Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am speaking against the bill that the honourable member for North Sydney has put forward, the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011. In doing so, I will speak in some way in support of the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011—not directly, as it will be dealt with later, but in broad terms to address the whole framework—as to speak against the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill it is necessary to compare and contrast the two in some way. The only reason that I can see for the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill to be before the parliament now is to try to scuttle the PBO and the parliamentary budget officer bill. It seems to me that it is a bit reckless and that, worryingly, it looks as though it is more about hiding costings in election time than it is about budget honesty.

There is government legislation in relation to the Parliamentary Budget Office, and the government has gone about establishing the Parliamentary Budget Office in a methodical way. A joint committee of the parliament was tasked to advise on the functions and resourcing of the Parliamentary Budget Office, and the recommendations that came from that committee were unanimous. When a parliamentary committee works through the processes, the tensions, the competing issues, the ideologies and the policy directions and comes to unanimous recommendations, we know that we have something that is able to be taken up by all. The government therefore accepted all the recommendations, as reflected in its legislation.

Today we have the opposition, the coalition, ignoring the key recommendations of the committee. From everything I have read, it seems the opposition signed up to those recommendations only five months ago, and they are now walking away from them. It seems rather odd that they would do that. The member for North Sydney's private member's bill seeks to undermine what is an important institution, the Parliamentary Budget Office. The bill will weaken the government's arrangements, which seems a really odd thing to do. In establishing the Parliamentary Budget Office, we want to make sure that the governance framework and structure are as strong as they need to be. Introducing a bill that seeks to weaken that cannot be about anything to do with parliamentary budget honesty.

The bill will make the Parliamentary Budget Office accountable to ministers and not the parliament. As parliamentarians and as people who come to this place with a whole range of views, one of the things we seek to do is have decisions accountable to the parliament. That is a good thing and it is a good for democracy. The honourable member for North Sydney's bill would also weaken the resourcing of the Parliamentary Budget Office—which also seems an odd approach—and would, critically, reduce transparency and public accountability.

If the bill introduced by the honourable member for North Sydney seeks to weaken the government's arrangements, by changing the accountability mechanisms and making the PBO accountable to ministers and not the parliament, weaken the resourcing and, critically, reduce transparency and public accountability, I have to question what the bill is about. Again, I cannot get away from the idea that it is about trying to hide, trying to bury, election policy costings. We saw that happen at the last election. That was what the honourable member for North Sydney sought to do.

Under the bill proposed by the honourable member for North Sydney, the election policy costings can remain confidential and hidden from public view. This would be a major retreat from transparency. When we put our best foot forward and go out to win elections, we do not put out costings on policies and say, 'I'm sorry; they are confidential and the public doesn't have a right to know them.' That is not a good way to approach the electorates when seeking to get support. If you want to put up a policy, you cost it and then you make sure that those costings are sound and that you are happy to have them tested. That is why we come into this place—to have policies tested.

This bill would unwind the Charter of Budget Honesty, and I cannot for the life of me think why the honourable member for North Sydney would want to do that unless it comes back to the election costings. Consistent with the recommendations of the joint committee, the government's bill proposes that the election costing process will be fully transparent and that all requests and costings made during a caretaker period are to be publicly released, as they should be and as is the case under the charter process. Members can of course seek confidential costings outside of the caretaker period for a general election. I note that the honourable member for North Sydney said something about that, but it is clear that that can happen now and that confidential costings can be sought outside the caretaker period for a general election.

The bill that the honourable member for North Sydney has put forward does not distinguish between costings during caretaker and non-caretaker periods. In both periods, Parliamentary Budget Office costings could be entirely confidential. The Parliamentary Budget Office function would fully replace the current option for the opposition to submit their costings to Treasury or Finance under the charter—replacing a transparent process where costings are required to be public with a non-transparent process where costings can remain confidential. That is a massive backward step in terms of the transparency, scrutiny and accountability of policy costings during elections. Again, it unwinds the core component of the charter principles.

When in government, the coalition itself argued for the importance of transparency and accountability when it brought in the Charter of Budget Honesty. In December 1996, the then Treasurer stated in the second reading speech to the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill:

This is the kind of reform which, when enacted, will be a permanent feature, making sure that Australia's economic policy is run better, making sure that the public is kept better informed, making sure that there is transparency in economic policy in this country.

Furthermore, the charter:

… provides for more equal access to Treasury and Finance costings of election commitments by the government and the opposition during the caretaker period. This will allow the electorate to be better informed of the financial implications of election commitments.

That was said by the then Treasurer when the coalition were in government. Yet the bill that the honourable member for North Sydney has put before us seeks to unwind all of that. It will unwind the process of the parliament itself through the joint committee and the very sound recommendations that were accepted by all, including the government, and reflected in the legislation.

The only conclusion I can come to is that this bill, the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011, is designed so that election policy costings can be kept secret, as they were by the opposition during the election. It is contrary to the Charter of Budget Honesty, which everyone has signed up to, and to the system that was introduced by the coalition when in government, based on transparency, accountability and scrutiny. We now have some of the same members of the coalition, now in opposition, wanting to reverse this and have secrecy. I have to ask: why does the honourable member for North Sydney want secrecy? Is it because he knows his figures just do not add up? That has been demonstrated over and over. If the honourable member for North Sydney had confidence in his costings, why wouldn't he stick with the charter principles?

See this speech in context