Page 2670 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
wage issues that play a large part in deciding whether to relocate oneself or one’s family or whether to change jobs. I note the existing template certified agreement expires on 31 March next year and I hope that the ACT government will consider these factors in the negotiations for a new template.
It was disappointing to learn during estimates that this government has no commitment or desire to invest our superannuation funds in the local economy or in ethical projects. Mr Mulcahy made it clear before lunch that the opposition takes the predictable line also. There is an opportunity for the government to do both of these things by making legitimate borrowings to Housing ACT to increase the size of its stock. I must stress the words “legitimate borrowings”, because we do not want the government to draw on its super investment in a way that compromises its security. Many other jurisdictions use a proportion of their superannuation funds to invest in public housing stock and there is no good reason why the ACT should not do so. What is the point of making one percentage point more profit in another jurisdiction or, worse, in another country and depriving ourselves of the multiplier effect that would be engendered by investing those funds in the ACT?
Ethical investment really is the super of the future. As corporations emerge as the dominant power brokers in a globalised world, it is consumers whose purchasing decisions support particular corporations and particular standards of corporate behaviour. Consumers have the power to change corporate behaviour by punishing and boycotting those companies that stray too far from community standards of ethics and social responsibility. As it is, many super funds actually invest in activities that are harmful to the interests of the people who contribute to those funds. During estimates I heard that the government does not really know where super funds are invested and did not seem to care; it was left entirely up to the brokers.
The World Trade Organisation and Australia’s representatives at the commonwealth level fight hard to restrict the ability of people and governments to choose products on the basis of environmental and labour standards. There are serious restrictions on labelling laws that enable consumers to differentiate on non-price criteria. We do not expect any movement on human rights or environmentally based trade negotiations from our federal government, but the ACT super funds are large enough that, with concerted action, a proportion would be able to exert a significant influence for the better on investment funds and boardroom decision making. Again, triple bottom line accounting principles point the way forward to a better world by putting a value on those features of a healthy and happy life that are ignored by a fixation on the single bottom line of financial statements. I believe that human rights compatibility should be extended to consideration of how our super funds are invested.
The ACT government and various ministers have at different times made cautious but interested noises about using superannuation investment more strategically. If we need to consider more carefully how services are delivered in Canberra and how we develop this society and the impact that it has on the planet, then how we use our available resources—and superannuation investment is a big one—has to be part of that thinking.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts) (5.08): I respond briefly to some of the comments that have been made on the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .