Topics: Labor’s raid of Australia’s Future Fund for its own pet projects; social media age limits

 

E&OE   

 

ANGUS TAYLOR:

Well today we’ve learnt that this Labor Government will be raiding Australia’s nest egg to cover for its economic failures. Raiding Australia’s nest egg from the Future Fund to invest in the Treasurer and Prime Minister’s pet projects. We will oppose this change and if elected to government we will overturn what the Labor Party is seeking to do here. This is absolutely the wrong direction for the Future Fund. It breaches something which has been bipartisan until now, which is a focus on having an independent Future Fund that is able to deliver the best possible performance with Australians’ money and let's be clear about this – the Future Fund is Australians money. It's not the Treasurer's money, it's not the Prime Minister's money, it is Australian's money. It's not the Labor Party's money. It’s not there to invest in their projects, to invest in whatever they think is necessary to deal with their economic failures. Now it's interesting that the areas of focus that the government has outlined, that it wants the Future Fund to invest in, is exactly those areas where they are failing. They are failing on the energy transition. You know how we know that? Because emissions have gone up since they've got into government. Emissions have gone up since they've got into government. They are failing on their housing policies. They set a target of 1.2 million new houses. We know from independent experts; we're not even going to get close to that. We are not even going to get close to that. The objective, of course, currently now for the Future Fund is to get the best possible performance, the right balance of risk and returns with this investment of Australians’ money. That's the mandate. That should continue to be the mandate. It's not about the pet projects of the Treasurer or the Prime Minister and the truth is that the Treasurer is coming after this money because of his economic failures. The government is coming after this money, which is Australians’ money, because of their economic failures. It's not clear where they want to go next after this by the way and the fact of the matter is, if they are prepared to raid the future funds, they'll be more than prepared to raid Australian superannuation money, which they've always seen as their money, not as Australians’ money. We take a very different view. This is the money of everyday hardworking Australians. This is the money of the hardworking Australians who are trying to get ahead. It should be shown great respect. In investment, they should seek at all times to get the best possible returns, given a sensible risk profile and the Future Fund should invest where they're going to get those returns. So, as I say, we will not support this change. Now I’ll ask Jane to add to some of those points.

 

JANE HUME:

Thank you, Angus. The Coalition are very concerned about this dramatic shift away from a bipartisan position that has stood in place for nearly two decades now. Let's recall the reason why the Future Fund was set up in the first place. It was with future taxpayers in mind. It was because unfunded liabilities from the superannuation of public servants were looming at large with an ageing population. So, a Coalition Government that had delivered surpluses sustainably, that had brought down debt, decided to put money away, money aside, so that future generations weren't punished by the decisions of governments today. And it's been a very successful operation. The Future Fund and its independence have returned significant returns over the last decade and a half and they've done so without government interference. This has been a dramatic shift away from that bipartisan position and all Australians will pay a price for that. Can you only imagine what might happen to this new investment mandate if there was a Labor Greens Coalition in hung parliament. What’s to say that the mandate wouldn't change again for the policy boondoggles of future Labor Greens coalition governments. Jim Chalmers has been unable to say why this is even necessary. He has said that the Future Fund will still invest with commercial returns in mind. Well, if that is the case, why do we need a change in the investment mandate? If the Future Fund can already invest in these priority areas of government, well why aren't they doing so? And if they're not, well then this is a direction. This is a direction from government to invest in areas that it sees as important where its policies are failing. There is a good reason why the board members of the Future Fund are referred to as guardians. They are guardians of this money for future taxpayers. They are guardians from governments of the future who, like this Labor Government, voracious governments, incompetent governments with great big dollar signs in their eyes will come and raid the retirement savings of future Australians. They'll raid the taxes of future Australians for their incompetence. When Labor governments run out of money, they always come after yours.

 

JOURNALIST:

Angus Taylor, can you pledge now that if you won government, you wouldn't fiddle with the investment mandate to allow investments in nuclear power?

 

ANGUS TAYLOR:

We would overturn what Labor is seeking to do here and return the mandate of the Future Fund to deliver the best performance in terms of investment return for the risk-taking for every single Australian. That's what we will do. We're not going to direct them to invest in specific activities. We simply won't do that. The history of this fund is very clear, and Jane has laid that out very clearly. Peter Costello, when he put this in place, made it clear that this was about delivering the best possible return for Australians’ money and that this is the overriding point, Probes that this is Australians’ money. It doesn't belong to Jim Chalmers. I mean, this is the bloke who wrote his 6,000-word essay over Christmas about remaking capitalism. What he really meant to say was he's going to see every Australian's dollar invested as his dollar. Well, if that's the way he wants to run the government, he's got to fess up to the Australian people. But it costs them, and they pay the price for it.

 

JOURNALIST:

Do you accept that it's in the national interest to build more houses and to speed up the energy transition? And if so, is it not necessary for the government to pull every lever possible to enable that to happen?

 

ANGUS TAYLOR:

Well, you know, when it comes to Jim Chalmers taking Australians' money and spending it as he sees fit, I think that is the wrong direction for this country. We all want to see more housing built in this country, and that's why we announced what we did a few weeks ago to get 500,000 new houses built in this country. It's the bottlenecks that are slowing the building of those houses down. I tell you what you don't do. You don't take a nest egg which belongs to every single Australian and hand it to this Treasurer to decide how it should be invested. That’s not what you do but it is how this Labor Party thinks and we now know the point of his 6000 word essay – the point was to get hold of Australians’ money and spend it how he sees fit.

 

JOURNALIST:

Just following on from Dan’s point though. This housing challenge. You talk about nest eggs. Most people would be interested and want the government to be making housing as affordable and as accessible as possible. Why not use a public fund that is for the national interest to do that. Leaving aside energy because you have an ideological view. 

 

ANGUS TAYLOR:

We have laid out how we can get 500,000 houses built fast. We've laid that out. We did that several weeks ago and we've worked closely with local councillors and others, builders to identify those opportunities. There's a very clear way to do it. But what you don't need to do is raid Australians’ money to do it. Now if any investor wants to invest in housing, we strongly encourage it. But it's got to deliver returns, and you don't compromise the performance of our Future Fund for a pet project of the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, or any other politician. It's there for Australians and it should be treated with that sort of respect.

 

JOURNALIST:

Mr Taylor, also in the Treasurer’s announcement today, he's delayed the drawdown until 2032-33. Is that something that the Coalition supports?

 

ANGUS TAYLOR:

Yeah, no, we're okay with that. I mean, the drawdowns should happen as they are needed in an appropriate way. But this is a very separate issue. This is a very separate issue. This is about the Future Fund being used as a political tool of the government to invest in their pet projects. That's what it's about and that we reject – absolutely.

 

JOURNALIST:

Another Coalition policy is to allow first home buyers to go into their own superannuation. Does this not kind of go to that sort of idea in the first place, that we're using a superannuation kind of model to boost housing and access? Where's the difference?

 

ANGUS TAYLOR:

Choice. That's the choice of the investor. It's their money they choose to use it as they see fit. This is Australians’ money and what the Labor Government is seeking to do is to use it for its pet projects and that's an inappropriate use of that money. Look, there's a long history of this. There's a long history of this. Kevin Rudd wanted to use this money years ago to invest in one of his pet projects, which he designed on the back of a serviette. He wanted to use it for that, and legislation was introduced by the then government in 2007 or amendment to prevent him from doing it. Now there's a long history here and it's remained bipartisan. There was an attempt but it failed and it should have failed. But this Treasurer, as I say, he's trying to remake capitalism, he told us that. What he really meant to say was he sees every dollar as his money to spend on his pet projects.

 

JOURNALIST:

But if the investment returns aren't being dropped, if the levels are staying the same, the rates are remaining….

 

ANGUS TAYLOR:

Well then you don't need to do this, do you? Because their mandate right now is to deliver a good performance in terms of returns for Australian investors. So, you don't need to do it. Clearly what this is seeking to do is compromise the returns of the Future Fund, otherwise you wouldn't need to do it.

 

JOURNALIST:

The Treasurer sort of said, obviously the first priority for the Future Fund still remains on I guess, maximizing returns. He’s just said from what we’ve understood I think that if there are two asset classes which are like returning similar rates or the same rates then they would consider housing a little bit more. Is that kind of reasonable?

 

ANGUS TAYLOR:

More spin from the Treasurer. He does it all the time. You know what he wants to do. He wants the Future Fund to invest in his pet projects and he's making a very clear direction to do that. But we will hear lots of spin about this from the Treasurer because that's basically all we hear from him. He doesn't deliver outcomes and meanwhile Australians through all of this are dealing with a situation where their standard of living has absolutely collapsed in an unprecedented way and they want a Treasurer focused on that, not focused on raiding the country’s nest egg. Raiding Australians’ nest egg for his pet projects.

 

JOURNALIST:

Just on another topic, social media, the legislation has been introduced today, can you just clarify where the Opposition sits now knowing that Snapchat is included and do you have any concerns about the ID people may need to upload the information they may need to give to prove that they're over 16?

 

JANE HUME:

Yes, the legislation has been introduced today. Obviously, we haven't had a chance to go through it in any great detail yet, but this is a Labor Government that is following the lead of Peter Dutton. Peter Dutton announced some months ago now as part of his Budget in Reply that we would be looking to make sure that there were appropriate social media bans for teenagers, for children and that's to help Australian families deal with what is a very complex and difficult issue. Now we know that this is going to be detailed legislation. We'll take it through our normal party room processes, to make sure that it delivers on its promise, making sure that children are protected, that people's privacy and rights of communication are maintained. But it's not an easy task.

 

JOURNALIST:

And just on Snapchat specifically, because I know that's something that the Opposition was calling for to make sure there was no loophole. Are you glad that that's been included? And again, just on how this will actually work?

 

JANE HUME:

One of the concerns of course with Snapchat was that that was the method of communication through which many children were being bullied and harassed. Which is why it was so important to have Snapchat included in this legislation. But we'll go through all the details of it before we make a decision on a final legislation and see if it needs to be amended.

 

JOURNALIST:

Any word on what Peter Costello thinks of the Future Fund? Have you spoken to him?

 

ANGUS TAYLOR:

Well that’s a question you should ask Peter. But what was very clear is Peter put in place a Future Fund for this nation, for future generations of Australians which has been phenomenally successful. Phenomenally successful. Its returns have been outstanding. It has delivered a great outcome and that should be respected and it’s clearly not being respected by what the Treasurer has announced today.

 

JOURNALIST:

Jane just on social media, David Coleman yesterday said the Coalition wants this to become law before Parliament rises for the year. Do you have any … you know … if this is the last thing Parliament does before Christmas would it be a gift to parents?

 

JANE HUME:

I think you already knew that the Coalition supports social media bans for teenagers to protect Australian families and help them. But it has to be the right law. We wouldn't rush through legislation that wasn't right because there are pretty dire consequences.

 

JOURNALIST:

So no guarantee.

 

JANE HUME:

We'll make sure that we take the legislation through our party-room processes, but we've worked on this for a considerable period of time. This is the Labor Government following Peter Dutton's lead.

 

ENDS.