Should the ACT Government be investing ethically?

Agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that not everything comes down to Liberal v Labor Simbo. The point I was making was that it seems to me rather inconsistent to only raise “questions” that are critical of a Labor govt, never (as far as I have seen) to “question” anything propounded by Liberals and then to beg off the conservative tag. To labour the point, while it may be the mark of hard core libertarianism to criticise Stalinist recommendations for sunscreen use, it is certainly not consistent with that supposedly ‘libertarian’ position to “question” the ACTPS super fund’s choice of investments. Seems to be a funny kind of libertarian that would suggest that individual investors should have their retirement savings subject to the heavy yoke of Stalinist rules dictating what constitues an acceptable and/or non-acceptable investments?

It’s also worth saying that i know plenty of dyed in the wool Liberals who wouldn’t touch a portfolio as dirty as the one described.

Yep, Jellen, as has been frequently noted, he’s not a liberal, he’s a libertarian.

Now, libertarian’s have an awful lot of holes in their ideology too, but simplifying things to “you must be a liberal or a labour supporter” does tend to distort the rich spectrum of political beliefs that actually exist in the world.

Yeah, asking questions makes me a young liberal, you tool.

Oh right none of our business we silly voters, how dare we question the great and good!

Uh – why is this anyone’s business but those whose money it is? Pigdog and Jemmy – spot on. If you are an ACT public servant you might have a right to a say in this but not otherwise. We might just as well make adverse comment on where the Commonwealth PS super is invested, or where Telstra employees’ super is invested, or where AWB’s employees’ super is invested and the list goes on. I detect a lack of ideological consistency in JB criticising the (perhaps too) free market actions of the Stanhope govt today and yet calling Katy “Stalinist” the other day for suggesting we use sunscreen. Do you see the world through royal blue young Liberal glasses JB?

So where are Mr Stanhope’s own superannuation investments squirrelled away then??

I have an investment in Tattersalls as I see it as the best way I can get back my taxes that are used to make the social security payments that are wasted in poker machines (there is some research available that shows an increase in poker machine revenues following the introduction of the baby bonus). I don’t necessarily like poker machines but I don’t see why I should support the dumb people who use them.

That’s how we got rid of rabbits out of the farm. A wonderful device called a (funnily enough) Rid-a-Rabbit. You stick an LPG hose in a downwind burrow hole and a spark probe in an upwind entrance. When the gas clouds up out of all the holes, hit the spark button and whoomp. More the asphixiation and the shock wave that did the bunnies in than the fire.
Stuff a bunch of fertiliser bags down each hole (to stop any bunnies still outside from digging it out again), back fill, all done.
Sounds nasty, but a lot better on the critters than RCD and mixo…

Hold your breath and try to fart as long as you are not in a flammable environment – it’ll give you an extra minute or two.

So…investing in oxygen is ethical?

asphyxiaton was also the primary cause of death in the dresden firestorm.

many dead non-fried people were found in cellars, bunkers etc.

When I was in College, I did an assignment on the withdrawl from Vietnam… Interesting story about Daisy Cutters (the bombs used to clear-fell an area for helo landing) – where an entire crate (about 21) were dropped on a VC tunnel complex. Most of the 200+ that died were asphixiated rather than burnt.

…and I have waited over 15 years to be able to tell that one 😉

Hard to believe what our troops came home to, huh… Make sure you kick your Mum and Dad if they were involved…

he he he… “loadmaster” 😉

Thumper:

“loadmaster demonstrated how safe it was by dipping his finger in the stuff then licking it off.”

I will NEVER slag an MSDS again!!! (swear to God)

Ethics and mulla are pretty much mutually exclusive investment strategies. Most companies will put a halt on “ethics” when it starts visibly eating into their bottom line – which could affect share price and subsequently the ‘C’ level bonuses.

Interesting agent orange story for you, if you’ll pardon the digression…
Used you work with a guy who was on the agent orange team in Vietnam. He told us they would give the soldiers all the drill the safety, but as soon as they turned around, the soldiers would be spraying each other with it to cool themselves down…

Hey, leave Monsanto alone – they gave the world Agent Orange!

PS. I’ll be pushing for RiotACT to only invest in clusterbombs that bio-degrade after 4 weeks

…and Monsanto – ripping off third world countries wherever they can just to turn an easy buck…

There was a doco on SBS a few months ago about Nokia’s operations in China (dead boring doco, however…). Nokia claims to be an ethical company, but the doco made it very clear that (their Chinese op anyhow) ain’t. So how *DO* you tell?

simple, if you want a superfund to invest ethically you need to make it part of the constitution and have the members vote it in

yes they may not make as big a profit as other funds but thats the choice people make for going ethical, similar to buying organic foods

as todays society gets more aware and desires more warm fuzzy feelings they’ll start investing in more ethical organisations, making it a growth industry in itself

Thats a bloody silly investment anyway tobacco companies have been one of the worst performing sectors on the share market for that last decade.

They should show their enviromental credentials and invest in “Soylent Green”

There have been plenty of studies that show so-called ethical investing reduces returns (if you work in the industry, ask Barra for a copy of theirs). It’s because it reduces the number of industries you can invest in, forcing you to buy in industries you otherwise wouldn’t. As well, the fund managers’ costs are higher to manage it (more work involved), so net return to the investor is lower.

If I was a superannuant, I’d be pretty annoyed if my boss started to dictate the investment policy of my fund and forced me to accept less money for my retirement. In fact, it would actually be illegal.

I’m a recent smoke giver-upper and still fight to sit downwind of my smoky friends, so can’t comment sensibly on tobacco as an investment. Just give it all to me!

But Mr Stanhope considering that governments should not become involved in managing taxpayers’ investments, which he said were rightly kept “at arm’s length” from the Government? These are merely cash investments. He seems to have a completely different yardstick for getting involved with most of our other asset-based investments.

Please explain.

God, if you hate us smokers so much, can’t you just wait for lung cancer to kill us.

He’s from Glasgow Has.

Tobacco is legal whether you smoke or not.

And please dont’t ask the town council to make investment decisions.

Or ethical decisions.

Screw ethical investment, how about smart investment…

It’s not very wise to be investing your hard earned beer credits into something liable to get sued for millions of euros every couple of years.

Even if they win, they still lose on account of its your investment dollar propping up all those fat lawyers bills.

What the money is invested in should be determined by the risk profile of the ‘investor’, and the desired return on the investment.

As was pointed out previously, true ethical investing is difficult to assure, so we might as well get the best returns possible within the risk profile.

And cars kill a lot more people every year than atomic warheads.

As do falling coconuts.

Ahhh, Ethical investment – kind of like buying green energy (Especially in the ACT, where most of our energy comes from Hydro..)

In any case, we can have the warm fuzzies about where the money is initially invested, but there is *no* way that the end of the investment chain can be ensured – so one of the companies, is likely to be investing in a company, who invests in a company, who makes atomic warheads!

Which is pretty much how you pronounce “cheroot”, nyssa, in my Gentlemen’s Club…

i think that should make efforts to invest so that they make a profit and pay the returns they need for their membership.

Oh and it’s pronounced “sh-root”.

It’s Dr Shroot terubo. He’s my doctor and hates smoking. I’m trying to quit but he doesn’t ram it down my throat. Which is a pleasant change.

Sad.
I think they should make efforts to invest ethically.

As long as the super fund investment account keeps ticking over, providing ongoing investment for those in the fund, I do not see this as a moral dilemma at all.

Secondly, for the govt to audit all of their investments for compliance to ethical guidelines it would create another arm of the ACT PS that really isnt needed.
However this does make a few of the CM’s ‘big picture’ (shall we say) rantings appear to on thin ice.

Oh, and I’m sure that all those ACTPS smokers who’ve been forced outdoors into cold and windy corners will be pleased to hear about this investment.

Har! I note the president of Canberra Action on Smoking and Health is a “Mr Shroot”. That can only be pronounced as “cheroot”. Most unfortunate.

Yaawwwwwwn.

Since it is the ACTPS super fund, it should be up to the members what the fund invests in, not their employer.

And on point 3, how you determine which companies act ethically?