Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011 and the cognate bill. What an extraordinary attack we just heard from the member for Goldstein. The political party that once believed in an impartial Public Service doing the great work of the Australian people has now got that service in its sights. That is what the modern day Liberal Party thinks—that the Treasury boffins who have devoted their working lives to understanding the Australian economy, providing careful, impartial advice on where the Australian economy is going to go, are mere political footballs. Those opposite are willing to extend their attacks any way they can.

Frankly, it is not that surprising that those opposite are looking for targets in the bureaucracy as well as on this side of the House, because they know, as all Australians do, that when it comes to many of the big issues—whether you are talking about fiscal stimulus, climate change or the minerals resource rent tax—the vast bulk of Australian economists line up with the position of the Gillard government. So, of course, when you have an opposition who is led by a man who has described economics as a bit of a bore, when you have an opposition who is on record as saying that when you disagree with Australian economists you should just attack the profession, then, yes, they are going to extend their attacks to the Australian Treasury, extend their attacks to the Australian Treasurer's economic forecasting. The member for Goldstein is right when he says that forecasts are not always perfect, but the notion that the Australian Treasury's forecasts are somehow politicised is a notion that I immediately reject. Those who work in the Australian Treasury are hardworking public servants, like the many public servants in my electorate of Fraser who get up every morning thinking: 'How can I improve Australia? How can I put better ideas on the table to build a better country?'

During the last election we saw the opposition providing any possible excuse for not submitting its policies for costings. The excuse they were running on—the 'excuse du jour'—was that Treasury was going to leak their policies. This was a pretty extraordinary claim, given that this was the same opposition that had, a few short months earlier, been making hay out of leaks from Godwin Grech, but that was their claim. Of course, we discovered after the election why the opposition had been so keen to keep their costings away from the public eye; it turned out that the opposition costings were a cool $11 billion short. A series of assumptions made by those opposite were simply unfounded. The opposition's costings did not stack up.

Since then, the opposition have clearly decided that $11 billion is not good enough. They are going to go for the record, and they are now up to a $70 billion black hole. We know this thanks to leaks from the opposition's policy budget group, and we have had it confirmed by the member for Goldstein. In contrast, the member for North Sydney is still arguing that the $70 billion figure does not characterise their shortfall. I think he would like to imagine that the opposition's shortfall is maybe just $50 billion or $60 billion, but it has been confirmed by the member for Goldstein and other members of the coalition's front bench that the opposition's costings are in deep, deep trouble. There are good reasons for that, because every time they stare a hard policy choice in the face those opposite take the easy road. They want to promise everything to everyone and they are unwilling to stand up for reasonable tax savings. They are unwilling to means-test the private healthcare rebate and they are unwilling to support the fuel tax reforms that were introduced into this place by then Treasurer Peter Costello in 2003. The opposition are running from the hard policy choices.

Before the House today we have two proposals for a parliamentary budget office. We have a government bill that would allow the Parliamentary Budget Office to access information from Australian government agencies through a negotiated memorandum of understanding in circumstances where the release of information is consistent with other legislative requirements, including being guided by the principles established under the Freedom of Information Act. This is consistent with the unanimous recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office. The committee favoured an MOU over compulsion to provide information, on the grounds that it would facilitate more productive working relationships between the Parliamentary Budget Office and government agencies. In contrast, the coalition's proposal would give the Parliamentary Budget Officer power to direct agencies to provide information. In its unanimous report, the committee flagged concerns with providing these powers to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, including the potential for this to inhibit productive working relationships with government agencies. Under the coalition's approach, the Parliamentary Budget Officer would have power to access information despite any other law and there would be no controls over the officer then disclosing information to members and senators if it relates to their request. The joint committee said at page 76 of its report:

The committee considers that the PBO’s relationships with Government agencies will be crucial to its success. Not only will the PBO require information and data held by Government agencies, it may also need the assistance of agencies in making the best use of that information and data.

The committee went on to say:

Further, there may be instances where, by working together on the kinds of information required, the agencies can better understand the ongoing needs of the PBO. The relationships between the PBO and Government agencies might also evolve over time, possibly leading to greater efficiencies and enhanced products for Senators, Members and committees.

Essentially the opposition's approach is to create an adversarial, legislative relationship backed by criminal sanctions. By contrast, the government's approach is based on comprehensive understandings between the PBO and government agencies. Our approach will ensure that information is exchanged quickly and appropriately, in keeping with the unanimous recommendations of the joint select committee.

The confidentiality of policy costings in the opposition's bill is unnecessary. The government's bill already provides for confidentiality of non-election costings. But the opposition's agenda is clear: they want to hide costings from the public at election time. We can understand why they would want to do this. Put yourself in their shoes, Mr Deputy Speaker. If at the last election you were out $11 billion, and currently you are behind $70 billion, why would you want to put more information about costings out into the public arena?

The government bill distinguishes between policy costings during elections and those outside of the caretaker period for a general election. It will ensure that the election costing service of the PBO is transparent and consistent with similar processes under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act, with all costings, including details of the request, released publicly. This is a critical part of the election policy costing process. The public is entitled to know the cost of a party's policies. Talk should be cheap, but election costings are sometimes pretty expensive. Those who are putting forward ideas about where the country should go, those who are proposing changes in the tax system, should be subject to an independent and rigorous evaluation as to whether those costings really stack up.

As the PBO function would fully replace the current option for the opposition to submit their costings to Treasury or the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the opposition bill effectively replaces a transparent process where costings are required to be public during an election, with a non-transparent process where costings can remain confidential. This is a step back in terms of accountability, scrutiny and transparency. It unwinds a core component of the principles of the Charter of Budget Honesty.

In terms of the functions of the PBO, the joint select committee seriously considered this and unanimously recommended against it. This is about how the PBO can best serve members. The committee considered it and felt that it was not the best use of Parliamentary Budget Office resources and that it could detract from its ability to meet requests to members in terms of analysis, costings and providing information. The government bill provides the Parliamentary Budget Office with the capacity to rely on the economic and fiscal forecasts prepared by Treasury and Finance. The role for the two agencies is a longstanding and critical role. It is a role which many of us in this House respect—though not, apparently, the member for Goldstein. It provides important framing for the annual budget and related documents prepared under the Charter of Budget Honesty. The Treasury and Finance submission noted the significant resources and expertise required to undertake forecasting and questioned the need for duplication of the task. The bill before us that the opposition is proposing is a non-transparent, black hole. (Time expired)

See this speech in context