Australia鈥檚 modest $272.3 billion sovereign wealth fund is under the spotlight over where its funds are being deployed.
A Freedom of Information request by NSW Greens Senator David Shoebridge, filed last October, revealed that as much as $600 million from the Australian Future Fund had found their way to defence companies.
In December, it was聽聽that of the 30 defence and aerospace companies featured, some received the following:
鈥 Thales ($3.5 million);
鈥 Lockheed Martin ($71 million);
鈥 BAE Systems ($26 million);
鈥 Boeing ($10.7 million);
鈥 Rocket Lab USA ($192 million); and
鈥 Elbit Systems ($488,768).
The findings gave Shoebridge a聽聽the board administering the fund.
鈥淭he Future Fund is meant to benefit future generations. That rings hollow when they are investing in companies making equipment that ends future generations,鈥 he said.
Shoebridge urged the government聽to introduce 鈥渕andatory ethical investment rules鈥 and 鈥渢hat must absolutely include a prohibition on investing in weapon manufacturers.鈥 He said Elbit Systems must be excluded 鈥渂ecause of exclusions related to military weapons-related conventions and treaties ratified by Australia鈥.
In May, the board divested from funds associated with the People鈥檚 Liberation Army of China.
Eleven companies were noted, among them Xinjiang Guanghui Energy, a natural gas and coal producer whose chairperson, Sun Guangxin, had聽,聽near to a US Air Force base in Texas, to build a wind farm.聽
Others聽included Jiangsu GoodWe and LONGi, both with expertise in the line of solar energy generation.
鈥淭axpayer funds and Australians鈥 retirement savings should never be invested in companies linked to serious human rights abuses, sanctions evasion or military suppliers to an authoritarian state,鈥澛犅燨pposition home affairs spokesman, Senator James Paterson.
The same did not apply to human rights abuses committed by Israel, a purported democratic state.
Israel鈥檚 military poster child, Elbit Systems, continues to be favoured by Australian defence and finance departments.
Despite Israel鈥檚 ongoing war on Gaza, Elbit Systems managed to convince the Australian government to throw聽聽its way in a contract signed in February.
The five year contract will supply 鈥渁dvanced protection, fighting capabilities and sensors鈥 for the Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) of Korean design.
The vehicles are being constructed in Defence Minister Richard Marles's electorate of Corio in Victoria.
And what of the near half-million dollars invested by the Future Fund in Elbit Systems?
础听聽of the fund鈥檚 holdings in various companies was published last October and it included Elbit Systems.
This was odd given that the company, since 2021, is precluded from investing in the fund given, as Shoebridge聽, the ratification by Australia of various 鈥渕ilitary weapons-related conventions or treaties鈥.
The board, accordingly, had to furnish reasons 鈥渉ow it continues to invest in Elbit Systems despite the publicly announced direction it gave to withdraw those funds because of Australia鈥檚 international legal obligations鈥.
罢丑别听聽of December 7, 2023, prompted by Shoebridge鈥檚 FOI request and prodding from聽Michael West Media, gave little detail.
A Canberra bureaucrat in finance asked an official associated with or attached to the Future Fund (both names are redacted) to clarify the status of Elbit Systems in terms of the exclusion list.
The reply (see below) notes the role of unnamed 鈥渆xpert third party service providers鈥 who supposedly keep an eye on company activities and provide research upon which a decision is made by the board every six months.
Elbit had been previously excluded as an investment option 鈥渋n relation to its involvement in cluster munitions following its acquisition of IMI [Systems]鈥.
IMI, rather than Elbit, was the spoiling consideration, given its role in producing technology that violates the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
As of April last year, Elbit was 鈥渘o longer excluded by the portfolio. This reflects the updated research of our expert research providers鈥.
The response does not give the exact details of the research. Banal talking points and information stifling platitudes are given instead.
The board had 鈥渁 long-standing policy on portfolio exclusions and a robust process to implement鈥 them. The policy was reviewed twice a year, buttressed by 鈥渆xpert third party research鈥.
Recent media reporting, it said, relied on an 鈥渙utdated exclusions鈥 list (of 2021). The board did not invest in those entities on the exclusions list.
For the media establishment, this response would have more than sufficed.
Michael West聽聽in May that efforts to penetrate the veil of inscrutability had so far come to naught.
The Future Fund and its Board of Guardians had persisted in their refusal to respond to inquiries.
鈥淪ince our last media request for comment, Israel has ramped up its war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank.鈥
Given various interim orders by the International Court of Justice warning Israel of a real risk of committing genocide, even as it ponders South Africa鈥檚 application to make that finding, what are those expert researchers up to?
[Binoy Kampmark currently lectures at RMIT University.]