Brough warns Beazley to leave super savings alone

Federal Assistant Treasurer Mal Brough has labelled Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley’s plan to channel superannuation monies toward new infrastructure projects as a “real risk to retirement savings”.

Beazley’s fourth ‘blueprint’ speech covered the area of infrastructure and investment and outlined the Labor Party’s proposed plan to link the $740 billion in superannuation savings in Australia with new infrastructure projects. This would be achieved through either direct investment opportunities, such as public-private partnerships, or indirect investments in privately listed companies established to manage infrastructure projects.

But Brough has hit back at the plan stating that 80 per cent of the retirement savings pool had already been invested in infrastructure developments that represented a good investment on the grounds of risk and performance.

“Beazley misses the point that the $740 billion in superannuation funds is not idle — it is invested — and any move to distort the investment market is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul where clearly the sorts of pet projects Kim Beazley has in mind can’t attract the funds on their merits,” Brough said.

“Superannuation funds are the nest eggs for Australians’ retirement — not cash cows for Beazley’s pet projects,” he added.

Brough also indicated that it would be a mistake for Beazley to influence trustees’ decision-making processes to encourage investment in projects that may not be financially viable.

“If a project is commercially viable and can provide suitable returns, then trustees might consider investing,” he said.

Beazley also indicated in his speech that the Government’s Future Fund would become part of a Building Australia Fund and that its income stream was being looked at for alternative uses.

“While existing assets of the Government’s Future Fund would be retained in the Building Australia Fund, the income stream would be used for productive purposes, including infrastructure investment, rather than being set aside solely to offset the cost of bureaucrats’ superannuation as the Government has proposed,” Beazley said.