Page 2368 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I guess the issue is that Mr Stanhope now does know where many of our government investments go, or did at that time. We know that these funds are extremely mobile, and no doubt we would get a slightly different list now if Mr Stanhope were to concede and give us the most up-to-date list. But the fact is that, once we do know, it is incumbent upon us to act upon that knowledge.
So what is required is a radical rethink of personal and corporate social responsibility and economic behaviour. These are difficult questions. It is no wonder that the climate change sceptics held so much sway. It is so difficult to take on the idea that we have to change our behaviour. We have to change the way we do things, and I am not talking about the light bulbs we use or not turning on our heaters until it is really freezing. We are talking here about the way we run our economy.
I know that is offensive to Mr Mulcahy, because Mr Mulcahy, in particular, has a particular set on the way the economy should be run. He believes in the free market idea of governance—the night watchman state, we might call it—where governments keep their hands off the economy. But we know that keeping your hands off the economy is not really keeping your hands off the economy; it is intervention by neglect. We actually do have to think about where we invest our money.
A person can decide to invest in ethical investment funds. A government, however, has much more onerous responsibilities. We also have a lot more money and a lot more power, and the decisions are much more difficult. That is why this discussion has to be held in public. That is why the investment review board’s paper needs to be released and made public so that we can have that discussion and the people of the ACT can have their say, with the understanding that our investment decisions actually shape the picture of the world. The changes may be small but they will certainly have much more impact than the individual person putting in a low energy electric light bulb or changing their small amount of funds to an ethical investment fund.
We, as members of the ACT Assembly, whether we are members of government, the opposition or the crossbench, do have a responsibility to make sure that these issues are discussed in this place. I am sorry that it is seen as offensive, although differently, by Mr Mulcahy and Mr Stanhope, who have their different approaches to these issues. We are going to have to deal with some difficult issues in the years to come and it would be very sad if the Greens were tarred because we have seen the need for change and because we see how deep rooted that change has to be.
It will be unfortunate if the messenger is shot and the message is ignored because that is what will happen if Mr Stanhope goes upstairs and writes a media release condemning me—that has happened before—or Mr Mulcahy decides to use this as an example of the Greens’ lack of economic credentials. I am sorry, but that kind of economics does not work anymore. If we really want to save our world or if we really want to have a fair labour system or if we really want to share things and narrow the gap between rich and poor, it does not work. Superannuation is one way that we, as a government, as a territory, have the power to make changes.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .