Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Indeed—I take what I can get, Senator Sherry. But we are failing in our responsibilities if we do not anticipate the challenges that such ageing and gentrification will bring. As I said, by 2020 our liabilities will have reached $140 billion. With this measure the government is putting aside an initial payment of $18 billion. I think that guarantees that the fund is well on its way towards providing for the obligations the Australian community has to meet at that future point.

I note the range of views which have been expressed by the Australian Labor Party about the idea of a future fund. I cannot honestly say that I can detect a single view—‘a range of views’ is the kindest description I can use with respect to their position. They have argued that perhaps we are putting this money into the wrong kind of chest. They have suggested at other stages that the fund is open to some form of manipulation. I note that on 10 May last year, just after the federal budget, the shadow Treasurer, Mr Swan, said that the Labor Party would support a future fund—thank you for the vote of confidence, Mr Swan—as long as it was locked away in a locked box and could not be raided by the National Party. That is an interesting comment, which contrasts in many respects with the comments made by Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Beazley said that he wanted a fund which, far from being locked away, was accessible for the purposes, as he put it, of laying the foundation for higher growth rates. He went on to say that ‘higher productivity and higher growth are the best and only ways to lay a strong foundation for the future’.

I further contrast those views with those of the Labor member for Fraser, Mr McMullan, who was at a budget breakfast the day after the budget. He praised the concept of a future fund, but suggested that more infrastructure work should be funded from that kind of measure. I think it is fair to say that Mr Beazley has a point in saying that investing in Australia’s infrastructure, if that is what he intends, and other measures to produce higher productivity and higher growth are good things and lay a strong foundation, as he suggests, for the future. But there is an essential ingredient that would link such a concept back to the concept of providing for the future liabilities of the Commonwealth with respect to superannuation. That is, you use the benefits of higher productivity and higher growth—meaning more revenue collected by the Commonwealth—to put money aside for just that purpose, without assuming that the higher growth and higher productivity will lead to the extra dollars being available at the point in time when you are going to have to spend it on meeting your obligations to public servants.

The fact is that that need and opportunity will not necessarily coincide. More importantly, the Australian Labor Party has shown very little capacity when the times are good to put away dollars for these sorts of purposes. We had, during the 13 years of Labor government between 1983 and 1996, a number of years when the Australian economy experienced quite satisfactory and good periods of growth. We also had some periods of recession; we all recall Mr Keating’s comments about the recession we had to have. But there were periods of growth. And what happened to the Commonwealth’s capacity at that time to meet these sorts of obligations? It was going backwards. We came to office in 1996 with, as Senator Watson has observed, debts of almost $100 billion. That is testament to how well or poorly the Australian Labor Party takes the trouble to put aside money that it reaps from higher productivity and higher growth. On its track record it cannot be trusted to make those sorts of provisions.

A measure such as a future fund is important to be able to secure those funds that come into the Commonwealth’s hands as a result of, for example, higher productivity and higher growth and put them aside for this very important obligation. The chief executive of the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development, Mr O’Neill, said, in the Australian Financial Review on 18 June, that there is no shortage of money for infrastructure developments in Australia at this moment. He makes the very good point that there is a lot of money in the system and that we do not, for the most part, need to divert money of this kind heavily into infrastructure projects that cannot be obtained in the marketplace. It is important, irrespective of what the periodic condition of the market is with respect to funding for infrastructure development, that there be a long-term strategy for securing obligations and liabilities into the future—and there is none bigger than the obligation to the Australian community with regard to superannuation for public servants. There is none larger than that $140 billion we have to find by 2020.

I strongly commend this bill. I note that it is not intended to be part of the current operating accounts of the Commonwealth on a day-to-day basis. It is to be separate. It is to be put aside with very strict rules about how it can be used. It is to be managed accountably and openly. I believe that, in those terms, it will operate very importantly as a bulwark against mismanagement in the future. Whereas I would like to think that the sound economic management which this government offers Australia will continue forever, I acknowledge that that is unlikely and that one day others will be on the Treasury benches. When that happens—hopefully it will not be soon—the Australian community will be grateful for the fact that provision was made through this legislation to put aside funds that otherwise might have been raided for short-term political gain by a government with much less financial prudence than has been shown by the Howard government.