Page 3047 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the government’s ability to look at what happens and try and determine what factors will affect the ACT.
It also raises the matter of how the ACT is a shareholder in various companies and can participate in company activities. We have had a few questions on that issue during the week—such as assuring that appropriate governance is maintained. There will be more on that when the PAC reports on its inquiry into ethical investment. I commend the appropriation to the house.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (5.22): I would like to start by responding to the Treasurer’s response to questions without notice yesterday. I was concerned on a number of fronts.
Firstly, I was concerned by the comments that it was up to fund managers to vote in the best interests of the territory. I take it that this is the immediate financial interests of the territory rather than any broader public interest type considerations. It is a concern that the Treasurer appeared to indicate that the ACT executive did not have a role. This is a disappointing position. I sincerely hope that the Treasurer will reconsider the position and ensure that the territory meets its obligation to act consistently with the laws and policies of the ACT in all its dealings.
If we think it is worth legislating to protect human rights here in the ACT, surely we should act consistently with that to protect human rights for everyone. Surely, if it is worth reducing greenhouse gas emissions here, it is worth advocating for that everywhere. The previous Chief Minister was very vocal in his concerns that we should acknowledge and recognise the rights and contribution of Indigenous people here in the territory; surely that should apply equally across the world to all indigenous people whose lands and livelihoods are under threat. The Greens believe that we have an obligation to do these things in whatever way we can; one very tangible way is to exercise our right as an owner of the companies who offend these basic principles and force them to change.
The next point of concern was the Treasurer’s answer when she said:
I have had it explained to me in detail that that is not actually how these motions are dealt with at meetings and that there is not specifically a motion that deals with child sex exploitation that shareholders then vote against or vote for. I can honestly say that Treasury and our investment advisers do not attend meetings and stand there and oppose votes on the floor on specific motions like that.
The Treasurer needs to clarify that advice, because it is simply incorrect. There is no magic in this. There are motions put, just as there are motions put in this place, and shareholders vote on them. Of course, Treasury officials are not standing there putting up their hands on the proposals. There are systems for proxy votes; in many cases these are online and very easy to access.
I doubt that Treasury contemplated these votes. The question on notice I asked recently was about things like recognising human rights, addressing the impacts of tobacco addiction, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental harms. I am confident they never contemplated the votes; I would be horrified if they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video