Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Has the government received advice or modelling—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would draw to your attention that Senator Henderson was interjecting on her own leader quite loudly. Obviously, there was a response to that, but it did begin very clearly with Henderson's very loud interjections on her leader.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is why I called Senator Birmingham, hoping that his mere presence would call his side to order. I'm going to start question time again and, Senator Birmingham, invite you to begin again.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Has the government received advice or modelling that guarantees that the Albanese Labor's government decision to redirect Future Fund investments will deliver the same financial returns had it been preserved as a purely apolitical sovereign wealth fund with a sector neutral investment mandate, as it has been for the past 20 years?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, I would say to Senator Birmingham directly that the benchmark return rate of the fund will remain at between four and five per cent above CPI per year over the long term and that there is no change to the expected risk profile. I do want to ask the opposition what their problem is with investing in national priorities. You have to ask: why is the coalition so worried about investing in national priorities? What is wrong with priorities such as increasing the supply of residential housing, supporting the energy transition and delivering improved infrastructure, including economic resilience and security infrastructure? What is the public policy problem with that? It says something about the coalition, doesn't it? They're seeking to drum up fear and loathing over housing, again, over infrastructure and over the energy transition.

We have been very clear. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, as the ministers responsible for this, have been very clear that these changes in the new investment mandate are about maximising the fund's role in a changing economy, ensuring that it has regard to national priorities, but making sure that the Future Fund will still be about maximising returns. It's just that these important national priorities will be part of their investment considerations.

The senator knows that because he was the finance minister, and he knows that this is the same argument that the coalition have against governments or anybody else doing anything about housing. It's the same position that they've had for a number of months now, when they've teamed up with the Greens to stop any additional supply as a result of housing legislation. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For clarity, Minister, is the Future Fund and the government's objectives for it purely about maximising returns first or are you seeking to redirect Future Fund investments to the government's priorities rather than focusing on achieving that maximising of investment first and foremost?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder if—

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Answer the question!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to answer the question, Senator Hume, and I wonder if you've actually read what was released today. The finance minister and the Treasurer have been very clear about a new investment mandate. It is clear that the fund is still about maximising returns, but these important national priorities will be part of their investment considerations. That is not a difficult proposition. It appears to be so for the opposition, though, who are allergic to investments that might actually drive national priorities, such as residential housing and infrastructure that increases our economic and national security resilience. One would have thought that these were things that would have had bipartisan support, but we know that the opposition will always want to play the game of aggression and opposition and not actually deal with the proposition on the table. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If these priorities of the government's will maximise returns, wouldn't the Future Fund have delivered them anyway under its previous mandate? What is the point of the change in the mandate if it is going to continue to maximise returns, as you argue?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, the independent investment decision-making of the Future Fund will continue—that's that first point. They are a very big investor, as you know, Senator. I'm interested in this second supplementary question, because the first two questions were, 'This is a dreadful thing,' and the third is, 'But it won't make any difference.' The reality is, Senator Birmingham, if you go out and say to Australians: 'We've got an independent fund. It will make its decisions independently but we think it should consider these national priorities in making those investment decisions, and those national priorities are residential housing,' what do you think people are going to say? Do you really think people are going to say, 'This is such a dreadful idea,' Senator Birmingham? That appears to be the position of the coalition. Yet again, we see that the coalition, when it comes to the economy are a reckless opposition, not an opposition that's up to responsible management of the economy. (Time expired)