Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the amendment to this bill. This is an important part of the evening, when we come to the transparency of this government. I am a new member in the House and this amendment speaks to the budget costings being able to be compared from the same starting point. Those assumptions are vital in developing the strength of rebuttal to the most important economic debate in our nation when it comes to that part of the electoral cycle.

The government's position in this debate is that there is equity and transparency there and that it comes in the form of a memorandum of understanding. We beg to differ, and you can see by the number of members in the House tonight that the MOU provision put up by the government is not satisfactory and does not provide the transparency that the opposition seeks. It is not enough. There is a concern that under the MOU the departments will be directed by the Treasurer and the will of the government of the day. The Parliamentary Budget Officer needs the capacity to get confidential information and pass it on to whoever is in opposition at that point in time so that there is transparency in government.

This debate comes back down to trust. When we look at other bills being debated in this House during this time, trust is not one of the commodities that the government has a strong capacity for. I do not want to go through the rhetoric of, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and I do not want to talk about Swanny's—

An opposition member: Don't go there!

So I will not go there. This is a fair dinkum debate and I commend the parliamentary secretary for showing up, but I do have an element of concern about the parliamentary secretary's capacity to engage in this debate. Being a new member, I deadset thought that I would ask you a question, you would answer it, we would leave the chamber and the debate would be concluded. I can only conclude that the arrogance shown by the government has contributed to the continuation of the debate. I look forward to the many questions that have been asked in this forum tonight being answered, because we truly are looking for transparency.

I bring the government's attention to proposed section 64H, which deals with requests for costings of policies or proposed policies outside the caretaker period. A key feature is proposed in 64H(2), which empowers senators and members of the House of Representatives to request policy costings. Whilst there is a capacity there to request them, there is no provision for them to be made available. To illustrate that, proposed section 64H(2) reads:

A Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives may request the Parliamentary Budget Officer to prepare a costing of a policy or a proposed policy.

As speakers before me have alluded to, that provision really has no more strength than an FOI request. I ask you sincerely to consider this when you talk about letting the sunshine in and making the parliament more transparent. I do not mean to direct all the heat at you guys, even though you are in government, because a little bit of this lands at the feet of our Independent colleagues on the crossbenches. They have supported this amendment from the get-go.

What we also ask for here is the capacity for confidentiality—that, when a request is made, it does not go up on a website or billboard or end up on the front page of the Australian. Ladies and gentlemen of the parliament, I have sincere concern that this debate will continue according to the arrogance being shown by the parliamentary secretary with his capacity to end the debate. (Time expired)

See this speech in context