Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Freedom of Information Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Office) Bill 2012. The Labor Party does not have a clean record when it comes to freedom of information requests. I know this in particular from my own portfolio of immigration. The Office of the Information Commissioner released earlier this month a scathing report into the immigration department's handling of FOI requests under this government's watch, indicating a culture of cover-up and interference by the government. This report exposes Labor's claim of open and transparent government as a fraud. The current Prime Minister's promise to 'let the sunshine in' is about as hollow as the promise that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she leads. The report also raises serious concern within the department about giving the minister a so-called heads-up about what information is being released before making a final decision on an FOI request. This might be how it is done in Sussex Street in New South Wales but it is not how things should operate in an executive government or before this parliament.

Mr Bradbury interjecting—

The minister at the table would know all about what happens at Sussex Street. He has been the beneficiary of this—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Cook—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just responding to the interjections.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to say to the Assistant Treasurer—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If he wants to bring it on—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Interjections should not be responded to. I refer the member to the bill before the chair.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, the minister at the table may wish to reflect on this on his next trip to Darwin. The report raises major questions of political interference in the FOI process relating to Labor's most sensitive political issue: border protection. And the minister at the table took a keen interest in this issue when the boundaries of his own electorate somehow extended to Darwin at the 2010 election when 'the good admiral', as we know him, went up there spruik his claims. The commissioner's report also suggested that the minister for immigration and his office have tried to influence and delay the release of sensitive political information relating to Labor's border protection chaos—which continues to this day. There have been 40 boats and over 2,100 people this month—a record failure that has no equal by any government or any Prime Minister.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cook is addressing the issue of FOI in the budget office. I would ask him to return to that very important issue before the chair.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Information Commissioner decided to investigate the immigration department in April following many complaints of missed deadlines and suspected cover-ups, including a complaint made by the member for Mayo about the department obstructing six requests for information relating to the Inverbrackie detention facility. For each and every FOI request the member for Mayo submitted to the immigration department they missed time frames and failed to maintain contact.

When it comes to open and transparent government Labor's spin is not matched by their actions. While the coalition supports this bill in principle, we believe it needs to be thoroughly examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to ensure the amendments are fair and proper. The coalition just does not trust this government when it comes to the detail or even the broad.

I turn now to the Parliamentary Budget Office. The Parliamentary Budget Office commenced operations in July this year. Its functions are to prepare election policy costings upon the request of authorised party representatives and independent members of parliament and to prepare policy costings outside of the caretaker period upon the request of individual senators and members of parliament. In addition it will initiate its own work program in anticipation of client requests and also prepare responses to budget related non-policy costing requests of individual senators and members of parliament.

The Parliamentary Budget Office is also tasked with providing formal contributions on request to relevant parliamentary committee inquiries. The Parliamentary Budget Office is an exempt agency under the FOI Act so that its services can be provided on a confidential basis. However, there is no specific exemption for documents related to Parliamentary Budget Office requests that may be held by departments and other agencies, which may therefore not be protected against release under the FOI Act. The purpose of this bill is to amend the FOI Act to provide an exemption for information held by departments and agencies that relates to a confidential request to the Parliamentary Budget Office. It also provides that an agency is not required to give information as to the existence or non-existence of a document where it is exempt under the new provisions. The successful operation of the Parliamentary Budget Office requires that its services be requested and provided on a confidential basis. The integrity of its processes would be compromised if access to requests were available via a backdoor application to non-exempt agencies.

The bill's explanatory memorandum notes that the bill protects public order by enhancing public administration. Specifically the aim of the bill is to protect the integrity of the Parliamentary Budget Office. Maintaining the integrity of the office is an integral element of policy development and public administration. Senators and members may be reluctant to request such analysis from the office in the absence of certainty that information provided in response to confidential requests will not be released under the FOI Act. The aim of this amendment is to provide this assurance. Although existing exemptions may apply to some potential FOI requests relating to Parliamentary Budget Office related documents held by agencies, it cannot be confirmed with certainty that they would apply to all such requests.

Also agencies currently do not have the option of denying or confirming the existence of a confidential Parliamentary Budget Office request. In its submission to the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee inquiry into this bill, the Parliamentary Budget Office said:

… to facilitate its role in undertaking this confidential work for senators and members the Parliamentary Budget Office is an exempt agency under the FOI Act 1982. Without this exemption the Parliamentary Budget Office's effectiveness as a source of confidential budget analyses and policy costings would be seriously compromised. The proposed amendments to the FOI Act extend this logic to also provide an exemption under the FOI Act for information held by departments and agencies that relates to a confidential request to the Parliamentary Budget Office. The Parliamentary Budget Office is heavily reliant on other departments and agencies that relate to a confidential request to the office.

The Office of the Information Commissioner said in its submission that the exemption of the Parliamentary Budget Office would not be fully effective unless there is a similar exemption under the FOI Act for documents held by other agencies that reveal the contents of confidential communications between agencies and the Parliamentary Budget Office. The Information Commissioner did raise in its submission one concern raising the bill:

We raise for consideration whether a time limitation should be placed on the operation of the Parliamentary Budget Office exemption. The policy rationale for the exemption is that senators and members of the House of Representatives should have access to independent and non-partisan budget analysis and policy costings over the entire course of the three-year electoral cycle.

The commissioner believes it is not necessary that Parliamentary Budget Office documents should retain their exempt status for 20 years. The commission said a more reasonable limitation may be that the Parliamentary Budget Office exemption continues only for a short period after a general election, perhaps one year. No other concerns have been raised at this stage of the inquiry.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill has been referred to the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee for consideration of the adequacy of the scope of the proposed exemption and of any concerns raised, including that of the Information Commissioner. The coalition supports the bill. However, we foreshadow amendments in the Senate pending the Senate committee's final report on 19 November 2012.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Budget Office is a good idea, and it is a good idea that was a long time coming. Put quite simply, the purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Office is to ensure that private members in this place can have their policies and their ideas costed. It means that, if members want to introduce private members' bills and those private members' bills are likely to have a cost associated with them, they are able to go to the PBO to ensure that they are appropriately costed. It means that members of an opposition party who do not have access to all the facilities of the agencies of state can access the Parliamentary Budget Office to ensure that, when they are putting forward policy proposals, those policy proposals can be appropriately costed. It means for the public at large that, when we are having a public debate about a contest of policies, we can do that in the appropriate context, because governments are about ensuring that we distribute scarce resources in the public interest and in the most appropriate way. It ensures that, when we are having those public debates, they include appropriate costings of contested policy ideas, particularly in an election contest when the people of Australia are being asked to make a decision about which side of politics will govern this great nation.

It is in the interests of the public and it is also in the interests of all members of this place. Had the Parliamentary Budget Office, for example, existed in 1987 when the then Leader of the Opposition John Howard launched the Liberal Party's tax policy for the upcoming election, they would not have been subsequently embarrassed by the fact that there was a $540 million black hole in their costings. They could have, quite simply, accessed the facilities of the Parliamentary Budget Office and presumably that gaping mistake in their costings would have been identified well in advance. So it is in the public and it is also in the good interests of all members of this place.

This legislation is designed to ensure that the Parliamentary Budget Office operates in the way that it was intended to. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that we have a non-partisan and independent Parliamentary Budget Office, and one that will be used by members of this place.

The bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to protect the confidentiality of documents held by agencies in relation to confidential requests made to the independent Parliamentary Budget Office. The PBO is currently an exempt agency under the Freedom of Information Act, the FOI Act. It is exempt for good reason. The reason is that members of this place are unlikely to use the Parliamentary Budget Office if they were to think that their requests and submissions to the PBO would then be subject to an FOI discovery. For that reason the PBO is currently an exempt agency under the FOI Act.

However, the FOI Act does not provide a specific exemption for documents relating to PBO requests that may be held by departments and other agencies. Why would departments and other agencies have these documents in relation to FOI requests? Quite simply, a member, let's say the Leader of the Opposition, approaches the Parliamentary Budget Office for a request on some costings around some of their policy proposals. The PBO under its charter is able to make requests of a government agency to get information in relation to those requests. Under the law as it currently stands those requests may be FOI-able.

So, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that you cannot do through the back door what is prohibited through the front door. It is currently prohibited through the front door that the PBO be subject to an FOI request, and what this legislation does is ensure that you cannot get that information through the back door by going directly to a government agency and cleverly crafting an FOI request which would cough up those otherwise prohibited documents.

The legislation will enhance the integrity of the independence of the PBO process, which is something that should be welcomed by all members of this place. It will further strengthen Australia's fiscal and budgetary frameworks by ensuring that information is protected and that independent advice can be given on budget, fiscal and financial implications of proposals of private members in this place.

As a consequence of this amendment, the bill also amends section 25 of the FOI Act to provide that an agency is not required to give information as to the existence or non-existence of a document where it is exempt under the new exemption for documents that relate to a confidential request to the PBO. It is not hard to imagine why this might be a necessary and important consequential amendment. It would be quite possible to craft an FOI request if you knew the proposals were being costed or, indeed, not being costed. It would be possible to craft an FOI request to a government agency and then either the existence of non-existence of that document could provide great political mileage to a person in this place who wanted to expose or embarrass the proponent of a particular policy proposal. Indeed, members of our esteemed media who report on the goings-on of this place might also seek to make a request similarly crafted for similar purposes. It is a sensible amendment to ensure that you cannot do through the back door what is prohibited and intended to be prohibited through the front door.

The bill also includes amendments to section 34 of the Privacy Act which provide that the commissioner, in carrying out functions under the Privacy Act—for example, investigating an act or practice of an agency that may be a breach of privacy—must not give a person any information as to the existence or non-existence of a document where it is exempt under the FOI Act. It is proposed to amend section 34 to refer to the new PBO exemption reflecting the amendment to section 25 of the FOI Act and ensuring that PBO documents are confidential.

The bill will operate retrospectively from the day after introduction. Retrospective legislation should be rare and this subject matter is one of those rare occasions when it is appropriate to ensure that discoveries of documents cannot reach back into the past to the beginning of the operations of the PBO, given that it was the intention of all members of this place that the discovery of such documents should not be available. The bill's limitation of the right of individuals to receive confidential information is reasonable and proportionate to its objective of protecting the integrity of the PBO and enhancing public administration.

These amendments, together with the crafting of the substantive legislation, are all aimed at a singular public purpose, and that is to ensure that, after establishing the Parliamentary Budget Office, funding it and ensuring that it is adequately funded to perform its purpose, it is actually used. All members of this place should see that it is in the public interest that a contestant in the political process should not be able to go to an election or go through three years of an electoral cycle and be able to put up policy proposals that are not adequately costed, inappropriately costed, or wilfully inappropriately costed, to escape public and parliamentary scrutiny. This bill will ensure that that public purpose is furthered—to encourage all members of this place to use the Parliamentary Budget Office. It is consistent with many of the reforms that we have introduced since Labor was elected to office in 2007.

To hear the shadow minister recently take a swipe at the record of this government in relation to our practice under freedom of information laws beggars belief, quite frankly. It is the equivalent of Colonel Sanders calling for vegetarianism. Their approach to FOI when in government was something that experts, members of the media and all right-thinking members in this place looked on with great scorn. You need look no further than their practice of using conclusive certificates as an example. This is relevant to the legislation before the House—because it is relevant to ensure that this legislation, which is directed at ensuring appropriate scrutiny of public policy proposals, is facilitated.

That is the complete opposite of what we saw under the previous government. The opposition spokesperson who spoke just recently on this issue was a member of that government. They scattered these conclusive certificates, which are designed for the sole purpose of precluding public scrutiny of policy proposals by the government, around like confetti. Then we hear a member of the opposition—a member of the Liberal Party—stand up here and make some snide comment about our commitment to freedom of information, when we put in place the greatest overhaul of the freedom of information laws as well as arrangements to ensure that the FOI laws work in relation to the operations of this place and the operations of government in exactly the way they are intended to—in the public interests of transparency. It stands head and shoulders above the operation and provision of any government in the history of this parliament. So the proposition by members opposite that somehow we are not committed to the reform of FOI and to ensuring that the legislation operates in the way it was intended cannot stand unchallenged.

Our FOI laws are good and proper, and the reforms that are being proposed by this bill are good legislation. The legislation is aimed at ensuring that the Parliamentary Budget Office operates in the way it was intended. Perhaps I can conclude by making this remark. Having funded and established the budget office, it is now incumbent on all members of this place to use it, to ensure that we do not have the embarrassing spectacle of parties or individuals going to an election with uncosted or inappropriately costed policy proposals. As a result of these reforms and of the legislation that was put in place by this government, there will now be no excuse for them not to use it. I commend the legislation to the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Freedom of Information Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Office) Bill 2012 and particularly commend the member for Throsby on his contribution to the debate. I know he has a long history with this, because of his time with the CPSU, who would have covered many of the members who deal with freedom of information requests. So his words, particularly on the conclusive certificates, were particularly useful, and I will not go over the information he put forward in his speech.

Freedom of information is crucial for good government. That is the reality of a modern democracy. And I say this as a member of the Labor Party: I am passionate about democracy. Whilst I wear a Labor Party hat and am proud to be part of the Labor caucus, my faith and belief in democracy transcends that. FOI laws, which can be traced back to the Hawke-Keating time, are a particularly Labor initiative in terms of embracing the transparency that comes with good government. I say that as someone who comes from Queensland, where Premier Wayne Goss was instrumental in bringing dramatic transformation of the Queensland approach to the public service, and FOI is an important part of that.

Unfortunately I grew up in a time when Joh Bjelke-Petersen had a very cavalier approach to democracy. We had the gerrymander; we had infringement of civil rights; we had a very closed-shop approach to what democracy was. Sadly, today, in Queensland we have drifted back to some of those bad old days of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. However, the bill in front of us is about amending the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Commonwealth legislation to protect the confidentiality of documents held by agencies in relation to the confidential requests made to the independent Parliamentary Budget Office.

The Parliamentary Budget Office is not far from where I am standing now. I think it is about a sand wedge away in golf terms. It would be good for those on the other side of the chamber to acquaint themselves with how close it is, a short walk. It would be great for them to commit upfront to taking their policy documents, when they are taken out of the bottom drawer that Andrew Robb referred to—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton will refer to people by their appropriate titles and return to the bill.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Victorian member of parliament whose electorate escapes me—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the member for Goldstein pulls those folders out of his bottom drawer, it would be great for them to take them over to the PBO to have some fair dinkum costings. I ran in the 2004 election and I remember one of the key issues in my electorate, the electorate I now represent, was about the Medicare safety net.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mark Latham, was it?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mark Latham was the leader; that is correct. I remember the health minister at the time, the member for Warringah, going on Four Corners giving the rock solid, ironclad guarantee that the Medicare safety net would be a key part of that parliament. The election was on 9 October. By March the next year, the Medicare safety net—that rock solid, ironclad guarantee—was ripped away. Of course, as a responsible minister, he followed the Westminster tradition and fell on his sword and resigned from the Howard ministry—of course not!

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton will return to the bill before the chair.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was pointing out for those opposite where the PBO is just in case they did want to visit it and acquaint themselves with the process—

Mr Billson interjecting—

Not interested? It is close by anyway. Obviously the PBO is currently an exempt agency under the FOI Act. However, the FOI Act does not provide specific exemption for documents relating to PBO requests that may be held by departments and other agencies. As a result, requests for information made to agencies by the PBO and information provided to the PBO by agencies may not be protected. So perhaps this has been a reason why the opposition have not been prepared to take their policies over there to be costed. In order to avoid any chance that that would put them off, the bill before us will enhance the integrity of the independent PBO processes. Essentially the bill will further protect the confidentiality of the Parliamentary Budget Office's work and will strengthen Australia's fiscal and budget frameworks. This means that MPs can now be confident that the PBO will give independent and protected advice on the budget and financial proposals that they put forward to the people.

I have great faith in the independence of Australia's public servants and in Queensland public servants. I do not just say that because I am married to one of those public servants in Queensland, who has worked for a variety of state governments over the last 22 years. She served the National Party government under Joh Bjelke-Petersen, she served Wayne Goss, she served Rob Borbidge—and I think I have left off a National Party premier or two in between there—and also Peter Beattie, Anna Bligh and now Campbell Newman. Like every public servant, she does not serve a party; she serves the public. She gives advice. She acts independently and makes the decisions that are in the best interests of the public. I would hope that my premier in Queensland would recognise that public servants do have that great facility to be smart and clever and give frank and fearless advice and serve the state or the nation.

Sadly, we have nearly 14,000 Queenslanders lose their jobs in the context of 26,000 Queenslanders losing their jobs since Campbell Newman became Premier. It is not a good time to be looking for work in Queensland, sadly. Naturally, the bill before the chamber raises this question: when will the shadow Treasurer come clean and show the Australian public how he intends to fund his $70 billion black hole, which was exposed after the last election? He came clean the other day by indicating that he is going to rip off Australian families and get rid of the schoolkids bonus, even though we are about to give payments out in January to all of the parents in my electorate. The shadow Treasurer said this on Lateline on 23 October: 'So we've also previously said we're going to abolish the schoolkids bonus. It's on the record that we're not going to proceed with the schoolkids bonus.' That will be a horrible situation for the families in my electorate in January. They would not receive a payment if the member for North Sydney were in power. He is saying, 'No schoolkids bonus.'

The Liberal Party and the National Party are yet again showing their true colours, promising to cut payments that assist local families with the costs of putting their kids through school. Without the schoolkids bonus, a typical family in Moreton putting two kids through school would lose more than $15,000 over the course of their children's education. The schoolkids bonus means every local family on family tax benefit part A will receive $410 a year for primary school kids and $820 a year for kids in secondary school.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Moreton, I am struggling to get a connection between your words and the bill before the chamber, the Freedom of Information Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Office) Bill 2012. I would ask you to come back to the bill before the chamber.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously, this is about funding election policies and how the Parliamentary Budget Office would accurately assess those. They will be able to do it independently by not being subject to scrutiny under freedom of information legislation. I know that you were not sitting in the chair when I started this wonderful discourse, Mr Deputy Speaker. But I am happy to take you to the Hansard later on. I will return to the legislation in front of us.

Obviously, the legislation before the chamber is about increasing the protection for and privacy of any request made of the Parliamentary Budget Office, whether it is by the Greens, by Independent members, by the Liberal Party or by the National Party. It is about making sure that there is good government. It will make sure that if you have a policy such as a parental leave scheme—and maybe you have not consulted with your caucus about it because you seek forgiveness for rather than consultation on such a policy—where you are giving parental leave to people earning $150,000 a year, you can have that policy looked at by the Parliamentary Budget Office and know that the costings and advice given by that office will not be subject to FOI, even if it is a Coles and Woolies tax, for example. This legislation will make sure that we have good and honest government. I commend the bill to the House.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Freedom of Information Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Office) Bill 2012. The Parliamentary Budget Office is an important new office that has been established to provide members of parliament with independent and non-partisan advice on the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of policy processes over the entire course of the three-year electoral cycle.

This marks a significant departure from the previous arrangements, particularly for non-government parties, who previously under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act were only able to have their publicly announced polices costed during the caretaker period. The bill also represents a new service for Independent members of parliament and parties with fewer than five members, who previously had no access to independent costings. A key element of the new arrangements is that outside of the caretaker period for a general election a senator or member can request the Parliamentary Budget Office to provide services on a confidential basis for policy costings.

When it was set up, the Parliamentary Budget Office was made an exempt agency under the Freedom of Information Act of 1982. However, the FOI Act does not currently provide a specific exemption for documents related to requests to the Parliamentary Budget Office that may be held by departments and other agencies. The possibility of public disclosure of the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Office has undertaken work on a confidential request represents a potentially serious barrier to the use of the services of the Parliamentary Budget Office by senators and members. This bill amends the FOI Act to provide an exemption for information held by departments and agencies that relates to a confidential request to the Parliamentary Budget Office.

The amendments will protect the confidentiality of the work of the Parliamentary Budget Office and will ensure that it operates as intended, with the parliament expressly exempting the Parliamentary Budget Office from the FOI Act. I welcome the opposition's support for this bill and commend it to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.