Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill is a sensible bill which the opposition supports. It gives effect to an agreement with the International Monetary Fund to provide a standing appropriation and authority to borrow for payments to meet drawings made by the IMF under a new bilateral loan agreement which was signed at the end of 2016 and the start of 2017. Under this agreement, the maximum amount of Australia's lending commitment to the IMF is special drawing rights 4.61 billion, at around A$8.39 billion. This is an international reserve asset which can be allocated to member countries in proportion to their IMF quotas.

This updates the agreement that was first made when we were in office in October 2012, with legislation passing in 2013 for the same SDR amount. The agreement is activated only when additional funds are required to support lending to member countries. This bill has no direct impact on the budget bottom line; however, if the agreement is activated and funds are provided, there is an indirect impact where the government's lending to the IMF increases our borrowing requirement and where interest payable on any money borrowed by Australia to meet an IMF drawdown exceeds the interest paid by IMF with regard to that drawdown.

This agreement will accordingly be included in the budget papers as a quantifiable contingent liability, just as it was when we were in office. I note that giving effect to the agreement was recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties this year. This represents an important aspect of our obligations as a member of the IMF. Of course, we hope that we are never called upon to make this contribution. It will be called upon only in times of international financial stress. The IMF will work hard to avoid calling upon it, but we have no choice, as members of the IMF, but to engage, of course, in such activities, as happened, when my honourable friend the member for Lilley was Treasurer, when this agreement was first entered into. It was a sensible way of dealing with it. This is an update.

Of course, given that the opposition supported it when we were government—the now government supported it from opposition—I did go back and have a look at some of the contributions made at the time to familiarise myself with the views of honourable members opposite about it in the 2013 debate. The now Minister for Finance said:

There is a lesson which must be learned from the current financial stresses in much of the western world—if debt is the problem, more debt is clearly not the answer.

Well, this government seems to think that more debt is the answer, because this week, on Friday, we will pass $500 billion in debt.

But I thought the most interesting contribution of all back in 2013 was yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly. You had a lot to say in 2013. I was surprised to see that you are not on the list this time. I would have thought you would make a contribution similar to the one you made back in 2013. In 2013, you, sir, said:

Here we are in Australia laden with debt—already with five budget deficits in a row and with a sixth and a seventh committed to by this government, were they to be re-elected—yet we are going to provide money to an international organisation that produces nothing.

That is what you thought when you were in opposition. Now that you are in government you are strangely silent, Mr Deputy Speaker. You went on to say:

They will then loan this money to even more irresponsible countries which have greater debt than we do. Under this bill, we will be borrowing money from countries such as China and lending it to places like Greece, which will use it to pay off the German banks—

You had it all covered back in those days, Mr Deputy Speaker—

which have financed a generous Greek welfare state. The process and the outcome of such folly cannot be good in the end.

You had plenty to say in 2013, but now you are in government you have been struck dumb. I am just wondering why you are not making a contribution in this debate. The opposition would be more than happy to facilitate it. You have had a lot to say about all sorts of things over the last 48 hours in various forums in this House and this building. You have been very prominent. You have been out there. You have been fighting the good fight against action on climate change, you have been leading the charge against the Finkel review, you have been undermining the Prime Minister at every opportunity, and we want to hear what you think about the IMF these days.

This side of the House stand completely in support of the IMF. We lend bipartisan support to the Treasurer when he brings in sensible legislation. It appears, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have gone quiet compared to your views in 2013.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for McMahon and I compliment him on learning some very wise and sensible words from one of the members in this House.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2017 is a relatively uncontroversial bill, it is an important one—despite the controversy that a similar bill caused under the previous Labor government. It speaks to our values as a nation; not only a nation that is a member of the brotherhood and sisterhood of nations but one that continues to stand up to support those less fortunate around the world.

The International Monetary Fund was conceived in 1944, at the Bretton Woods Conference, by 44 UN member countries in order to build a framework for economic cooperation that would avoid a repetition of the competitive devaluations that had brought about the Great Depression. Australia played a key part in those processes and the conference. Not well enough known through our great land is the integral and pivotal role that Australia played in the establishment of the key international organisations rising from the ashes of World War II that are still key parts of the world order today. As Doc Evatt said, the ambition of the UN and its related organs, such as the IMF, was:

… not very much; just peace and justice and decent standards of living for themselves perhaps, but mainly for their children.

At the end of the Second World War, the IMF was charged with overseeing and rebuilding national economies. Since that time it has been responsible for promoting international monetary cooperation, facilitating the expansion of international trade, assisting in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments and assisting member states who are experiencing difficulties. In the 1970s, after the system of fixed exchange rates collapsed, a series—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Burt will be given an opportunity to conclude his contribution at that time.