Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with a heavy heart that I speak against the member for Wollongong's amendments to this bill. Between him sticking up for industry super and the left-wing front groups that they're trying to protect by opposing electoral funding reform that makes it more transparent to the Australian people, what are those opposite up to? This is another second reading amendment. Let me guess what it's designed for. Is it designed for policy? No. Is it designed to help their donors? Yes. Is it designed to actually put out more misinformation, more untruths and more astroturfing from those opposite? Absolutely.

I say to those opposite: keep calling ordinary Australians extremists, keep supporting your left-wing front groups and keep opposing transparent electoral laws that call some of your mates to account. The Australian people aren't stupid; they will see right through you. And they will see right through that second reading amendment, like they will see right through all the second reading amendments those opposite have put up today. They complain about there not been enough debate or enough bills in front of this chamber. Maybe if those opposite only spoke when they had something useful to say that would clear about half the parliamentary calendar. Maybe if, instead of playing games for the benefit of open foundations and theyvoteforyou.org, they came in here and served the interests of the Australian people rather than the interests of organised capital in the form of industry super and the left-wing front groups that now represent so much of what they do in this chamber and so much of what they want to inflict on the Australian people, all of us would be better off. But they can't help themselves. They are now so bereft of ideas, so bereft of policy and so bereft of anything to do in the interests of Australia or the Australian people, that they can't help themselves.

The member for Whitlam, on a bill that concerns the management of the Future Fund, had to introduce extraneous material around the French president's reaction to having a $90 billion submarine contract cancelled or not renewed. Does he really think that, when the election comes around, the working men and women of Australia who they used to represent—but they haven't met them for about two generations—will honestly sit there and say that they want to vote for a political party that, when they had their chance to stand up for Australia or for the French, chose to stand up for the French? But that seems to be the tactic of the Labor Party these days.

Those of you listening might be interested to know that this bill is called the Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. It is not the 'they vote for us bill', the 'left-wing front group bill', the 'organised capital bill', the 'Industry Super bill' or the 'we back the French over our own countrymen bill'; it's the Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. This bill is designed to give effect to a range of amendments to improve the operation of the Australian government investment funds and enhance the ability of the Future Fund Board of Guardians—which I imagine is about 13 owls—and the Future Fund Management Agency to continue investing for the benefit of future generations of Australians, which is something that their mates in Industry Super should try for a change.

This bill provides a new employment framework for the Future Fund Management Agency to remove staff from the Australian Public Service and provide better paid jobs with more flexibility, more meaningful roles and appropriate employment models. It gives a partial exemption under the Freedom of Information Act for the Future Fund's investment activities; establishes a new disbursements framework for the Medical Research Future Fund to bring greater certainty to funding—something the member for Whitlam apparently thinks makes the Prime Minister dishonest; provides for the transfer of administrative responsibility for expenditure from the Emergency Response Fund to the National Recovery and Resilience Agency; and introduces a range of administrative amendments to improve the operation of the MRFF and the ERF.

The Future Fund was established by the Howard government in 2006. Since then, the Future Fund has grown by over $136 billion, and the board has become responsible for the management of five other Australian government investment funds, with total funds under management of more than $245 billion as of 30 June 2021. The Future Fund, unlike so many of the donors of those opposite, has a proven track record of managing investments. It doesn't hide it in unlisted vehicles, whose valuations are mysterious—and now Industry Super don't want to reveal how they're doing it. It actually has a proven track record of managing investment portfolios on behalf of the government and the Australian people and maximising returns over the long-term—as of 30 June 2021, delivering for the Future Fund a return since the beginning of 1.4 per cent per annum verses a target of 6.6 per cent. I bet that there are a lot of ordinary Australians, a lot of hardworking men and women of this country, who would love to give their superannuation, their retirement savings, to a fund like this as opposed to Industry Super, who they're forced to give their money to just because they donate money to the Labor Party. Wouldn't it be good to have real choice in retirement incomes for ordinary Australians?

This bill makes important amendments to the employment framework of the FFMA to reflect its unique operating environment within global financial and investment markets, while still ensuring the agency remains subject to appropriate controls, in line with community expectations. The new employment framework will enhance the Future Fund's independence from government, improve its recruitment and retention of specialised staff, and allow it to continue to maximise investment outcomes on behalf of the Australian people.

The partial exemption under the FOI Act for documents relating to investment activities will provide an appropriate balance between maximising investment returns and ensuring appropriate transparency. The Future Fund regularly produces, negotiates and receives documents from third-party fund managers that include confidential, competitive and commercially sensitive information. The risk of disclosing highly sensitive commercial and proprietary material has led to investment managers withholding information or reducing their engagement with the fund. This presents an investment and governance risk. In particular, it can result in reduced access to investment opportunities and negatively effect investment outcomes, and that directly impacts the Australian people and is not an outcome that this government wishes to encourage. The exemption will provide certainty to the Future Fund and its investment partners that sensitive investment information is automatically excluded from release under FOI laws. The FOI Act will continue to apply to documents concerning the Future Fund's non-investment activities. In addition, the Future Fund will still publish details of its actual investments and will continue to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The removal of FFMA staff from the Australian Public Service and the partial FOI exemption for Future Fund investment activities are consistent with the arrangements in place for other government entities including the NBN, Australia Post, Export Finance Australia and others that regularly deal with commercially sensitive information and require more market orientated employment practices. These are sensible amendments. No wonder those opposite want to move amendments to them that will improve the operation and performance of the Future Fund. Indeed, Labor's former finance minister, the Hon. Lindsay Tanner, dedicated an entire 2009 National Press Club speech to extolling the virtues of both of these changes. In that speech, Mr Tanner argued that an employment framework outside of the APS would aim to reinforce the independence of the board but still provide values and standards for the agency, particularly with respect to its responsibilities relating to public money. On the partial FOI exemption for investment activities, Mr Tanner observed that announcing the removal of certain activities from FOI laws at the Press Club is akin to announcing a reduction in judicial discretion at a meeting of lawyers. But I would assure you that this will not impinge in any significant way upon the documents that the Future Fund will continue to release under the FOI Act.

The new disbursement framework for the MRFF will provide certainty of funding to meet the government's MRFF 10-year investment plan and support significant disbursements over the long term to fund vital medical research and medical innovation projects. The medical research fund is one of the great innovations of this parliament. It has led to hundreds of thousands of Australians' lives being made better and being elongated. And who knows, in the decades ahead, it will probably have that impact not just here but around the world. Under the current framework, the disbursements from the MRFF are determined annually by the Future Fund board. The board's calculations are largely based on the benchmark rate of return for the fund, which is linked to the RBA cash rate. This framework creates uncertain and volatile disbursements, which affects the orderly planning of grants programs from the fund. With the fund now exceeding its target balance of $20 billion by over $2 billion, the government is implementing a new disbursement framework that will provide a fixed maximum annual disbursement of $650 million from 2022-23, something the member for Whitlam is not happy about. This will allow investment returns above this level to accrue to the fund corpus, which can be accessed in later years when investment markets are more challenging. The reduction in distribution volatility will provide greater certainty of funding for the health and medical research sector and will allow the important commitments under the MRFF 10-year investment plan to be met. The amendments will also enable the government to issue a new investment mandate for the MRFF with a higher and more suitable benchmark rate of return aligned to other risk-seeking funds managed by the Future Fund, including the Future Drought Fund, the Emergency Response Fund, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund.

A new investment mandate will increase expected earnings over the medium term and protect the level of disbursement over the long term, helping to fund vital medical research and medical innovation projects. The transfer of responsibility for the administration of expenditure from the ERF to the NRRA implements the government's decision to establish the NRRA with a clear mandate to enhance national preparedness for, and recovery from, natural disasters. I would've thought this was a good thing. I would've thought those opposite would not only support this but be urging the government to pass this sooner rather than later. Instead, they move second reading amendments. Why? So left-wing front groups can misrepresent the voting pattern of members of this House. Is that really the kind of party that should be put in charge of government? That's what we're faced with at the next election. In response to the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, the government announced in the 2021 budget the establishment of the NRRA to help support local communities to respond to large-scale natural disasters and undertake new initiatives to manage the impact of future events and the changing climate.

Finally, I would say these amendments to the Emergency Response Fund Act will ensure that legislative and administrative processes are in place for payments from the ERF to be administered by the NRRA. I reiterate my disappointment at the behaviour of those opposite with their tactics to constantly attempt to work with outside left-wing front groups, who, this very day, they have tried to protect from greater scrutiny in order to misrepresent the voting records of those in this House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context