Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Let me begin by putting in a human rights complaint. Whoever is the Labour whip who forced that member to speak for the full 10 minutes after it was obvious he was drowning after the first 30 seconds with nothing to say whatsoever that would not embarrass him in ways that would be played back again and again and again if anyone cared should be subject to a human rights complaint.While I'm concerned about people's rights I also want to give my commiserations and condolences to Camilla Belich who has taken the ultimate hospital pass. You know one of the better souls and brighter stars of the Labour Party who has had a successful legal career—why on earth she is championing this bill can only be put down to the strange machinations of the Labour Party that explain the Mt Albert selection.Of course this bill has its genesis in something that I was amused to find in the Parliamentary Library's debate pack—and we have to thank the Parliamentary Library for putting together these debate packs. It starts with a very haunting paragraph which is headed The trigger"—ha ha; Madam Speaker you'll have to forgive me. It says "Christchurch Central MP Duncan Webb sponsor of the bill"—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Great MP—great MP.DAVID SEYMOUR: —"says the crystallising"—we'll come to that member—"factor that led him to draft the bill was a view expressed in Parliament about Air New Zealand by ACT Party leader David Seymour." and he goes on to describe how I explained in a speech to this House that the duty of directors is to maximise the returns to their shareholders within the framework of laws that are made by this House to govern New Zealand. If the Parliament has made the laws well and the laws that we have ensure that people can't take advantage of each other by force or fraud can't undermine the commons by environmental pollution and can't abuse human rights which this Parliament has done then what is left is for those who find themselves as directors to make sure that they act in the best interests of their shareholders within that framework that this Parliament has set apart.The difficulty for people who support bills like this is that if it is true that Parliament has done its job—and this Government's been in power for almost six years now—and ensured that the regulatory environment in which firms operate is adequate then it shouldn't be necessary for firms to follow other rules and objectives than doing the best for their shareholders. If on the other hand it is necessary for directors of firms to fulfil a whole lot of other objectives then maybe that tells us that actually the Parliament has failed in its attempts to get its regulatory settings correct which would be a strange admission for a party that's been in power for six years.Now of course the hospital pass received by Camilla Belich was passed on by none other than Dr Duncan Webb and Duncan goes on to protest too much. He goes on to talk about in his submission his experience as a lawyer—his experience. All I can say is lots of people have experiences but I don't think Duncan Webb's have been very good and anyone who spends a bit of time in Christchurch will say that when he left his law firm there was quite a lot of tidying up to be done by the other—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will come back to this bill.DAVID SEYMOUR: —partners. Thank you Madam Speaker. In fact that can be seen in this particular bill—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order.DAVID SEYMOUR: —because the select committee—oh here we go.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: That was a slur and I would request that Mr Seymour apologise.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will withdraw and apologise.DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw and apologise but they don't like it up 'em and it can be seen—the sloppiness that led to those problems can also be found in the drafting of this bill because the bill you know is not a very lengthy one. It's not a very lengthy one at all. It's a total of five sections. It is in total if you count the white space at the top less than one page and yet the substantive part of the bill when it went to a select committee all of the substance had to be crossed out and replaced with a new section that was one paragraph. So this guy makes himself out to be some sort of legal genius and his drafting inspired by my speech was as it turns out completely hopeless and had to be entirely replaced by the select committee. Some people thought the previous speech from Labour was embarrassing but what is truly embarrassing is the lawyer or so-called lawyer who was responsible for the drafting of this bill and what has subsequently happened to it.But there are more important and substantial reasons to oppose this legislation than the frankly embarrassing presentations by the members tonight and the member originally responsible for it. You see they have misunderstood the developments of human rights in a free society that has grown up over hundreds of years. Let me spell it out. There was a time when a person in order to exercise their rights and duties as a member of society had to fit a very narrow window. Usually it would be helpful to have a certain religious view to be a man to be a landowner to be born a certain way to have a certain sexuality. If you weren't the right type of person the rights you had were very limited and they were limited in large part because there were prejudices about who could perform what role in society.The limited liability company the idea that a person has a right to transact that they are only valued based on whether they follow the law that applies equally to everyone and whether their investors and their customers and their employees agree to transact with them was a miracle of enlightenment. It was a central plank of the Enlightenment that each person could act and be judged upon the value they provided rather than the prejudices which had excluded people from participating in society for so long. The limited liability company was a revolution in human rights. It allowed people to come along to the table and share their ideas and trade value for value regardless of who they were. It made possible the idea that adults would come together voluntarily to provide through cooperation what could not be provided alone. Entrepreneurs with ideas investors with savings as capital workers with time to give and customers with needs could all come together voluntarily and trade value for value regardless of who they were.What we see today is a reversal of that breakthrough in human rights and advancement of human welfare and prosperity in what is known as stakeholder capitalism: the idea that you only have a right to participate in commerce if the new-age priests tick you off as having met the right precepts. Perhaps you have to be the right identity to fill a quota. Perhaps you have to have the right views on certain issues. Perhaps you have to have the right commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi. Perhaps you have to be the person that is approved by the prevailing views of the time. It's no longer the value that you offer to those three other types of people whether you be entrepreneur customer investor or worker. It comes down to other people's judgment of you and that is why this bill is most retrograde—to use some Shakespeare there's been a lot tonight—to the desire of New Zealanders to be a free people who trade value for value and get stronger together without bigotry or prejudice.That's why this bill is not just a little bit wrong; it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what has made New Zealand and countries like it successful a misunderstanding of free markets and capitalism and a misunderstanding of human rights by a failed lawyer who doesn't like it up him but failed he has. That's why we oppose this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker."