Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by coalition senators today.

We had some very interesting answers to questions around the Future Fund. Not very many of them actually answered the specifics of the question, particularly in relation to whether or not there had been any modelling or advice in relation to the government's decision to redirect Future Fund investments. Senator Gallagher did say to Senator Birmingham that we have a changing economy and it's important to meet the needs of national priorities, but I think the concern here is that this is meant to be an independent decision-making body. This is not a body that should have government directing it based on their own political agenda, and I think that is a particularly significant concern given that, in the last 25 years, no government has actually done this. This Albanese government is the first one.

I note that Senator Gallagher said that it's a changing economy. But I'm not quite sure that that is a sufficient reason for what has happened here, particularly when, over the last number of months, we've talked often about the concerns around housing and Australians, particularly for women aged over 55, the largest cohort of homeless in our country, and whether it's reasonable for them to be able to access their super for housing. Their answer is: 'No, we can't change this. These are the rules, and we must stick to these rules. It's very important for the integrity of superannuation that we don't change it.' So I wonder why, then, it is okay for the integrity of the Future Fund to change it and for those priorities to be in line with the political priorities of this government. I think they're fair and reasonable questions.

I note that the finance minister did say that the focus remains on maximising returns, but it really doesn't answer the questions as to why these changes have been made. I think it's no coincidence that the chair changed from Mr Costello, who served from 2009 to 2014. Shortly before his tenure ended, Mr Costello warned against changing the mandate. He said this is something that we should not do. Mr Costello said:

If people start thinking they can take this money and direct it to various purposes of their own, the game would be up, there wouldn't be any point in continuing to have an investment fund.

I think that's something really important to keep in mind. I note as well that in one of our questions we talked about the commentsfrom the former Commonwealth Bank chief executive David Murray, who was quoted in the Australian as saying that the fund could inevitably become a 'tempting target for politicisation' and we shouldn't allow that to happen. But it appears that that is what we are seeing here today. The article continues:

He argued that "political freeloaders" risked raiding the investment vehicle for their own pet projects.

That seems to be exactly what we're seeing here today.

In addition to that, Senator Gallagher was unable to directly answer Senator Hume's question in relation to divestment. I note her answer was:

… divestment … is not covered in any way in the changes that have been made to date.

I note, in particular, the use of the words 'made to date'. So there wasn't any clarity that there would be no changes made in relation to divestments; it was just that they had not been made to date. That is another concern. Senator Gallagher went further to say that shareholders can update things if they choose, so we should then expect potential divestments as an update from this government down the track. This is also unacceptable.

Senator McKenzie asked a series of important questions around super for housing, and it was very clear that this government doesn't accept that Australians can use their own money to help them buy their own home. But the government can use the Future Fund to fund their own political agenda, and that, in itself, is entirely unacceptable. It's something that we need to get a proper understanding of in terms of what the future of our actual Future Fund will be under this government.