September 17th 2011


  Buy Issue 2860
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: Remembering the day that shook the world

EDITORIAL: A decade after 9/11: bin Laden's failure

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Can Labor learn from the Rudd and Gillard fiascos?

IMMIGRATION: Labor in denial after High Court sinks "Malaysia solution"

OPINION: Party of the last, the least and the lost

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS: Australian manufacturing at the crossroads

SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUND: Consensus builds for new national approach

FINANCIAL AFFAIRS: Ruby anniversary of demise of gold-backed currency

MARRIAGE: Same-sex marriage will damage family and society

OPINION: Julia Gillard's gift for Father's Day

SOCIETY: Fatherlessness linked to violence

ABORTION: Women deprived of independent counselling

BOOK REVIEW A sequel that surpasses the original

Books promotion page

FONT SIZE:

SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUND:
Consensus builds for new national approach


by Patrick J. Byrne

News Weekly, September 17, 2011

After dominating the political agenda for three decades, are the policies of economic globalisation finally under review in Australia?

Globalism advocates the policies of strict free trade, radical deregulation of the marketplace and government non-intervention in the economy.

However, following the dramatic global financial crisis and the subsequent long economic slump across the Western nations, it seems even in Australia there are the first signs of an openness to new ideas.

The Australian newspaper, a long-standing advocate of economic globalisation, ran front-page headlines on the huge decline of our nation’s manufacturing industry.

It featured Paul Howes, national secretary the Australian Workers Union, declaring that manufacturing was in “major crisis” (see page 7).

Then former federal Liberal leader, Dr John Hewson, called for a new incentive to attract Australia’s vast pool of superannuation savings to invest in the “mounting public infrastructure requirement, already running into the hundreds of billions of dollars” (Australian Financial Review, September 2, 2011).

He said that “it must boggle the mind of an onlooker” to see the $1.8 trillion in managed funds, yet so little of this is being used for long-term infrastructure investment. Instead, most of the nation’s super savings is directed into the domestic and foreign share market, “with a mounting bias to short-term liquidity”.

Hewson cited the example of Singapore’s Central Provident Fund, pointing out that the nation had been built on compulsory national savings. The government required that a proportion of this be invested in Singapore infrastructure. Such a policy seems a “no brainer”, commented Hewson.

He suggested that Australia develop a government-guaranteed, long-term infrastructure bond, an Aussie bond, to raise funds.

Instruments for raising the funds are not hard to devise. The more difficult issue, he said, would be to develop a “structure and process to manage the investment of the funds raised, preferably outside government, against strict and transparent investment criteria that assesses and ranks projects”.

Hewson also called for a new national wealth and infrastructure fund, like the current Future Fund. This scheme would also be independent of government, but would be used to manage the huge tax windfalls from the mining boom, land-use taxes and possibly the Aussie bonds and any funds attracted from the superannuation companies.

Following on John Hewson’s proposals, Josh Frydenberg, the new federal Liberal member for the Victorian seat of Kooyong, advocated a similar policy in The Australian (September 3, 2011).

He argued that some of the windfall gains from the mining boom — $30 billion this year and $65 billion since the 2007 election — should be put into an Australian sovereign wealth fund and invested for a future time when they would be needed most.

He pointed out that sovereign wealth funds (or national wealth funds) are not new. He said: “Kuwait established one in 1953, Abu Dhabi in 1977 and Norway in 1990.

“Owned by the government, these funds and others like them in Chile, Russia and Qatar hold, manage or administer a diverse set of financial assets in the pursuit of commercial objectives. They are distinct from state-owned enterprises, whose remit often includes ownership and operation of commercial businesses.”

He said that about $4 trillion in assets are held by sovereign wealth funds world-wide, and this could surpass $6 trillion in the next year. “In other words, they are here to stay,” he said.

Such funds can have several purposes. For Australians they could provide long-term wealth creation that delivers some of the benefits of today’s mining boom to later generations — intergenerational equity — after the mining boom subsides. They can also be used to stabilise revenue cycles.

In both instances, countries that significantly invest their sovereign wealth funds offshore, keep a downward pressure on their exchange rate. This helps export manufacturing and rural industries that suffer from high exchange rates.

In recent times, the call for Australia to develop a sovereign wealth fund has come from business leaders such as Mike Smith at the ANZ Bank, Ralph Norris when he was head of the Commonwealth Bank, and CSL Limited’s Brian McNamee.

Glenn Stevens, Reserve Bank of Australia governor, and the International Monetary Fund have both suggested such a fund for Australia.

Founder and long-time president of the National Civic Council, B.A. Santamaria, advocated for many years that Australia emulate Singapore’s model of economic development based on mobilising its own savings through its Central Provident Fund.

He also advocated the creation of a national development bank for investment in infrastructure and appropriate industry.

Santamaria also predicted that such policies vital for Australia’s future would eventually come to pass, because when the old policies of globalism failed, as they are failing, these policies would be part of an eminently sensible alternative.

Hewson’s final remark echoes Santamaria’s sentiments. He said: “… [T]he electorate may be surprisingly tolerant if monies from taxes/super/borrowings will not be politically manipulated but transparently managed outside the political process to the long-term national benefit.”

Patrick J. Byrne is vice-president of the National Civic Council.




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

COVER STORY Don't grieve dumped TPP; rather, thank Trump

ENVIRONMENT U.S. Congress to investigate shonky climate report

COVER STORY Money flows freely to fuel anti-coal campaign

ENVIRONMENT Ignore claims that Antarctic ice sheet will melt away

EDITORIAL What future has Senator Cory Bernardi?

EDITORIAL Commission report demonstrates old saying about statistics

ELECTRICITY Green policies threaten energy security and jobs



News and views from around the world

Scientists criticise "hottest year on record" hype (James Varney)

States, territories slash school funding by $100 million (Stephanie Balogh)

Confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (Stephen Mosher)

Rescuing Governor Ahok (Bob Lowry)

Future shock: What happens when robots take our jobs? (Adam Creighton)

President Trump: Protect religious freedom (Ryan Anderson)

China to crack down further on "cult" activities (Ben Blanchard)

Polish president rules out gay marriage (Radio Poland)

U.S. state legislatures sign 334 laws in five years to restrict abortion (Micaiah Bilger)

Clinton, Trump and the politics of the English language (Ben Reinhard)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2017
Last Modified:
March 16, 2017, 10:40 am