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

It is pretty clear what is happening—a pager message has gone out: 'Bradbury is sinking on PBO'. So the member for Throsby came in wondering what PBO is and he tried to have a spray at just about everything that has absolutely nothing to do with the shadow Treasurer's amendment to the bill before the House, the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011.

PBO does not stand for 'pretty bleeding obvious' that Labor wants to gut the Parliamentary Budget Office. PBO is not 'pretty bleeding obvious' that the government only wants its view of the economic projections to be in the public domain. That is what the PBO is. The PBO is that it is 'pretty bleeding obvious' you guys do not want a Parliamentary Budget Office. What would happen if you had a Parliamentary Budget Office under the amendments that my friend and colleague the shadow Treasurer has put forward? The PBO could actually look at Treasury's estimates and if they were sound and rigorous, if their credibility stood up to a robust analysis, and if the assumptions that underpin them were sound, they could be used. There is absolutely nothing in the amendment that stops the Parliamentary Budget Office utilising the forecasts, economic trajectories and projections that Treasury produce.

What the shadow Treasurer is seeking to do is to allow the Parliamentary Budget Office to get some other advice if it chooses. What a novel idea that a Parliamentary Budget Office might seek to satisfy itself about the economic forecasts and modelling that it chooses to use to help to provide an independent service to this parliament! I find it remarkable that we hear this sanctimonious drivel from Labor MPs about so-called attacks on public servants that are not attacks at all. It is about accountability and being held to account for the statements and the actions of the government. But apparently it is okay to have a spray at a parliamentary officer. You cannot say anything about a Treasury official without getting a dose of parliamentary sooky la-la, but you can have a crack at an independent parliamentary officer overseeing the Parliamentary Budget Office. Why is that? Do you feel you need to sanctimoniously come into this place to defend only some public servants? Is it because a Parliamentary Budget Office would not be under the control of, or subject to, the spinmeisters of this horrendously incompetent government that they are somehow not deserving of respect? I think public servants deserve respect whether they work in the Treasury or in an independent Parliamentary Budget Office. They all deserve some respect, but let us work out what is actually going on here.

We have seen the international models, some of which allow such officers to create their own forecasts and some of which oblige them to use the average of private-sector forecasts as a starting point—all perfectly credible international models, but not in Australia. Why? Because the Gillard Labor government are not interested in an initiative that goes to the good governance of this country. They are only interested in what is good for them. What is good for them is not having someone shine a light on and bring a different set of academic and intellectual rigour to some of their economic forecasting and costings.

But let us dig a little bit deeper into what happens if we allow the government's bill to stand—and I direct my comments to the Independents who might be weighing up whether they want a genuinely independent and transparent Parliamentary Budget Office or what the government want, which is a PBO full of the apprentices from Treasury. The government want them because they are not fully fledged and they have to use the Treasury advice and do what the government want. Why might that be? I tell you why they want that. They want that because one of the economic documents would be PEFO, the document released after an election is called. Under the current arrangements, if the opposition or Independent members want to update their costings on the basis of PEFO, any requests made during the caretaker period are released to everybody. You may want to update your work on the basis of the most current information available but the government want to hogtie that process to PEFO, which means that advice during the caretaker period is free for the government to manipulate, misuse and distort to their own grubby political ends, further undermining the very purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Office.

I put it to you that PBO is that it is 'pretty bleeding obvious' you guys want to hollow the Parliamentary Budget Office out and undermine its contribution to the good governance of the country purely so it can be in your good interests. And the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, the member for Lindsay, the extra from Sea Patrol, is left to defend that despicable position. I can understand why the message went out saying, 'Bradbury is sinking on PBO'. You have offered nothing in this debate that challenges the very credible and sound arguments the opposition has put up. I commend the shadow Treasurer's amendment.

See this speech in context