Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

In so doing, I indicate the importance of this bill and the merit of a parliamentary budget office for the parliament and for the country of Australia. This is an interim report because the parliament was prorogued and we are now into the 43rd Parliament of Australia, but it relates to the review of the merit of independent analysis and scrutiny of major government budget statements, with the parliamentary budget office reporting to the parliament rather than to the executive. I note also that there is a trend for such offices around the world, including in the US, Canada and the UK.

I indicate that this was initially announced as coalition policy last year at the May budget by the then leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and I started work on this prior to that budget announcement and following that budget announcement in preparing this bill. It was for good reason, because Labor wasted so much money, managed the economy so poorly and spent Australian taxpayers’ money so recklessly. The coalition went to the last election with a policy to establish a parliamentary budget office. Of course, I am very pleased to advise that, since the election, the policy was included in the parliamentary reform agreement with the Independents. Initially, when I introduced this bill in this chamber on 24 June this year, Lindsay Tanner, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian government at that time, castigated the coalition for introducing such a bill and for such a policy. He said it was not necessary and was simply a waste of money. Of course, since the election Labor has done a complete backflip. Labor has now signed up in support of a parliamentary budget office. I will not say it is a broken promise, but Labor has now obviously seen the light and the merit of a parliamentary budget office.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would have found your $11½ billion—

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me say, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am happy to take interjections from Senator McLucas or other Labor senators on this matter. She talks about finding billions of dollars. What we found, when I was chairing the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee, was $10 billion of government waste over the last three years of the Labor government. That was announced by the leader, Tony Abbott, when we released the Labor waste annual report in Launceston during the election campaign. There has been such a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money. It is on the public record. We have examples like the pink batts fiasco, the school rorts—or Building the Education Revolution, as it is also referred to—and the Green Loans fiasco, which was publicly reported on by the Auditor-General only yesterday. The Auditor-General, an independent entity, said it was a disgrace, the government processes were all wrong and the government should be held accountable. That was made public yesterday, and today further reports have emerged. Senator Birmingham in this place, Greg Hunt in the other place and others have been castigating the government for its lack of process.

I think there is great merit in a parliamentary budget office. I worked in Washington, DC in the 1980s and became familiar at least in part with the US Congressional Budget Office. That is a very substantial entity; the parliamentary budget office foreshadowed in this bill is much smaller but with a similar focus, where the report is made to the parliament rather than to the executive. It will provide increased independence. It will enhance transparency and accountability to the parliament. That has to be a good thing.

Executives of any colour or persuasion will not be so thrilled about it, I am sure, but there is merit for the long-term benefits to the taxpayers and there are benefits for public policy development, because it provides impartial advice and analysis to the parliament on the Commonwealth budget, on the budget cycle, on major policy developments impacting on the economy and, indeed, on other major policy announcements. It will work to increase transparency in the budget process, and the benefits will flow through to the community, to families, to men and women, boys and girls into the years ahead.

You have examples in Canada, which was established a few years ago, and in the UK, which has established an office similar to the one envisaged in this bill very recently indeed under the new regime led by the Tories. There are a number of submissions; there were six very substantial submissions made to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee of the Senate, including from the ANAO; Dr Rosemary Laing, Clerk of the Senate; Mr Kevin Page, who is the Parliamentary Budget Officer for Canada; the Research and Library Service in the Northern Island Assembly; Mr Brett Goodin; and, of course, Roxanne Missingham, the Parliamentary Librarian. I appreciated her comments, in particular, with respect to the merits of the bill and to myself with respect to the preparation of that particular bill.

We know Labor have done a backflip. Labor have seen the light and they see the merit in this policy proposal. That is a good thing, and it would be good if they could apologise to the coalition and to the public for the mistakes that they made in castigating the coalition and castigating the merits of this particular initiative prior to the election. That would be useful to put on the record. Then we could get on with the job of preparing and making headway with respect to the merits of this particular bill.

At the time, there was a cognate bill—the value for money bill—which highlighted the importance of introducing into any government spending initiative value for money. I think there is merit in that because we have had so much waste, mismanagement and inefficiency under the Rudd-Gillard government over the last three years and we want it to stop. Those initiatives, whether they be with respect to pink batts, Building the Education Revolution or the green loans fiasco, go on and on, so there is merit in this bill. I know that, now that that agreement has been signed by the independents, the coalition and the Labor government, this matter will progress. That is encouraging, and I commend the bill to that process and to those in the other place who are working through these matters. I highlight the fact that this waste and reckless spending must end. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.