Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:

(2) Schedule 1, item 16, page 8 (lines 14 to 29), omit section 64F, substitute:

64F Information gathering powers and secrecy

(1) The Parliamentary Budget Officer has the powers and obligations set out in Schedule 2.

(2) A person who has obtained information in the course of performing a function of the Parliamentary Budget Officer has the obligations set out in clause 4 of Schedule 2.

(3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (line 22), omit "; and".

(4) Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (lines 23 to 25), omit paragraph 64H(3)(d).

(5) Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (lines 26 and 27), omit the note.

(6) Schedule 1, item 16, page 10 (lines 10 and 11), omit "publicly announced".

(7) Schedule 1, item 16, page 10 (line 25), omit "publicly announced".

(8) Schedule 1, item 16, page 11 (line 20) to page 12 (line 31), omit sections 64L and 64LA, substitute:

64L Public release of policy costings

(1) The Parliamentary Budget Officer must publicly release a policy costing if requested to do so by:

(a) if the costing was requested under subsection 64H(2)—the Senator or Member who made the request; or

(b) if the costing was requested under subsection 64J(2)—an authorised member of the Parliamentary party that made the request; or

(c) if the costing was requested under subsection 64J(5)—the independent member who made the request.

(2) The Parliamentary Budget Officer must not otherwise publicly release a policy costing.

64LA Public release of responses to other requests by Senators or Members

(1) The Parliamentary Budget Officer must publicly release a response to a request under paragraph 64E(1)(c) if requested to do so by the Senator or Member who made the request.

(2) The Parliamentary Budget Officer must not otherwise publicly release a response to a request under paragraph 64E(1)(c).

64LB Public release of submissions and other work

The Parliamentary Budget Officer must ensure that the following are made publicly available:

(a) requests by Parliamentary committees referred to in paragraph 64E(1)(d), and the submissions prepared in response to those requests;

(b) the results of any work done in the performance of the functions of the Parliamentary Budget Officer under paragraph 64E(1)(e).

(9) Schedule 1, item 16, page 13 (lines 1 to 7), omit section 64M, substitute:

64M Disclosure of personal information

A requirement to publish under this Division does not authorise the disclosure of personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988) without the consent of the individual concerned.

(10) Schedule 1, item 16, page 15 (line 27) to page 16 (line 14), omit section 64U.

(11) Schedule 1, item 16, page 16 (line 15) to page 17 (line 6), omit section 64V.

(12) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 20), at the end of the Schedule, add:

19 At the end of the Act

Add:

Schedule 2—Information gathering powers and secrecy

Note: See section 64F.

1 Relationship of information gathering powers with other laws

The operation of clause 3:

(a) is limited by laws of the Commonwealth (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act) relating to the powers, privileges and immunities of:

(i) each House of the Parliament; and

(ii) the members of each House of the Parliament; and

(iii) the committees of each House of the Parliament and joint committees of both Houses of the Parliament; but

(b) is not limited by any other law (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act), except to the extent that the other law expressly excludes the operation of clause 3.

2 Purpose for which information gathering powers may be used

The powers under clause 3 may be used for the purpose of, or in connection with, a function given to the Parliamentary Budget Officer by this Act.

3 Power of Parliamentary Budget Officer to obtain information

(1) The Parliamentary Budget Officer may, by written notice, direct an employee of an Agency to do all or any of the following:

(a) provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with any information that the Parliamentary Budget Officer requires;

(b) attend and give evidence before the Parliamentary Budget Officer or an authorised officer;

(c) produce to the Parliamentary Budget Officer any documents in the custody or under the control of the employee.

Note: A proceeding under paragraph (1)(b) is a judicial proceeding for the purposes of Part III of the Crimes Act 1914. The Crimes Act prohibits certain conduct in relation to judicial proceedings.

(2) The Parliamentary Budget Officer may direct as follows:

(a) that information or answers to questions be given either orally or in writing (as the Parliamentary Budget Officer requires);

(b) that information or answers to questions be verified or given on oath or affirmation.

The oath or affirmation is an oath or affirmation that the information or evidence the person will give will be true, and may be administered by the Parliamentary Budget Officer or by an authorised officer.

(3) An employee of an Agency commits an offence if:

(a) the employee is given a direction under this clause; and

(b) the employee does not comply with the direction.

Penalty: 30 penalty units.

(4) A determination under section 71 may prescribe scales of expenses to be allowed to persons who are required to attend under this clause.

(5) In this clause:

Agency has the same meaning as in the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

authorised officer means a person who:

(a) is an official within the meaning of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997; and

(b) is authorised by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in writing, to exercise powers or perform functions under this clause.

4 Confidentiality of information

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person discloses information; and

(b) the information was obtained by the person in the course of performing a function of the Parliamentary Budget Officer given by this Act or any other Act; and

(c) the information is disclosed otherwise than in the course of performing a function given to the Parliamentary Budget Officer by this Act or another Act.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) Subclause (1) does not prevent the Parliamentary Budget Officer from disclosing particular information to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police if the Parliamentary Budget Officer is of the opinion that the disclosure is in the public interest.

5 Sensitive information not to be disclosed

(1) The Parliamentary Budget Officer must not include particular information in a policy costing, response or submission, or in any document publicly released by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, if:

(a) the Parliamentary Budget Officer is of the opinion that disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest for any of the reasons set out in subclause (2); or

(b) the Attorney-General has issued a certificate to the Parliamentary Budget Officer stating that, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest for any of the reasons set out in subclause (2).

(2) The reasons are the following:

(a) it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth;

(b) it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet or of a Committee of the Cabinet;

(c) it would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and a State;

(d) it would divulge any information or matter that was communicated in confidence by the Commonwealth to a State, or by a State to the Commonwealth;

(e) it would unfairly prejudice the commercial interests of any body or person;

(f) any other reason that could form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth in a judicial proceeding that the information should not be disclosed.

(3) The Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot be required, and is not permitted, to disclose publicly or to:

(a) a House of the Parliament; or

(b) a member of a House of the Parliament; or

(c) a committee of a House of the Parliament or a joint committee of both Houses of the Parliament;

information that subclause (1) prohibits being included in a policy costing, response or submission, or in any document publicly released by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

(4) In this clause:

State includes a self-governing Territory.

This amendment relates to the information gathering powers and secrecy requirements of the PBO. Schedule 1, item 16, subsection 64F(1) provides that the Parliamentary Budget Officer may make arrangements with government bodies to obtain information and documents. Subsection 64F(2) provides that these arrangements may include provision for the confidentiality of the information or the documents. Subsection 64F(3) provides that arrangements made under subsection 64F(1) must be made publicly available. Subsection 64F(4) provides that an arrangement made under subsection 64F(4) is not a legislative instrument.

These subsections severely constrain the powers of the Parliamentary Budget Office to obtain information. They essentially require the PBO to enter into a memorandum of understanding with more than 30 government departments or agencies. How bizarre! The PBO has no leverage in these negotiations, so it would pretty much have to sign up to whatever the departments put in front of them. For example, departments could potentially use rather restrictive memorandums of understanding to protect their patch. They could have provisions suggesting that the information should not be disclosed to the PBO without a two-week cooling-off period, which would make a mockery of the four weeks available to do all of the costings for everyone's policies during the course of an election campaign.

Quite frankly, I have never known a department of government, let alone someone in the private sector, who would not seek to protect their patch and their assumptions when it comes to their own modelling of costings for a particular government policy. However, this government says that the PBO can only obtain information from a government department if there is a memorandum of understanding and if there are confidentiality provisions specified in the act. So if the PBO wants to obtain information or documents which are not in the public domain then clearly the PBO will be constrained. If the information is in the public domain it is already available to people.

The bottom line is: what capacity does the Parliamentary Budget Office have to go to the individual departments and obtain information or assumptions about particular initiatives? It is this fundamental point about the assumptions that matters. If the government already has, for example, a costing on the NBN then everyone is entitled to know what the assumptions are—for example, what the assumption is about the cost per household or what the assumption is about the cost of the rollout of the cable. Should the cable be underground it will have a different cost assumption. When the government comes up with a figure of $32 billion or $39 billion, it is the right of the PBO, in the absence of full and frank disclosure by departmental or NBN officials before a Senate estimates committee, to be able to actually get to the nub of what the underlying assumptions are. It does not have to disclose them to us. In fact, my amendments are putting in place far more significant protections in relation to confidentiality than those that are recommended in the bill.

So what do we do? The coalition is yet again offering an amendment that gives the Parliamentary Budget Office more power to obtain information—which I will come to in a minute. But most significantly it is not going to go through this archaic, floundering MOU process with 30 different departments before the next election. I move that the subsections be omitted and that they be replaced with stricter confidentiality protections and greater powers to obtain information. (Time expired)

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

That was an excellent contribution from my friend and colleague the shadow Treasurer. What these provisions allude to and what is encapsulated in schedule 2 is a proper spread of information-gathering powers and disciplines about how that information would be utilised and applied to the very important task of the Parliamentary Budget Office doing what is expected of it—that is, providing independent, fearless analysis and accessing information that is available within the Commonwealth system to better inform good governance at a Commonwealth level and, through that, to offer those insights and that wisdom to the parliament.

The Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011, the bill that the government is trying to ram through, actually provides no real tool kit for the Parliamentary Budget Office other than the hope and, dare I say, the ambition of a memorandum of understanding that might set out some arrangements about how information is to be obtained. It does not set out any threshold requirements about what reasonable expectations the parliament has of the agencies involved in formulating memorandums of understanding. It does not set in place any default arrangements for what happens if, through whatever misfortune, a memorandum of understanding is not executed or a department or agency is hostile to the idea of revealing its material. There is no fallback position here at all. It is basically saying, 'Knock yourselves out; see if you can cut a deal with an agency,' with no incentive for those agencies to be cooperative, collaborative, expansive and open and caring and sharing about the material that it provides. It basically says, 'This sets in place a framework where you can enter into discussions,' with no real burden or obligation on the agencies to do the right thing.

I am sure the parliamentary secretary would sense a competition law parallel here of an enormous imbalance in market power in that the agencies hold all the material and have no pressure on them to share it and the Parliamentary Budget Office, already gutted in terms of what it can do, what resources it can draw upon and what baseline economic modelling it can refer to—already compromised in that respect—has to front up to a department or agency and say, 'Please share with us some information so we can do some meaningful work.'

It is interesting that the parliamentary secretary has often resorted to the report from the joint select committee's inquiry into the Parliamentary Budget Office. It is interesting reading. It talks about the Parliamentary Librarian, having some experience, considerable insight and practical knowledge about how difficult this can be, emphasising:

… the importance of the PBO having access to Executive agency data, at no cost, as without this data, the PBO 'would be limited to using publicly-available information, and what agencies are willing to provide'.

That was the Parliamentary Librarian reflecting on experience about the need for the Parliamentary Budget Office not to be nobbled by a lack of power to access information.

I would also note—on a night where we hear that Treasurer Swan has got some award, which will no doubt bring a smile to the face of many in this place—that even the OECD is actually supporting the Parliamentary Budget Office having full access to information and economic models held by the executive agencies in a timely manner. It goes on to say:

There will always be a large asymmetry of information between the government and such bodies—no matter how well they are resourced. This creates a special duty to give such bodies full access in legislation to all relevant information in a timely manner.

That is not an MOU. That is not a wing and a prayer, as with the provisions that the government has dished up in the hope of agencies and departments will do the right thing. That is clear advice about the strong legislative position the Parliamentary Budget Office should have to access the information that it requires. Even the Auditor-General went on to talk about the PBO, saying that it 'would require full and free access to all information and records necessary to perform its functions'. There is reference in the report to the Canadian experience and there is even information about what Treasury and Finance thought might be a reasonable caution, and it goes to what the shadow Treasurer was saying—that is, if you are the keeper of that stuff you might be a bit reluctant to share it and that if you have some insights, or you are relying on some heroic assumptions, you may not want to shine the sunlight onto that.

This amendment seeks to ensure that the provisions in schedule 2 actually give the Parliamentary Budget Office the legislative power that has been urged and recommended by the OECD, by the Auditor-General and by the Parliamentary Librarian to be able go about doing its job and to have dependable access, backed by legislation, to get the information it needs to carry out its responsibilities. (Time expired)

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

It is a surprise to be speaking on this bill this evening. I heard the parliamentary secretary speaking this afternoon on his more favoured topic of boats and getting on boats. So I am surprised that he has brought this bill, the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011, back at this hour this evening without much notice.

This is another important amendment that the member for North Sydney has moved. It is an amendment which seeks to give the Parliamentary Budget Office real power to access information from departments about the numbers and the programs—information which oppositions and Independent members need. The Independent members obviously did not get the note that this was being brought on this evening either, because I know the member for Lyne would be here otherwise. We are sending a message to the member for Lyne, if he is listening: this is back on. They have brought it back on tonight, Rob. You might want to get down here and speak to this.

This amendment provides another opportunity to strengthen the Parliamentary Budget Office and to achieve its genuine purpose. The purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Office is at 64B—to remind the parliamentary secretary. It is in front of you there, David. It reads:

The purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Office is to inform the Parliament by providing, in accordance with this Division, independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals.

Independent non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle would require, as the member for North Sydney has outlined very well in this amendment, that the PBO get access to information from departments. This really gets to the issue of how you would cost policies if you were in opposition and you were looking to do something in an election campaign and you were lucky enough to be elected. You want to have the best information and the Australian public would want us to have the best information available to us. This bill provides for halfway-house information. It relies on the department agreeing to what it is going to give up.

No department wants its information to be genuinely tested by another source. We all know that in this place. Bureaucrats do a good job and they work hard, but they do not like to be told that they are not necessarily right with their information. They do not like it when Access Economics tells them that they are wrong. I remember during my time in the former government that there used to be quite loud explosions when Access Economics used to question the numbers that Treasury would produce, for instance. Not that Treasury is ever wrong we learnt the other evening. You cannot ever question Treasury's numbers. Even though they do not always get them right, you cannot question these numbers, according to the government.

The Parliamentary Budget Office should be an independent agency, just like the United States Congressional Budget Office. I looked today at the Congressional Budget Office website and all the services they provide for members of the congress and the United States public. There is an enormous amount of resources there about the spending patterns of government, the behaviour of departments and the amount of debt. That really gets to the point that the government are trying to avoid here. They do not like people knowing how much in debt we actually are. It is very hard to find that information. If you go to the Treasury website today I challenge you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to find very quickly how much debt there is that the Australian government currently owns. It is certainly not one click away; whereas it is actually on the front page of the Congressional Budget Office website. They tell you what the deficit is, because they are a genuinely independent agency which is providing independent advice.

The aim of the PBO—and the parliamentary secretary is presumably getting briefed about that right now—is to give a non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle and of the fiscal policy implications of the proposals. Parliamentary Secretary, this leads to better policy and better outcomes, leading, say, to a policy about border protection prior to an election—going to a place, visiting the boats, the Customs patrol vessels, and seeing how they operate; maybe even getting on them and letting a TV camera come on and watch you get on them; putting on the hat like the first mate; and enjoying the visit but also understanding how much that costs. That is the idea of the Parliamentary Budget Office, Parliamentary Secretary, and if you increase the power of the Parliamentary Budget Office to get this information—

Mr Bradbury interjecting—

The parliamentary secretary does not like the reference to his time out on the Customs patrol vessel. I thought you looked really good out there, David! I think it is actually a potential next career—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will not involve the speaker, nor call the speaker by the wrong name.

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

I am sorry, Madam Acting Deputy President. It was just outside his electorate of Lindsay, of course—6,000 kilometres outside his electorate! In any event, this is another good amendment that the parliamentary secretary should adopt. If you can ring Swannie and get the instruction to do so that would be good. (Time expired)

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are here tonight to debate the second amendment that has been brought forward to amend this bill, the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011, because we on this side of the chamber believe very strongly that it is important to draw back the curtain, let the sunshine in and be able to have an independent parliamentary budget office that will have the full powers to be able to go about doing its job.

I know that the member for Lyne, who is not here in this chamber tonight and who is also a member of the committee, said that he was very concerned that the Parliamentary Budget Office needed to be an independent budget office. In the past in this chamber we debated the first amendment to this bill moved by the shadow Treasurer. We are onto the second amendment now, and the purpose of the second amendment that has been brought forward by the shadow Treasurer is to give the Parliamentary Budget Office the powers to be able to obtain information. What could go to independence more than the powers to be able to obtain information?

It is clear that under the bill that has been brought forward by the government that the Parliamentary Budget Office would be constrained. It would be constrained by memorandums of understanding that it would have with the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Finance and Deregulation and other departments. It would be restricted in the information that it could look at, which of course would mean that it would not be able to look at the budget cycle, at fiscal policy, properly. It would not be able to provide a sensitivity analysis to the figures provided because it would be restricted in the information granted to it.

This amendment that has been brought forward by the shadow Treasurer gives the Parliamentary Budget Officer some serious grunt, some serious power. That is serious power is as strong as the powers of the Auditor-General. We think that is what is required to have an independent, properly functioning parliamentary budget officer. In the amendments that we have brought forward, it will allow the Parliamentary Budget Officer by written notice to direct an employee of an agency to do all or any of the following:

… provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with any information that the Parliamentary Budget Officer requires—

and we think that is important. They should be able to determine what it is that they require in order to perform their role and function. It also says that the Parliamentary Budget Officer by written notice can direct an employee of an agency to:

… attend and give evidence before the Parliamentary Budget Officer or an authorised officer.

Just think of this: this allows the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be able to interrogate Department of the Treasury and Department of Finance about the figures that they have brought forward. The officer is able to then ask them about the assumptions that are within their models. It gives them the ability to be able to truly conduct sensitivity analyses and it means that, rather than simply being restricted in the information that is provided, they can ask the pertinent questions that may arise.

Our amendment also goes to the fact that it would require the Parliamentary Budget Officer by written notice to direct an employee of an agency to also:

… produce to the Parliamentary Budget Officer any documents in the custody or under the control of the employee.

So often it is very difficult in this place to obtain the information that is necessary to find out the answers to fairly basic questions because that information is held by one department and not by another and often there are many excuses employed as to why that information cannot be provided. This amendment gets around that. It means that if one department is holding the information of another department and it is relevant to the figures that they have brought forward, or they have information that is relevant to the Parliamentary Budget Office, they must produce it. That is why this amendment is necessary. That is why this amendment goes to the integrity of the Parliamentary Budget Office.

The shadow Treasurer and the coalition are the only members in this place who are truly concerned about having a parliamentary budget office that is in the true spirit of the US Congressional Budget Office, one that has serious grunt to perform its role and function and to do its job as an independent parliamentary budget office.

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

I rise to speak on the second amendment to the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011 and, in giving this short address to the House, I call on our Independent colleagues who hold the balance on this particular bill. This bill is prudent to the transparency and to the authenticity of gathering information for oppositions in an electoral cycle. I remind the parliamentary secretary where we are in the parliamentary cycle and urge him to consider his position given that there may be a day that he sits on this side of the House and these amendments may serve him well, as they will serve us well.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I doubt it!

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

The parliamentary secretary jests and says, 'Doubt it.' Considering the polls, I suggest that that day is coming a lot sooner than you would anticipate.

I talked to the Independents about letting the sunshine in and encouraging a transparency in this government, and I refer to the Prime Minister's words of 'letting the sunshine in'. Predominantly, this amendment speaks to the protection of those in opposition in obtaining information which is relevant at a given point in time. The PBO needs to have greater jurisdiction. The PBO needs to have a capacity to obtain information which is relevant in the political electoral cycle. When we go to PEFO, there is the matter of the data which is available to the opposition once the writs are called. It is unwise for an opposition to make their assumptions on the previous MYEFO assumptions and it is more unwise to make them on the previous budget assumptions.

Our economy is one of robustness. It is one that changes on a day-to-day capacity. When we are forecasting revenues on our terms of trade and we are trying to calculate the capacity of our revenues on trading figures, we need to have up-to-date figures. For example, let us say that we are forecasting our resources revenue on the back of China's demand at the moment. At this very moment Mongolia are just about to put coal tonnage on the border of China for $80 a tonne as opposed to our trade figures of $175 a tonne. Depending on where we are in the electoral cycle, if we were to go and do our forecasts on the data that was not made available to us, because that transparency was not there, it would have a huge implication for our forecasts.

All we are asking for is the kind of information that is available to other governments, such as the Canadian governments, for instance, and this House knows other countries such as the United States which have that luxury. All we are asking for is that the powers and the capacity of the PBO are granted so that they are able to access relevant information from departments that are evaluating costings that benefit our people and the electorates that put us here. No-one wants to be made to look like a dill and everyone comes into this House in good faith.

The other point I want to make is that the assumptions that we make need to be made confidential. If we put assumptions up or want to test assumptions, under the current legislation without this amendment there is a real concern that those assumptions will be made public by the Treasurer of this country or through web pages and that there will not be the capacity to have those assumptions tested. I would be very interested to hear the parliamentary secretary's response to those concerns. In the interests of absolute transparency and as this has been a robust debate I call on the parliamentary secretary to consider this truly heartfelt amendment. I also call on the Independents, in making their determination on this bill, to give due consideration to this amendment. (Time expired)

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last night it took us three hours, in answer to a series of questions, to eventually establish with the parliamentary secretary that during the 33-day campaign period the nature of costings would be absolutely no different to what we witnessed at the last election. I think everyone accepts that that is totally unacceptable. All it means is that we will have a dogfight for 33 days between ourselves when people in the community really want to debate the policies.

It is not beyond the wit of man to establish—and the member for Forde just put his finger right on it—the capacity for the policies of both sides of politics to be assessed by the same authority in an independent fashion, in an open, honest and transparent way. That is all that is being requested, yet this thing has been so complicated, so misrepresented from the original intent, that there is now a large measure of mistrust that has already emerged between both sides of politics. And it will have a real effect. Actions have consequences, and if this mistrust is not dealt with then it will impact on how we deal with the costings process at the next election.

We are 100 per cent prepared to have all of our costings dealt with by the PBO in an independent fashion, as I would expect the government's policies to be dealt with so that both sides of politics know that it is a level playing field, that the database on which it is based is identical for both and that if there are mistakes because the data may be wrong they will be reflected in both costings. That is not so much point. It is really what order of magnitude of cost is associated with these costings. There has been a large measure of distrust generated because of the nature of this bill that the government has presented. That is exactly why my friend and colleague the member for North Sydney has presented a lot of very sensible amendments to this bill to try and get back to the original intent.

The second thing we discovered last night was what would happen if the Parliamentary Budget Office made a request of Treasury for the data, the modelling, the assumptions and the variables associated with something like the carbon tax. In a very long-winded and roundabout way the answer we got was that that would be a matter for the Treasury—that it would be a matter for the memorandum of understanding that the Treasury would have carriage of. The Parliamentary Budget Office would basically tug their forelock to any one of 30 departments—in in this case Treasury—and be told under the memorandum of understanding. The memorandum of understanding is not negotiated; from what we could ascertain last night, the memorandum of understanding is a question of the Parliamentary Budget Office being told by each department what they could and could not receive.

So my first question to the parliamentary secretary tonight is: am I correct that the memorandums of understanding do not involve a negotiation; they do involve, essentially, the Parliamentary Budget Office being told what they can expect to receive by way of data, modelling, variables, assumptions and whatever? I would be grateful if the parliamentary secretary could give me and my colleagues an answer to that question. (Extension of time granted)

The second question I would like to ask is about when costings would be released if we had completed 80 per cent of the costings of our policy proposals, or even more, before the election—if we had done 100 per cent, as the parliamentary secretary suggested we must. I think he said that any well-organised party would have all its policies ready and costed before the campaign started, but bear in mind that two-thirds of the government's policies, when they were in opposition and ran for election in 2007, were presented on the Thursday before the election in a press release. The detail actually got delivered on Friday at lunch time. It just makes a mockery of what the government says. We got lectured last night. We were asked how we could be expected to be considered organised if we did not have all that work done and costed before the election.

But let us say we had done that. Let us say we had done 100 per cent of the costings, as the parliamentary secretary has suggested—but which, in his own experience, he has never delivered. If we had done that, could he please explain when the costings data that was associated with that would be released publicly? He said last night that in the period before the 33-day campaign the costings of any policies would be confidential. That was always our understanding, but it is very important for us to know when the Parliamentary Budget Office would be required to release those costings in a public sense. Ultimately, if we announce a policy, the costings, as we have said from day one, would be subsequently released for the public to have a look at in an open, honest and transparent way.

The third item that I would like to pursue is an example that came up at the last election. We requested from the government in advance of the campaign—so that we could be prepared and have costings well ahead of the conclusion of the campaign, or even the start of the campaign—a status list of the infrastructure projects that they had already contracted out of the infrastructure fund that had been gifted to them by the previous government, and which they were in the process of spending. They have spent every other fund that was gifted to them by the government, including the surplus.

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

Now they want the Future Fund.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now they want the Future Fund. Now they are pillaging the Future Fund. But that is another matter. The point is that we asked for a list of the infrastructure projects, knowing full well that they would have contracted some confidentially but not others—that they would have other things in consideration but they would not have contracted them. We wanted that so that if we happened to win office we would have a capacity to change the priorities, as they did when they came to office.

We were unable to identify the government projects which we could cancel or reschedule because we did not have the list. So we asked for the list. We wrote formally. The Leader of the National Party, as I remember, wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and asked for the list and the amount of money that was uncontracted. The request was ignored. He wrote again. It was ignored again. This is a government that came to office promising transparency, openness and honesty!

So we made a conservative assessment of the redirection of $3.3 billion from the fund. When we turned up to have a meeting with the two secretaries of the departments it was a one-way conversation rather than a discussion in many respects because everything that we put was not taken into account. We were told that we could not book that $3.3 billion because we had not identified individual projects. (Extension of time granted)

We were told that we could not book any of the $3.3 billion. In other words we had created, automatically, a $3.3 billion contribution to the $10 billion so-called black hole because we were not given a list of projects that were contracted and the amount that was uncontracted. The secretaries did concede that there were sufficient funds in the infrastructure funds to support these redirections. So there was $3.3 billion in the fund that was not contracted. The secretaries accepted that and conceded that there were sufficient funds but, despite conceding the money was there, we got fitted up with another $3.3 billion as a black hole. They said, 'We've made our decision,' for about the fifth time in a row. These things are why we have lost any trust in the government in particular and in those that they send to deal with us in private. It was a stitch-up. It was a politicised process in the extreme. How can they defend that? There was by the admission of the secretaries $3.3 billion uncontracted, sitting there, available to be spent by an incoming government on the projects of their choice.

My question is: what happens if the Treasury at the next election says to the Parliamentary Budget Office in their memorandum of understanding, 'Thou shalt not receive a list of the projects and thou shalt not receive the amount of money that is uncontracted'? What does that mean? Does it compel the Parliamentary Budget Office to take out an FOI? If it does compel the Parliamentary Budget Office to take out an FOI, I understand there is a 28-day period of grace for delivery. That is pretty much the campaign proper.

Can you understand now why we are starting to develop a massive level of distrust in this process? When I look back at the number of items that we were stood up from—and which we were told were black holes—and when I go through each one of those to try to establish the assumptions, we were not allowed to get access. In trying to establish the amount of money in funds, we were not allowed to get access. In trying to elicit from the government or the secretaries why they used 4.9 per cent on the bond rate when it had never been that low—and the market average for the previous six months was 5.5—when I try to get that information, which we were denied, I see that the PBO is likely to be denied that same information.

How better off are we now? Just about every item that we were knocked back on, which have been hanging around our neck and lit in the last year because of some so-called black hole, was actually the product of a politicised process. They were all products of being denied information again and again. When we question the parliamentary secretary now, it would appear that that information in all prospects will be denied the Parliamentary Budget Office. We will go through this charade of a dogfight throughout the campaign again. When we want to discuss the merits of the policy we do not want to be discussing whether we have something right or not, because we do not have access to the assumptions, to the data or to the variables, and the Parliamentary Budget Office by all accounts will not have them either. I would be grateful if the parliamentary secretary could answer those three questions that I have put to him.

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

I do share the frustration of my friend and colleague, the member for Goldstein. We have the Marcel Marceau of the ministry here. He will not answer a question. He will not deal with any of these matters of substance that are brought before him. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary is here purely for ornamental value. It is a lovely tie, but I think there could be more value added to this debate tonight than him sitting there like a stunned mullet unable to answer very basic questions that go to the integrity of the proposal that is before us.

It reminds me of the contribution when the member for Page was critical of the opposition's vision of a parliamentary budget office and warned that, under the coalition proposal, the government would not have control of it. The member for Page belled the cat. Under the coalition's proposal the member for Page was concerned that the government would not have control of it. This is where the MOU comes in. You put this coat-hanger of a legislative framework in place, which has already had the guts ripped out of it, and then rely upon a memorandum of understanding with no threshold minimum requirements of reasonable access. That gives you a sense of the efforts the government is going to to control the Parliamentary Budget Office so that it is yet another organ of the executive and not a resource that adds to the good governance of the country.

Then you go further and you actually have a look at what else was said to be the case. I refer back to the member for Fraser's contribution. He stood in this place and said on Monday, 12 September—and I quote—'the aim of the bill is to shine a spotlight on coalition costings.' The whole purpose of this bill is not to serve the parliament, it is not to serve good governance in the country, it is actually to provide another weapon with which the executive can seek to slap around the opposition. This is where we come to the whole debate about the motive with which the government is approaching this issue. You can absolutely understand, because there is case after case, example after example, evidence after evidence that shows the government is doing all it can to compromise, to hobble and to leg-tie the Parliamentary Budget Office so that it is in perfect synchronicity and harmony with whatever the government wants to have it do and the work it wants carried out. Even the Parliamentary Library, in its analysis of this, makes a point which is quite interesting. It talks about the debate in Australia and how the best known of such a parliamentary budget office is no doubt the Congressional Budget Office in the United States. It points to other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands that have established similar bodies, and it makes, I think, what is proving to be a quite courageous claim. It says:

While the precise nature and functions of each of these bodies differs, a key feature is that they share an independence from the executive branch of government.

I am sorry to say that this is no longer the case. This is a parliamentary budget office quite of its own creation—one that seeks to be a resource to the parliament but which turns out to be nothing but a tool of the executive nobbled in terms of what it can do and then constrained in the information which it can access.

As I mentioned earlier, the MOU is supposed to be the process through which these issues are elucidated and the exchange of information carried out. Read some of the material that has been brought forward to support what the government is proposing. Even in its response to recommendations from the joint select committee there is a statement relating to 'the government proposes that memoranda of understanding between the PBO and government departments will deal with interactions with the FOI Act.' My friend and colleague the member for Goldstein made a very good point: is the memorandum of understanding just going to be a glorified FOI process minus the fees? Is that all we are talking about? That is the risk that we have here: an outcome which is no different from what is there now—an opportunity and a utility of the Parliamentary Budget Office that adds absolutely nothing to where we are right now.

If you read further into the joint select committee's report it goes into a rather lengthy statement about what the Treasury proposes would be excluded under the information-sharing arrangements that would so apparently inform the Parliamentary Budget Office. The Treasury asserts that these things should be excluded: specific information which is commercially valuable in nature; information produced for the purposes of the deliberative processes or the national economy. That goes to some of the very points the member for Goldstein is making: which projects to fund and which ones not to fund; what is the recommendation that goes forward? Also excluded should be certain cabinet documents and ministers briefing documents. You can see it now. (Extension of time granted) This list goes on to talk about information which is subject to privacy and the like. What the Treasury is trying to do is shape up an expectation for these memorandums of understanding that seek to provide some flexibility but at the end of the day rule out anything that is useful in the effort of inquiry and inquisition that should be at the heart of the work of the Parliamentary Budget Office.

If you are wondering why we would be suspicious about this, it is because Labor has form. You look at what has happened in New South Wales, the process there, where there is an arrangement that is pretty much a tricked-up version of FOI that applies in New South Wales. The Clerk of the Senate considered these arrangements and the provisions that operated in New South Wales and offered to the committee this observation:

It seems to me that the Parliamentary Budget Office in New South Wales can get access to the sort of information from government agencies that anyone would be able to get under FOI in New South Wales.

The Clerk of the Senate then poses the question:

Is that good enough for a Parliamentary Budget Office?

He goes on to answer:

I do not think so, because the parliament is the grand inquisition of the nation, is scrutinising the operations of government on behalf of the people to use very broad terms and has both the rights and powers to have information to inform it to do that job properly.

That is the argument we are putting forward to make sure that the information is accessible and is not needlessly constrained. Yet the government offers up this fig leaf of credibility in the form of an MOU. But what sits behind every reference, every attempt to explain what the MOU would actually do is that it constrains, it restricts, it limits and it impedes the access to the very information the Parliamentary Budget Office should have access to.

So I again put to the Independents—the Independents, where have they gone? That is right, they are not here. The Independents are not here. This debate, so fundamentally important to the new paradigm in good governance, we are in here debating these issues—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is after six.

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

As the member for Goldstein said, 'It is after six,' but I just wonder where they are, because these are fundamental questions about whether this Parliamentary Budget Office only has the credibility of the name above the door but once you walk through that door there is nothing there. It is like a Hollywood film set: great front of house, nothing of any meat behind it, and none of the tools, powers or resources that it needs to carry out the important job this parliament and certainly this coalition hopes it would be able to contribute to the better governance of the country.

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

I rise again because of the lack of willingness from the parliamentary secretary, who seems intent in playing texting games and having discussions with a political staffer in the box—who, I might say, if I can give some advice to the political staffer in the box: I previously sat in that box in a previous role. I say to you: 'You should not participate in debates. It is highly disorderly. It is a privilege to sit in this place. If you want to participate in the debate, young man, go and put your posters on the wall—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mayo!

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

put your name on the ballot paper.'

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mayo!

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

No, no, Madam Deputy Speaker, participating in—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mayo!

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

debate from the advisers box is highly disorderly—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mayo! The member for Mayo!

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

and it is inappropriate for political staffers to do so.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the member for Mayo like to withdraw for an hour? He will pay respect to the chair.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

I disagree. The member for Lyons on a point of order?

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

What is the point of order?

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is that you are attacking the parliamentary secretary personally, you are not dealing with the bill in detail, and you are attacking somebody in the advisers box.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lyons will resume his seat. I appreciate his assistance. I will deal with the matter. Member for Mayo, my concern at the moment was the disrespect you were showing to the chair. I will indicate that I will not tolerate it. The member for Mayo will constrain his contribution to the subject of the bill and the amendment before the House.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not showing you the appropriate deference, I genuinely do. However, the parliamentary secretary's lack of respect for this debate, playing games with a Treasurer's adviser in the box, who is participating in the debate, is inappropriate. It is not good enough, David. You are better than that. It is absolutely inappropriate—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And again! The member for Mayo will resume his seat. The parliamentary secretary on a point of order?

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask you to draw the member back to the subject matter of the bill.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mayo will get the call, but first of all I will remind him—I did not pull him up previously—that we will refer to members by the name of their seat or their position.

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

I will continue to refer to the parliamentary secretary, who should answer the questions that have been raised by the shadow finance minister, the member for Goldstein. They are legitimate questions. If he does not know the answers he can use his advisers in the box to get the answers to what are legitimate questions. We do have concerns about the memorandum of understanding. This is a direct attempt to stifle debate.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mayo will resume his seat.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I have been in this place for 15½ years; I do have respect for the member for Mayo, but never in those 15½ years have I heard a member of this place launch an attack on people in the advisers box who have no opportunity to respond in their own defence. I ask you to bring him to order and to have some respect for the orderly processes of the House—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the government whip for his contribution, and I indicate to the House that I am in a fairly good mood in terms of keeping order, but I do not need more assistance than that which has been provided. The member for Mayo, I am sure, will bring his contribution to the point before the House.

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

I appreciate the member for Hunter is trying to protect the parliamentary secretary, but that is exactly what I was doing. I was asking the parliamentary secretary to answer the legitimate questions raised by the member for Goldstein, the shadow minister for finance, which he is refusing to do. We can continue to raise questions with the parliamentary secretary. This is an important issue. We think it is very important; the Independents thought it was very important and I am sure the member for Lyne, wherever he is, thinks it is a very important issue. These issues that we are raising are legitimate amendments and deserve answers. This is what the committee stage of the parliament does. You might have been here for 15½ years, member for Hunter, but you would not have seen a parliamentary secretary in the Howard government refuse to answer questions like this guy is at the moment. It is absolutely appalling that this guy is sitting there, refusing point blank to answer legitimate questions that the member for Goldstein, the shadow finance minister, has rightly put on the record for him to answer. He has got his advisers there, who are in this place to assist parliamentary secretaries not up to their brief and have been sent in to do their job. I should not respond to interjections but I will on this point to the member for Lyons: you had 12 years in opposition and this never got raised. When you were in opposition you voted against the Charter of Budget Honesty. The Labor Party is not interested in moving bills in this regard; they are trying to stifle what is a legitimate— (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the Chief Government Whip, the member for Hunter.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: During my contribution there were several points of order raised which took away my time and I would appreciate an extension of time.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are other opportunities to speak. The member for Hunter has the call.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very tempted to move an extension of time for the member for Mayo.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Mayo, in an interjection, has just made a highly unparliamentary comment and I ask you to ask him to withdraw it. He just said that I misled—

Opposition members interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I did not hear the comment the member for Mayo is alleged to have made. If it was unparliamentary he will assist the House by withdrawing it. I did not hear it.

Honourable members interjecting—

The parliamentary secretary has raised a point of order—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

The member for Mackellar!

The parliamentary secretary was offended by a remark that she considered unparliamentary. I did not hear that remark. The member for Mayo would assist the House if he were to withdraw that comment.

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

Out of respect for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to pursue the point of order, but I am not sure that the qualification at the beginning of that withdrawal met the standard of the standing orders. I will let it go through to the keeper. Suffice to say what the member for Mayo just did in terms of his withdrawal did meet the standards of the contribution he made to this in-detail debate and of course matches the standard we have come to expect—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The member is on his time debating aspects of the bill and he should address his comments in that order—not addressing the points of order.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson will resume his seat. The Chief Government Whip and the member for Hunter has the call and I bring him back to the amendment before the house.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be delighted to return to the amendment. I would be delighted to better the standard shown by those opposite in this debate, not only this evening but also on previous occasions when we have had debate on this issue—and indeed, over the course of the last 12 months. This is the standard we have come to expect from an opposition which has come to the view that if they cannot be in charge of this place, no-one will be and they will just play the wrecking game. We know that is what this debate is about tonight. We are in what is commonly known as a filibuster. It is not new to this place. Across the other side of Members Hall we have come to expect it, but I have never seen it pushed to such an extraordinary extent—and never have I seen, as I said earlier, a member of this place stoop to the level of attacking advisers in the advisers box in an attempt to make silly little points.

Opposition members interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter will resume his seat.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The member for Hunter, the Chief Government whip, has not addressed one iota of an issue pertaining to this bill—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson will resume his seat. I will address that point of order from the member for Paterson. I was not in the chamber when this debate commenced, so I cannot comment on what has been ruled on prior to my occupying this chair at 8.30 this evening.

Mr Baldwin interjecting—

I do not need any advice from the member for Paterson; he will resume his seat.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just pointing out—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you will resume your seat. I was not in the chamber before this debate started—I was here last night. The bill before the parliament at the moment is in committee stage and it is the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011. As I call the next person, I would expect that they would then, given those interjections and points of order, relate their comments to the bill before the House. I call the member for Mayo.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue with my contribution about this, because the member for Goldstein raised a very important point in relation to the powers of the Parliamentary Budget Office to get information from the relevant departments—in fact, he raised an extremely important point about how quickly you can get that information and what is ruled out, particularly when it comes to FOI.

I can speak from some experience on this matter, because in recent times I have been sending in quite a number of FOIs and I can tell you that the rules in relation to the timing of FOIs are very rarely met, which is the point of the question that the member for Goldstein asked the parliamentary secretary. The member for Goldstein deserves an answer to that question in this debate. The question was a very pertinent one—and never mind the the 28-day time line to respond to questions on FOI; if they are not even being met, what guarantee can the parliamentary secretary offer in this debate that the information will be provided to the Parliamentary Budget Office in a timely manner to ensure that opposition members, or indeed Independent members of the parliament, are able to ask and get legitimate questions answered prior to or during an election campaign? The parliamentary secretary should answer that question. That is exactly the point the member for Goldstein was making.

Last night in this debate—Mr Deputy Speaker, you will remember—the parliamentary secretary redefined the reasons for the Parliamentary Budget Office. In response to the first amendment that we moved, he said that the Parliamentary Budget Office was ostensibly about having a comparison of election costings during the election campaign. He referred to an article in a newspaper from an economic commentator. But that is actually not the purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Office; the Parliamentary Budget Office is not designed to become a plaything of the government to use as an election tool in a campaign environment. What it is meant to do is improve the quality of the debate.

The future Labor Party president, who is in the chamber, would understand that we are meant to be part of and engaging in genuine debate about costings and about policy, to assist the opposition the Independent members of the parliament, and even the Greens, to come up with fiscally responsible policies which can be implemented in government. It is not about using it as an election tool for a government of the day to belt up the opposition or Independent members, or even the Greens, about their policies, which is what the parliamentary secretary said last night. So this second amendment and the questions that the member for Goldstein rightly asked—and it might be a laughing matter for some—are genuine issues about the independence and the ability of the Parliamentary Budget Office to get information from departments prior to and during election campaigns. It is about giving reasonable advice to members of parliament—not over a long period of time and not with MOUs which rule out specific material which can be provided and expected to be undertaken in FOIs.

The member for Goldstein asks legitimate questions; the parliamentary secretary is hell-bent on ignoring those questions, under instructions from the Leader of the House no doubt. It is appalling that this debate—which is an important debate, an important reform—many members of parliament have spoken about how important this reform is. We on this side of the House asked for this reform three or four budgets ago now, when the member for Wentworth was the Leader of the Opposition. This is an important reform; the Independent members of the House think so. The parliamentary secretary thinks it is of such little importance that he will not even answer a legitimate question from the member for Goldstein; he is not interested in engaging in this debate; he should stand up now and give this House a guarantee that the Parliamentary Budget Office will be able to get genuine information from departments under these MOUs. We do not think they will; that is why we are moving this amendment.

It is up to you, Parliamentary Secretary, the ball is in your court. If you are any good at this, you will be able to explain how this will work. You will be able to guarantee in this place how this will work. This amendment will be either through your words of assurance in answer to the member for Goldstein's legitimate questions or through passing this amendment, which we hope, because it will add to the strength of what will be a good reform in this place. You should engage, Parliamentary Secretary, in this debate. You should stand up and answer those questions this instant.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When this debate began last evening, we began by discussing the fact that this proposal for a parliamentary budget office was the initiative of the opposition. It was our initiative because we clearly saw the need for independent advice that could assist us with our costings and that was free of the influence of Treasury, which is now a politicised body. We need to ensure that when we have our costings released they will not be subject to the sort of treatment that the then head of Treasury, Mr Henry, meted out when we agreed to put our costings—which had been done independently, to the Independents, allegedly so they could make up their minds on the basis of the assessments done who they would choose to vote with, in order that a commission to form a government could be granted.

Last night I started to talk about the minutes of the meeting that the head of Treasury, Mr Henry, had with the Independents, and I started to deal with the issues that were dealt with in those meetings. Item B was the costings of opposition election commitments, and these minutes say that the attached briefing paper had been provided to the Independents and that the discussion had begun by noting that the approach taken to preparing the briefing for the costs on the government's election commitments had been, firstly, to consider the impact of the commitments on the position announced in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook and, secondly, to prepare advice on the impact of the election commitments on the same basis as the departments would use for an incoming government.

The problem with this briefing session was that, whatever question was put, the answer given was enormously favourable to the government that had contested the election—in other words, the Labor government. Also, dishonest answers were given—or, should I simply say, answers were spun—so that we saw Treasury choose to knock out nearly $10 billion from our costings and our savings, which were 11½ billion dollars, on what I can only describe as spurious grounds. The Treasury simply said of the $2.5 billion of savings that were put down and noted against the issue of conservative bias allowance, 'This is not a real saving.' Yet Treasury itself had presided over a similar saving of $4.6 billion that had been notched up in the budget papers of the existing government—no consistency, no honesty.

Of the expenditure of $3.3 billion that we claimed savings for from the three funds—that is, the Health and Hospitals Fund, the Education Investment Fund and the Building Australia Fund—the Treasury said, 'We're not going to allow that as an acceptable saving because you haven't specifically identified the individual programs funded from those funds before the election.' How dishonest is this? In 2007, Mr Rudd went to the election and said, 'We will reserve the right to cancel committed programs which have not yet been contracted', which is exactly what we were going to do. Treasury identified that there was $3.6 billion available under those funds for us to have claimed and booked, but we only claimed $3.3 billion, and yet, dishonestly, the Treasury said to the Independents, 'They can't claim that $3.3 billion because they haven't identified those programs.' Prior to the election the shadow minister for finance and others had asked for those programs, and—guess what?—Treasury could not find them; they did not exist. Yet later in the day they suddenly found a secret list of those programs and how each of them was costed. We then asked for them in this very serious meeting with these Independents who, through their decision about who they would back, were making the decision for the nation. What did Treasury say? They said, 'We can't let you have them; they're secret.' Did they give any reason for that? Of course they did not; it was designed to influence the Independents to support the Gillard pitch.

Then we come to the question of another $2.4 billion, which was claimed against the NBN. (Time expired)

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I was last speaking, I was making the point that the real intent of the government bringing in their version of a parliamentary budget office is to enable them to again repeat the false undermining of the budget costings that we took to the last election. We took the view prior to the last election that we would not submit our costings to Treasury because of the bias in Treasury. We had them independently costed by reputable people and it was only after the election was held, and there was no winner, that the Independents demanded that costings be examined by Treasury and that they be briefed upon them. I had dealt with the fact that Treasury had disallowed $2.5 billion of our costings from the item of conservative bias allowance, quite inappropriately, and they had disallowed $3.3 billion against the three funds, where they had identified $4.6 billion, but they had, they said, a secret list of programs and that we should have identified individual programs for our savings to be valid. They disallowed $2.4 billion of savings that we identified that could be saved from the NBN, because Treasury said that they said that their estimate of the interest rate paid on the borrowings they would have to make was 4.9 per cent, whereas we said it would be 5.5 per cent, which gave us the right amount of savings. We had based that on the average of the bond rate over the six months prior to the election. Yesterday, I produced an average of the bond rate from July 2010 to date, which in fact showed that that bond rate is 5.23 per cent. So, once again, Treasury got it wrong and wrongly disallowed that saving for the benefit of the Independents.

There was a further $600,000 that they knocked out which were to be savings from our policies to get people off welfare benefits and into the workforce, which would allow tax to be paid by those people and savings to be made by welfare. Treasury said, 'No, you can't claim those because they come from a second-round incident,' yet they had allowed savings in the government's budget papers of a similar amount of money that were second-round benefits. Again, that was inappropriately disallowed. There was $1.15 billion disallowed by Treasury with regard to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme because, they said, of the identified 40 per cent of savings that could be identified from the arrangements first entered into by the present Leader of the Opposition when he was health minister and then by the government itself, they wanted to legislate for 23 per cent of those savings. So there was another 17 per cent to be booked by us. That is nearly $10 billion of the so-called $11 billion black hole. There was no black hole, and yet the politicisation of Treasury allowed this to become a statement that was made and the Independents said they partially—if not wholly—made their decision to go with the Gillard lot on the basis of what Treasury had to say to them.

This is the important point about this bill. We said we want to be independent of Treasury. We want to have access to Treasury modelling and Treasury estimates, but we do not want it to be tied to the coat-tails of Treasury, because that places any opposition in the position of simply having a biased Treasury that misleads people and disadvantages an opposition in a way which is, quite frankly, unconscionable. We have sensibly moved the amendments to make sure that we can have access to the right data and make sure that a parliamentary budget office has access to outside data, which would allow a true independent assessment to be made. But, with the poor old parliamentary secretary over there being silenced by the Leader of Government Business, he has again been placed in a position, as we said right at the beginning of the debate, of being a boy on a man's errand. He is quite a nice chap, but the problem is that he just does not have the wherewithal and it is not his— (Time expired)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great joy to enter this debate tonight. One of the great things about being a member of parliament is that you get the opportunity to go out to the schools of your electorate and talk about what a great, strong democracy we have in Australia. I describe to the children in the high schools the way the parliament works and the advantages of government. I say that on the government side they have some extra staff in their offices in the ministerial wing, but behind the ministers they also have the departments—all those thousands of public servants dedicated to helping the government. One of the reasons it would be good for the opposition to win the next election is that we would get all that support.

I was in the chamber to hear the very fine points that were made by the members for Mackellar, Bradfield, Mayo and Wright. It is very important that we are true to that which was brought out by the originators of the concept—that is, the shadow Treasurer on this side. When we look back at what happened at the time of the 2010 election we see the way in which Treasury was used and directed to find every possible way to undermine and cast doubt on the figures of the opposition. It was very clear from that point on that a parliamentary budget office was needed in this country, but not a parliamentary budget office in the way that the government has bastardised the original concept—not this strange amalgam of rules that will see Treasury maintaining control and oversight through the MOU process. It is absolutely bizarre.

When you talk about the independence of the Parliamentary Budget Office, what the government are putting forward is surely nothing more than a continuation of the same advantages that they were able to direct in the form of what happened at the time of the last election. It is clear that what we need in this place for better democracy so that we can be true to the Australian people, should we ever have a hung parliament again and so that figures are accurate and unbiased, is an independent parliamentary budget office that is empowered to give information and is not tethered to the coat-tails of Treasury. That is the only way forward. When we look at amendment (2), it is clear that what the shadow Treasurer has proposed is to see restored the original concept, the original independence and the original value that the Parliamentary Budget Office was designed to have. Sadly, I think the government is not interested in that. It has seen the advantages that were derived after the previous issues and it is determined to hold on to those same sorts of controls. Whilst the government might throw it out there in the ether and in the media to suggest that somehow what we are proposing is to undermine the Parliamentary Budget Office, what we are doing is making sure that this Parliamentary Budget Office is true to the independence that is absolutely critical in this case.

The trouble is that what we have in this place is a government who is very much in favour of a facade of what this Parliamentary Budget Office might be. At the heart of what the government is about is a maintenance of that status quo—somehow holding the Treasury to a position of doing the government business, undermining a legitimate opposition and weakening the democracy that this Parliamentary Budget Office should deliver. I think it is an absolute disgrace, and there is no reason at all why this second amendment should not be accepted by the parliament. I look forward to it passing when the time comes, because what we need is a stronger democracy so I can go back to those kids in my electorate and say that we have a better democracy than we used to have. (Time expired)

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

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to provide comment on the coalition's very sensible second amendment to the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011, the bill where once again the government are asking us to take them on faith. I think that all gathered here agree that we are sick and tired of taking this government on faith. We took them on faith on school computers, which are still not delivered; we took them on faith on overpriced school halls, to find that state schools were ripped off to the tune of 60 per cent of the value of private schools; we took them on faith on Green Loans; we took them on faith on the solar rebates, which have been an unmitigated disaster; we took them on faith on pink batts; and we took them on faith on live cattle exports. The list goes on of where we have taken these people on faith.

The coalition has asked numerous questions this evening from the emasculated member opposite, who refuses to answer even the most simple questions. So I simply say to the parliamentary secretary—the good Commander Bradbury of 'HMAS Sinking'there is time for you to outline exactly the requirements of this highly secretive MOU that the government is putting forward.

The member for Wentworth outlined a perfectly good parliamentary budget office in 2007-2008, an opportunity for costings to be properly understood. It was built on the back of the Charter of Budget Honesty which, as we all know, came in when the Howard government came in because the then finance minister actually stood publicly and said that the budget was in the black and that the finances were under control. The Howard government came in to find a level of astonishing duplicity resulting in a black hole of something like $8 billion or $9 billion in Commonwealth finances—hence the Charter of Budget Honesty came in.

And yet in 2007 when this government came to power and they put forward their policy costing to the Treasury, 130 of its over 160 policies were put in for costing on the last possible day imaginable and Treasury threw up its hands. Do not listen to what these people over there say, watch what they do because of the duplicity they showed when coming into office in 2007. They had no intention of having their policies costed; they put them all through on the last day. That is how I remember your government coming to power, Parliamentary Secretary. That is how I remember you treating with contempt the Charter of Budget Honesty. You come into this place with a—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Fadden that he should not—

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw and am admonished, Mr Deputy Speaker. The parliamentary secretary, Commander Bradbury, comes into this place with the Parliamentary Budget Office—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No; Member for Fadden—

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. The parliamentary secretary, the member for Lindsay, comes in supporting a parliamentary budget office, even though in 2007 on coming to the Treasury benches the government could not fulfil the requirements of the Charter of Budget Honesty. And here they are, laying down a range of issues with respect to the Parliamentary Budget Office that severely constrain the powers of that office and that require the PBO staff to go and have secret MOUs with a whole range of government departments.

The question for the government is: how hard is it to be open, honest, accountable and transparent? I know you won office in terms of duplicity. I know you won 2010 because of gross duplicity. I know you won the last election because the Prime Minister stood there and said 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.'

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Fadden, I did not win—

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now is the opportunity for you, sir, to come clean with this government—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Fadden will resume his seat.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The bill before the House is the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011, not any other legislation that might be before the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. We are talking about a budget bill, and in the budget there are money matters that are wide ranging. I call the member for Fadden and I remind him also to direct his comments through the chair and not at the chair.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are talking about the second amendment. We will find out tomorrow when the amendment to the Migration Act comes in, and we will see how aligned the convenor of the Left, the member for Throsby, is with his values and principles. We will see, Sir, how relevant you—the member for Throsby—are tomorrow when those bills come in. But right now, in terms of this amendment, this is simply saying that the coalition's amendments relating—(Time expired)

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to draw the member back to the subject matter of the amendment, not the member for Throsby.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary has raised a point, but I think you will find that it has been a very wide-ranging debate for the last two nights. And the member for Fadden's time has expired.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support amendment (2), moved by the member for North Sydney. If we are to have a fair dinkum parliamentary budget office, this amendment is absolutely necessary. What we have in the government's bill is simply a Clayton's parliamentary budget office. It is the type of Parliamentary Budget Office you will have if you really do not want one. But I trust that this is not a deliberate policy of this government. I trust that it is just sloppy legislation and sloppy drafting that has led to this situation.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As usual!

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. I am a believer in the old saying that if it is a choice between a conspiracy and a stuff-up, always go for the stuff-up. But on this government's record I would put my bottom dollar on it—I would put my last dollar on it—that this legislation is a stuff-up and that they have not done this deliberately.

I trust that the parliamentary secretary is here in good faith and that he actually might stand up and answer some questions rather than just sitting there in the chair like a scarecrow. If you have been silenced, Parliamentary Secretary, I really feel sorry for you, because you will need to think about what will happen when you guys might be in opposition, which might be sooner rather than later. There are a few members in the chamber here who just might hang on. I see the member for Chifley over there and the member for Throsby. I know you guys have big margins, but you never know—you might just hang on and be here in opposition very shortly. And you would want the most effective parliamentary budget office that this government could possibly have.

These amendments will not only strengthen the parliament but also strengthen the decision-making processes of this entire parliament for the betterment of the nation. And do we not need it at this time? We have to look at the fiscal position this government is leaving us in. In just four short years you guys have had the skill and ability to run up combined deficits of $150 billion. Congratulations—a brilliant effort. Going forward, in years ahead we have to work out how we are going to pay this back. We are going to have scarce and limited resources, and they will always be—something you guys simply do not understand. Therefore, we have got to make sure that the decisions made by this parliament and the policies that are put in place by the opposition and the government are the best and most effective they can be.

Just think of that $150 billion. The Treasurer is probably looking in the mirror now, practising his speech for the award of the World's Greatest Treasurer. He is talking about cracking it for a surplus of $3 billion. Let us just say that all the planets align and you guys do get that $3 billion, you will all stand up and applaud him. I would like you to remember that you have done $150 billion in four years, so if you can do $3 billion in one year you are going to take 50 years to bring that back. You have not cracked it for a single budget surplus in 20 years and to undo the damage that you guys have done in the last four years you will have to repeat this effort for the next 50 years going forward. That is the damage that you guys have done and that is the reason we need a truly independent and efficient parliamentary budget office.

Opposition members interjecting—

That's right, there is poor old Wyatt here—21 years of age—maybe for his next birthday!

The coalition's model of a parliamentary budget office has been developed over many years, unlike the one that you guys are putting forward which has simply been rushed through. We have actually sat down and thought about it. We have thought about the fact that you do need confidentiality provisions. They are most important and that is what this amendment will bring. Also, you cannot have the powers restrained, like your proposal does, and that is another reason that this amendment is desperately important.

In the remaining time we have left, as we are getting close to 9:30 pm, we hope that the parliamentary secretary will get to his feet—he has got 20 seconds to go—and at least answer some of these questions and not just sit there in silence as we have seen in the last hour. We know he wants to say something. We know that he has been nobbled. Come on, mate, get up, have a go; just don't sit there. I will give you the opportunity.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this very, very important debate in relation to the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011 and the particular amendments which we are moving now. This is an incredibly important debate, and of course it is only occurring because of the actions of the coalition and in particular the actions of the member for North Sydney in putting this matter on the agenda. We would not be having this discussion at all—the government would not be putting forward a countermotion—had we not put this agenda item on the table in the first instance.

This is important for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it is critical to have an independent office that the opposition can rely upon, can have confidence in, and can get detailed analysis from in order to put forward its propositions going towards an election. We know there have been problems in the past. We know that, when the opposition has put in costings to the Treasury in the last few years, we have not always got the confidentiality that we would demand. We have not always got the analysis and integrity that we would have expected from the particular process. So we have moved to establish a completely independent parliamentary budget office so that we do not have to rely upon the Treasury in order to do this particular work and we do not have to rely upon information which could be compromised from a confidentiality perspective.

This particular amendment that we are putting forward, amendment (2), strengthens these objectives. It is an objective which is apparently now shared across this chamber. It is no longer our objective just on this side of the chamber to have an independent office; it is indeed apparently an objective of the government members also. Apparently we now all want an independent office. Apparently we now all want terrific transparency to enable the opposition to get independent confidential costings leading up to an election. We apparently all want the sun to shine in and for there to be greater accountability in relation to this particular matter. Given that these are apparently the shared objectives, I ask the government to consider very carefully the particular amendments that we are putting forward now in order to deliver upon those objectives.

One of the key parts of giving an agency independence and integrity is its ability and its right to be able to gather information in order to do its analysis. If the agency does not have that ability to gather the information that it requires, then its analysis will be compromised. At particular moments with the government's legislation, gathering that information would be reliant upon a memorandum of understanding between the Department of the Treasury and the other departments. We do not think that is good enough, and the member for Dunkley has gone through some of the reasons that has been the case. Indeed, the Treasury has been advising that the ability for Treasury to access information from other departments would be less than the current ability to access that information under the present freedom of information laws.

So our amendments here strengthen the ability of the Parliamentary Budget Office to gather the information that is required for it to do its job. If you go through and look at the particular amendments, they are very straightforward. In essence, they enable the Parliamentary Budget Officer to require and obtain the information that it sees fit. If the government honestly believed in the objectives of creating an independent budget office with proper powers and proper scrutiny, then it would support this particular amendment.

The other critical thing is that the Parliamentary Budget Office must operate in a confidential way. The second part of our amendment is that it strengthens the confidentiality provisions. They are very straightforward amendments here. They empower the Parliamentary Budget Office to obtain the information that it needs and it empowers the Parliamentary Budget Office to ensure that there is confidentiality. I submit to the government: support these amendments if you are fair dinkum about the Parliamentary Budget Office. (Time expired)

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am seeking the call on the adjournment debate.