Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might just pick up on the last point from the opposition, and that is this question about the Future Fund and it being for the government's 'own political agenda'. Yes, it is part of our agenda to make sure that we have more housing. It is our agenda to make sure that we have investment in the future. Senator McKenzie was suggesting that we should raid super, against the advice of a large majority of economists right across the economy that the effect of raiding super funds on housing would be a disaster. The Future Fund is, particularly and specifically with the new mandate, given the opportunity, if the returns are there, to make sure that it has a laser view on the importance of our kids and our families having an opportunity to own a home. If the maths adds up, the investment will take place. That's pretty logical.

When you start talking about housing with those opposite, we saw the opposition and Mr Dutton turn around and make a decision to oppose the sorts of housing initiatives that we've taken and, in a disgraceful chapter, to block Labor's international student caps. We've said quite clearly that changing the international student caps is an opportunity to turn around and make sure we take pressure off housing for many communities. This is part of the housing approach. Why are they opposed to what we're saying? We saw it in the paper today. What we saw today was Senator Henderson getting caught with her hand in the cookie jar but saying it's not her hand. That's what happened.

They're against housing in the Future Fund. They're against student caps being put in place. They're against relief. They're against every program that this government has put forward to make sure that ordinary Australians, their kids and their families are protected and given opportunities in the future. Every program is squandered or opposed by them—and constantly supported by the Greens; this green-blue alliance. The algae of politics. That's how they carry on. It's toxic. The toxicity goes to the Future Fund and to student caps.

When you start raising questions about why they're in this position, you have to go back to the reasons why. Why are they opposed to housing in so many areas? When you go to areas such as the international student caps, you only have to go as far as a secretary of the Rouse Hill Liberal Party. He funds the programs and policies for the views that he holds, and he reaches out to all the shonky, exploitative immigration and migration agents, in the case on international student cap usage. Of course, Senator Henderson has supported those agents. She has not only supported this agent but also supported those agents that fund the Liberal Party, fund Senate campaigns and fund campaigns right across the Liberal and National parties. They've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. At the same time they're turning around and saying, 'No, we want to go further, but then we're going to the fundraiser.' You're calling a dog whistle on overseas students and trying to turn around and undermine what's happening. You've got one hand on the whistle and the other hand in the jar! One hand is on the whistle to call it out and the other hand is in the jar, getting maximum benefit, which turns around and has a negative effect on housing across this community.

This is a pattern of behaviour: oppose the Future Fund, oppose international caps, oppose the initiatives that we've put up time and time again. What we have seen, quite clearly, is that these migration agents are pushing so many buttons on those opposite, and the net effect is on housing right across this community. Those migration agents are getting their money's worth out of Senator Henderson. It's her hand in the jar, because it is in the jar of making sure that housing policy, whether it be through the Future Fund or anything else, is turned around and not effective policy that they will support. When you start looking at the critical things we should be doing in getting positive returns from the Future Fund, why wouldn't you say it would be housing? If it's international caps, why wouldn't you say it be housing? If it's putting more investment to buy and own your own— (Time expired)

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the response given by Minister Wong to Senator Cash. All decent Australians were horrified when they learned of the disturbing attacks last night that occurred just around the corner from where I live, in Woollahra, on people's cars, on houses and on the Chiswick restaurant. In a street where Wolper Jewish Hospital and the Emanuel Synagogue are, we saw antisemitic attacks occur in Woollahra.

It is horrifying to me, but it is a blight on this government and the total lack of leadership that this Prime Minister has shown when it comes to the rising tide of antisemitism that we are seeing across this country. I know of Senator O'Neill's distaste on the Labor side—and a couple of others would share her distaste—for what is happening to our Jewish community, but, unfortunately, those sensible voices are drowned out in the Labor caucus room as they pander politically to a small cohort of voters in south-west Sydney and condone not an attack but an act of terrorism that occurred last night.

Just this weekend past, I spent Sunday morning with the JCA. There were only three of us shiksas, three non-Jews, there for brunch, but 500 Jewish women turned up. They had to find a bigger venue. This community, our Australian Jewish community, are coming together to support each other as they live increasingly in fear. This brunch was in Wentworth. This attack was in Wentworth. We know that there is a large Jewish population in Wentworth. This community is living in fear.

What is coming from this government? Nothing but absolutely immoral flips and twists and turns and moves away from the strong relationship we have always had with our partner Israel—the only country in the Middle East who shares our values and who shares our democracy. Yet this Labor government is so bereft of a moral compass that they find every opportunity to move away from Israel, and it is an absolute shame and disgrace. You are hanging out to dry Jewish Australians every single day from your lack of moral clarity led from the Prime Minister down.

Now we learn that the foreign minister decided against the advice of DFAT—to out-left DFAT is an effort. The foreign minister has made a captain's call to reverse our position at the UN. What a disgrace. Answer this: how can anyone in that government—forget this rabble up here—accept that there will be any sort of two-state solution while we have had, for over 400 days, over 100 hostages being held? Where is your humanity. Baby Kfir has never experienced a birthday out of captivity—hell, most likely, if he is still alive. We do not know. His whole family was taken from their kibbutz by terrorists who filmed their murderous acts.

This war was started by Hamas and this war has been funded by Iran, yet those opposite are now siding with those who condone terrorism. We saw in the attacks last night the letters 'PKK'. No-one really knows what they mean. They think it has got something to do with this Kurdish separatist movement from Turkiye. Maybe that's bit of a 'der' moment considering these attacks happened just outside Ocean Street, just outside the Turkish embassy. Maybe that's not too long a bow to draw.

The lack of leadership from this government has contributed to the rising tide of antisemitism that is flooding through this country, and you should all hang your heads in shame. I hope none of you are turning up to a Hanukkah celebration, because you have turned your backs on the Jewish community. They know it, and you should be absolutely ashamed.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers to questions from senators today in relation to the Future Fund. We were a little surprised in question time to receive as many questions as we did on the Future Fund given that we know that the cost of living is the biggest issue for Australians and that they want to understand what cost-of-living relief the government is delivering and how the government is able to help people in these cost-of-living times.

Unfortunately, we got questions from those opposite about a change to the Future Fund and the investment mandate of the Future Fund. The reason that it's interesting that they raised these questions is that the continuing overall obligation of the Future Fund remains the same—maximising returns. Nothing has changed in that respect. But we have asked the Future Fund to consider increasing residential housing supply. I wouldn't have thought that that was a very political, complicated thing to ask of an investment fund when we know that we need more housing across Australia. We've asked the Future Fund to look at energy transition. The one thing that the entire globe is dealing with at the moment is how to transition the energy market. Of course it makes sense to update the investment mandate to include that. We've asked it to make infrastructure more resilient and more secure. I wouldn't have thought that that is highly political or highly ideological, but those opposite are opposed to this.

What's interesting to me is it's clear that there are pieces of this new investment mandate that they are heavily opposed to. It's because they don't support our energy transition, and they don't support our move to net zero. We know that our government is committed to this transition. What we don't know is what the plan is from those opposite. We have some very loose details and some very loose numbers. I want to talk about the difference when it comes to cost. We're talking about the things that our government's doing to invest in the energy transition, something that those opposite are so opposed to.

What is the alternative from the Liberal and National parties? It's a nuclear power plan—a $600 billion nuclear power plan that will only supply about four per cent of the energy network when it is actually built and will add $665 to power bills. It's an incredibly costly plan from those opposite; $600 billion is a lot of money. It's hard sometimes to understand how much money that is. It's a big figure; there are a lot of zeros. I thought it would be helpful to explain how much money those opposite are planning on charging taxpayers to deliver a plan that doesn't achieve anything more than 3.7 per cent of our energy market. Six hundred billion dollars is the same as 775 Tasmanian stadiums. That's how many stadiums you would have to build to spend the same amount of money that they are planning on spending on nuclear power. It is the same amount of money that it would cost to build 50 Snowy Hydros. You would have to build Snowy Hydro 50 times over to spend the same amount of money that they are planning on charging taxpayers for their nuclear power plan. With the same amount of money that they want to charge for nuclear power, you could fund the NDIS 14 times. That's how much money they want to spend.

The obvious question is: What will they cut to pay for it? Will they cut essential services like the NDIS? They will have to. They will have to cut money to pay for this. Six hundred billion dollars is a huge amount of money to spend on a plan that delivers almost no electricity supply in 2050 and does not deliver net zero. This is why they are talking about the Future Fund today. They are so opposed to net zero and energy transition in a way that develops renewable energy, the green economy and more jobs for regional Australia. They're so opposed to that that they would rather spend $600 billion of taxpayer money on a nuclear power plan that will not deliver electricity to Australian households for another 20 years. It is an absolute joke. So every time they come in here and question our commitment to the net zero energy transition, we will make sure that Australians understand that if a Peter Dutton Liberal-National government is elected, it will charge taxpayers $600 billion—700 Tasmanian stadiums worth of money—to deliver a plan that will not work.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, you have until 3.30 because we have a hard marker.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everyone knows that Labor is making them poorer. Disposable income has fallen by 8.7 per cent, Australia is at an 18-month per capita recession and annual economic growth is stagnating at just 1.5 per cent. Today Australians woke up to the news that Labor is now going to not just rob them of their financial present, but also rob them of their financial future by changing the rules that govern the Future Fund. Remember this: the Future Fund is a $200 billion asset that is owned by every Australian. Created in 2004 with just $60 billion, it has grown to $200 billion. It belongs to each and every Australian, and they woke up yesterday to the government going to change the way that fund is managed and the decisions that can be taken by the fund managers. And don't believe Senator Gallagher; don't even believe Senator Smith. You only have to listen to the comments of the first chairman of the Future Fund.

Question agreed to.