House debates

Tuesday, 13 September 2011

Bills

Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011; Consideration in Detail

8:38 pm

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

Their budget forecasts year on year blow out by $20 billion, $30 billion and $40 billion. How much are we in debt these days? How much extra in debt are we than we would have been in the last budget? Of course, they occasionally get their forecasts wrong so what is the problem with having a contestability element to it? There is no problem at all, except it is not in the Labor Party's political interests. It is short-termism. It is politics at its worst. It is not thinking through the long-term political consequences for your political organisation. It will be a bad outcome if we do not accept the very wise amendment proposed by the member for North Sydney.

Members on all sides, including those on the crossbenches, think it would be a good outcome to have another form of advice for all members of parliament. I have heard much about how important the member of parliament is in this place, particularly 12 months ago from the member for Lyne. He is right. They should have a role in this place. They should be able to get access to information just as the executive does. The executive test their policies. They do not get their policies right every time—and when it is this government they never get their policies right. It should be the same for the opposition and for the crossbenchers. This is a good amendment. It should be supported. If the member for Lindsay has any foresight at all, he will support it.

Comments

No comments