O'Connor Greg; Wade-Brown CeliaNEW ZEALAND SUPERANNUATION AND RETIREMENT INCOME (CONTROLLING INTERESTS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 30 April.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): We have call No. 6 which is a split call. Te Pāti Māori have the first call. No they're not—so we'll call ah Celia Wade-Brown. Excuse me Ms Wade-Brown I'm having an attack of Speaker-itis". CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to express the Green Party's support for this bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill. The Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation perform an extremely important service for today's superannuitants and those fortunate enough to live to 65 in the future. Superannuation is about the only benefit that is not means-tested and that near-universality is admirable. It isn't perfect. There are complexities about how people who are New Zealand residents who work here for years and commit their hearts to this country can be put through the wringer because they're not born here or they're born here but they've worked overseas for a few years. But that is a debate about entitlement and equity and about fund distribution not investment and thus is for another day. Today's debate is about widening the power of the Guardians so that they can do an even better job within the existing economic system. It is the only economic system in the OECD without either a capital gains tax nor a wealth tax and I know that my colleagues across the House really value being part of the OECD and give us great examples about how we should follow their example in other areas. As Treasury notes removing the control restriction may enable the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to access a wider group of viable investment partners. This could attract institutional investors who are comfortable with the Guardians' due diligence practices particularly as the Guardians look for scalable investment opportunities such as strategic infrastructure. The Greens would question what strategic infrastructure might be chosen. We feel for example that housing is an undeniable public good whereas new motorways may be less so but I think we may have had enough debate on transport for the moment.The New Zealand Superannuation Fund has a reputation of being world leading in environmental social and governance—so ESG for short—integration and it uses its influence as a shareholder to encourage companies to manage and report on their ESG risks. So it is helping companies basically do the right thing and often the right thing is good for investment too.Now there are several excellent exclusions. So to those people who have spoken earlier in the debate and said "Oh we've got to be careful not to tell them how to run their business or what to invest in." let me just make a few notes of what the exclusions are. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund does not invest in companies in the tobacco industry and presumably Minister Costello is not planning an amendment there. Another exclusion is companies involved in the processing of whale meat. Fortunately whales are much larger than frogs so I presume that they're going to continue to be safe although their seabed may be trashed. Very topically another New Zealand Superannuation Fund exclusion is companies involved in developing settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories. The fourth example is companies involved in the manufacture of civilian automatic and semi-automatic firearms and surely Minister McKee will not suggest an amendment there either.So there is a balance between good principles encouraging better social and environmental behaviour versus political interference in the details of investment. It is a shame that the opportunity for stronger alignment with the Government's goal—reiterated in James Shaw's valedictory tonight—of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 was not explicitly taken. But I suspect that in the intelligent investment fund—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member's time has expired.Celia Wade-Brown: I thought I might have the other half of—Mr Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member can ask for leave to complete the other half of the five minutes. She can seek leave to that effect. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): May I seek leave to complete the No. 6 slot? ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member seeks leave to complete her time. Is there any objection? There is objection."