Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Tonight Madam Speaker I'm going to be"—I'm not sure actually but it felt like a sort of a game show that was just going on across the other side of floor there. I feel like it was a bit of a game show where obviously there was a dessert challenge or something; you'd get so many different names or words or who knows? Anyway tonight I am going to be Glen Bennett and I'm going to speak in favour of this simple and small piece of legislation which—the fear seems to be shaking across the other side of the floor as the previous speaker Tama Potaka talked about things like the "slippery slope". I'm not sure where the slippery slope's going but it does confuse me. Or the "slushy and foggy"—the "hallucinogenics of this legislation" which I'm thinking maybe it's something he had for dinner. But the hallucinogenics across the other side of the floor is something to consider; I won't be having dessert with him any time soon. We support this member's bill. It's simple it's something to not be afraid of because yes it's abundantly clear that companies are to be good corporate citizens. Companies are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders and many of them do and I totally agree when we're looking at this legislation I really agree that companies need to make sure they're doing right by their shareholders by their people by the environment. I am here because I want to see this nation better than it was when I first arrived in this place. And so I am really grateful to be here speaking on this because this is only words as I said from across the other side of the room; only words but words matter—words matter. And so yes we need to get things right when it comes to corporate responsibility and that is why we support this member's bill. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb the Hon Rachel Brooking and—I'm guessing shortly because obviously whoever touches this bill turns to an Honourable—the soon to be Hon Camilla Belich but who knows. But this year I was on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee and we did explore and we did I think as a committee we disagreed. I agree that we had disagreements on this but I think we made changes we did things that we thought were right in terms of bringing it back to the House in better order than we first found it.Section 131 sets out the duty of a director or of a company when exercising powers or performing duties to act in good faith and in what the director believes to be the best interests of the company. And that's why you know we talked about it and we explored it and the legislation came as it was. Because 20 years ago 30 years ago 40 years ago this was something that often wasn't thought through. All it was was around the bottom line of making money. We didn't care what effects or impacts our business had on people had on the environment. David Seymour: Looks at the clock: oh six more minutes.GLEN BENNETT: I'm not even looking at the clock so I'm looking forward to checking it shortly to see how far I've got through. But it was a different time. And I do remember growing up in the wonderful 1970s and 1980s and the difference that business had in that time. Earlier this evening we discussed alcohol reform and I mentioned around our tobacco industry and the difference it was—Simon Court: Future Minister.GLEN BENNETT: I mean a future Minister that's something that you know I'd be considering in my third or fourth or fifth term as an MP. But we change we move and we manoeuvre as a society. And words matter that's why the previous speaker he had lots of words—words words. And some of them made sense some of them—like for example when he spoke about how this legislation "provokes him". It provoked him to respond and to react in such a way that I'm unsure why because it's some simple words that can encourage and remind business that can remind industry that can remind board members of what is important. And yes as I've said there's bottom lines but we need to consider the environmental and the social governance—the ESG should I say.Now I look at some of the examples around the world that have been implemented and I looked at this and obviously the United Kingdom back in 2006 and then there was the Anderson Lloyd on overseas regimes and what they looked at in terms of this piece of legislation. New Zealand wouldn't be the first country to endorse the stakeholder approach at law. As I said the United Kingdom required it for directors to have regard to ESG factors. Back in 2006 they passed that law. And section 172 of that Act proposed a mandatory duty on directors to promote the success of the company—to promote the success of the company—by taking into account similar considerations as those listed in the bill. The consideration—as in the United Kingdom's case is mandatory—of the weight that directors must give to the factors is subjective. And so that's where we need to look and to explore what this legislation would mean when it comes to companies and the director's duties. And that's why I think it is good for us to have a conversation as a member's bill and to find a way forward where this can be something that is in legislation moving New Zealand forward. We have things to do we've got work to do on this and I look forward to the committee of the whole House. I've already started writing notes and preparing my contributions for that. I look forward to it. I hope that everyone will be there for that. But we're moving as a society and a nation. We're leaning into things like Te Tiriti like we've never leaned in before. We're leaning into things like looking at our environmental footprint. We're leaning into things around future generations which so often as companies we didn't. So often we looked at the bottom dollar for today and for this year's shareholder meeting this year's you know checking our bank account to see how we've done. But I'm glad that we're now looking and saying "You know what is it in 2050?" If we look back on the impact that my company had not only on today but in years to come. That's why I think as a community as a society this legislation is simple and important because it moves us forward. You know very much around—we had stakeholders we moved from the short-term to the long-term aims. We look at the winning it for me right now whereas we look at the "us" and how do we move forward together. And I know that the other side of the House rolls their eyes when we talk about community when we talk about connection when we talk about taking people with us. And I can hear that obviously I'm taking the room with me this evening as I can see that people are flipping their votes as I speak! But I feel confident that we can we can take this and make it into the right form. And as I get shouted at from across the room from the National Party and the ACT Party shouts of applause and excitement from this side of the House—come on please that was a cue—it didn't work! They make silly comments around how this isn't going to do anything or make an impact and then they do make comments around my leadership in New Plymouth. And it's interesting because in the newspaper yesterday and today on Seven Sharp there's comments around the ACT Party and around the National Party for their illegal use of electioneering which has to be removed. So that side of the House obviously is discussing things and think that maybe this bill doesn't actually do much but they need to look at their own backyard first before they make us make a decision.So it was good to be part of the committee to hear the submissions and to explore what this could look like. Again I want to thank the Hon Dr Duncan Webb the Hon Rachel Brooking and I also want to thank Camilla Belich for bringing this to the House. I look forward to it going into the committee stage.The Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment is something that we will be supporting that I personally will be supporting. Words matter and the words that we have created and we will continue to create are important. Therefore I commend this bill to the House."