Good old Malcolm Turnbull.

The Federal Opposition has called on the Government to give more guarantees to consumers' bank savings.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today said legislation will soon be introduced to Parliament which would guarantee the first $20,000 of an individual deposit.

But he has rejected suggestions that the Government follow other European countries and guarantee all bank deposits.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull wants the deposit guarantee scheme to be raised to cover deposits up to $100,000, arguing that the current proposal is out of line with other schemes around the world.

"That would mean Australians with deposits in authorised deposit-taking institutions - banks, building societies, credit unions - would know that their deposits up to $100,000 were effectively guaranteed by the Government," he said.

"We think this is an important measure, it will add to confidence and it will support competition."

So on one hand he is saying that our banking system may me in danger and they need government guarantees to stop a bank run or a loss of confidence. Fair enough then, but if he thinks that banks MAY possibly be close to collapse like our US and UK counterparts, why is he then still calling for all banks to pass on the interest rate cut in full? If he thinks a collapse could happen, then shouldn't the banks keep some of the cut to make sure they remain solvent?

MALCOLM Turnbull today refused to back away from his argument that banks should pass on the full official rate cut in the face of allegations that he is being reckless.

The Opposition leader shrugged off claims he was adopting a populist position that could put the strength of the banking system at risk by demanding banks pass on the larger-than-expected Reserve Bank cut of 100 basis points.

“We believe the banks can pass it on,” Mr Turnbull said.

“If they believe they can't do so, it is up to them to make that case.”

Which one is it Turnbull? Are the banks greedy or close to imminent collapse?