The government is facing pressure to stop its Future Fund investing in the tobacco industry.
THE Gillard government is facing pressure to stop its multibillion-dollar Future Fund from investing in the tobacco industry and in companies that make nuclear weapons.
The Future Fund, which was set up by the former Howard government to help meet the long-term cost of public sector superannuation liabilities, revealed last year that it held $147 million worth of shares in cigarette producers.
The Greens, on whom the government depends to pass legislation in the Senate, plan to increase pressure for the fund to ditch the big tobacco stake and a separate $179 million holding of shares in companies involved in nuclear weapons production.
When the Senate resumes sitting next month after the summer break, the Greens will push for rules forcing the fund to divest its ''unethical'' holdings.
Greens Senator Richard Di Natale, who introduced a bill on the subject late last year, said it was a ''no brainer'' for the Future Fund to offload its tobacco and nuclear holdings.
Senator Di Natale said it was completely inconsistent for the government to fight big tobacco with ''courageous'' plain packaging laws, and ''then on the other hand to be investing $147 million in large multinationals who make the stuff''.
The plain-packaging laws were passed late last year, and Philip Morris has already lodged a legal claim saying the restrictions damaged its property.
While the government has refused to tell the fund what to invest in, Senator Di Natale said selling the shares would have little effect on the $73 billion fund's returns.
''It would be very easy to divest ourselves of those shares without any impact on the bottom line, and I think it would be the socially responsible thing for the government to do.''
Previously, the fund has defended its investments in the companies on the grounds that they are not involved in illegal activities. The government has refused to intervene in its independent investment decisions.
However, there are overseas precedents for governments intervening in how public funds are invested. In October, the Canadian state of Alberta sold $US17.5 million worth of tobacco shares because it was suing tobacco firms for healthcare costs caused by smoking.
Norway's sovereign wealth fund sold its investments in tobacco in 2010, and has guidelines preventing investing in companies that damage the environment.
The Future Fund last year sold its holdings in companies that make cluster bombs and land mines - including defence giant Lockheed Martin - before a new treaty on the bombs came into force.
When Future Fund general manager Mark Burgess was questioned about the tobacco and nuclear investments in October, he said it was updating its environmental, social and governance strategy.
It is understood some government MPs are sympathetic to the Greens' argument, but Finance Minister Penny Wong has stressed the need for the fund to make arm's length investment decisions.
The fund's record on social and environment issues was scrutinised last year when evidence emerged that its board had never discussed climate change.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What tobacco and nuclear-related holdings does the Future Fund currently have?
According to the article, the Future Fund held about $147 million in shares in cigarette producers and a separate $179 million in shares in companies involved in nuclear weapons production, within the fund’s roughly $73 billion portfolio.
Why are the Greens pushing for the Future Fund to divest tobacco and nuclear investments?
The article says the Greens, led by Senator Richard Di Natale, argue it’s inconsistent for the government to enact “plain packaging” tobacco laws while the Future Fund still owns tobacco shares, and they want rules forcing the fund to ditch what they call ‘unethical’ holdings.
Would divesting the Future Fund’s tobacco and nuclear shares hurt the fund’s returns?
Senator Di Natale is quoted in the article saying selling the relatively small tobacco and nuclear stakes would have little effect on the Future Fund’s returns and could be done without impacting the bottom line, though the fund has defended its investments as legal and independent decisions.
Are there international precedents for governments divesting tobacco from public funds?
Yes— the article notes that Alberta sold about US$17.5 million of tobacco shares while suing tobacco firms for health costs, and Norway’s sovereign wealth fund sold tobacco investments in 2010 and has rules restricting investments that damage the environment.
How has the Future Fund handled controversial weapons-related investments in the past?
The article states the Future Fund previously sold holdings in companies that make cluster bombs and land mines, including defence giant Lockheed Martin, ahead of a new treaty coming into force.
Does the Future Fund have an ESG strategy to address controversial investments?
Future Fund general manager Mark Burgess told reporters the fund was updating its environmental, social and governance (ESG) strategy, according to the article.
Could plain-packaging tobacco laws and legal claims affect the Future Fund’s tobacco investments?
The article reports that plain-packaging laws were passed and Philip Morris has lodged a legal claim saying the restrictions damaged its property; Greens use that inconsistency to argue the Future Fund should divest, though the government has so far refused to direct the fund’s investments.
What does this debate about Future Fund tobacco investments mean for everyday investors watching ethical investing trends?
The article highlights growing political pressure on public funds to consider ethics and ESG factors, shows there are international examples of divestment, and underscores that government and fund managers may face scrutiny over socially sensitive holdings—points retail investors might watch when evaluating fund governance and ESG policies.