Webb Duncan; Salesa JennyHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you honourable Madam Speaker. Can I just say first of all I had no idea that Ricardo Menéndez March was a comic genius but there you go. You learn something every day. And also thank you to my colleagues Rachel Brooking and Camilla Belich who have been shepherding this bill through the process after I introduced it.It comes as quite a surprise to see the amount of agitation on the other side of the House in respect of this gentle little bill this small nudge towards social responsibility that the bill requests—doesn't even request just perhaps asks just gently suggests of corporations. And in fact the fascinating thing is that what this bill asks what this bill says is permitted or would be permitted by corporate entities is what every self-respecting decent forward looking and modern corporate entity is doing already.The vitriol that came from the leader of the ACT Party seemed to miss entirely one word in this piece of legislation. He derided it for being short but missed three letters in the bill: m-a-y—may—that a company may take into account". This is not even a compulsory piece of legislation but simply a clarification that it is open to company directors when looking at what is in the best interests of the company to take into account wider matters whether it be Te Tiriti or whether it be environmental matters whether it be social or employee relations. And here we have the full power of the ACT Party railing against social responsibility calling it—Damien Smith in the first reading—Marxism. Well not only does he need a lesson in history and economics but he also needs to read the bill. Because all this does is to say that company directors when looking to what is in the interests of the company may look not just at dividends not just at what happens today but to take a long-term view.And we know today—well only recently we've issued standards for the External Reporting Board to say that we need to take into account climate matters—how climate adaptation is going on what are the climate risks of a company? Any company that does not take that into account is not doing right by its shareholders.So what is wrong? Why are they so fearful—why are they so fearful—of recognising that a company doesn't sit in some economic vacuum but sits within a community that what it does impacts—impacts—its shareholders its employees its creditors and the community in which it sits. And so when directors turn their mind to the question of "What should we do next?" what's so very wrong with asking the question "How will this affect others?" The days of radical individualism are gone; the days of connectedness and community are ahead of us. And so that is the corporate governance we expect.Whilst there are some who are stuck in the past—I can't deny it I saw them at the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee I read their submissions and listened to them the legalistic type who think that only what is in black and white and letters on a page counts; certainly they were there. But people that I spoke to who recognised that companies have impact and purpose that directors have impact and purpose saw that this bill was a small step and many of them said not a large enough step in the direction of recognising that companies have responsibilities and are corporate citizens and citizens as well. And as citizens we can rightly expect them to act properly—with ethics.Now we are not asking them to live up to some super rocketry standard something more than we expect of an ordinary citizen. All we are saying is "Turn your mind to this." Ask yourself this question: if you embark on this course of action will it degrade our environment? Will it degrade our society? Will it undermine our families? Will it make us poorer?Hon Peeni Henare: And what is the cost?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: What are the costs Minister Henare? That's exactly right. Because a company is in a symbiotic relationship with our community and society. A strong society leads to a strong economy and a strong economy leads to strong businesses and companies. But we seem to have forgotten on the other side of the House that we are connected. We are not radically individualistic. We are not islands unto ourselves. We rely on each other—we are a community. And I embrace those companies who recognise that. I embrace those businesses that recognise that we rely on them as they rely on us. That is all that this legislation does.So I find I struggle—I struggle—with the argument that in some way this is a radical departure. In fact there was a moment in time in the 1970s and early 1980s when neo-liberalism was in the ascendant when we thought that all that mattered was the rights of the individual and the maximisation of profits and some people in this House some parties in this House are stuck in a time warp. They are stuck in the past and we have moved on. The 1990s have arrived Brooke van Velden. The 1990s have arrived and we've woken up from our slumber. And so all we are saying is that in this situation in the modern era a good company director doesn't simply look at the balance sheet doesn't simply look at the numbers; they look at all of the other bottom lines: the environmental bottom line the social bottom line and the community bottom line. We run our Budget in this way. We look at the wellbeing of the whole of New Zealand. And any company should look at the wellbeing not just of what's going on in the office and on the balance sheet but in the community that serves them and that they serve.So I was surprised I must admit I was—and I do thank the select committee for their deliberations. I appeared in front of the select committee but I was very surprised that—and I'm not sure if it's unprecedented but very unusual—the committee gave no report of substance. It was unable to agree. So even though the committee turned its mind to listen to a number of submission and took considerable advice they didn't actually come back to the House with any substantive recommendations. I'm a little disappointed that that was the case. And it has fallen to my friend and colleague Camilla Belich to pick this up. And I know that she will be looking very carefully at what the select committee said but also what a number of submitters said about how the bill should proceed.Can I just say that I'm very pleased that I brought this to the House but equally I'm very happy to hand it over to the custodianship of Camilla Belich who will have her own views and her own improvements of this bill. I'm very happy to do that because this is an important step forward. It may not go as far as the UK has in its own reforms—and other jurisdictions—but I'm surprised that on the other side of the House who say that they're the friends of business they are laggards in equipping businesses in moving into the modern world. So I look forward to seeing this bill progress. I know that there'll be improvements as it meets the committee of the whole House. I look forward to being in that debate. But for my friends from the ACT Party: I'm simply perplexed that stuck they are in 1982.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Sam Uffindell for five minutes."