Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lindsay for his question because honourable members would be aware that it has been a very difficult week in global financial markets. Of course, stock markets have fallen substantially in the last few days. We have seen the fourth largest investment bank in the US go bankrupt and the third largest bought out by the Bank of America. And, of course, we have seen that lifeline given by the Federal Reserve to AIG. Overnight we have seen the UK’s fifth and sixth largest banks in merger talks. So this is a serious time in global financial markets—a very serious time—and that is why the Prime Minister and I have been in regular contact with our regulators. And, of course, we have been in regular contact with our counterparts internationally as well. As the Prime Minister said before, we have been advised by APRA that Australian deposit-taking institutions and insurance companies, supervised by APRA, are well capitalised, profitable and well regulated, and they are weathering this storm pretty well. It is the case that our banks are well capitalised; it is the case that our banks are well regulated.

Let us consider this one fact. Australia’s largest four banks are among only 12 of the world’s top 100 banks with a AA credit rating or more. That is what we mean when we say that our banking institutions are well regulated and well capitalised. What it does mean is that the situation in this country, when it comes to our banking sector, is light years away from what is happening in the United States. What the Leader of the Opposition did today, when he was commenting on the speech of the Reserve Bank governor, was to fundamentally question the Reserve Bank governor’s assessment of our banking system. That is what he did. It is not a very smart thing to do; in fact, it is an unwise thing to do in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. He will begin to learn that this motormouth approach to politics does not serve him well in these circumstances. This was the Treasury spokesman who, before the budget, said inflation was a fairytale. This was the Treasury spokesman who, before the budget, said there was no need for spending cuts and no need for a significant surplus. This was the Treasury spokesman who, after the budget, said that we had not cut hard enough. This was the Treasury spokesman who said we should have had a bigger surplus—and this is now the Leader of the Opposition who was raiding that surplus. He is consistently inconsistent, because he is out there all the time promoting himself. He is not out there promoting the national interest.

All members could see it here before, when he asked the question of the Prime Minister. You could see his sense of self-satisfaction just waft out; he was quoting himself. The problem is that when you are the Leader of the Opposition you have to be responsible. I say this to the member for Wentworth: the Leader of the Opposition has to be responsible in the language they use. And they have an obligation to be even more responsible at a time of global financial turbulence. That is why those opposite should not be raiding the surplus to the tune of $20 billion. It is a surplus we need, at a time of global uncertainty, to act as a buffer against that global uncertainty. What we do not need is those irresponsible statements from the Leader of the Opposition undermining confidence in our banking sector.

See this speech in context