Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Usually, in the parochialism of parliament, it can just become quite tribal, but sometimes you actually do listen to what people say, and I acknowledge—I don't know whether you're the member for Throsby or the member for Whitlam; I'm going to go for Throsby—

Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—

the member for Whitlam—

Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—

Gough-like! I acknowledge what the member for Whitlam said. Obviously, we believe that the intent of our side is always right, but this issue that he brought up, as to schedule 3, is not going without question. Later on, I'll be having a meeting with the minister; I've heard that she wishes to discuss it, to discuss precisely that. I acknowledge, and so do other colleagues, that we have a real problem with the discretion of a third party to determine, on their views, where things should be invested in and where they shouldn't. I note that the member for Hunter is here. I'll give you a classic example. We're pro coal and we believe that coal is one of the vital mechanisms that underpin the wealth of this nation. It might be politically incorrect; it might be despised, I would say, in some areas. But, without it, we would be a much poorer nation. We have a very recent example of banks making so-called value judgements, where the ANZ bank pulled out of financing for Newcastle's port. This is not how it works. I can understand, implicitly, that if someone is investing in something and it's just losing money hand over fist, then of course you've got a duty of stewardship—as you do in corporate law. There's a duty of stewardship, to try to get the best returns for your shareholders. But you don't have a duty of moralising on where you think they should and shouldn't invest. If they have found an investment and it's legal, then that should be where it basically finishes.

So, on this issue, it's going to be important—and I'm not declaring which way I would vote, and, with others, I'm not walking into this thing blind. We haven't been asleep at the wheel. We have been going through this and trying to decipher it. We are looking for better comfort to be brought forward by the minister as to why this cannot be exploited. We are very aware of the fact that, when the time comes that we're not the government and someone else is, we can hardly argue against something the other side does when we brought in the laws for them to do it. That's the issue here. And that's why I favour a generic and clinical approach to investments, which is: if an investment is legal and prudent and it makes money, then it is a good investment. But, if you start saying: 'Well, I don't like coal. I don't like gas. I'm not going to support people who do fracking. I don't like the live cattle trade,' and all this, as they inevitably would, because the Greens would put pressure on the Labor Party to do precisely that, then we're in trouble. We're in trouble, so how do we do a workaround on this?

Superannuation is so powerful now. I think the member for Whitlam might nod or cross, but I think it's about $3 trillion we now have in it. So $3 trillion gives you immense power. If you start moralising about where that $3 trillion goes, you can have an immense sway on the economy of the nation and you can have an immense detrimental sway on the economy of the nation if you start casting $3 million to political hobby horses by reason of not saying you must invest in the political hobby horse but naturally enough just excluding anything else but the hobby horse to invest in. That is not the efficient flow of funds. An economy must have the efficient flow of funds to their best return for it to prevail.

We have only one job in this nation. I'm going to say this ad nauseam, because it's so important: this nation must become as powerful as possible as quickly as possible. That is the No. 1 job. As important as COVID is, it's not the No. 1 job. As fervently as people might hold to every tenet of the climate debate, it is not the No. 1 job. In the changing circumstances of our region and the rising power of China, and we hope it remains a peaceful place—we all hope and pray for that—but, if that is not the case and we are all alone here in the South Pacific, then the only job we have right now is to become as powerful as possible as quickly as possible. To that matter, we must at times show that we have become hardened and, to be honest, a little bit more ruthless, that we put aside other benevolent ideas and focus on the main game. The main game is precisely that and this, until it has an erring towards focusing on another game, focusing on another priority. I know that when I go back to my office, people will be calling me, so I'd best get back to my office.

(Quorum formed)

See this speech in context