Dr NELSON (2:37 PM) —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is the government having Australians pay for this interest rate cut with their jobs?

Mr RUDD (Prime Minister) —I find it remarkable that the Leader of the Opposition seems not to welcome this cut in interest rates. I find that remarkable—

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked.

Mr RUDD —To return to points raised by those opposite earlier today, there is this assumption that you cannot prosecute a strategy dealing with the long-term challenges of inflation at the same time as prosecuting a strategy which deals with the long-term challenges of employment. Those opposite seem to think that you can have one or the other. We believe we can prosecute a strategy for the long term which deals with the inflation challenges for the economy as well as the challenges for employment, education, skills and training. And that is very much at the heart of the government’s economic strategy.

I am surprised, however, given the Leader of the Opposition’s intervention in this debate today on interest rates, that we have a further evolution of the Nelson doctrine from yesterday. The Nelson doctrine yesterday I thought was a pretty remarkable one. It said essentially this: that, on the question of interest rates, Brendan will say one thing in opposition but—

The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will refer to members by their titles.

Mr RUDD —he will do exactly the opposite in government. That is the articulated Nelson doctrine from yesterday. What he says in opposition he will now guarantee to do exactly the reverse of if in government. That is what he said yesterday. And the exchange yesterday, that memorable exchange on the doors, about his attitude to the Reserve Bank and providing them with instructions to cut official interest rates by 50 basis points, and his then turning round and saying, ‘Of course, if I were Prime Minister, I would not say that at all’—that is remarkable. There is one question I would pose to the Leader of the Opposition, and it is this: when does this Nelson doctrine end? If the Nelson doctrine is one which says, ‘What I say today on interest rates as Leader of the Opposition does not’—

Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a very specific question about whether Australians are paying for this interest rate cut with their jobs. I ask the Prime Minister to take the question seriously and answer it.

The SPEAKER —Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. I will listen carefully to the answer.

Mr RUDD —In my answer to the question earlier on about inflation and employment, I responded with what the government’s strategy was in respect of both those propositions. On the question of the relationship between inflation and interest rates, that is what I am going to. We have spoken already about the government’s strategy for creating an environment to bring down inflationary pressures so that the Reserve Bank has more room to bring down interest rates, and I am contrasting that with the position adopted by the Leader of the Opposition. The Nelson doctrine yesterday—

Ms Julie Bishop —Nobody asked you to.

Mr RUDD —Well, you may not have asked me to elaborate on the Nelson doctrine. I can understand why you may not have wanted to ask me to elaborate on the Nelson doctrine. But I intend to elaborate on the Nelson doctrine—

The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will—

Mr RUDD —because the Leader of the Opposition—

The SPEAKER —place his remarks through the chair and ignore the interjections. Interjectors will cease.

Mr RUDD —says, constantly, that he is the alternative Prime Minister of Australia. And what he has said is that, on interest rates—something so fundamental to households, to businesses, to the economy—the Nelson doctrine articulated yesterday is: ‘What I say as Leader of the Opposition, I will not say if I am Prime Minister of Australia.’ That is what it says. So my question to the Leader of the Opposition is: where does that leave his credibility—

The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat.

Government members interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! Those on my right!

Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order—again, on relevance. The Prime Minister is trivialising job losses—

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney—

Mr Hockey —I ask him to answer the question he was asked.

The SPEAKER —will resume his seat. Order! The Prime Minister will respond to the question.

Mr RUDD —So, on inflation and on the challenges of employment, the government strategy is clear cut. We intend to prosecute a clear-headed strategy on both of those things for the future, because those opposite have not put forward any positive policies whatsoever. But why the member for North Sydney is so agitated on this is because this doctrine announced yesterday by the opposition has them in all sorts of trouble from here on in. When do we know that what the Leader of the Opposition says is suspended for the purposes of future policy credibility and accountability?

Mr Truss —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister’s comments are not relevant to the question that was asked, and I ask you to bring him to order.

The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will respond to the question, and—

Mr RUDD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. So, on these critical questions of employment and inflation, we have a clear-cut strategy for the future. Their strategy is this: what they say in opposition they will not commit to do in government. That is opportunism writ large.