Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong. I draw the minister's attention to the victory the Commonwealth won in the High Court last week against tobacco companies in defence of the plain-packaging legislation passed by this parliament in November last year. Given that the Commonwealth has over $200 million invested in companies such as British American Tobacco, Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco through the Future Fund, does the minister agree with the Minister for Health and Ageing, who said over the weekend, 'I would prefer the Future Fund did not have tobacco shares'?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for the question. Yes it was a significant victory for the government, and I congratulate the Attorney-General—the former Minister for Health and Ageing—as well as the health minister for taking this matter forward and for Australia being a world leader on this issue.

In relation to the broader issue, which is the issue of the investments of the Future Fund: as the senator would know, because he and I have had a lengthy discussion in the context of estimates, we as the government do not believe that it is appropriate for governments to be hands-on directing investments in the Future Fund. The reason for that is, as was the case both under the previous government and this government, that the Future Fund should exercise its discretion regarding investment independently of the government and independently of the wishes of particular ministers, senators or MPs.

If that were not the case, you could get to a rather odd position where, for example, you might have a politician—for example, Senator Boswell—saying that they should not invest in renewable energy because he does not believe in climate change, or a range of other matters that you can think of. So whatever one's personal views are in this debate—and there are politicians, including on this side, who have expressed their personal views about where those investments ought to be—I think that is a different thing to then making a decision, as the senator is advocating for through his legislation and I think by the tone of his question, to suggest that ministers and members of parliament should be directly directing investment decisions by the Future Fund. I do not think that is a sensible way to approach the management of that fund.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a supplementary question. It is reported today that the ACT government will be the first government in Australia to stop investing in tobacco companies through its superannuation investments. Does the minister believe that this decision somehow compromises the independence of any future investment decisions in the ACT? And, if so, how does it compromise this independence?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister can only answer that in so much as it relates to the portfolio.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a matter for the ACT government, not a matter for me. That should be a matter addressed to the ACT treasurer.

What I can say to the senator, consistent with what I previously said, is that whatever one's personal views about investments are, I do, and the government does, have a concern with a proposition that says 'The personal views of a politician should be the ones guiding investment decisions in the Future Fund'. As I said, for Senator Boswell and renewable energy; Senator Abetz might say something about trade unions and Senator Joyce might say something about companies which have foreign investment in agricultural land. None of those things would be an appropriate way—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can't talk about Nauru and Labor leaving out the doormat!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh stop talking in the hypothetical, Barnaby. You don't need to be sensitive.

The point is that what the right legal framework—the appropriate framework—is for these decisions, including the decisions about ESG principles, ought to be made by the Future Fund board. (Time expired)

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her answer, and I note that the same defence—the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument—was used by the tobacco companies in defence of plain-packaging legislation. But I will go on. Does the minister agree with the managing director of the Future Fund, Mark Burgess, that investment in tobacco is a 'sustainable investment'? And if so, how can an investment in an industry that kills one in every two of its customers be called sustainable?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to take issue with the little aside which preceded the question and the suggestion that somehow this government is akin to big tobacco in the argument we have used. This government has led the world when it comes to taking on big tobacco, and for once the Greens could actually acknowledge that instead of trying to play politics. For once you could actually acknowledge that, because that is the position that the government has taken; across the board, that has been the approach that the health minister has taken. It has gone and been fought all the way to the High Court. We are very pleased with the decision that was handed down and the position that this government has taken, which is to be a world leader when it comes to taking on this important public health issue.