Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. The first chairman of the Future Fund, David Murray, says the Treasurer's raid on the fund 'means it can be used for boondoggle budgeting'. Having already made Australians poorer, why is this Labor government making future generations pay for its economic incompetence by raiding the Future Fund?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again there are a couple of elements to that question on the matter of Australian living standards. I remind the House and the people watching at home that when we came to office real wages were falling in five consecutive quarters, and we've got real wages growing again. That's one of the important ways that we're trying to help people make up the ground that they lost during the cost-of-living pressures which began under those opposite.

I'm asked about the Future Fund as well and I welcome once again the opportunity to talk about the very important changes that we're announcing today when it comes to the Future Fund. This side of the House wants to see more investment in housing; that side wants to see less investment in housing. This side wants to see more investment in cleaner and cheaper energy; that side wants to see less investment in cleaner and cheaper energy. This side of the House wants to make our infrastructure and our economy more resilient so that our people are more secure; those opposite want to get in the way of that.

Now, I'm asked about the comments from David Murray. David Murray, I acknowledged in the press conference I gave earlier, has a right to express a view about these kinds of things, but David Murray is not—on this occasion—correct. He is factually wrong to make the comments that he is making. I refer him and the shadow Treasurer to the investment mandate, which makes it very clear that the fund will be required to consider the 'national priorities in its investment decisions, where possible, appropriate and consistent with strong returns', and that's the main point that we're making today.

Nothing that is being announced today is about getting in the way of the Future Fund continuing to realise these strong returns or the same expectations on rate of return—the same treatment of risk. What we are asking the Future Fund to do—and proudly—is, where it makes sense and where it can make the fund money, to consider these big national challenges, which were neglected for too long in the wasted decade of missed opportunities from those opposite. That should not be an especially controversial suggestion for us to make. We are proud of the changes that we're announcing today when it comes to the future of the Future Fund.

Every time the shadow Treasurer asks me about this, what he's really telling everybody is that he wants less investment in housing and energy and infrastructure. This is one of the many ways that those opposite pose an unacceptable risk to household budgets and to the economy more broadly. We know that they are a risk because we know their record. We know their record of falling real wages, higher inflation, huge deficits and a trillion dollars in Liberal debt in a budget weighed down with waste and rorts with which the shadow Treasurer has been associated. We make no apologies for the changes we're making. We're proud of them. They're about ensuring that investment flows in ways that benefit the Australian people and strengthen their economy.