Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise briefly to support the comments made by Senator Coonan and to state that the National Party also has a concern about the non-quantifiable depth of this contingent liability on the Australian public purse. We do not know nor has Treasury provided any figures on exactly where this liability ends. I think it is extremely important that Australia does know where this liability ends because of the ramifications that it could have on everything from our surplus to exactly what our future planning and future budgetary requirements are. We feel that Treasury has either been completely and utterly remiss in what they presented to the Australian public by way of the parliament for its perusal or they have not presented anything, and many of the decisions that are coming out now have been made on the back of an envelope.

What we do also have a concern with and what we think should be strongly considered is not so much that there should be a cap on where executive salaries go but that the executives should be fully aware that if they are buying a product that is underwritten by the Australian taxpayer then they should be very considerate about exactly what their own personal drawings on those institutions amount to. There are so many issues that one should consider and, without prescribing any measure, they should have a look at where our nation’s CPI is going and where their salaries are going and, if there is a great divergence between the two amounts, how they justify that to the Australian people, considering it is the Australian people now that are underwriting their institution.

It is not obligatory that they buy these products that underwrite the banks; it is their option to buy them. It is a free choice they make to buy these products and to underwrite them. But when they do, because we have no firm idea of exactly where the liability ends, they should be very considerate about how they act. We in the National Party hope that this process is expedited as quickly as possible. We are fully in support of making sure that we keep a structure in the Australian economy that fulfils a purpose of providing security to the Australian people.

We have huge questions every day not about whether there should be a package but about the competency that has gone into the construction of this package and the extent, form and substance of this package, because we cannot get the details of the extent, the form or the substance beyond what seem to be arbitrary ideas presented with arbitrary numbers. It is a package that uses up over half of our nation’s surplus, yet we cannot get fully informed disclosure from Treasury about exactly where this comes from.

There will be requirements on our nation in the very near future such as unemployment and other infrastructure. At that point in time we are going to need the money again and we cannot spend the money twice. There is no asset being put in place which will allow for further selling to redeem money used for other purposes if the extenuating circumstances of a recession are brought upon us. We will have to just live with the memory of exactly where the current package went. In supporting our banking structure, we realise it is absolutely essential that we have a liquid financial situation, a competent credit situation and that the Australian people are not put at a disadvantage by factors around the world that have forced this onto us.

I will close with two issues. First, sooner or later we are going to need a competent and detailed analysis of exactly where the underwriting of this contingent liability leaves the Australian books. Second, we call on the executives of the major banks to bear in mind that, on the purchase of this guarantee product, they are benefactors of the public underwriting of that process and they should have a close examination of exactly where their salaries go as compared to where the CPI goes.