Experts disagree whether Future Fund changes are 'appalling' or a 'good idea'
Jim Chalmers' plan to change the $230 billion fund's mandate to focus on national priorities like housing and net zero has divided economists and investors.
There was one sentence in Jim Chalmers’ Future Fund announcement on Thursday that particularly baffled many economists.
“The Fund will provide the same strong returns to the government’s balance sheet while supporting national priorities where it can,” the Treasurer's media release read. The statement outlined plans to amend the $230 billion Future Fund’s mandate to ensure national priorities — such as increasing housing supply and supporting the net zero transition — are considered in its investment decisions.
George Washington University economist Steven Hamilton described it as a “magic pudding” approach that doesn’t stack up under scrutiny.
“Just like fiscal stimulus that’s disinflationary, we can now have the Future Fund focused on the government’s ‘national priorities’ without sacrificing its investment returns,” he says.
