Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I am asked this question: why don’t I exercise a nonexistent power under section 18 to direct who the Future Fund appoints as its custodian? I point out that neither is this an investment mandate nor does the government have a capacity to intervene in the Future Fund. I produce in this parliament as exhibit A the member for Lilley. Exhibit A, the member for Lilley, said:

... Labor has argued consistently that the Future Fund ought to be independent.

Now if it takes those decisions independently it’s entirely a matter for them.

‘Entirely a matter for them’! That is what Labor were saying yesterday—‘entirely a matter for the Future Fund’. But today the member for Melbourne would have you believe that the government ought to intervene and it ought to direct who the Future Fund appoints as its custodian. Too clever by half. Get your story straight. If the Labor Party believe that the government should intervene and direct the Future Fund on who it appoints as its custodian, or its banker, or its chief executive, for that matter, let them stand here at the dispatch box—let them say it. But don’t go around the business community saying that you believe in an independent Future Fund and then sneak up here to the dispatch box trying to lead to an impression that you have a contrary view. This is the modern Labor Party all over: they will walk both sides of the street but they will never have the courage of their convictions. You can have it one way, you can have it the other way, but you cannot have it both ways.

See this speech in context