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

I hear the member for North Sydney say, 'Why not?' That may well be a question that he should pose to those members of the opposition that were on the committee that participated in the process that was set up and, through that process, supported in a unanimous fashion the recommendations that were brought forward by that committee. The government has adopted those recommendations in full. So, if the member for North Sydney has some concern about the reasoning of the committee, can I suggest that he takes it up with his colleagues before he opens the dirty laundry of the coalition in this place. There are important questions that he might want to bring to the attention of the member for Sturt, Senator Joyce, and also the member for Higgins.

I also make the point that in the questioning throughout the committee process, Stephen Bartos, the former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Finance, noted that it would clearly be a waste of resources for the PBO, or an independent outside body, to try to duplicate the efforts of the Treasury in doing those economic forecasts. He said:

There is a reasonable consensus that duplicating the work of the bureaucracy in preparing economic forecasts would not be a good use of resources; however, many stakeholders do see a valuable role for an independent body in validation of the forecasts and commentary on official fiscal documents.

Simply, I think this shows that the opposition is somewhat confused in terms of what it is now purporting to set out as being the objectives and the mission statement of the PBO. Perhaps it would better suit them if the PBO were not spending its time analysing opposition costings and embarking upon these more wide-ranging pursuits such as forecasting of the sort that they have recommended. The government does not accept or agree to this particular amendment.

See this speech in context