Mr McMULLAN(3.36 p.m.) —There are some matters of public importance to be discussed here. It is a pity that the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) did not get to discuss them. They are these. We need to talk about the role of the parliament—and question time in particular—as a clearing house of information for the Australian public. It is a very important point in the accountability process.

It is one that in 1987 you used in ways I will just mention to you in a moment, which nobody told the member for North Sydney about or he would not have got up and made that speech. That is why they got someone who was not here in 1987 to make this speech—because they would have been too embarrassed. They knew what the current Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the then Leader of the National Party said in 1987 at the time of the stock market crisis. Nothing careful, measured about questions; they were in there trying to whip it up. And we will be referring to that. We never have until now, but we will. We will not be bullied or bluffed out of discharging our responsibility by a government that is sagging in the polls and desperately looking for a diversion from all their woes—their nursing home woes, their unemployment crisis, et cetera. They are looking to change the debate, and this one is not going to fly.

They tried to run this hoary old line around the gallery last night and they could only get poor old John Short to run it. After all, he will always run the press releases of the Treasurer (Mr Costello). They should just have handed it to him on paper; they would not have wasted the taxpayers' time having their trusted servants running around trying to sell it to decent journalists.

What was the most important public issue yesterday? We do not need a poll of those of us in here. The media made it absolutely clear it was the situation with the stock market and its consequences for the Australian economy. What was the most important direct public policy matter? The Telstra float. That is the matter that is the immediate financial responsibility of the Australian government. The other issues are important, we want to know what their implications are, but they are not the direct responsibility of the Australian government. It would have been an abrogation of our responsibility had we not raised those matters; it is not that it was irresponsible to raise them.

The government must have considered that the Telstra float was something about which public comment was required because the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) was out talking about it at breakfast-time. He was not out in response to my question; before I asked the question he was out talking about it and making public comments. We all know that people throughout the media were asking questions about the level at which the government might need to consider whether it would proceed.

People tried to get us to join the Democrats' move for it to be put off. We said no. Media people came to us hoping that we would join the Democrats' proposal calling for it to be deferred and we said, `No. We will not join that. That would not be responsible. The call as to the timing must be made by the government because they are the people who have the information.' That was our position publicly and privately when everybody approached us, as was made clear again this morning by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley). It would have been an abrogation of responsibility for us not to raise it, but we needed to be very careful how we raised it, and we were.

What was the big allegation made about me by the member for North Sydney? He said I tried to raise the issue of the parachute clauses as if they were a secret. When I raised that issue, what did the minister say in response? I will get away from the fact that he could not work out what page of the thing it was on and quote him:

What is on the page of the public offer document is exactly what I have been talking about since the commencement of the float.

It was not that I raised something that he was trying make sure no-one knew about. He got up and in response to my question said, `Yes, that matter you raised is something I've been talking about.' He then went on to say—I did not think   it was an unreasonable thing to say, but if your allegation about my question is right this is an outrageous answer, although I did not think it was—`The government is still monitoring it, I assure you,' that is, the Telstra share offer, `on a very regular basis as the market goes through this correction.' A perfectly responsible reply, I did not criticise it, but if I was wrong to ask the question that was an outrageous thing for him to say in those circumstances.

I do not think it was. It was a perfectly reasonable response to a perfectly reasonable question, but you cannot have it both ways. If you say, `You should not ask a question,' you cannot then say that it is all right for the minister to answer it and say, `Yes, we're reviewing it and we're monitoring it.' You cannot have it both ways. The fact of the matter is simply that it is an important matter. The media is full of comments by people on the Telstra float price. They are not quoting me; they are quoting the Minister for Finance and Administration.

Nobody in these articles—except for poor old John Short who fell for your line again—nobody in the media, is saying I said something or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) said something. They are saying, `The worsening share market rout would affect the final Telstra float price, the federal minister for finance, John Fahey, conceded today.' It is not me. It says here: John Fahey, federal minister for finance. He is the person who was out there saying it. I do not criticise him for saying it, but you cannot criticise us for asking simply: as a result of these facts on the public record, what consideration is the government giving to the circumstances around this matter? Asking that question is a proper discharge of our public responsibility. We have been very careful about the way in which we have asked every question.

If you think that the questions asked on Monday by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition about the share market were, as the Treasurer said today, a terrible attempt to use the volatility for political purposes and we should not be using it for sectoral or political partisanship, how do you explain this? On 26 October 1987—this date might be a bit familiar to some of you—the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, asked, `What impact will this have'—that is, the stock market decline—`on Australia's balance of payment and domestic demand?' He went on to ask:

Does the Treasurer agree that investment, jobs and the Budget deficit are also likely to be affected . . .

That, almost word for word, was the question asked by the then Leader of the Opposition. Or later when he asked:

Is it true that the Australian stock market has fallen by 44 per cent . . . Is it true that the Australian dollar has fallen by 10 per cent . . .

Of course, he was not using that volatility for sectoral or partisanship purposes; he was asking a socially responsible question. What about when the Leader of the National Party asked a question which, almost verbatim, was the question the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday:

I ask the Prime Minister: How will the continuing dramatic fall on the Australian stock market and this morning's increasing pressure on the Australian dollar affect investment, employment, interest rates and Budget projections?

Of course, that would not have affected the interests of millions of shareholders. No, he was of course being very responsible. There was no question that that might affect shareholders' interests. But, as if that were not enough, on 26 October, having asked a question and got the answer, there was an MPI moved by the member for Bennelong, Mr Howard:

The urgent need to recognise the vulnerability of the Australian economy to sudden shifts of world economic sentiment.

If anybody in Australian political economic history has ever sought to exploit a stock market circumstance for partisan or electoral purposes, there is only one: Mr John Howard, the member for Bennelong. He got up and moved this MPI. I say to the member for North Sydney: I know they did not tell you about it. I know you have not read it. Go away and read about it on pages 1408 and 1409 of the budget document. You will see exactly what it had to say. Mr Howard is the only person who has attempted to use stock market variations for partisan political purposes.

What was the response to those questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition on this occasion, by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others? The Acting Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party (Mr Tim Fischer), said, `This is a very serious situation.' He then went on to make the only provocative, over-the-top comment that has been made in this parliament about the economic circumstance. He said, `We've got an economic firestorm in Asia.' That was designed to calm market sentiments. He did that because he thought that, if he did not say something calm, it might be up on the member for North Sydney's black screen in the futures market. So he thought, `I had better say something calm. I will say there is an economic firestorm unravelling.' And today he repeated it, and he is proud of it.

I am sure the member for North Sydney made fervent representations to him about not saying these things. It is a great pity that the Leader of the National Party was not able to understand that. He was too busy in his hunt for `Red October' in here. Talking about this being `Red October'—very calming, very good for the market—a responsible comment by the Acting Prime Minister.

What would have happened if nothing had been asked about these matters yesterday and if we had gone on pursuing you about the debacle in nursing homes or about the debacle with the trust tax situation or about the terrible circumstance with regard to your failures in anti-dumping and its consequences? People would have been saying, `You ignored the main game. You were off the big issues yesterday, fiddling while Rome burned.' We had to ask those serious questions and we did. The only overblown rhetoric about it that was not considered, calm and reasonable was from the Acting Prime Minister with his firestorm comments.

We had a whole lot of media comment after what happened yesterday in the parliament about Telstra and about the stock market. Essentially, the media comment about Telstra was derived from the volunteered public comments—not in answer to my question—from the Minister for Finance and Administration where he was trying to inform the public about his concern and his view of the consequences, which is not an unreasonable thing to do. But, if you are worried that there could be media speculation about what might be happening with the Telstra share float, have a look at where the Australian public gets their information from, whom they were referring to and what they said. If you discount for the John Short factor—

Mr Hockey —What was his account?

Mr McMULLAN —The member for North Sydney might as well have written it. It is a much more objective assessment than we got from him. Nobody else made any reference to any matter other than the comments made by the Minister for Finance and Administration. It was not in response to us; it was in his breakfast comments. If the response had been as measured and as serious as the questions, the nation would have been well served.

Even the Treasurer, I am told, on Monday tried to give a serious, measured response to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question about the stock market. I wish I had been here to see it. The thought of the Treasurer giving a serious, measured response would have been a Thespian alternative to that which we usually get.

It would nearly have been as good as the piece of fiction which the Minister for Fi nance and Administration came up with at question time today about our policy on Telstra. I wanted it tabled so that we could submit it for the Booker Prize for fiction. I do not know what they are putting in the water over there in that office.

Mr Kerr —It could have been Helen Demidenko.

Mr McMULLAN —Yes, it could well have been. But let us now get to this serious allegation that we tried somehow or other to undermine the Telstra float. From discussions with people in the market, were we assured that, provided the question was reasonable and carefully phrased, there would be no tremors in the market? Yes, we sought that assurance and received it. There were none.

Mr Hockey —You're kidding!

Mr McMULLAN —There were none, and you know it. If there had been something up on your black screen that caused concern, maybe you would have seen a response in the market. There was none.

In response to media questions, we made three points in addition to our primary view that Telstra should not be on sale at all. Those points were that the matter of the timing was the government's call, not ours, and that we were concerned to ensure that the taxpayers got value for their asset—the asset which they currently own. We want to say, `Don't sell it in circumstances where they're not going to get value for their asset.' And we want to be reassured that the government is not just going on with this sale against good advice because electorally and politically—

Mr Hockey —Against whose good advice?

Mr McMULLAN —No, I am saying that I want to be reassured that it is not the circumstance that they are receiving the advice that, electorally and politically, they have to go on with the sale because they have made electoral and political commitments. Their whole strategy is based upon this sale. Those are the things which we want to be assured of. We are not. We had the easy political opportunity to score by joining the Democrats' call for the float to be deferred and we did not. We did not and we do not join that. I have said it would be an irresponsible thing for us to do.

It was a reasonable thing for us to ask whether the government had considered using this clause. The minister made it clear in his answer that that was so. It is obvious that they would have considered it; it would be irresponsible of them not to. It was obvious that the market and the media were speculating about it. The minister confirmed that in his answer.

I want to reiterate: we will not be bluffed or bullied out of asking questions in similar circumstances in the future. And when you become the opposition, which is getting closer and closer, you will not be bluffed out of it either. If the same circumstances ever arise, you would not be bluffed out of it either and you should not be. You will be entitled to ask the question, and we will answer it. (Time expired)