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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s revelation in his earlier answers that, in the course of the weekend of 11 and 12 October, he did not speak directly to any of the regulators upon whose advice he has earlier claimed to have relied. How does he reconcile that lack of direct communication with his statement to the National Press Club on 15 October: ‘They are measures which have been implemented in the closest possible coordination with our financial and economic regulators’?

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

The council of economic regulators includes the Treasury. On these matters that you have just referred to in your question, the form of communication between the government and the other regulators was through the medium of the Secretary of the Treasury, as is entirely normal.

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

Normal?

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

Furthermore, are those opposite, including the member for North Sydney, saying that they do not trust the word of the Secretary of the Treasury?

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

Mr Hockey interjecting

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

Order! The member for North Sydney!

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

No, this is a very important question. Are those opposite saying they do not trust the words of the Secretary of the Treasury? We on this side of the House do. The government has great trust in the Secretary of the Treasury—it is a high public office of the Commonwealth. If I as Prime Minister turn around to the Secretary of the Treasury and say, ‘Is this course of action’—

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

Mr Hockey interjecting

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

Oh, one person’s voice?

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

Yes.

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

So the member for North Sydney says the Secretary of the Treasury’s position on this is only one voice and not to be trusted by the government. That is an extraordinary position on the part of those opposite. Can I say that the attitude of those opposite is also consistent with the previous government’s treatment of the Secretary of the Treasury. If those opposite perused the public reporting on this matter, when the current Secretary of the Treasury was serving the previous government and dared to give a public speech which went to the question of whether the Treasury was being properly consulted on such questions as water and climate change, how did the previous government deal with the then and current Secretary of the Treasury? Do you know what happened? His salary bonus was chopped because he dared to speak out. That is what happened. That is the contempt with which that government treated that high office of the Commonwealth.

When I as the Prime Minister turn to the Secretary of the Treasury and ask this formal question—‘Is this the advice of the regulators including the Reserve Bank?’—and the answer is yes, I trust that advice. I assume that the member for Wentworth backs up the Manager of Opposition Business when he says, ‘That’s just one voice’—one voice in the wilderness. It just happens to be the Secretary of the Treasury. Our view is quite the reverse.

I say to the member for Wentworth: you have a statement to us by the Secretary of the Treasury about the position of the regulators—that is point 1. But if there is any doubt on this matter it is an open and shut case when you have a statement today by the Governor of the Reserve Bank which says that the government’s actions were sensible and the Reserve Bank of Australia supported them. You have a clear-cut statement by the Reserve Bank governor that the bank supported the government’s actions consistent with the statement to the ministers in that committee about the attitude of the regulators to the action taken. The government’s course of action has been responsible, and again the member for Wentworth, the member for North Sydney, in a most irresponsible injection now about the Secretary of the Treasury, and the member—

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

Mr Hockey interjecting

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

Order! The member for North Sydney!

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

I would have thought the member for North Sydney in particular would be sensible and sensitive to the advice from regulatory institutions given his particular experience of being the regulator when HIH went bust. I seem to remember that the member in question—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Those opposite regard this as not relevant to the current debate. The recommendations which came to the previous government for a financial claims scheme came out of the HIH royal commission. An entire company goes under, the member for North Sydney was the minister for financial regulation at the time, and a certain other member of this parliament seemed to have a material engagement in those matters at the time—I will leave that to one side. But can I say to those others opposite: if we have a clear statement to us by the Secretary of the Treasury that this is the position of the regulators, and if the Governor of the Reserve Bank then confirms that is the case, then this is an open and shut case. Those opposite are simply clutching at straws; again trying to make a cheap political point. The government stands by the Secretary of the Treasury. He is a first-class officer of the Commonwealth. The government stands by the integrity of the Reserve Bank, of APRA, of ASIC and of the council of economic regulators. If those opposite were interested in the nation’s long-term economic interests, they would do so as well.