I spoke with Labour Finance Spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds last night about Labour’s first big policy idea for the 2026 election: a new sovereign wealth fund to invest in New Zealand infrastructure and growth businesses. It would be seeded with an initial grant of $200 million and topped up regularly with dividends from state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and potentially partially-owned SOEs such as the gentailers and Air New Zealand, although that wasn't confirmed due to ‘commercial sensitivities.’
I asked her what problem it solved and why other tax and more direct Government investment policies couldn’t solve it better. Here’s a lightly edited version of the conversation below, just in case the video above is too sketchy to watch. We had some connectivity issues and then the AWS wrecked my usual backups. A PDF of the policy is also attached below.
People are saying we want to see a long-term vision, we want to see a plan for the country. So this is a first step for us. Barbara Edmonds.
Edmonds said she couldn’t say which assets would be included because of commercial sensitivity and fair disclosure reasons.
“Ultimately, the fund is purpose-built to back Kiwi ideas and our small innovative businesses, and basically is here to create wealth for New Zealand, by New Zealand, for New Zealanders,” she said.
I asked what problem Labour was trying to solve.
“When we look across the world, future funds are set up to help countries recycle their wealth and help to back and grow within their own economies. New Zealand doesn’t lack talent and skills and ideas, but what we lack is backing. So one of the key things that the Productivity Commission talked about before it was collapsed by this current government is that we have shallow pools of capital,” she said.
“We want to set up this wealth fund at arm’s length to the government, similar to how the Super Fund works. But actually, it has a different purpose, which is to create wealth in New Zealand to help secure jobs, transition to clean green energy, to help us back our innovators in tech industry, and to help us build a resilient infrastructure.”
I then asked if New Zealand actually had shallow capital pools, given there was $123 billion in KiwiSaver funds as at the end of March, the NZ Super Fund has $88.6 billion and counting as of today, the ACC had $51.1 billion in funds under management of June 30 this year, and there was $302 billion in bank term deposit and savings accounts as of the end of August this year.
Why aren’t those $565 billion being invested here?
I asked why those funds weren’t being deployed into New Zealand infrastructure, businesses, jobs, new technology and jobs, and whether another fund would make a difference.
“Ultimately, there are different funds for different purposes. And what we’re saying is this wealth fund is solely dedicated to reinvesting back in New Zealand. The Superfund, for example, they invest around 11%-18 % of their funds in New Zealand. However, they’ve got a very different purpose. Their purpose is to maximize returns to help with future superannuation costs,” she said.
“We’re saying it’s a model that works well for the Superfund. However, for the future fund, we need a different pool with a different purpose to back Kiwis.”
I asked whether this fund was being announced instead of changing the fundamental savings incentives for households, which mean buying leveraged residential land was vastly more attractive in risk-adjusted and after-tax terms than in businesses, pension funds or infrastructure, given pension funds don’t receive any significant incentives, as pension funds overseas do, as in Australia.
“We will have a savings and investment policy, which we will announce in the future. However, this is just the first step to realize New Zealand’s potential. And again, it’s about backing Kiwis and making sure those that get away and see the world, there are opportunities for them to come back to. That pullback to New Zealand is diminishing,” she said.
“We have 200 people leaving every day to find opportunities offshore. People are saying we want to see a long-term vision, we want to see a plan for the country. So this is a first step for us.”
I then asked how big the fund could be and what assets it could include.
“Top of the list of the types of assets we will see the fund with will be a lot of those publicly owned commercial assets that the government owns. We also set aside $200 million one-off capital costs to go into the fund. And again, the governance of this will be at arm’s length to the politicians because it will be looked after by the Guardians of the New Zealand Superfund.
“It will grow every year, depending on the assets that are put in, the dividends that come back to it. But also, we want to be able to use those dividends better. Currently, at the moment, those dividends come back to the crown coffers. Ministers can spray that wherever they want to.
“There may not be any strategic use of it, or for example, they may be trying to go into clean energy but then they’re doing an underwrite for gas subsidies. Whereas this is different. This is saying that those dividends should remain in the fund, be reinvested into the country, and depending on what the assets are, that’ll determine the growth.”
Why not just borrow and invest directly?
I then asked why the Government shouldn’t just use its balance sheet to borrow to invest directly, which would be much cheaper.
“At the moment, the politicians are are fiddling around too much with this. Ultimately, we have government assets. We believe that they should be managed with a commercial approach. The dividends should be reinvested in New Zealand. Ultimately, where the fund will go will be set out in legislation. We want it to be reinvested back for the public good.
“Yes, the Crown may lose money because we may forego some dividend in relation to it. But ultimately, the money is staying back in our economy so that it can grow in New Zealand, as opposed to us having to wait for foreign investors and speculators to come and save us. So we truly believe for us this is about a future made in New Zealand. It’s one where we want to make opportunities for the next generation to want to stay here, or come back here because there are opportunities for them.”
So is this a good idea?
In my view, a Future Fund is try to solve problems that would be better addressed more directly, faster, cheaper, more efficiently and with more honestly and transparency by:
* firstly, the Government simply borrowing with its own balance sheet and investing directly in publicly-owned infrastructure, staffing and systems to improve housing, health, education, skills and training; and,
* secondly, changing the tax incentives that currently mean households have ploughed $1.6 trillion into residential housing, and are choosing to leave $302 billion in term deposits, ready to be deployed with yet more mortgages to make more tax-free capital gains in residential housing.
Changing those incentives would involve:
* taxing the unearned wealth bogged down in New Zealand’s housing market through a wealth or capital gains tax, and not just on the family home, given a big chunk of that $1.6 trillion is embedded in those family homes and exempting them will leave the incentive intact; and,
* providing a tax incentive to save in pensions funds, as is the case in Australia and other developed markets with much higher investment in their businesses, much better productivity and higher real wages.
For example, New Zealand’s housing market value is seven times bigger than our stock market’s value. Australia’s housing market is three times bigger than its stock market. America’s housing market is actually worth slightly less than its stock market. Australia and the United States have (imperfect but substantial) taxes on capital gains and incentives for investing household savings into businesses. New Zealand has neither.
Still wedded to the catastrophic 30/30 rule?
My concern is that Labour remains embedded in the view it and National have shared for 40 years: that the size of Government and the size of Government debt should not be larger than 30% of GDP. With both the size of Government and its debt currently above those self-imposed, unnecessary, unjustified and failed limits, both National and Labour are still contorting themselves into states of magical thinking that private investment in infrastructure and the private provision of housing, health, education and transport would be both better for the economy than the Government doing it.
Without proper changes to tax incentives for households and without a fundamental reassessment of the 30/30 rule, this Future Fund appears to be another performative, mostly ineffective and expensive distraction from the fundamental failings of the 30/30 rule to invest in the infrastructure to support our still-fast-growth and still-ageing population, let alone catch up on decades under-investment and under-maintenance and under-replacement of both new and existing infrastructure.
Labour may well have have taxation and fiscal strategies to change that view that are yet to be announced. This first policy release has a dispiritingly familiar look about it. It is suggesting New Zealand’s investment problems can be solved at arms length from politicians and the Crown’s balance sheet. It is suggesting that the current incentives and use of the Crown’s balance sheet are working. They are not. They have been disastrous for a generation, who are indeed voting with their feet, rather than their votes, at a rate of 200 day.
The Future Fund mimic versions of the NZ Super Fund (which has less than 20% invested in New Zealand), NZ First’s proposed sovereign wealth fund and various Government venture capital and green funds. It gives the impression large amounts of domestic investment is possible without political involvement and in a way that would improve the performance of the New Zealand economy and leave the Crown’s balance sheet untouched.
It reeks of performative politics and magical thinking that fail to address the elephants in the room:
* $1.6 trillion worth of mostly unearned wealth in housing has to be taxed;
* there has to be incentives for households to invest in businesses;
* the Government has to be larger than 30% of GDP in the long run to provide the public services, benefits and infrastructure we believe are essential with the population structure and growth we have; and,
* there is no good reason why the Crown can’t use its balance sheet to invest in the infrastructure, services and health of the generations that are both retiring and on the verge of abandoning the country.
Subscribe in full as a paying subscriber for more detail and analysis in the full videos and podcasts that go out with my Early Bird and Daily Chorus email newsletters. Paying subscribers support my work being done in the public interest here, and via my appearances on other media such as RNZ & 1News. Paying subscribers also get early and full access to our webinars and our chat room, and can comment on articles.
Ka kite ano
Bernard
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe
