Jones Shane: Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7215. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Before I opened my mouth Mr Speaker you were screaming “Order!”. Please assure me that it is directed to that side of the House and not to this sort of very modest individual who is about to share a thought or three. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am giving you the call. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: In the spirit of fraternal relations I stand with my colleagues to support Russel Norman’s member’s bill the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill this afternoon. Let there be no doubt about that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Notwithstanding the crap that he writes about you. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Well one has to suffer the slings and arrows of coalition-building into the future—I am talking possibly about Winston Peters there but that is another matter. But I want to actually begin by directing the attention of our colleagues on the other side of the House to something that is already in the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act—section 58(2)(c)—which actually requires a level of transparency in decision making to avoid a prejudicial view about our reputation internationally taking root. 
For that side of the House to insist that Mr Norman’s contribution is No. 1 ultra vires the Act and No. 2 likely to undermine the viability of the fund or its profitability shows the characteristically showy but shallow level of information that those members actually use when talking about the Cullen fund. We had a figure from Madame Tussaud’s wax museum Dr Nick Smith coming and lecturing us about this bill being designed to ruin the country’s reputation in terms of climate change. On that point I have to agree with the colleagues from the Green Party. That is not being done by this bill. That level of opprobrium settling upon the fine reputation of Aotearoa has been manufactured by that side of the House and worsened by the behaviour of the Government’s officials overseas who are so embarrassed that they cannot even look straight in the eye of their confrères from other negotiating teams. So it has got nothing to do with this bill. The worsening of our reputation in relation to climate change is a deliberate policy direction being pursued by the current Government which it is entitled to do as a part of what it thinks is the optimum mix of policies for the country but we know that as a consequence of those policies the costs will fall on the most vulnerable. 
So let me come back to the bill. It is not unreasonable that the Cullen fund focuses on those areas that are not actually going to worsen the country’s reputation or create negative externalities that will not be picked up by the businesses that are running the enterprises that the Cullen fund is investing in. It may actually overrun slightly. I understand that Annette King the redoubtable member for out at Miramar way—closely related to certain other members on the other side of the House—today opened a gas station owned by the Cullen fund. So there has to be some balance. 
The Cullen fund currently does have investments in areas where perhaps— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Half of it. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Fifty percent. Fifty percent—not unlike the vote capture we will enjoy in 2 years’ time. I like that figure—I like that figure. I am not talking about my biological make up of 50-20-25—no. We are talking about why this piece of legislation will actually enhance the reputation of the Cullen fund. It is not going to throttle and undermine the work of the guardians. It is just going to direct them to ensure that the investments do not reward those kinds of industries that are slowly but surely choking the transition of not only the fund and the nation but also in many respects many of the developed countries. The Cullen fund guardians were encouraged by the Government to move towards 50 percent of the capital being invested in domestic industries—indigenous industries. That has been an abject failure. It could be that that is what the Government fears. It says one thing but actually delivers another. 
I think the alarmist rhetoric coming from the other side of the House which is reflective unfortunately of the loud but vacuous minds that are conceiving it should not worry about Mr Norman being the Minister of Finance. That decision will be made by higher forces—higher forces. No those decisions will be made by the colleagues here and that lies well after the next election. Coming back to the Cullen fund it is a fine fund and is reflective of the very innovative approach that this side of the House took to the art of government. Thank you very much.