I've been trying to find out more about this... because I'm starting to wonder if Albo tricked Trump here.
Embedded in the landmark critical minerals agreement forged between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and US President Donald Trump, super funds "will increase investments in the United States to US$1.44 trillion by 2035 - an increase of almost US$1 trillion from current levels."
"This unprecedented investment will create tens of thousands of new, high-paying jobs for Americans," they said.
The Super Members Council (SMC) confirmed the new figures, saying they "represent the latest estimates on the expected US investment pipeline for Australian super funds."
"As is always the case, super funds make investment decisions independently, on a case-by-case basis and in the best financial interests of members," SMC said.
In February, modelling by SMC, IFM Investors and Mandala estimated that super funds' US$400 billion investment in the US at the time would grow to about US$1 trillion over a decade.
It's entirely possible I'm completely misunderstanding all of this... but the government can't direct the financial decisions that Superannuation funds make. The quote above makes it sound like that Aussie Super firms have already invested $400B currently, and their projections are that the $400B will grow to $1T in a decade?
In which case the deal is that Australia will sell minerals to US and the super thing is completely irrelevant, but was mentioned to make the deal sound better for Trump?
I agree with your point that Australia shouldn't be doing any deals with the US at the moment, and should be selling any surplus minerals on the open market (ideally with royalties for the Australian people similar to Norway's gas royalties).
Yes, it is spin as it is supposedly a "projected" curve anyway. However, I don't think it should be at all. Also, the government might not direct it directly, but they can influence it. They let people take their super out to buy houses, right? No one was forced, but this helped inflate the housing prices, plus have those that did it less super for the future. Padding more pockets.
And investing into local private innovation development. The Norwegians were shrewd.
Yeah, Australian governments are in a really weird spot in that home owners outnumber non-home owners - so if they pass policy that reduces housing prices, they lose the next election - but younger generations now outnumber boomers so if they don't make housing more accessible then they lose the next election.
So you have to create enough housing but not too much to try and keep everyone happy... although personally I would tackle things like negative gearing to make it less appealing to own many properties as investments. Maybe the more you have the less you get back.