Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Article 50(1) basically says that governors, directors, alternates, the President, the Vice-President and other officers and employees of the bank, including experts and consultants, shall be immune from legal process with respect to the acts performed by them in their official capacity, except when the bank waives immunity, and shall enjoy the inviolability of all their official papers, documents and records. That is not clear to me. In fact, it looks like they will be immune. That is the reason we put this amendment up, which I will get to in a minute. And with the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report, I would have thought there was room for the government to include provisions in the bill relating to some of these issues. I suppose that is not a question; it is more of a statement. I have just a couple of very direct questions and we can get through this fairly quickly. Would the government consider the establishment of any triggers for withdrawal from the bank? The reason I ask this question is that we do not have the information with us to make the decisions on some of these very important factors. Would you put in place a trigger or a clause for withdrawal from the bank should certain preconditions not be met around ethical investing, environmental and labour safeguards or other issues in relation to impropriety, illegal or fraudulent conduct et cetera by employees?