Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs. I refer the minister to his remarks yesterday in the House where he said that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel was integrally involved in the drafting of Fuelwatch. I also refer the minister to evidence provided to Senate estimates by senior Treasury officials last night, who said that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel was not present during the marathon 35-hour all-night drafting session. Will the minister now take the opportunity to correct the record?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The suggestion that a minister has misled the House is a very serious one and should not be made lightly. I was asked yesterday by the member for Dickson why the Office of Parliamentary Counsel was not involved in the drafting of the Fuelwatch legislation. He alleged or implied that there had been some skirting around the process and that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel was not involved in the drafting of the legislation. If there is any misleading of the House going on, it is going on on that side. In Senate estimates last night the Treasury confirmed that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel was involved in the drafting of the legislation.  In fact, yesterday I undersold that involvement. It has been confirmed today that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in fact did all the drafting of the legislation.

This was confirmed last night and I double-checked today. This is the advice to me—which I will table in a moment—from Mr Jim Murphy, Executive Director of the Markets Group of the Australian Treasury. He is, in effect, for those members who are not aware, the second most senior member of the Australian Treasury. It reads:

Questions have been raised in Parliament regarding the drafting of the Fuelwatch Bills. The drafting of the Fuelwatch Bills was undertaken by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. The instructing officers were Treasury officials. This is the normal process used for the drafting of Government legislation.

I table that document.

I understand the sensitivities of honourable members opposite, who do not want to get on the record the evidence of the Senate estimates for four hours last night and, by my last count, five hours so far today. What we have heard in Senate estimates is that the Australian Treasury endorsed the modelling of the ACCC and recommended Fuelwatch to the Australian government. Remember what we heard last week about how disgraceful it is not to listen to central agencies? Well, the Senate estimates last night heard, and Senator Coonan confirmed this morning, the advice that the Australian Treasury was comfortable with the work of the ACCC. For five hours so far today we have had a powerful argument for Fuelwatch from the ACCC, which those opposite do not want to hear. They can talk about process. We will talk about delivering benefits for the Australian people, which is what Fuelwatch does—as the Australian Treasury said last night and as the ACCC has said this morning.