Hayes John: Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hayes John: Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7217. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I think the comments of the last speaker Julie Anne Genter and her predecessor Dr Norman make it quite clear that this Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill comprising essentially one page with an operative paragraph is an exercise in theatre not substance. The last speaker did not issue one word in the way of comment on the bill. 
The point of the bill is this: it is brought to this House by that economic wizard who would have us engage in qualitative easing. 
Hon Members 
: Quantitative. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Quantitative easing. What a nonsense that is for this economy when we have an interest rate of 2.6 percent. If the Reserve Bank wants to kick the economy along the governor has got room to move. You would bring in quantitative easing as the Americans are doing only when your discount rate is zero when your interest rate is zero. We are not in that space. So the ideas that were brought to Parliament by the co-leader of the Green Party on quantitative easing and on this bill are both thoroughly misguided. 
We are already practising the responsible investment criteria that this bill would like to see formalised. What this bill would do is give us more red tape and more bureaucracy and it would stymie the job that is clearly spelt out for directors of companies and institutions. We do not as a party believe at all in supporting or creating bureaucratic hurdles to investment which this bill would do. 
 Our responsible investment work is integrated into all investment activities. For example understanding social and governance issues is a really important part of our risk assessment and is a due diligence that is required by directors and trustees on prospective individual investments. On this side of the House we are inclined to think that responsible asset owners who exercise best-practice portfolio management will already have a concern for environmental social and governance issues. 
As Nick Smith pointed out earlier this Government has introduced a huge number of things to support climate change. Contrary to what I heard the co-leader of the Green Party saying the other day New Zealand has not left the Kyoto Protocol. We are still a full member. We are simply aligning ourselves with the developed economies in terms of pursuing future climate change measures that the whole world will come to accept—that 193 countries of the globe will sign up to. 
If we go to the purpose of this fund we can see that its obligation or purpose is to meet future New Zealand superannuation payments. In fulfilling this purpose the board has to invest the fund in a manner consistent with two objectives. The first is prudent commercial management of the fund and that is a primary objective because it influences the ability of the fund to fulfil its purpose: to pay money to superannuitants. The second purpose that the directors have to follow or the second objective for directors is recognition that the fund is owned by the Crown and the Crown bears the financial and reputational risks resulting from the activities of the fund. This is a secondary objective related to the manner in which the first objective paying money to superannuitants is achieved. 
Our responsible investment work programme is closely aligned to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. This is an internationally accepted benchmark for how institutional investors should manage environmental social and governance issues. 
As I said at the outset this is an exercise in Green theatre. It is not an exercise in substance. It is not even a smart idea. I intend personally to vote against this bill along with colleagues here in the National Government. Thank you.