'I's no longer have it for the Future Fund

I did see Costello on the 7.30 Report seeking to take "sole" credit for the Future Fund ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19). I agree with your comment that he should move on. His ego must be intolerable around the board table. I would have great sympathy for any incoming chairman. As much as I believe he had great credibility as treasurer, I think John Howard knew him better than most in not handing him the mantle when he sought to assume it.

Peter Costello didn't put a zack into the Future Fund. Australian taxpayers did ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19).
Just imagine if God's Gift to Treasury had got the top job. Would a Costello-chaired FF have followed the same mantra as the government did under his rein as treasurer? Squander the greatest boom in Australian history, call it responsible economic management, while whittling down what should have been far larger surpluses as he splashed funds around the country, buying the votes of anyone who craved a bit more middle class welfare?

Why should 100,000 public servants enjoy the benefit if this contingent liability fund while the residual 21,900,000 go into hundreds of billions of Cth GFC debt? ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19.)
The chairmanship issue is small beer. The FF should be a fund for all Australians and should invest strategically in industries, ex-primary industries, sophisticated, IP-producing, value adding companies here and overseas, to diversify the economy and provide Australians a greater chance to be employed and develop in non-mining/retail/banks/property.
Say 'no' to 100,000 Commonwealth public servants retiring as millionaires and 'yes' to a smart, sophisticated Australia and Malcolm as the rest of this dire incompetent dross on both sides of parliament is selling us young'uns way short. Did you know Australia registers less than 10 per cent the number of patents annually than Sweden and Switzerland, countries far less populous than us? Pathetic.

Alan, the Future Fund was set up for a single purpose only – to fund the Commonwealth's employee' unfunded liabilities in the defined benefit section of the CSF ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19). At the time it was set up these liabilities were totally unfunded. The Future Fund is not a sovereign wealth fund.
The trustees of this fund should logically be the trustees of the CSF as the ultimate beneficiaries are current and past Commonwealth employees.
It would seem the original purpose and limited scope of its activities have been forgotten by all.
Much ado about nothing really – providing this government is not allowed to get its hands on the money and squander it.

Surely the criteria for this appointment should have been a demonstrated ability as a money manager ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19).
Peter Costello by all measures was one of Australia's greatest treasurers and it could be assumed he would have similar success with the fund.
Its performance has been less than stellar and a specialist rather than a manager for all seasons could achieve a greater shake up.
Even if Costello had a mini hissy fit, this doesn't amount to anything as it was only a fairly appropriate venting of frustration.
What's the big deal? Give him a break!

Politicians always claim they came up with the idea and are great at the job ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19). I suspect that the concept was generated by a bunch of mid level Treasury people who passed it up the line. I suspect when he heard about it, Costello had to be given an explanation of what the term meant. But of course, it was his idea.

Peter Costello's comments were in response to the criticisms of him by Gillard, Conroy and Wong ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19). They were more than reasonable, quite justified and in no way disqualify him from remaining on the board of the Future Fund. He said he had no problem with Gonski's appointment.
One presumes the ALP senses the possibility of Costello returning to the parliament and not wanting to miss an opportunity for a pre-emptive strike has given him not so much both barrels as a full broadside. It was unworthy and unnecessary.

OK then, a small schemozzle – whatever, it was a balls-up ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19).
The other little matter lingering from Costello's comments is: the dosh in the fund came from where, exactly? One Peter Costello? Er, no. It is (sorry, was) tax money, pure and simple, now allocated for nice plump government super benefits. Now that's a schemozzle.

I agree with Andrew Chirnside (March 19, 10.39am): "Alan, I thought Peter Costello's comments were aimed more at the process and governance (which were a disgrace) than whether he was chairman or the eligibility of David Gonski. You appear to have bought the government's line." ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund', March 19.)
The fact is that Gonski was asked by Wong to seek the views of the board. When the board's recommendation displeased the government, it very oddly not only rejected Costello, obviously on political grounds, but appointed the very person who had been charged to sound out the board about who should be chosen. This is illogical and against established convention in such cases. Gonski may well be a good chair, in the event, but Costello has certainly been shabbily treated, and I would have thought the board was in a good position to make the right judgement, other than those external judges who feel that Costello is "possessive" about what he created, or that John Howard was right to thwart him as would-be PM. The board presumably knows the capacities of its members. Of course, the government might also have gone right past the board to begin with, but it chose its own bizarre path and solution. As for Costello's ability as a financial manager, particularly a "saver", his record speaks for itself, and with every day which passes we can see how much the country needs him rather than Wayne Swan. Most likely the board considered that a treasurer who knew how to preserve money for the nation would also do that as chair of the Future Fund – a rather obvious conclusion to draw.

I can't agree with Alan Kohler on this occasion ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19). Peter Costello has every right to be frustrated with the clumsy and probably quite dishonest process engaged in by the minister for finance in the appointment of David Murray's successor. As Costello well pointed out the status of the fund in an international context was damaged by this parochial and gauche appointment procedure.

There is no constitutional power to establish a sovereign wealth fund ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19).
Financing the extraordinary unfunded liabilities for superannuation of Commonwealth public servants is its only purpose.
When the unfunded super liabilities are properly taken into account the Commonwealth has always been and will continue to be in deficit.

This has been a great example of how an appointment to an important, highly responsible position causes the appointee to believe their elevated position is proof of personal elevated intelligence and societal importance ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19). In fact no such thing, just an opportunity for them to do what many others could.
Sadly, Costello has fallen for his ego, Gonski has blundered into a governance morass that his past indicates he would normally avoid. The only edifying aspect is the rest of the board has kept mum.

Yes the fund is Costello's baby and there is no one who would be so dedicated and have as much passion to see it's success ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19). Just like a business owner who works many hours to ensure his business survives and prospers, I think he is perfect to be chairman contrary to the writer's opinion.

To channel Bill Hayden, a drovers dog could have managed the government's role in the boom years and not wasted $150 billion in the process or sold public assets to do it.
One of Costello's unforgiveable obsecenties is that we are paying again for assets we have already paid for once, like our airports. The FF should buy them back and we should not be charged twice over for using our own property ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19).

I love that name "Future Fund". That misleading name is probably Costello's most clever trick - fooling people into believing it is a "sovereign wealth fund".
The real scandal was that all previous governments never funded their superannuation liabilities ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19).
This fund is actually just the Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation Fund.
Chokyi Nyingpo is correct in that it does not benefit "all" Australians, just old Commonwealth public servants.
A real "sovereign wealth fund" would be funded by the MRRT, however, as others on Business Spectator have written, I am not sure this country needs such a fund. I am also doubtful Australia's politicians are capable of allowing such a fund to be properly managed without political interference.

"I put all the money in" – Should that not read: 'I put all the tax payers money in' ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19)?

To GS (Mar 19 11.27am) As usual Ross Gittins dishes out his own brand of economics. ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19).
Politicians also have their own brand of budgetary acumen. Novices tend to get trapped by cuts of income tax rates and accelerated depreciation deductions for businesses.

I think the real point of the article that requires reflection is "rabidly polarised state of Australian politics is gradually poisoning most parts of society" ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19).
Our political process is failing us all, the most recent example of a former Prime Ministers wife dies and the Leader of the Opposition doesn't even have the good grace to forgo the day to day rough and tumble of politics and uses the passing of a prominent Australian to score a political point. What a shame.
I think we are all at risk of becoming shrill and irrelevant politically, much like the notion of who is leading the Party and when the next election will be.

If only the would be Prime Minister had the foresight to have set up a proper Sovereign Wealth Fund instead of handing out tax cuts (and nil tax for the over 60 superannuants) from the mining boom he may have had something to brag about ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19).
Also just a gentle reminder, about half of the initial deposit was from the last tranche of the Telstra privatisation , 17 per cent from memory.
Easy to provide a surplus when you sell off your assets. Shame that you only get one chance at selling off your telco, your airports, etc.
Anyway, I am sure that other financial institutions will be breaking down the (almost) PM's door to take full use of his extensive economic skills, just like they have in the last few years.

Couldn't agree more. He has made some disastrous decisions in the past - unqualified baby bonus and encouraging people to pour life savings into super pre GFC ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19).

Alan, I think you should remember that it was the Minister who made the mess of the appointment and the process. Should we be looking for this minister to go? ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19)

I try very hard to relate to issues as I believe rightly or wrongly thier effects will be. I believe some rational and relevant comment has been made here, along with the inescapable tunnel vision that seems to accompany all political comment these days. For myself I cant help wondering if the Howard govts time on the Treasury benches realy were that fiscally great considering how many public owned assets they sold off, how much they cut out of essential public spending education health etc. And all in what many agree were some of the nations best ecconomic conditoins. Surely its not unreasonable to ask why weren't the savings much greater? ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19).

It is disappointing to read some of the uninformed comments of your readers claiming that the beneficiaries of the Future Fund will be public servants ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19). Absolute nonsense. Don'’t your readers understand that a government liability has to be paid? The Future Fund was established to reduce the burden of that accumulating funding liability on government finances. So if the fund were to perform particularly well the beneficiaries will be taxpayers and likewise if it were to perform poorly then the losers will be taxpayers, too.

Spot on Alan, Abbott has been one the most toxic divisive politicians in our history who we see in all too often in a fluoro ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 19). And Gillard has followed Howard in 24/7 campaigning, so every night we are confronted by her fake bonhomie on TV. Oh for the days when our leaders believed in something beyond gaining and staying in power.

Whilst I think you're generally correct Alan, about an outburst like Costello's over a selection of chairman, I think Costello has recognised an obvious and imminent threat to the independence of the Future Fund ('I's no longer have it for the Future Fund, March 20). He feels strongly Labor are ready to raid it for electorally appealing pork under the guise of some semblance of fiscal discipline, given their budgetary predicament. In that regard note the sudden announcement that TAFE students will be able to borrow big time for TAFE courses and who could possibly deny them their futures and those millions? Essentially, Costello, who had largely been quiet in the background out of office, knew he was damned if he did speak up and damned if he didn't.