by Rob Hosking
There is clear pressure from MPs to have a greater say in the government’s investment programmes, despite assurances that those funds will be immune from political interference.
The long-standing Government Superannuation Fund (GSF) came under renewed criticism in front of Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure select committee last week.
The fund, which has diversified out of government stock into a diversified portfolio over the past year, took something of a bath on world equity markets.
The fund is currently re-evaluating its investment strategy, chairman Basil Logan told MPs – something it is required to do annually.
Finance minister Michael Cullen told the committee that "happy is not a word I would use" about the GSF's results for the year.
But he did not see a problem with the fund’s overall approach.
"The fund did slightly better than the benchmark, and it certainly did better than the BNZ has done with my money over the past year."
However, while he hit back at criticism of the fund’s diversified approach by Greens co-leader Rod Donald - "you can’t run the fund as a sort of rort for the benefit of the Green Party" – Dr Cullen said that MPs on the committee could make suggestions on improving its management.
"I would welcome any input the committee would like to have on that. You are in some ways better placed to do that than I am – particularly with regard to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund."
That fund, aka the Big Cullen Fund, is still invested in government stock while its guardians work out an investment strategy. That is not likely to be completed for at least six months.
Rob Hosking is a Wellington-based freelance writer specialising in political, economic and IT related issues.
| « GSF investment strategy could be damaging the NZ economy | AMP & Good Returns launch superannuation website » |
Special Offers
© Copyright 1997-2024 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved