Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says: ‘What about the first year? What about 1996?’ It is true. Prime Minister Howard stayed home more in 1996. He had to stay home to replace his ministers, who kept resigning—nine in the first year and three by the time that the government had been in office for nine months. So if we want to talk about prime ministers staying home, perhaps he had different reasons to stay at home.

The Leader of the Opposition has claimed that the Prime Minister spends more time overseas than the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There is a slight technical problem: that is completely false. The Prime Minister has been away for 43 days and the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been away for 67 days. If you want to be taken seriously when it comes to economic credibility—or if you want to be taken seriously when it comes to credibility full stop—you might start by levelling with the Australian people and telling the truth instead of telling fibs to Laurie Oakes on the Sunday news.

The opposition says it is not really important that the Prime Minister spend his time overseas; it is not important that he spend his time in New York. But this was not the view of the then shadow Treasurer in April. He said:

The security, the mortgages, the homes, the jobs of Australians depend in large measure on the international developments coming out of the United States of this credit crisis, so it was important for me as Shadow Treasurer to come here and discuss that with the Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and of course with the Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Don Kohn and other senior officials and political figures here.

The member for Wentworth seems to think it is more important for the shadow Treasurer to be in touch with what is happening in the United States than it is for the Prime Minister of the nation. As Laurie Oakes said, he has never been very good at covering his innate modesty—but that does take it to new levels.

Of course we also need to boost confidence here in Australia. That is not helped when the member for North Sydney, with the approval of the Leader of the Opposition, questioned in this House last week the viability of Australia’s health funds—private health insurance. How irresponsible can you be at this particular time in our economic development? The member for North Sydney, with the express approval of the Leader of the Opposition, questioned the viability of our health funds. It is hard to get more irresponsible than that.

If the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy want to get involved in bipartisanship, they can start by repudiating the member for North Sydney and reinforcing the fact that there was no substance, no evidence and no possible basis for the allegations he made in the House last week—because confidence is important when it comes to the Australian economy.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when she finally got to the substance of her MPI, in the last couple of minutes, dealt with the matter of short selling. I was glad that she commented on short selling because it is an important matter. With the greatest respect, can I submit that we have seen quite a bit of sophistry from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when it comes to short selling. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has alleged that the government has changed its position. Of course, that is quite wrong.

My Treasury colleague Minister Sherry said some time ago that the government had no intention of legislating to ban naked short selling—and that remains our intention. In fact, the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law has today released the draft legislation relating to the disclosure of short selling. As is the case with other countries, ASIC, as the independent regulator, has moved, over the weekend, to deal with naked short selling and short selling more generally. When conditions come down, ASIC will assess the situation and may determine that it is appropriate to remove the current halt on short selling. The government are taking the responsible step of preparing for that outcome with the release today of the draft legislation which my colleague Senator Sherry flagged some time ago. So the government continue to act responsibly and work with our regulators while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sits on the sideline taking pot shots. The financial markets and the financial commentators will comment on her credibility when it comes to such matters.

While I am on the economic credibility of the alternative Treasurer of the nation and the financial markets, my attention was drawn to her comments yesterday—not the comments that have received some recognition in question time but some other comments she made in reply to the Treasurer’s ministerial statement. My attention has been drawn to these comments because there are financial commentators in this nation and members of the financial services industry who are already shaking their heads at the shadow Treasurer’s lack of economic literacy and economic credibility. This is what the shadow Treasurer said yesterday:

It is symptomatic of a government … that says it wants to promote Australia as a financial services hub and then reduces withholding tax for foreigners.

The shadow Treasurer said there was a contradiction between promoting Australia as an international financial services hub and reducing the withholding tax on distributions for foreigners. I am not sure who the Treasurer thinks we should be a financial services hub for if it is not for foreigners. Perhaps we should be a financial services hub for ourselves! We already are that. The whole idea is to promote Australia as an international financial services hub. The shadow Treasurer, the alternative Treasurer of this nation, says that cutting the withholding tax is contradictory to promoting Australia as a financial services centre. There are many others who would beg to differ—and they do not sit on this side of the House or that side of the House. They do not sit in the House at all. John Stewart, the Managing Director and CEO of NAB, said in relation to the government’s withholding tax cut:

I think it will make a big difference, it’s a vote of confidence for the fund management industry. Because he’s spoken about moving from 30 to his low 7.5.

The Investment and Financial Services Association—the new shadow Treasurer might get around to talking to them—are strong supporters of the government’s measures. This is what they say:

The announcement goes beyond our expectations. It sends a very positive signal to the financial services sector and will enhance our industry in the Asia Pacific region. It will also encourage more young people to enter the industry.

Stephen Dunne, the Managing Director of AMP Capital Investors, said:

Reducing the withholding tax for foreign residents will strengthen Australia’s competitiveness as an international investment centre.

Jeremy Duffield, the Managing Director of Vanguard, said:

This single initiative delivers a vital fillip to Australia’s credentials as a regional investment centre, allowing our local industry to attract greater capital inflows through a sharpened competitive edge.

Peter Verwer, the Chief Executive of the Property Council, said:

The Government has shown its commitment on a crucial election promise that will reduce the withholding tax rate in line with our global competitors.

…            …            …

The world property markets have copied our successful funds model but with lower tax rates and less red tape.

We have established that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has no idea. The shadow Treasurer of this nation does not realise that cutting the withholding tax rate for foreigners actually encourages foreign investment in this country. The alternative Treasurer of this nation apparently thinks that it would actually be a good thing to continue with the world’s highest withholding tax rate. She thinks it would be a bad thing to embrace the government’s policy of having effectively the lowest withholding tax rate in the world. In her first ministerial statement as shadow Treasurer, in her first response to the Treasurer, the shadow Treasurer has shown that unfortunately she is completely and utterly not on top of the facts of her portfolio. She is completely and utterly failing to come to grips with the government’s economic policy. We have this time and time again from this opposition. We have an opposition which talks about leadership and about credibility, but it talks about what it cannot deliver. (Time expired)

See this speech in context