Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have listened with interest to this debate over the last day or so. At the end of the day, the whole idea of a parliamentary budget office is to hold both sides of politics to account on the financial projections that they make and bring to the electorate at the time of an election. It is about openness, it is about accountability and it is about transparency. This government have stood on a platform and said, 'We want more open, more accountable government.' The Independents in the crossbenches have also said, 'We want more accountability, more openness and more transparency,' yet we have a bill from the government that provides exactly the opposite. It shuts down debate; it restricts access to information. It says, 'You can only use these projections and you can only use this or that bit of information.'

We in the opposition say that if we are going to be truly open, honest and transparent, let us do it properly. All that these amendments are designed to do—and this amendment is one of the key ones—is allow us to get access to a proper range of information. The Treasury have in the past done a great job but, more often than not, they have shown in their budget forecasts or in their other forecasts that they have missed the mark. So why can we not access other sources of information to verify what Treasury has to say? It is a method of comparison. It would reduce the risk of the analysis that we produce for the electorate. It would give the electorate better information.

This amendment clearly stands on its own. We are trying to get access to information and ensure that it is confidential so that we can properly assess the recommendations that come back from the Parliamentary Budget Office and, if we need to make changes for whatever reason, we can make those changes in a sensible period of time so that we do not just have to make an instant decision on the spot based on some press release issued by the Treasurer or whoever else is trying to make it look as if our policies are not costed properly or whatever the case may be.

So there should be no reason why memorandums of understanding are required with government departments. If those confidentiality aspects are already in place then the source of information will remain confidential and everybody can get on with what they want to do, which is to provide properly costed election policies to the electorate. So it really stands on its own. If we look at the limited powers that the PBO has been given, how do we know that we are going to be given a proper range of information to make our projections in the first place? Why do we have to rely on the Treasurer's numbers or MYEFO? Why can we not get an external source of information to compare and contrast?

I commend this amendment to the House. It is predicated on the basis that we want open, transparent and honest government and commitments from both sides of politics, and that this can only be the best for our community.

See this speech in context