Hawaii House Bill HB1013

Hawaii 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/25/23
• Refer: 1/30/23
• Report Pass: 2/14/23
• Refer: 2/14/23
• Report Pass: 3/3/23
• Engrossed: 3/3/23
• Refer: 3/9/23

Caption

Relating To The Repeal Of Act 192, Session Laws Of Hawaii 2007.

Impact

The repeal of Act 192, if enacted, would impact state laws by eliminating mandates that direct the retirement system to divest from specific investments related to geopolitical conditions. Supporters of HB1013 argue that removing these mandates would enhance the financial management capabilities of the retirement system, allowing it to pursue better investment opportunities without political constraints. This change could also pave the way for greater financial returns for the beneficiaries of the system.

Summary

House Bill 1013 seeks to repeal Act 192 from the Session Laws of Hawaii 2007, which mandates the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii to divest from investments in companies that significantly support genocide in Darfur, Sudan. The bill argues that since the conditions that warranted the divestment have changed, particularly with the revocation of U.S. sanctions against Sudan and improvements in its political situation, the requirements stipulated by Act 192 are no longer necessary. This repeal is justified on the basis that it will allow the retirement system to manage its investments without restrictions based on foreign policy issues that are beyond its jurisdiction.

Sentiment

Sentiment surrounding HB1013 appears mixed among lawmakers and the public. Proponents view the repeal as a pragmatic step towards fiscal responsibility and efficiency within the retirement system, emphasizing a need to adjust to changing international dynamics. Conversely, opponents raise concerns that repealing the divestment requirement might signal a disregard for humanitarian considerations and the ethical responsibility of public funds in addressing issues of genocide. The debate highlights competing interests between financial management and moral imperatives.

Contestion

Notable points of contention arise primarily around the ethical implications of allowing the retirement system to invest in companies that may be supporting governments or entities involved in human rights violations. Critics of the repeal fear that it may dilute the state’s commitment to human rights and send a negative message regarding its stance on international humanitarian issues. Furthermore, the historical context of the divestment mandate underlines a significant moral obligation that some legislators believe should not be easily dismissed, illustrating the tension between financial interests and ethical considerations in public policy.