Page 5662 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that some bureaucrats in Treasury get to decide what our investment norms are. That does not seem to me the direction that we should be going on something as important as this—that we have a backroom process that has no public scrutiny deciding on what basis we are going to exclude things from our investment universe.
But that is what the majority of this report is saying. They do not like the idea that we publicly discuss what we would wish to exclude. We would like to do it in some backroom process based on unspecified, universally agreed principles. It sort of does not make sense to me, I have to admit. I fear that possibly by producing an alternative method that lacks transparency what the committee is really saying is: “We do not want to do it. We will make a methodology that does not work so it will not actually happen.”
The other possibility I thought of in relation to norms is that the committee were possibly saying that they support best of sector investing. Best of sector investing is saying that we will invest in every sector but we will always invest in the company that does things best, that follows best practice. I think that could be what they are trying to say. On the other hand, they did also talk about negative screening, which is not consistent with that.
I need to hurry up because I have only two minutes remaining. I support recommendations 5 and 6. Recommendation 7 is the key recommendation. I do support it. I have my concerns about norms-based, as I have said, but the idea of annual reporting, disclosure and reporting annually to the Assembly I think is a really positive step forward that I would like to support.
Recommendation 8, which relates to an annual list of shareholding, is a very good idea. It would give us a list of what the government is doing. I move to recommendation 9. It says:
… that the ACT government … sponsor or co-sponsor public engagements and shareholder resolutions on matters of concern.
That is a very useful recommendation. We have had considerable discourse with Treasury about how Treasury votes our shares. It is clear that Treasury, while it may get some reports afterwards about what happens, does not appear to be engaged in any way with how shares are voted, contrary to the UN PRI.
This seems particularly strange when we are voting against things that, it seems, even the Treasurer would disagree with. Ms Hunter has asked questions on notice about how the government exercises its shareholders’ rights. It appears that the territory in fact voted against a resolution put to ExxonMobil to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression.
I think this is a fairly clear ethical issue, at least for the ALP. It was a major part of their annual conference, at least as far as the press went. This is an ethical issue. It is an issue which this Assembly has debated. We have a human rights framework in the ACT but we are not prepared to vote consistently with our ethical beliefs. (Time expired.)
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video