Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Minister, why is it important that Australia maintains effective regulatory arrangements in the face of the global financial crisis? Minister, what is the government’s response to recent attacks on regulators?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Braddon for his question. At the heart of the global financial crisis lies a failure of regulation, not just regulation in the United States but also international regulation. It is not a problem of insufficient regulation; it is a problem of inadequate regulation. That is something that the Prime Minister has addressed in his recent speech to the UN General Assembly and that the government will continue to prosecute in international forums.

Australia is fortunate to have avoided the excesses of the subprime era in the United States—but that is not an accident; it is because Australia has a strong regulatory framework run by world-class regulators. But we should never be complacent. There is always room for improvement, refinement and reform, and the government is continuing to work with the Australian regulators to pursue any strengthening and improvement that is appropriate. That is why the government has tightened rules regarding credit-rating agencies, for example, requiring them to hold financial service licences and to undergo annual compliance reporting to ASIC. The government will continue to work with the regulators to ensure that we navigate the global financial crisis in the best possible shape and to ensure that we maintain our strong regulatory arrangements.

It is particularly disappointing to see the opposition engaging in a persistent pattern of vicious personal attacks on the key regulators in Australia’s financial architecture. Several weeks ago we had the member for Canning attack the Reserve Bank governor, clearly suggesting that the Reserve Bank’s decisions on interest rates were driven by political bias. A couple of weeks ago we had the Secretary of the Treasury accused, by the Leader of the Opposition, of lying, and then the following day he was accused of lying to the Senate by Senator Abetz. In both cases there was not a skerrick of evidence and not one hint of a suggestion of any substantiation of these accusations, notwithstanding the fact that these are about the most serious accusations you can make against somebody like the Secretary of the Treasury.

But yesterday we had the member for Goldstein—a senior frontbencher; not a rogue backbencher like the member for O’Connor or the member for Canning—sent out to allege that the Secretary of the Treasury, and, indeed, the Treasury, had cooked the books. That was the nature of the allegation: that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasury had cooked the books. Again, there was not one scintilla of evidence advanced to support this claim. There was not one shred of evidence advanced to support this claim.

Then of course, just to add to the general milieu of all of this, we had, predictably, the member for Canning allege that because the Secretary of the Treasury was addressing the National Press Club this made him a political activist. There was no mention of the fact that the former and current head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Michael L’Estrange, addressed the National Press Club in 2006. There was no mention of the fact that the former and current head of the Australian Federal Police, Mick Keelty, addressed the National Press Club in 2004. Then of course you had, right on cue, the member for O’Connor engage in the usual additional barrage of personal vituperation and nonsense. And subsequently we have had Senator Coonan, another senior frontbencher, confirm the accusations by the member for Goldstein, saying that the Treasury figures seemed suspicious.

Why is this happening? Why do we suddenly get this pattern—an orchestrated set of attacks on Australia’s regulator? Most Australians support our regulators. Most Australians think it is important to have a strict set of rules and fair dinkum, impartial, tough umpires. But there are, sadly, some people in the community who do not. There are some people in the community who do not like regulators and who do not like tough rules. The sharks and the shonks and the spivs that inevitably populate the nether regions of the financial world do not like regulators. Unfortunately they have taken over the Liberal Party. The sharks and the shonks and the spivs have taken over the Liberal Party. There has always been a factional tension in the Liberal Party—not between the wets and the dries but between old money and fast money. And fast money has taken over.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. Going back to the question that was asked, we are happy to join in this conversation about margin lending and a range of other things.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Finance and Deregulation was asked to comment on any comments made about regulators. I would remind him that this is what he was asked. The minister will continue with his response.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition is showing his true colours. He is a weak leader and he is a front for spivs and shonks and sharks. He has refused to repudiate the attacks on the Secretary of the Treasury by the member for Goldstein. He therefore effectively associates himself with this those—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the standing orders the concluding remarks of the minister were certainly untrue and they were definitely offensive, and they should be withdrawn. I ask for them to be withdrawn.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suggest to the minister that it would suit the convenience of the House if he withdrew the remarks that were the early part of his resumption.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure which remarks he is referring to but I withdraw.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unconditionally.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is time that the Leader of the Opposition took a stand on this matter. It is time that the opposition leader either stands up and substantiates the claims that the Treasury has cooked the books or he withdraws them on behalf of the opposition and apologises to the Secretary of the Treasury. Those are his choices: he either puts up or backs down.