it into the Superannuation Fund. That does not make much sense. The Government took the view that it was a prudent and considered use of taxpayers’ money not to do that. It does not make much sense to borrow money in order to invest it on risky sharemarket exchanges because at the end of the day you cannot beat the market in the long run and that was the view that the Government took. I know that members opposite disagree with that but I think that most New Zealanders agree that that was a sensible thing to do.The second thing I would say and this speaks to one of the issues that has come up in the Committee tonight is that the independence of the fund is vital. That is exactly why the Minister of Finance is moving as I understand it the Supplementary Order Paper in his name to remove from the bill the clause that allows ministerial approval of investment classes. Members opposite you know are saying we are tying ourselves in knots on this. I would just point to the Minister’s second reading speech on this which was when he acknowledged that this issue is a finely balanced one. It is a fine line. There is a diversity of views on this issue and I acknowledge that the Finance and Expenditure Committee which I was not a member of did consider this issue in some detail. But in the passage of time I think that the Government has come to the view that the independence of the Superannuation Fund is so paramount that we should not have Ministers involved in the approving of particular asset classes or particular investment classes. It is very important that we maintain the independence of the fund and we do not have politicians involved in that. It is a finely balanced issue. Members opposite have a decent argument on it but I also think that Government members have a good argument on this too and that is the view that the Government has come to.I just want to briefly mention the substantive change that the bill makes in this part which is to allow fund investment vehicles. As members have noted that was sought by the guardians. This is a useful change and it is the most substantive change the bill makes. It brings the Superannuation Fund into line with global best practice which allows it to fund the entities that are formed for the purpose of holding or facilitating or managing investment of the funds. As has been pointed out this will increase the efficiency and the flexibility of the fund. This will not allow the Superannuation Fund to hold a substantial controlling interest in the underlying operating entity. That is appropriate.The other change I want to point to is the change in clause 5 of the bill that prevents the guardians from being challenged legally by way of judicial review by dint of the argument that their actions are ultra vires. Again this was considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This is a prudent and sensible change.I think that in the past the National Party has been somewhat critical of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund or the Cullen fund as members have called it. But I think there is now consensus and unanimity across the Chamber that it is a sensible fund that prefunds the cost of superannuation in the future. As a Parliament we have a duty to try to make sure that the fund operates in the best way possible so that it maximises returns for New Zealanders. The measures that this bill advances will do that.