Page 3227 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
international labour obligations. The four activities mentioned are generally recognised as being reasonable within the context and this already happens in Australia and elsewhere.
Of particular note is the approach of Ms Hunter. She proposed that the prohibition be applied when these activities comprise a material part of a company’s activities. Clearly there is a major issue in determining what is material, and yet Ms Hunter says in her explanatory statement that determining what is material should be easy to apply in practice. We would all know that it is very easy to pick and choose once you determine something, and that is why laws need to be concise so that there cannot be evasion. So, if it is easy to apply, as is stated in the explanatory memorandum, why has she not specified what is actually material? I think she has failed to complete her argument in her bill but has also created a major flaw in a legislative regime on which prohibition decisions would be based. We all have a vested interest in this matter given our superannuation funds are invested. We must demand better prospective laws from our legislators.
The second group covers activities in which investments may be prohibited. There are seven separate activities mentioned in this bill. It is largely a list of the usual suspects from the Greens, those troglodytes who seek to deny the very foundations of contemporary economies around the world. We go to the same old cases. These include uranium mining, processing and sale; coal mining, processing and sale; crude oil mining, processing and sale; gaming equipment; intensive animal farming; and certain timber products.
Members will recall that Ms Hunter had tried to restrict the investment policies of the SPA with an earlier version of this bill released through an exposure draft in 2010. Fortunately, after inquiry by the public accounts committee, Ms Hunter withdrew the exposure draft. What has happened this time around? Ms Hunter has this time separated the activities into two groups: prohibited activities and activities which could be subject to prohibition.
One aspect that is really interesting this time around is that Ms Hunter has dropped her opposition to two activities: firstly, the manufacture and sale of liquor; and, secondly, genetically modified crops. Why has she omitted these two activities? Are they now respectable activities, or is too difficult to target them? Or perhaps she just enjoys a drink, as do all of us.
As with Ms Hunter’s original exposure draft, there are substantial holes in the legislative framework which is proposed by Ms Hunter in this bill. The opposition, for those reasons, will be opposing this bill.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (5.14), in reply: Of course I am disappointed, although not surprised, that neither party is willing to support the bill. Certainly there were plenty of reasons to support the bill and not a lot of reasons not to support it.
There was a change between the draft bill that I put out and this bill today. I said at the time that I would be putting that draft bill out so that we could gauge some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video