Page 3231 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
debate and discuss the specific reasons for, I guess, the rejection of the proposals in the bill. Instead, Mr Smyth has really not engaged at all on this issue. On any of the occasions it has been raised, he has just shut it down—unlike his colleague Mr Hanson, who seems to have a better handle on it.
One of the great strengths of investing in this way is that it encourages companies to change the way they do things. This is really what it is about. Norway, which, as I said, has got the largest sovereign fund, has had this experience. They provide the best example, because they publish on the internet specific instances where companies have changed the way they do things and this has led them to be taken off the exclusion list. Being on the exclusion list does not do any good for companies, and it is an important driver for change. If governments make the decision to be active and responsible investors, it will drive change, sending important messages to the institutions and super funds that things are changing and that more will be looked at than just last year’s dividend and share price. I would say that this is a great way for us to be looking at how we can invest in those businesses and the companies and the industries of the future—the sustainable ones, the ones that will not only have environmental benefits but also social benefits and, of course, a good economic return.
It was interesting to go to a talk the other day by Simon Crean about regional development. I know Mr Smyth was there. He might have been a little unhappy with it because Mr Crean spoke about what an important region we live in, in the ACT, and how we could be the renewable energy region of Australia. That is where our investments should be going. That is what we should be looking at.
Mr Crean went on to speak about the triple bottom line approach to investment, a triple bottom line approach to the way that we do business. It was very pleasing to hear that, having been in this place for four years talking about the triple bottom line—which, I am pleased to say, was put in the parliamentary agreement and has been acted upon. But unfortunately there are people like Mr Smyth, who does not understand things like the triple bottom line and the importance of moving to sustainable businesses and the investments of the future that will have the economic, environmental and social benefits that we want here in the ACT. Mr Hanson does seem to have a bit more of a handle on it.
Just to reiterate, I think it is a bit of a shame that we could not get up something around particularly those companies that breach international labour conventions. As I said, we are talking about child labour; we are talking about sweatshops. I would have liked to have seen that in the policy. We will continue to push for that, because I think it is only a matter of time. But I will acknowledge that this change to policy here in the territory has been significant—of not investing in tobacco, of not investing in cluster bombs and landmines that maim people, that kill people, that destroy lives.
This is a good step forward. I am, as I said, disappointed that this legislation will not get up today, but I look forward to future debates and discussions in the ACT and further progression in putting in place responsible investment. The Greens believe that it is not only a good thing to do and the right thing to do but also that it will give the rate of return that we need on our investments to ensure that we can provide the sorts of places, infrastructure and services to make, and continue to make, Canberra a great place to live at the same time as playing our role as a global citizen.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video