With the selection of the fund managers, the rationale for including that was twofold.
This was a process that we were developing, in part, as we went. There were significant uncertainties with the reactions of investors. We were trying to make this a process that would meet a perception test in the market for the final outcome and who was selected, and that the fund managers would be seen to be credible.
We wanted to build in flexibility for lead investors to have a role in the selection of the fund managers. If government alone selected fund managers, and then went out to private investors—pension funds, banks, corporations—and said, “Please commit $100 million to this fund manager that you have had no role in selecting or vetting”, then we would have had even more difficulty in raising funds than we did with the challenges we faced that have been highlighted.
We did try to adhere to the normal standards of disclosure, openness, and transparency, which a standard government procurement would follow, knowing that this was not a standard government procurement. Governments were committing, in the end, a small proportion of the capital under management. For every $1 of government funding, the private sector dollars were three times that. That was the reason for that.