Shaw James: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7937. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I would like to start by responding to some of the criticisms of the bill that have been outlined with greater or lesser coherence by previous speakers. David Bennett started by saying a number of times that the Green Party was wrong about everything and that this bill requires that the Green Party decide where the Superannuation Fund and the other Government funds put their money. It does not; that is simply a lie. What it does do is that it says that—David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member is doing that on purpose to use that word and he should not be allowed to do that so I ask him to withdraw and apologise.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member makes the point that it is unparliamentary language to accuse—[Interruption] Sorry I am speaking. Do I need to stand up for the member to sit down? The member makes a valid point in his point of order. It is unparliamentary to accuse another member of lying. I am sure the member understands that; we will not hear it again.JAMES SHAW: It was a gross and intemperate error; I apologise and withdraw. What the bill does do is it requires the managers of those three Government funds to divest from the fossil fuel industry directly. A number of the Government speakers have said that we have been wrong about this but I would just like to point out again that the $100 million financial services group Storebrand has divested; that Rabobank that rather large Dutch-based global bank has ceased lending money to unconventional fossil fuel projects; that the $860 million Rockefeller Brothers Fund has divested; that Australia’s Local Government Super fund has divested; and that Norway’s $1.2 trillion Government investment fund has divested. So if you do not want to take my word for it take their word for it.Another of the criticisms was that this in some way disrupts the independence of the directors of the funds but I want to point out that we are actually already divesting from a number of categories. We do not invest any more in tobacco although I understand that some members of the House would be OK with it if we continued—or resumed sorry because we actually used to have those funds invested in tobacco but the fund has actually pulled back. It has actually divested from tobacco—the New Zealand Superannuation Fund divested from tobacco. It also is not investing in nuclear weapons. It is not investing in whale meat it is not investing in cluster munitions and it is not investing in companies that mine destructively.It does all of that and it still manages to make 17 percent returns. So when Tim Macindoe says that we have these ethical investment firms and that they get these great returns he is absolutely right. That was how I started my speech. If he had been listening he would have heard me start by acknowledging how they are incredibly ethical; globally recognised for doing so and at the same time world-beating. This legislation would not affect that; this would not affect that at all. In fact the other firms that have divested around the world actually have greater returns than the market average so again if you do not want to take it from me then just take it from those trillion-dollar funds around the world that have already divested.The thing is there is an ethical dimension to this. The ethical dimension is that New Zealand has committed to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels. What has happened in fact is that our emissions have risen 23 percent since 1990. In fact in the lifetime of the current Government our emissions have increased 12.4 percent—they have gone up since 2008. We have no plan. We are standing completely in variance with our own commitments and one of the worst things that this Government has done is it has played fast and loose with New Zealand’s global brand over the last few years endangering the multi-billion dollar asset that is our “clean green” brand internationally.Today the National Party has had the chance to vote for the environment on two occasions one with the Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill and previously with Gareth Hughes’ “Fair Go For Solar Bill” and it has voted against the environment on both occasions putting a lie to its so-called blue-green credentials. But this is what we have come to expect from this Government and so I look forward to it voting against the environment once again tonight. Thank you.