"I call on the Australian Government to set out the conditions upon which they will provide a taxpayer funded backing for wholesale term funding for Australian deposit taking institutions. I call on the Government it make clear the conditions upon which taxpayer funds will be used in this way"
About this Quote
A demand for “conditions” is rarely just about conditions; it’s about control of the story. Julie Bishop’s phrasing takes a technocratic policy instrument - taxpayer-backed wholesale term funding for banks - and drags it into daylight where it can be judged by a simpler moral metric: who carries the risk, and who gets the benefit.
The repetition (“I call on... I call on...”) is procedural in form but accusatory in effect. It performs scrutiny. By insisting the government “make clear” how “taxpayer funds will be used,” Bishop sets a trap: either the government spells out limits, eligibility, and safeguards (implicitly admitting there is political danger here), or it refuses and looks like it’s writing a blank cheque to financial institutions. The subtext is classic opposition politics during moments when governments flirt with financial backstops: if this goes wrong, you own it.
“Taxpayer funded backing” is the loaded phrase. It reframes liquidity support - which can be preventative, temporary, and designed to stabilize credit - as a potential bank rescue. Bishop isn’t arguing the mechanism is inherently illegitimate; she’s arguing that legitimacy depends on transparent criteria. That distinction lets her occupy the “responsible adult” lane while still tapping public suspicion of bailouts and private profit.
The context is a familiar post-crisis anxiety: wholesale funding freezes, governments stepping in to guarantee markets, and the political backlash when stabilizing the system resembles rewarding the system. Bishop’s intent is to force guardrails into the public record, and to make sure any future fallout is narratively prepaid by the government.
The repetition (“I call on... I call on...”) is procedural in form but accusatory in effect. It performs scrutiny. By insisting the government “make clear” how “taxpayer funds will be used,” Bishop sets a trap: either the government spells out limits, eligibility, and safeguards (implicitly admitting there is political danger here), or it refuses and looks like it’s writing a blank cheque to financial institutions. The subtext is classic opposition politics during moments when governments flirt with financial backstops: if this goes wrong, you own it.
“Taxpayer funded backing” is the loaded phrase. It reframes liquidity support - which can be preventative, temporary, and designed to stabilize credit - as a potential bank rescue. Bishop isn’t arguing the mechanism is inherently illegitimate; she’s arguing that legitimacy depends on transparent criteria. That distinction lets her occupy the “responsible adult” lane while still tapping public suspicion of bailouts and private profit.
The context is a familiar post-crisis anxiety: wholesale funding freezes, governments stepping in to guarantee markets, and the political backlash when stabilizing the system resembles rewarding the system. Bishop’s intent is to force guardrails into the public record, and to make sure any future fallout is narratively prepaid by the government.
Quote Details
| Topic | Money |
|---|
More Quotes by Julie
Add to List
