Page 2357 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is one difference between the moneys in the territory banking account and the superannuation account—that is, the Treasurer’s claim that it would be irresponsible for them to intervene in the investment of other people’s money is even weaker when it comes to the government’s own capital holdings. The claim is dubious in any case as the money held in the superannuation provision account is not the property of the people who will ultimately be entitled to it. It is a provision account, in recognition of a future liability. When that liability is realised, it does not matter whether it comes out of this account or a consolidated revenue account. Of course, a realistic sum of money, or a future earnings stream, must be set aside to provide for future superannuation liabilities, but I suspect the Treasurer is not really accurate when he characterises that account as other people’s money over which he should not exercise any control.
I think it is irresponsible to try to avoid issuing directions as to what are acceptable investments. It is irresponsible to invest other people’s money in activities that most people would consider to be deplorable and unacceptable. When I asked the Treasurer in this Assembly for a list of the companies in which the government had investments, my request was refused on the ground that it was too difficult to compile such a list. But when the Canberra Times asked for the list, it was produced in a flash. I could be wrong, but I think it took less than 24 hours to comply with the journalist’s request. I would have thought that an MLA’s request would be accorded higher priority than that of an employee of a private media company.
The Treasurer’s actions display a breathtaking level of contempt for the processes of this place. Of course, they also show the power that the media wields over this government—but these are tangential matters. The point is that the list of companies revealed a plethora of companies and related parent companies or subsidiaries whose activities are actively and disproportionately contributing to social and environmental atrocities. In fact, they are doing many of the activities for which we, no doubt, set up the Human Rights Act and have fair labour laws in order to counteract them.
When it comes to investment policies, there is a glaring disconnect between the government’s stated concerns and its actions. There is an urgent need for people, especially in affluent societies like Australia, to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. This includes the consequences of our investment and consumption decisions. It is ludicrous for the government to pretend that it bears no responsibility for the fact that the ACT’s investment funds are supporting the manufacture of cluster bombs or cigarettes, as well as a plethora of other socially and environmentally damaging activities. And what about investments in companies that are at the forefront of the fight to drive down labour standards? Are any of Chris Corrigan’s companies being propped up by this Labor Party? It is possible. What about Gunns, that forest-destroying, ocean-polluting and legal-process-abusing parasite that seems to be exempt from environmental regulation?
The government is responsible for the guidelines that are issued to its funds managers. The fact that it did not know where its funds were invested is deplorable. Does anyone imagine that a funds manager would refuse to take their portfolio if it came with instructions that no moneys should be invested in an accompanying list of companies or activities? The Chief Minister was aghast at the idea that the government should
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .