There’s a certain tension in Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ recent move to require the taxpayer-owned Future Fund to consider “national priorities” in its investment decisions, while also suggesting that in many areas, not much will really change.
The government argues that recent changes to the fund’s mandate, which will now include references to building more housing, supporting the green energy transition and improving infrastructure, will lead to “more investment where we need it most.” Fair enough.
Built on a pile of Australian taxpayer money, the Future Fund recently announced changes to its mandate. Credit: Kate Geraghty
Yet at the same time, it’s easy to form the view that this is not really a major shift at all. The $230 billion fund will remain independent of government, it will still be commercially focused, its investment return targets won’t change, and it’s not being asked to take any more risk.
It makes you wonder: if the new mandate’s not going to make that much difference, why go the effort of making these changes?
Before we get into the possible answers to this question, here’s a refresher. The Future Fund describes itself as Australia’s single largest financial asset – it’s a pile of taxpayer money that was initially set up to help fund future retirement benefits of public servants.
In case you missed it, last week Chalmers tweaked the fund’s mandate in a few ways, the most controversial of which was to require the fund to “consider national priorities” in its investment decisions where possible, and where it was consistent with strong investment returns.
These changes might appear innocuous, but they’ve been hugely divisive.
There was........