Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's been interesting to sit in the House since the end of dinner and listen to the robust debate on this particular bill the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill.I had the privilege to travel to Christchurch this morning with other members in the House to the Building Nations conference—one of Aotearoa New Zealand's largest infrastructure conferences that takes place. And I met a number of people consultants of course people that are working on infrastructure projects and many of them would be company directors as well. They will have governance roles they have leadership roles many of them CEOs. One of the things I was quite proud of in the discussion point there was around the fact that it came out that $70 billion has been invested in infrastructure under this Government in projects under way—$70 billion—whether that be in hospitals whether that be in education and schools whether that be in community facilities. But my part was around transport infrastructure. But I come back to the people that I spoke to today at the conference. They are good people. They are passionate about the things that matter in Aotearoa New Zealand. They're passionate about our environment. They're passionate about the social wellbeing of our communities. They're passionate about our economy.I guess as I reflect on this particular bill this evening—and I do want to acknowledge a good Northcote Point resident in Camilla Belich for the work that she has done on this bringing this to the House and those people before her: Rachel Brooking and we heard from Duncan Webb. The work that has been done on this particular bill makes it clear that a company director acting as a mind and will of the company can take actions that take into account wider matters other than the financial bottom line. These are the things that I do believe and agree with many from across the House that people may be doing it already that they may be interested and passionate about certain areas. I guess where some of the Opposition is coming forward on this bill this evening is that they may see it as a slippery slope or they may see it as a negative thing where actually it's about recognising the progress that different companies have made in these areas. That we're not just focused on the profit margin that our organisation or business makes that we're actually passionate about the environmental advantages that the work we do brings to our country and to our climate or to our local wellbeing and communities and the wellbeing—most of all the wellbeing of our communities.I wanted just to acknowledge one of the readings that I was doing from Selwyn Gordon Coles from the University of Oxford. And some of his conclusions in this particular argument—and it references Dr Webb of course. And he talks about this bill as It packs a surprisingly large punch for a little bill." And I think that's the point this evening everyone: it's that this is a little bill on a significant big members' day. And I think it's important that we don't overrate I guess some of the incremental change that members' bills can achieve. But he says "I have argued however that the bill exhibits a communicative intent. And while changing nothing about what the law allows for directors it communicates a deeper message about how directors really ought to act. The message I suggested is to some extent symbolic and that symbolism carries obvious political advantages in tapping into powerful cultural currents around the proper role of business and society." I do believe in supporting business. I do believe that they have a significant role to play in our day-to-day economy but I also genuinely believe that businesses make a severe and positive impact on the wellbeing of people and the communities that they live in. I commend this bill to the House."