Hawaii Senate Bill SB1311

Hawaii 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/25/23
• Refer: 1/30/23
• Report Pass: 2/17/23
• Refer: 2/17/23
• Report Pass: 3/3/23
• Engrossed: 3/7/23
• Refer: 3/9/23
• Report Pass: 3/16/23
• Refer: 3/16/23
• Report Pass: 4/6/23

Caption

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

Impact

If enacted, the repeal of Act 192 would remove the requirement for the Employees' Retirement System to report annually on divestment efforts and to strategically withdraw from companies in alignment with U.S. foreign policy. This change is significant, as it would allow the state’s pension fund more flexibility in investment choices, aligning them with evolving economic and diplomatic conditions regarding Sudan. Additionally, this action may reflect broader trends in corporate governance and investment strategies, influencing how state funds operate in a global context.

Summary

Senate Bill 1311 aims to repeal Act 192, Session Laws of Hawaii 2007, which mandated that the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii divest investments in companies providing significant support for genocide in Darfur, Sudan. The bill is rooted in the belief that recent changes in U.S. foreign policy and Sudan's status necessitate a repeal of this law. Specifically, the bill references the revocation of U.S. sanctions against Sudan following positive actions by its government, as noted in presidential certifications. By repealing Act 192, the bill seeks to reinstate the ability for the Employees' Retirement System to invest without restrictions based on the previous mandates.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SB1311 appears to be complex and possibly polarized, as discussions around the bill may invoke strong feelings about ethics in investment related to international human rights issues. Supporters may argue that the repeal is a necessary move to adapt to improved relations with Sudan, while opponents could express concerns regarding ethical responsibilities to prevent complicity in human rights abuses through financial investments. It exposes the tension between economic interests and humanitarian principles.

Contention

Notable points of contention center on the implications of allowing investments in companies previously associated with supporting genocide in Darfur. Critics of the repeal might argue that withdrawing from these divestment policies could undermine ongoing efforts to hold such companies accountable for their past actions. The bill's supporters will need to address these ethical concerns while justifying the economic rationale for altering the divestment requirements, indicating a need for a balanced discourse on human rights and economic pragmatism.