Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1963 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.'

The question here is: does the ACT community expect us to protect our assets by putting them safely in the ground, making sure that they are not increased or decreased but protecting them, or does it expect us to increase the assets, to multiply the assets? I suspect that our masters, the ACT community, will be more 'joyful', to quote scripture, if we increase and enhance those investments. For that reason we ought, I would submit, to reject Mr Quinlan's amendment.

MS TUCKER (11.54): After listening to that, I have to say you have just lost my vote. Sorry.

Mr Humphries: Did I ever have it, Kerrie?

MS TUCKER: I have heard the Treasurer and Chief Minister tell me he does not know what derivatives are, and then he reads me the Bible. I am really worried. I did support this in principle; I did expect something much more substantial than that. In the original speech, I said I was concerned about this legislation.

Mr Humphries: It was in the original speech.

MS TUCKER: Yes, but in my original speech I said again that I was concerned about this. This is not a good form of investment anyway; it is short-term speculation; it is not a productive form of investment. In that speech I raised the question of ethical investment. I also mentioned the fact that, when the public accounts committee looked at this some years ago, they said that there should be a limit of 5 per cent of investments being placed into derivatives. We do not see that; we do not see the detail of the regulation. I am not comfortable supporting this.

MR RUGENDYKE (11.55): This bill does demand a lot of scrutiny. I also do not claim to know what derivatives are, but I have had a very good briefing from Treasury officials. I will convey some of the things that I think I learnt at that time, and I will be corrected if I have it wrong.

Yes, there is a degree of risk in derivatives trading. It is not our departments that do this work; it is work done by experts in the field: the National Australia Bank, Bankers Trust and some of those who specialise in the area of investment. They are financial dealings that are totally separate from the government. We give those organisations about five per cent of the money that can be put into this type of investment. I do not believe that to give them that five per cent, with shackles, is appropriate.

Mr Humphries: Shackles?


: Yes, 'shackles', figuratively speaking. The reason Mr Leeson spent time in the Singapore jail was that there was no control over him. He sent the Barings Bank broke because there was no one looking over his shoulder to say, "Hang

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .