House debates

Tuesday, 28 February 2012

Private Members' Business

Sovereign Wealth Fund

4:15 pm

Photo of Alan TudgeAlan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to also speak against this motion. Despite this idea of a sovereign wealth fund gaining some support in influential circles, as the member for Melbourne pointed out, a sovereign wealth fund should be firmly rejected. The fact that a sovereign wealth fund, at its essence, involves keeping taxes higher in order that the government invests in company shares, in itself, should be enough for most sensible people to firmly reject this idea. But, if we look more closely at the evidence, then that should put it beyond any dispute.

To start with, if you want to have a sovereign wealth fund you must have a budget surplus and you have to have paid off your existing debt. In case you have not quite realised, we currently have a $37 billion deficit forecast for this financial year—although that will probably grow by the time we get to the end of it—and we have a net debt of $132 billion. Even if we get to the surplus which the Labor government promises us next year, of $1.5 billion, and similar amounts over the forward estimates, it will take 80 or 100 years before we pay back the debt which this government has accumulated. We have got to get the budget back into surplus and we have got to pay back the debt before we can even think about creating some new financial assets.

Comments

No comments