Scott Alastair: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeScott Alastair: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:707;Page:4905. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa):I would like to speak to the bill for a few minutes—just for a few minutes. It is pleasing to see that in supporting the bill we are generally in agreement. I would also like to pick up a point that Mr Tabuteau talked about and to clarify—Hon Members: Professor.ALASTAIR SCOTT: —“Professor” Tabuteau—whether this bill does anything to change the activity or passiveness of any investment that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation make. The way I read this bill there is no change. This fund investment vehicle does not allow any change to the activity of investment or to the type of investment that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation are able to take. If you think that the power to grant a power of attorney is more activity if you think that the power to appoint an investment manager is a more active fund or if you think that the power to appoint a custodian is increasing the activity of the fund then you are wrong. This does not increase the active management that section 59 has and will continue to have to guide the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation.I would like to discuss and clarify a couple of issues around the reasons why the Minister of Finance should not be involved and will not be involved in the interference of the management of this trust. It is interesting that Labour Opposition members particularly talk about Dr Cullen’s plan to have totally independent governance of this fund and I totally support that notion but then I am surprised that the Labour guys want interference from the Minister of Finance. As soon as you have got that foot in the door how is a Minister of Finance to react if—assuming that was he given the authority—as an example he or she is asked to approve an investment and the investment goes bad? Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation or of the Minister of Finance? If the investment goes well who takes the credit? Is it the Minister of Finance who approved this investment which was not passive or is it again the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation who should take the credit?This fund as has been noted already is performing outstandingly. It is the top State-funded superannuation fund in the past 5 years. If we were to allow Mr Robertson or Mr Nash or Dr Parker as a potential Minister of Finance what would we have? What would we see? What investments would be approved by these people? Well for a start I can tell you that there would be a hell of a lot more going straight into their $100000 house project because these guys have talked about investing more into the New Zealand Exchange. That is not the purpose of this fund. The purpose of this fund is to have a diversified global fund across different equity markets across different countries and across different instruments without interference from any Minister of Finance and that is why this Supplementary Order Paper which removes the suggestion given by the Finance and Expenditure Committee must be ruled out. Thank you.