Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): I rise in the slightly strange position this afternoon of agreeing with Chlöe Swarbrick and disagreeing with David Seymour which is a slightly foreign position for me to be in but I'll do what I can to disagree with Chlöe Swarbrick's contribution because there were a couple of elements in it that I did disagree with.I do just want to cover off of course that we are supporting this bill as Mr David Seymour has pointed out because we do see it as one of the few pro-growth measures that was in the Budget and we do see a role for Government in being involved in venture capital involved in a venture capital ecosystem.But I did want to point out some of the points that Chlöe Swarbrick made in relation to clause 35 of the bill where she talked about the fact that Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation must have regard to the Government's commitment to a low-emissions economy the Government's commitment to an inclusive economy and the Government's wider economic policy as specified in the direction.I have concerns about all three of those aspects of the bill actually because what it essentially means is that the Guardians will be required to look at other things other than just growth. They'll be required to look at things that will yield lower returns than if they went for higher returns. My view is that certainly when it comes to our superannuation and in the money that we are going to rely on in our retirement the Guardians should be looking for ideally the biggest returns they can get rather than other considerations.But the two concerns I have in particular with that are that she actually didn't fully explain what that clause means. It's because it's not just in relation to the guardians having regard to those things. It's that the guardians have to have regard to the directions from Ministers. So what it means is that a Minister of the Crown would be able to direct the Guardians to have regard to a low-emissions economy an inclusive economy and to the Government's wider economic policy. I have concerns about that because what it would mean is that a future Green Minister could say Right. Well from now on growth is no longer our consideration. We're not worried about how much the Superannuation Fund or this fund actually yield. We're only concerned about climate change mitigation or only concerned about ensuring that the wealth disparity in New Zealand reduces. We're not actually worried at all about getting higher returns for our superannuation." So I do have concerns about those aspects.Earlier in the debate Mr Mark Patterson said this bill would "plug a hole in the New Zealand economy". I thought about that afterwards because I think to myself "Well what an awfully large hole this Government's dug themselves in when it comes to the economy." because what we've had this afternoon or earlier today was the HYEFU which is the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update come out. What that showed is that we've now got a projected deficit for the first time in quite a few years after having this Government come in just a couple of years ago two years ago. And at the time Treasury were projecting I think from memory surpluses out to 2032 which is about as far as they can project. So it's quite staggering now that we have this situation just two years in that we have such low growth that the Treasury are now projecting that we're going to have a deficit for the first time. So for Mark Patterson to jump up and say that in some way this $300 million fund is going to plug that hole I find quite staggering because as my colleagues on this side of the House have pointed out it's not actually $300 million of new money at all; $240 million of it comes from the Superannuation Fund which as I pointed out should be trying to get high yields and higher returns for our superannuation and $60 million of it comes from the Venture Investment Fund. So we're standing up in this House debating this legislation about $300 million and a brand new fund when actually it's not $300 million of new money at all. All it is is $300 million dollars of reallocated money that as my colleague Mr Seymour has pointed out has come from taxpayers. So it's not as if this is a brand new wonderful fund which is going to—David Seymour: What does the member think of that?ANDREW FALLOON: Mr Seymour has actually almost talked me into voting against this bill. I won't though because we are trying to encourage the Government to come up with pro-growth policies. We do see this as one of the very few pro-growth things that the Government has proposed. So we will vote for it. But I do have concerns about those things and I do in particular have a concern with Ms Chlöe Swarbrick who wants to go even further than those ministerial directions. Thank you."