Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I do not think this particular amendment is of such far-reaching significance that it deserves to take up so much time. I think it is important that the governor’s appearances before the House committee are formalised, for the reasons I have given. But it is a little bit rich for the minister to come in here and talk about people changing positions. When you actually look at Labor’s record when it comes to Reserve Bank independence, you see there has been a road to Damascus conversion. Labor’s record on this issue is distinctly lacking. When they were last in government, so far as I recall and my research shows, they made absolutely no attempt to make the Reserve Bank independent. Famously, former Prime Minister Keating boasted that the Reserve Bank would do as he said. It took the foresight, hard work and economic competence of the coalition, under the leadership of the member for Higgins, the then Treasurer, to issue a statement of monetary policy—as I think all of us think there should be—which clarified the bank’s role and the government’s commitment to respecting its independence.

In an extraordinary move, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, actually sought legal advice, because Labor did not support the reforms. Labor did not support the independence of the Reserve Bank. In 1996 they did not support an independent Reserve Bank, but by 2002 they had apparently changed their minds. The Prime Minister and Treasurer both supported the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2002, which amended the Reserve Bank Act so that the Treasurer appointed officers and board members, to streamline the appointment and termination processes. It is really only now that they want to undo the 2002 legislation and go back to the old system of the Governor-General making appointments. This is against statements they made in 2002. Back then they were supporting a streamlined appointments and removals process; now they want to turn back the clock. At the same time, they have told the media that this is the beginning of a new era of independence. Quite clearly, either the government are confused or they do not recall where they have come from in this debate.

It is important that we look at these amendments on their merits. There is a very clear argument, in the opposition’s view, for formalising the governor’s attendance at hearings of the House committee. It is quite true, as Senator Murray said, that this can be ad hoc and largely optional but not refused. But we think that formalising it, consistent with overseas practice, will be a constructive additional amendment to this bill.