Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

My message to the parliamentary secretary this evening is that we are from the opposition and we are here to help. We know that your objective is to give effect to the intention of the government, as stated by the Prime Minister last year, that we should 'let the sunshine in', but we also know that from time to time there can be practical challenges in letting the sunshine in. It can sometimes be the case that, when you reach to pull the curtain cord to open the curtain and let the sunshine of transparency flood into governmental process, there are small-minded people deep within the machinery of government who resist the tug on the cord. We know, Parliamentary Secretary, that you are not one of them, because you have brought forward this excellent legislation which is designed to give effect to an objective that all of us in this parliament share: to empower the parliament—to empower the legislature—to be as effective as possible in dealing with economic, financial and budgetary matters. All of us share the objective of equipping the parliament with an office which will best assist it to deal with these important matters through the provision of independent, effective, expert advice.

We know, Parliamentary Secretary, that you are interested to hear helpful suggestions which will make your admirable bill even more effective. Therefore, we are certain that you are interested in the experience that we on this side of the House have to offer of the unfortunate reality that from time to time there can be a gulf—a small gulf but still a gulf—between the government's best intentions and its actual performance on the matters of transparency and accountability.

The point we wish to make to you this evening, Parliamentary Secretary, is that section 64F of the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011, as it stands before the parliament, is not as empowering as it could be of the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It envisages a scheme under which the Parliamentary Budget Officer may approach, meek and trembling, the departments of state and request that they make an arrangement under which information can be provided. It is, some would say, small-minded and even suspicious to even raise the possibility that the departments of state may not necessarily leap to be cooperative with a parliamentary budget office—a creature of the legislature—in this scenario. But let us adopt the great words, the guiding principles, of Ronald Reagan, who said, 'Trust but verify'—a quote you, I am sure, would be familiar with, Parliamentary Secretary. I have no doubt that it is a phrase which is oft quoted in Penrith.

Parliamentary Secretary, I put to you that amendment (2), which the member for North Sydney has moved this evening, among the excellent amendments that he has circulated, would give the Parliamentary Budget Office somewhat greater powers of seeking information than are in the undoubtedly well-meaning but, sadly, slightly deficient bill that you have brought before the House this evening. It ought to be given very careful consideration by this House. If your objective is to produce a powerful, well-resourced parliamentary budget office which can give effect to its objective of being a source of independent advice to the parliament—and we do not doubt for a second that it genuinely is—then this amendment should be adopted.

See this speech in context