Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the Prime Minister to his answer to my previous question, in which he told the House that the strategic policy and budget committee of the cabinet made its decision on the deposit guarantee measures and then sought a second-hand view of the position from the Reserve Bank via the Treasury secretary, Mr Henry. How does he reconcile that with his statement on 12 October where he says, ‘The measures I have announced today are based on the advice of Australia’s economic regulators’?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to acquaint himself with the truth, which for him increasingly has all the characteristics of a foreign country. What I said before was that, when the options were put before the cabinet committee to which I have just referred, I then spoke to the Secretary to the Treasury and asked, ‘Is this the recommendation of the regulators?’ to which he said yes. It was on that basis that the government acted. I refer the honourable gentleman—in his hyperventilating state, chucking cartwheels around the House, as he has taken far too great an intake of seriously deep red cordial this morning—to a statement made by the Reserve Bank governor less than a couple of hours ago that the decisions announced by the government then ‘were sensible and the Reserve Bank of Australia supported them’.

What we have here is the classic exercise of the Leader of the Opposition again walking both sides of the street. On one hand he says he supports the measures; on the other hand, he says, ‘We’re not so sure that we support the measures.’ I assume the position of the Liberal Party now is that the bank guarantee that they support is their $100,000 limit which they put out there. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition: how many and what percentage of Australian depositors would that have left high and dry? This government has acted responsibly and has acted in response to the advice provided to us through the Secretary of Treasury from the regulators, including the Reserve Bank. That is a responsible course of action.

If the honourable gentlemen and his party were at all serious about the question of financial guarantees, why is it that in the five years since the HIH crisis—with which the honourable gentleman may have some passing familiarity, with which the member for North Sydney, as the relevant minister, may have some familiarity, and the relevant minister for financial regulation—no action has ever been taken on a financial claims scheme, not one step of action? It was an event which occurred five years ago, when we saw the intersection of a number of institutions, including HIH, FAI and an institution called Goldman. The council of economic regulators provided you with specific advice in order to act in 2005, and the election was held at the end of 2007. We acted on the basis of that advice early in our term, and that is why this government has taken the right course of action, consistent with the regulators. The bleating on the part of those opposite now, having had five years to act on this measure, is a stark reminder of the hypocrisy which resides on the benches opposite.