Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Hansard source

There may not be enough zeros and there will certainly not be enough ink in the money-printing machine at the Reserve Bank to keep up with what the Greens would like to do with the Australian budget. But, equally, I think that we should enshrine in this place the right of the Greens to get advice on their policies—and we should have done so by now.

This bill is flawed, however, and there are very good proposals by the member for North Sydney on how we can improve this bill. They are simple amendments which do three important things in the main, if we go back to the fundamentals of why we want a parliamentary budget office in the first place. The first area is to strengthen the functions of the PBO. I quote: 'These amendments seek to broaden the functions of the PBO to include preparations of economic forecasts and budget estimates. This will essentially broaden the scope of the PBO.'

Of course the Parliamentary Budget Office needs to provide economic data to the opposition, to the Independent members, and even to the Greens, on the state of the economy, on the impact to the budget of different decisions and different plans and the impact of decisions made by the Reserve Bank—because they are rightfully respected as an independent institution. These are all decisions which should be made on the best advice available. I think we all agree on that. The government's bill is flawed because it does not give the PBO enough room, enough scope, in that respect.

The second amendment by which we seek to improve this bill is to improve information-gathering powers and secrecy. Our amendments will strengthen the information-gathering powers of the government's bill and affirm the independence of the PBO. How can they get the information to do their job? If you have got a health policy with significant expenditure off the Commonwealth budget, and which will have big impacts on your fiscal decisions, the PBO must have the power to go to the health department and get the relevant information. It is quite clear and simple. If it is to be an independent and effective and genuine third-party analysis, that is an absolute requirement—it is a must. In that respect, this is a very good amendment being proposed by the member for North Sydney.

The government's bill requires the PBO to establish memorandums of understanding with every government department and agency. The PBO has no leverage over these agencies and departments and therefore it may compromise the PBO's access to the most up-to-date information for the costings of these policies. At the end of the day, we in this parliament should be the masters of our own destiny. I have heard the member for Lyne, who is in the chamber, talk about the sanctity of the member of parliament. If we are going to encourage this right and ensure this right—not only for the executive of the government but also for members of parliament, the Parliamentary Budget Office needs to have the powers so that they can do so. I say to the Labor Party: if you really think, 'This is a good idea in government,' think about it as if you were in opposition, because the wheel does turn in Australian politics, and rightly. It is a good thing that governments change from time to time, because it brings about a new generation of thinking and leaders. It has not been so great for the country since 2007, but that is the decision of the Australian people. Ultimately the powers that will be enshrined in this legislation will be for all of us into the future. With this bill we should be trying to put aside, as much as we can, the partisan nature of the politics of costings, and think about how we as political organisations can get the best available information so that we can put it to the Australian people.

The third area where we seek to improve this bill in a substantial way is by restoring the confidentiality to costings policies during and after the caretaker period. That is the point I was reflecting upon before. If you take away that confidentiality and you just plaster it all up on the internet, it is not something that you are doing to the executive. The executive will not be required to publish the considerations of the policies that they may be thinking about prior to an election. If you were intending to take to an election a tax cut which has a major fiscal impact over a long period of time, and if you are seeking this detailed information, and you put different scenarios to the Parliamentary Budget Office—like the government does with Treasury and Finance—that information would obviously show quite large differences, depending on the percentage cut that you wanted to offer. If that information or advice is not going to be confidential—whether it is given to the member for Lyne as an Independent or to an opposition party, or even the Greens—we should not participate in it. Why would you allow the potential situation where the other side of politics could use the information as a tool for their political quests rather than a genuine effort by elected members of parliament to try to find the right reform mix for the future?

This is a good idea. This is an idea which is well over its time. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, first proposed this. It is not a new idea. It happens in the United States with the Congressional Budget Office. I am pleased that the Independents in their negotiations put emphasis on this idea, and I think it is something we should be putting in place. But this is flawed in three significant ways, and we can improve this bill. We can improve it not just for those of us who are currently occupying the seats that we do in the parliament but for all the Australian people and for the benefit of decent economic reform for our country for the future. I urge the government to think about, to take on board and to consider the amendments we have put in place, because they are good amendments to what is a good piece of legislation.

See this speech in context