My question is to the Acting Treasurer and Minister for Finance and Deregulation. I refer the Acting Treasurer to the Prime Minister’s announcement on 12 October of a government guarantee of wholesale funding of Australian incorporated banks and other authorised deposit-taking institutions, which, from the moment of its announcement, the opposition has called upon the government to make the subject of legislation. Does the Acting Treasurer accept that the Prime Minister’s stubborn and indecisive refusal to present legislation ensuring that payment on the guarantee is, in the words of Standard and Poor’s, ‘unconditional, irrevocable and timely’ is going to undermine the entire objective of enabling Australian institutions to raise wholesale funds overseas, depriving banks of much if not all of its benefit? Doesn’t this mean that if the banks do not benefit—

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: standing order 100(d).

The difficulty that the chair is in is that there has been a degree of flexibility allowed when there have been expressions that are by way of argument or other matters against the standing order. On this occasion, whilst it has been highlighted, I will allow it, but I am assuming that the question is nearly finished.

It is, Mr Speaker. It is a complex and important issue.

Order! The House will come to order.

Mr Albanese interjecting

The minister for finance is listening, Albo. He is listening.

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will ignore the interjections, and the interjections will cease.

Doesn’t this mean—

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Leader of the Opposition has insisted that people be called by their correct title. That also applies to the Leader of the House.

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refer to members by their parliamentary or ministerial title.

I will not read the whole of the question again but just the final paragraph. Doesn’t this mean—

I am glad the government think this is so funny. You are listening—good. Doesn’t this mean that if the banks do not benefit then neither will the millions of Australians desperate for banks to lower interest rate charges on loans, credit cards and other borrowings?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The premise of the question is that the absence of legislation underpinning the contracts that the government is going to offer wholesale borrowers of funding, mainly financial institutions and in particular banks, would in some way undermine the integrity of those offers. This is a premise that I do not accept and the government does not accept. Should a government in the future, for example, this government, ever be called upon to fulfil such a guarantee because an organisation has collapsed—a remote eventuality, I hasten to underline, and the government has stated that from day one—the premise behind the Leader of the Opposition’s question is that the attempt by the government of the day, perhaps the Rudd government, to get legislation through the Senate to honour that guarantee would fail. I wonder why the opposition might consider that an attempt by a government to fulfil an obligation to the Australian people in management of the Australian economy might fail in the Senate. I wonder why the Leader of the Opposition might consider that to be a serious possibility. I assert that any future government that is required to honour such an obligation would have the support of the parliament in honouring such an obligation. The government in pursuing this guarantee is doing so on the basis of the executive power to enter into contracts, and that is how the government intends to proceed.