Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's an honour to rise and speak on this little gem the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill at the second reading. I'm sure it will do a lot better under the stewardship of Camilla Belich.I've listened to the debates I've been in this House since the dinner break finished I was summoned by whip to be here and I'm very thankful that I endured the last hour and a half of debate.What I've been able to ascertain so far from this is that we have a Government that doesn't actually trust companies to do the right thing. We have heard these examples about how companies have done bad things out there and of course there are companies out there who have lost their social licence but the reality is that in the 21st century we live in an age where if you do that—guess what? Investors clients customers super funds everyone else walks away from you and they don't invest in you and they pull their money and they don't buy your products or your goods or your services and—guess what? You generally start going out the back door. And shareholders and all of the social media culture that we have at the moment will pinpoint these companies.I'm very sad to see Anna Lorck leaving she's always one of my favourite crowd moments but there she goes. Thank you Anna—farewell. And Duncan's back so I guess it's a balance.As I was saying you don't need legislation to tell companies what to do because companies will act in their own interests and their own interests are in making sure that customers keep coming back to them so that they can maintain their profit margins. If they lose their social licence the money and the customers walk away and that's how this thing works.I think this is a fairly well-intentioned bill to give a bit of credit to it but I think it misguided and I think it is a solution looking for a problem in a lot of ways. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment did note that there were other ways that this could be dealt with and it didn't need legislation to achieve that. The Legislative Design and Advisory Committee also recommended that the bill was not necessary.As I've sat here I've thought about a few companies that have been some of the most profitable companies in my lifetime. I go to Apple. Steve Jobs' vision for Apple wasn't to be the most profitable company in the world; it was to put a dent in the universe. He went out there and build products that changed people's lives and he built them in a manner that improved people's lives. And guess what? As a result of that Apple thrived.As you will see in a lot of companies these days people expect their directors shareholders expect their directors customers expect their directors to take into consideration the wellbeing of people the wellbeing of the environment the wellbeing of society and the wellbeing of communities.I think that is largely already happening. Yes there will always be outliers but I don't think this legislation is going to achieve its intention. I think there are already natural measures in place to ensure that we get to where we need to get to.My main concern with this bill is that it is risky for directors because they are now in a situation where they may be taken to court because someone may have determined that they may not have acted accordingly—[Interruption] They can do that but they already take into account fiduciary duties Arena Williams. They already do and I'm glad I got you in Hansard as well. It's my little goal for the day.I don't think this is necessary in that regard and I think the drafting of this bill creates more questions that solutions. It doesn't incentivise companies to be more socially responsible but it creates uncertainty around what the directors can do and what they've committed to and whether they've committed an offence.As a result of this bill you are going to have situations where directors wind up in court and it will be for the courts to determine whether the directors have acted accordingly. That is a dangerous situation for directors. I'm not sure that we are in the right space. I appreciate the intent behind it but I fundamentally don't think it's the right way to go about it and as I mentioned already companies are already taking steps to ensure that they are looking after the environment looking after their communities looking after society because guess what? If they don't the money walks away.