Page 2173 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the chamber. We do not believe that should be the case and there are certainly some very easy criteria that we can apply to the way we exercise our rights as a shareholder. The obvious starting point is, of course, the Human Rights Act.
Members will recall that I have highlighted in this place a number of examples where the territory has voted in a manner that is inconsistent with legislation passed in this place, not to mention the self-evident values of the community. Some particular examples were votes against resolutions concerning the prevention of discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, resolutions to protect children from the impacts of smoking, and making weapons companies address the human rights impacts of their products, particularly in relation to cluster bombs.
In each of the cases not only was the Human Rights Act breached but decisions were also inconsistent with other ACT laws. We have also voted against resolutions to address climate change and ensure that we are not profiting from fossil fuel sales whilst at the same time committing the community to reducing fossil fuel use.
One response that I have heard to this is that we are only a small shareholder and it does not really matter how we vote. Apart from the obvious concern that we should be standing up for our values, there are tangible outcomes from our votes that we should be aware of.
We should care about the principle and we should be prepared to do whatever we can about things that are harmful or simply abhorrent. We are talking about resolutions to prevent child sex trafficking, amongst other human rights abuses. The principle is very important and it sends an important signal to other sovereign funds that the ACT is prepared to do something.
Apart from the principle of the issue, which I honestly would have thought was enough anyway, there is a real and tangible outcome as well. In the US a resolution must get at least three per cent support in order to be put again the next year and it needs an additional three per cent each year to be put again the following year. So whilst we may only have a very small shareholding in the company, our vote can make a big difference and our vote could be the difference that keeps the issue on the agenda.
The other new initiative is positive screening. The new board has also been given a role to make determinations about positive social and environmental investments. The idea is that the board can make determinations to the effect that, for example, renewable energy generation such as wind and solar is a good environmental investment, or health care that delivers social benefits is a good social investment.
After making the determination the superannuation account will then be obliged to prioritise those investments and it may do that in a number of ways. One mechanism, and one that was flagged in the government’s submission to the public accounts committee inquiry, was to set aside a specific pool of funds, for example, in its private equity pool, to target these areas.
The Greens believe it is very important that not only do we screen out certain activities but we also proactively invest in sustainable industries. We recently had the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video