Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Given that the parliamentary secretary seems either unwilling or unable to answer any of the legitimate questions that the coalition has put to him, I would like to help him if I may. We agree occasionally, and here I am to help you, sir. Given that the parliament is nobbled by having the Marcel Marceau of the ministry here tonight, not speaking a word about the issues that we have raised, let me just recap where we have got to. This second amendment introduces a new schedule that gives information-gathering powers and deals with secrecy so there is no reckless distribution of information. The government seeks to oppose that amendment and to leave in its place section 64F, which basically says the PBO will enter into a memorandum of understanding. If you dig further and actually look at what the government is proposing, there is an explanation in the explanatory memorandum:

In the interests of efficiency and consistency, it is envisaged that an MOU will initially be developed with the Departments of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) and the Treasury (Treasury) and that other agencies would use this agreement as necessary.

I thought I would go to the source document, which is the submission provided by the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation to the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office. I thought, seeing as the parliamentary secretary will not explain just what the MOU may or may not contain, I would go to where the agency advocating it outlined what it thought the MOU should contain.

Our concern earlier in the evening was that there are existing powers to access information in the Freedom of Information Act, but when you look at the submission from the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation you see they are not content to have the limits, the restrictions and the exemptions that are applicable under FOI—they actually want to go further. On page 12 of the submission from Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation they talk about the need for formal protocols, but they make the point that it would be unfair to ask departments to be too open about the information for fear that it might conflict with the departments' obligation 'to manage their departments for the benefit of their minister'. What they are saying is that the framework of this MOU will seek not to compromise what in the eyes of Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation is to the benefit of their ministers.

The submission goes on to suggest a good starting point—and it is only a starting point—is the use of the information protocols that are there in relation to freedom of information. It outlines the current exemptions that are available under the FOI arrangements. It goes on to say:

Provisions would need to be made to allow agencies to refuse requests on the same grounds that documents can be exempted under the FOI Act and for the review of those decisions.

Not content to simply nobble the Parliamentary Budget Office so that it has no more power than anyone making an application under FOI, they do not want to leave it at that. There is actually a proposition here to wind it back even further. Not content with the existing constraints and with replicating those that exist under the Freedom of Information arrangements, the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the very agencies that in the explanatory memorandum are said to be shaping this MOU that the parliamentary secretary cannot talk about, go on to say that beyond FOI constraints there are other types of data which government agencies use in their work that could not be provided to the Parliamentary Budget Office.

We have before us the evidence trail that highlights not only that the government does not want to properly empower the Parliamentary Budget Office, as it seeks to substitute a memorandum of understanding arrangement, but also that the MOU arrangements will actually be more restrictive than the current FOI restraints. This is yet another example of how all this is about the government making sure that the Parliamentary Budget Office is so constrained and so hogtied to the executive that it becomes an agency and an arm of the government rather than an independent, properly authorised and properly empowered organisation that can add to the good governance of the country. I ask the Independent members to consider this: did you ever think the Parliamentary Budget Office would have less power than a citizen under FOI? If the answer is no, you surely must back the coalition's amendments, because that is exactly the plan the government is seeking to implement. (Time expired)

See this speech in context