Page 5656 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 6 December 2011

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


Recommendation 5 is that, to ensure consistency with recognised investment terminology, we promote a common understanding and start using the term “doing well by doing good” so that we all know what we are talking about.

Recommendation 6 is that the government should develop a policy of responsible investments that reflects a principles-based approach to this form of investment. So it should be in the policy; the government and this Assembly should not be dabbling in the detail of the day-to-day running of these investment accounts.

Recommendation 7 is about the implementation of reporting requirements and that the ACT government comply with this by reporting annually to the Assembly.

In recommendation 8 we are saying that the government should publish a list of companies in which it holds shares.

Recommendation 9 talks about having some seminars and educating the public.

That is what the committee determined would be the responsible approach—not the approach that has been taken by the Greens. I go back to what the ethics adviser said. There is nothing unethical in the things that the Greens sought to ban investment in in their bill. You cannot be a little bit ethical; you cannot try to take a word and use it to your own political advantage on an issue that is so important for the future of the ACT in terms of its investments.

I refer the report to members. It is a pretty good read. It sets out a clear path forward that will allow us to do good things for our community, both having good returns on investments and achieving social outcomes, without seeking to own the word “ethical”. And the fact that there is no definition of “ethical” in the bill really shows that it is an attempt to simply capture the words rather than to pay honour to them.

I conclude by thanking my Assembly colleagues on the committee, John Hargreaves and Caroline Le Couteur, and the committee office staff, particularly Dr Andrea Cullen for her untiring work in researching information about developments in responsible investment and drawing the threads of this research into a coherent report.

Going to some of the history of the report, there is a lot of hoo-ha about how certain groups have driven it, but when you read the report you will find that around the world, and indeed in Australia, over a long period of time, church groups have led this issue about the nature of doing well and doing good out of their investments. If you look at the Australian context, it is perhaps slightly different from what happened in different parts of the world at different times, but that is not unusual with the development of any sort of policy in this way. I thank Dr Cullen for her work and I commend the report to the Assembly.

MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (10.20): I too would like to thank my fellow committee members, particularly Ms Le Couteur for the courage with which she conducted herself around the perception that there might have been a conflict. I can assure the chamber and want to put it on the record that I do not believe there is a


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