Page 5654 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and governance criteria, ESG criteria, into its mainstream investment decision-making activities.
The committee has recommended a course of action that supports growth in the principles-based approach to responsible investment as this would be practised by the government. This approach, whilst building on achievements to date, puts the government on notice that it should now be taking a stronger and more proactive stance with regard to responsible investment in managing the territory’s investment portfolio. This course of action will minimise the risk of the government being accused of, or criticised for, simply trading on its UN PRI signatory status. The committee supports the continued progression of the ACT government’s commitment to the UN PRI. The committee believes that the recommendations it has made as an outcome of its inquiry into the exposure draft will assist in developing a more broadly based investment management framework.
We received a number of submissions, and perhaps the submission that I would draw most clearly to the attention of members was a submission from the ACT Assembly’s ethics and integrity adviser, in particular a couple of paragraphs in what is just a two-page submission. It is worth reading those paragraphs because they make it quite clear that in the view of the ethics and integrity adviser—and indeed it was adopted by the committee—there are flaws in the bill as presented.
The structure of the report has a number of chapters. Chapter 1 is the standard chapter which outlines the way the inquiry was conducted. Chapter 2 deals with the proposed bill. It is basically a two-page chapter. The recommendation that comes out of it is this:
The Committee recommends that the proposed Financial Management (Ethical Investment) Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 not be tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly, and if tabled, not supported by the ACT Legislative Assembly.
It goes to the heart of what the ethics adviser says. I will read the relevant paragraphs:
Legislation that would prevent or limit investment by the Executive or other public bodies of public moneys in certain forms of investment, or that would promote investment in other forms, is clearly within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Whether the power to do so should be exercised calls for a balancing of what may be perceived to be competing priorities—for example, between a policy favouring an optimum financial return on investment on the one hand, and a policy of not supporting an industry that manufactures products injurious to health or the environment on the other. The resolution of such balances is a matter of policy rather than ethics.
However, there is an ethics-related issue raised by the Bill—whether or not a Bill to that proposed effect should be passed in the terms proposed.
In my view it should not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video