Goldsmith Paul: Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goldsmith Paul: Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7211. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to draw this debate back a little bit in the direction of the bill itself the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill which is what we are talking about. If you look at the general policy statement it is quite interesting. It singles out Exxon Mobil as the cause for this bill because apparently the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has invested $43 million in Exxon Mobil and this apparently is a bad thing. Well I do not know about other members in the House but I do not necessarily regard Exxon Mobil as evil—nor Shell BP Todd Energy or any of the other oil companies around the world. In fact I quite like the fact that I can turn up at the petrol station buy oil and put it in my car. It serves me quite well. I like to be able to drive into town. I like to be able to go on to the motorway and I quite like to go across the Newmarket Viaduct and swoop down Grafton Gully into town. It is magnificent. It is fantastic to be able to get around like that. I think cars are quite a good thing and the fact that you need petrol to make a car go is one of the great inventions of our time. I do not necessarily think it is an evil thing and I cannot see why it would be regarded as a terrible thing somehow to invest in a company that provides something that makes the world go round. 
This bill also strikes me as somewhat sinister. When you look at the reasons it quotes Exxon Mobil saying a couple of things including that it is “very difficult to determine objectively the extent to which recent climate changes might be the result of human actions.” That apparently is a reason why the New Zealand Superannuation Fund should not be investing in that company. Somehow you stop trading with people because you do not like what they say. Well that is an interesting principle and a rather strange one. I probably do not like what some of the fishermen who go and catch the snapper that I eat say to each other and I probably do not like some of their opinions but I quite like the fish. I do not use that approach when I am buying things and I do not quite see why the Superannuation Fund should follow the same approach. I wonder—it is almost that you muzzle anybody who does not say what you like as seems to be the approach of the Green Party. I do not agree with that policy at all and I will not be supporting this bill on that basis. 
What does it mean precisely when we talk about investing only in a firm that follows “environmental sustainability”? By whose definition? I imagine that if it was by Mr Norman’s definition there probably would not be any companies at all that would measure up. Nothing would be quite sustainable enough for Mr Norman. So I do not support this bill. 
But it is worth noting and Mr Smith an earlier speaker spoke very well on the National— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Dr Smith. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: Dr Smith spoke very well on the National Government’s contribution to climate change policy. I will not reiterate all of that here but I would say that when it comes to the investment policies of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund we are already practising responsible investment criteria. This bill intends only to formalise more red tape and more bureaucracy and we do not support creating bureaucratic hurdles to investment beyond some certain basic measures that we have put in place already. Our responsible investment framework which is integrated into all our investment activities I think serves us well already. This bill would take us backwards and I do not support it on that basis. Thank you very much.