Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the act, because the appointment of a contractor to act as custodian is not a part of the investment mandate—nor, under an investment mandate, could you stipulate who was to get a contract in relation to custodian services. It is very interesting, isn’t it, that the member for Melbourne asked this question. His implication seems to be that the government should intervene in relation to who is appointed as the custodian for the Future Fund. The member for Lilley is good at getting to his feet, but when he gets to his feet he generally does not face this way; he generally faces the other way. But members of the parliament might be very interested to know what the member for Lilley had to say on the subject. He was asked this question yesterday: ‘Would Labor consider putting a caveat over the Future Fund legislation to ensure’—and I think this is what you are suggesting should be done—‘that in the future it is managed locally?’ Mr Swan replied:

It’s very important that the Future Fund doesn’t become an object of pork barrel by this Government—

the reason it should not become an object of pork barrel by this government is that it is an object of pork barrel by the Labor Party, but we will move on from that—

very, very important. So Labor has argued consistently that the Future Fund ought to be independent.

Now if it takes those decisions independently it’s entirely a matter for them.

Oh!

See this speech in context