Page 5655 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is the view of the ethics adviser. He says:
In my view it should not. I consider that it would be wrong, misleading and inappropriate to refer to the proposed prohibited investments in terms suggesting that they are not ethical, or to the proposed priority-if-prudent investments in terms that suggest that other investments would not be ethical. Each of the activities encompassed by referred to by the Bill is lawful. Like all lawful activities, they can be conducted ethically or unethically. None of them is inherently unethical, or more ethical than others. To suggest otherwise distorts the concept of ethics and is likely to confuse public understanding of ethical concepts. For example, the provision allowing investment in prohibited investments below a certain threshold appears to suggest that it is permissible to be a little bit unethical. I consider that, as a matter of public policy, that concept should not be countenanced.
In my view, if the Assembly wished to achieve the effect of the Bill, it would be preferable to amend its terms by deleting all use of the word “ethical” and substituting alternative terminology such as “socially sensitive” that more accurately reflects the policy issues that are sought to be balanced by the Bill.
If you want a summary of the bill, members, there is the appropriate summary from the ethics adviser, the person that we have charged with helping to guide us on ethical questions.
Having read that, the committee took the view that this bill should not be tabled and that if it is tabled it should not be passed.
We were very lucky to have a large number of people take the time to make recommendations to the committee. In the spirit of tripartisanship, which is how committees should work, the other 90-odd pages of the report focus on what we were told. They lead to a number of recommendations that the committee believes set out a relevant framework for a government seeking to do well by doing good through its investments.
Let me go to the recommendations. Recommendation 2 is that the government table in the Assembly the 2009, 2010 and all subsequent UN PRI annual reporting and assessment surveys. That is so that we as an Assembly can know where we are at. So firstly, seek knowledge.
Recommendation 3 is that the government report annually on changes to its portfolio. We will know exactly what has happened in the last year so that this place is always up to date with the investments of the Assembly.
Recommendation 4 is that the ACT government, as an institutional investor, should actively pursue a policy of responsible investments and, if necessary, selectively use exclusion-based or negative screening strategies in the context of public policy. What we are saying is: make sure you have the tools, but use the tools based on the knowledge. What we need in place is a policy from the government to allow that to happen.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video