Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment (2) circulated in the name of the member for North Sydney be agreed to.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very grateful to be given some more opportunity to see if we can, for the first time tonight, elicit one answer at least from the parliamentary secretary. It is a great occasion to see the Treasurer. Finally, the Treasurer has summoned up the courage. He is the world's greatest Treasurer and he has summoned up the courage to come down to the chamber on the issue of the parliamentary budget office! I am sure that the world's greatest Treasurer would have the integrity to fix this bill, before he leaves House!

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Scurry out.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are scurrying out again. We have an opportunity, hopefully, in whatever period we have, for the first time tonight to get an answer to a question. The member for Forde made a very astute observation. The whole point of this debate, the whole point of this legislation, the whole point of the amendments—the whole reason we put up this proposition some years ago—was to ensure that there be some independent authority which would, with honesty, openness and transparency, consider and cost the policies of both sides of politics.

We have been unable to get any answers out of the parliamentary secretary opposite. So I would like to ask some more questions. Perhaps I will ask some easy questions to start with to get him into the mood of answering questions. Parliamentary Secretary, the first question I would like you to answer is: what does a 26 per cent primary vote mean for a parliamentary leader? You might be able to get yourself warmed up—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the first opportunity that I have had to be in the chair on a debate on the consideration in detail of this piece of legislation. The consideration-in-detail debate is a very narrow—I emphasise 'very narrow'—debate. We have before us an amendment moved by the member for North Sydney that goes to a particular clause in the original bill and suggests words that replace it.

That is the subject of the debate now. Whatever has happened for the last three or four hours of debate, just forget it. You had your opportunity to speak in the second reading debate; this is not a rerun.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very difficult to forget the last four hours because I put a series of questions that are very narrow and very deliberate. They go to the question of this amendment. The parliamentary secretary opposite got told last night—we heard it—by the Leader of the House, 'This is not question time; you shut up and stop answering questions.' That is what we heard and that is what he has done all night. He has sat there, mute, all night as we have sought to get answers to legitimate questions. Will the Parliamentary Budget Office cost the government's policies? Can you tell me that, Mr Parliamentary Secretary?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Goldstein will relate that material to how it relates to amendment (2).

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amendment (2), Mr Speaker, goes to the issue of both the data and information that can be acquired by the Parliamentary Budget Office and the secrecy provisions that surround it. If there is to be a Parliamentary Budget Office, which costs both sides of politics in an independent, honest, open and transparent fashion, we need to know: will that Parliamentary Budget Office cost the government's policies? Will it use the information that has been made available by Treasury and others to cost the government's policies?

The second question that I have asked is: when do we see released the costings carried out if we have done 100 per cent of all of our costings before the election, before the campaign proper? It is not a difficult question, Parliamentary Secretary, it is very easy. It is why I pitched up that dorothy dixer before to get you warmed up to answering some of the questions. You have to get in the mood, obviously. You have not looked at us all night. You have not opened your mouth. The way in which you are dictated to by the Manager of Government Business is a disgrace. This is an insult to the people on this side of the parliament. We will keep speaking and we will keep asking questions until you answer some questions, until we know whether this bill is something that we can support and until we know whether this amendment is necessary or not.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the issue? Talk to the issue.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can keep your mouth shut up the back there, thanks.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Lyons has been in the parliament for quite a long time, he is greatly respected and he should maybe restrain himself as other honourable members would expect him to do. I call the honourable member for Goldstein.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was trying to elicit from the parliamentary secretary some very legitimate answers to legitimate questions. I have been totally unsuccessful, as have about 30 of my colleagues to date, but we will keep going and we will keep trying. I ask you, Parliamentary Secretary: if we do carry out our costings, everyone of them before the campaign begins, when is the Parliamentary Budget Office required to release the costings that it has determined in the period before the 33-day campaign? It is not that difficult. You have had that question for 2½ hours now and still have not provided an answer. I would be grateful for an answer to that question.

Secondly, we are told in the government's own explanatory memorandum to this bill that the MOU may also outline the grounds on which agencies can refuse access to information, which could include the same grounds that documents can be exempted from requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and other relevant legislation. It goes on to say that the MOU would offer options for recourse by the officer should the requested information not be provided. This would seem that the Parliamentary Budget Office will be denied all information that would otherwise be able to be obtained by us under FOI. The same criteria that apply to FOI will apply to the restrictions applied on the Parliamentary Budget Office. I would ask the parliamentary secretary if that in fact is the case. Is that the case that the Parliamentary Budget Office, in dealing with the memoranda of understanding cast with up to 30 departments, can ask for and expect to get no more than what we could today request under FOI? (Time expired)

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Parliamentary Budget Office and the member for North Sydney's amendment (2). As we all know, this was a policy first proposed by the coalition back in 2007. It is wonderful that the government has embraced this initiative and put forward this bill. But as it stands today it is nothing more than a toothless tiger, warm and fuzzy and designed to give you warm feelings, but that is about it. That is why the member for North Sydney has moved this amendment to give the Parliamentary Budget Office some power to gather information.

It surprises me that we have had interjections and objections from the member for Chifley and the member for Throsby because, as we know, a government's job is to make sure the opposition do not find out about information and do not get access to costings. That is their main goal in life. It is a bit like Agent 86's cone of silence in that they have their cone of secrecy.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I apologise to the member for Ryan, but would those members and staff members milling around in the corridors please leave the chamber. The member for Ryan will then be able to be heard by all members who want to listen to her, which I assume is everyone. The member for Ryan.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I did take it as a cheer squad anyway. What we have here is an amendment proposing real power to the Parliamentary Budget Office. It is very interesting that the government members are objecting to this. It could be that they think they will never lose power. I can understand that perhaps some of the longer-serving members on the government side are not looking beyond the next term or two, but it surprises me that members like the member for Chifley and the member for Throsby are not looking a little more forward into the future. Maybe they think they know it all. Maybe they think they do not need assistance from the officers or from a future Parliamentary Budget Office to assist them with costings going forward. But, if we are going to have transparent and democratic government, this is what we need: we need a Parliamentary Budget Officer who has the authority to access information and to provide that information without fear or favour to both the government and the opposition, because it is critical that we cost the promises.

I look at the member for Chifley, who is here in the chamber; he served with me on the inquiry into the National Broadband Network. Just think: if we had had proper costing of that proposal going into the election, maybe the government would have made some wise decisions and saved the Australian people several billion dollars. Maybe if we had had proper costings on pink batts we would not have wasted money as we have. If we had—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker himself has made it quite clear: he had a reasonable expectation that, in this consideration in detail debate, members should confine themselves to the amendments before the House. I understand we are on amendment (2):

64F Information gathering powers and secrecy

(1) The Parliamentary Budget Officer has the powers and obligations set out in Schedule 2—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat—

Opposition members interjecting—

and honourable members on my left will remain completely silent. I call the member for Ryan, and I would counsel her to direct her attention to the particular provisions of the amendment the chamber is currently considering.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, as you so rightly pointed out, if members on the other side had been listening, they would have understood that what I am trying to say is that, if we support this amendment, we can save the government from the poor and reckless financial management that they are inflicting on the Australian people today. I was merely giving examples of where we could have saved the Australian people and indeed our country from poor and reckless financial management such as of the pink batts, such as computers in schools, such as solar rebates—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are in a very restricted and confined area of parliamentary debate now, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your contribution was a disgrace!

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar will remain silent.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member has to concentrate on the amendments before the House, not go into some rhetorical flourish—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very finite debate. Members will have to focus on the particular amendments being moved, and I would counsel the member for Ryan, whose time has now expired, that she should indeed do that. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I now call the honourable member for Mayo.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it is nice to be back with you this evening.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is nice to have you back—

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

for as long as you are able to stay here.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that. And I appreciate the interest member for Hunter now has in the bill. In fact, he might stand up and answer some of the questions on which we have now been waiting for two hours for an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer. These are important amendments, about ensuring that the Parliamentary Budget Office has enough power to get from government departments details of their budgetary outlays so that decisions can be made by oppositions and by independent members.

The member for Hunter—who of course was a former defence minister—knows how difficult it can be at times to get information from the public service. In his time as defence minister he had some well reported incidents with the defence department about blowouts in certain projects. The member for Hunter was well known to be critical of some of the decisions made by the defence department in some of their purchases. And I think this highlights the issues that we are raising.

The member for North Sydney, in his high-quality amendment to this bill, is trying to ensure that the Parliamentary Budget Office is armed well enough to be able to get information from the departments—when it is difficult for ministers, and former ministers, as the member for Hunter knows, to get the relevant information that they require, to make the decent policy decisions that we want to make in this place.

And all we are asking the Parliamentary Secretary to do is to give us some assurances. We are asking Parliamentary Secretary Bradbury to stand up in his place at the dispatch box and give us some assurances that engagements with agencies like Customs will let us find out about how boats operate off the northern shore in the border patrol—the detail of how they operate. We can visit and we can find out from their budgetary expenditure how they operate. Parliamentary Secretary, answer the questions from the member for Goldstein. They were asked about two hours ago. You must have the notes by now. You must have some information through on your phone. That is all the parliament requires. We require some answers.

The Deputy Speaker outlined very well that this is a process that we are engaged in in this House where we are debating an amendment that has been moved, rightly, by the member for North Sydney, improving this bill—a practice of this place, where we are engaging with the government about why these improvements should be adopted. We ask the Parliamentary Secretary for reasons why they should not be adopted, if he does not think they should be. And if they should be, then he can stand and just tell us that the government now agrees with them. That is an option for the Parliamentary Secretary as well: if he does not know the answer and he thinks these are good amendments, well, we encourage him to support them.

These are good amendments because they would give the Parliamentary Budget Office that power to get into the departments and get relevant information—the same power as the Auditor-General has—rather than a memorandum of understanding where we will not know what is in it. We will not know what carve-outs the departments have written for themselves, or what time frames will be required.

As we have already talked about in this debate—and I am reluctant to go back over old debate; I am conscious of the point that the member for Hunter made earlier—answers from this government to freedom of information requests are slow in coming. Member for Lyons, they are not necessarily within the time frame allocated—the 28 days. In fact, some departments are quite outside their time frames.

We say we want some answers from the Parliamentary Secretary about why the amendments the member for North Sydney is moving are not improving the bill, or for the Parliamentary Secretary to give some assurances to the House that what we are seeking from these amendments can be done now through the memorandum of understanding. We do not believe that they can be. We believe that the departments will be able to write their own carve-outs. We will not know what the requirements are in these amendments. We do not think this is an appropriate way to go forward on what is meant to be a truly independent and non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Office which can add to the strength of our public policy debate in this place—if it is empowered properly with the required strength of tools so that it can do its job properly, get the information from departments and ensure that we know what comes from the departments is right. Then we can increase the strength of our policy development processes so that, when we seek to win government at the next election and we highlight a series of policies, we know that the information we are getting from the departments is reliable, timely and will add to our policy processes. I know all members of this side of the House want this amendment, and I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us why we should not. (Time expired)

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be very clear about this amendment: this amendment seeks to remove subsections 64F(1), 64F(2), 64F(3) and 64F(4). It seeks to remove those sections and insert a new section 64F, which provides greater powers to obtain information. One of the reasons why this is a stitch up—and the Independents and others need to be aware of it—is, as I pointed out during the discussion of the last amendment, the only information that can be used by the Parliamentary Budget Office is that provided by the Treasurer outside of an election time; and during an election it is PEFO—Pre-election Fiscal Outlook—which is the only information that belongs to the Treasury and the minister for finance. When we ask how the new PBO will get behind the economic and fiscal forecasts of the government in order to understand what the assumptions are behind the individual fiscal initiatives—be it a pink batts initiative, be it a school hall initiative or be it expenditure on defence—the Parliamentary Budget Office is going to have to identify what the assumptions are in order to understand whether the fiscal contribution of the policy is accurate. The question is: how much power will the PBO have to get behind the officially published numbers? As revealed in its submission to the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Treasury said:

Provisions would need to be made to allow agencies to refuse requests on the same grounds that documents can be exempted under the FOI Act and for the review of those decisions.

This would include commercially valuable information

I accept that commercially valuable information needs to be protected, but they say:

… information produced for the purpose of deliberative processes or the national economy…

Well, what is the budget? What are the budget papers? What are the economic and fiscal outlook figures? They are for the national economy. Here Treasury in its own submission is saying, 'Hang on, that's exactly the sort of data we should not reveal to the Parliamentary Budget Office'—our basic assumptions that go to the heart of the budget papers themselves. They are saying, 'We need extensive powers to refuse to provide additional information to the Parliamentary Budget Office.' What does the government say? It says, 'Okay, we accept that; we don't want to go behind our numbers. We don't want the parliament's independent budgetary office to go behind the numbers that belong to the Treasurer, so we'll have a memorandum of understanding.'

This new Parliamentary Budget Office is expected somehow to enter into individual memorandums of understanding with 197 government bodies, 19 portfolios, 147 Commonwealth authorities, 83 agencies, 64 Commonwealth authorities and 27 Commonwealth companies. The Parliamentary Budget Office is going to spend the next decade entering into memorandums of understanding with individual government agencies in order to comply with the requirements of this legislation. What a complete and utter joke!

The Independents have given up on the debate. It is all a little too hard for them. They were here for amendment (1) and they participated actively. When we were starting to turn them, the House adjourned and they had to go away and get a bit of a stiffener. They were stiffened up by the government and then they came back and said, 'No, no we're not going to accept recommendation No. 1 that the PBO should be in the business of—(Extension of time granted) On amendment (1), just as the member for Lyne started to give a little bit of that open, transparent member for Lyne that we recall from the first few days after the last election—just when we had that glimpse—we realised that it was an eclipse. It was a darkened eclipse and he went back to being a yes man for the government. No surprise there. But on this initiative, where we are giving the PBO the powers of the Auditor-General to get behind the numbers and where we are giving the PBO the power to protect—enhanced protection, in fact—the information given to them by agencies, and where we are giving the PBO the power to get the assumptions, the modelling, the inputs in relation to decisions of the government so that comparable work can be undertaken for the benefit of members and senators, what happens? The government says, 'No, no, we don't want that transparency. We're going to send them off to enter into memorandums of understanding with 197 government bodies, 19 portfolios, 147 Commonwealth authorities, 83 agencies, 64 Commonwealth authorities and 27 Commonwealth companies. It is quite a mammoth task; that is quite a sea of MOUs. At least three years of work. And by the time they get to the bottom of that, they might—just maybe—have the right to request general information of a department or an agency or an authority. In making that request, they may well then be able to obtain a no—'No, we can't give you that information'. For the very same reasons that stonewalling exists at estimates committee hearings, it exists for FOIs. We know what that is about; we have seen it before. That is why we are moving this amendment.

This amendment is about transparency. This amendment is about accountability. This amendment is about actually getting to the bottom of the numbers, so that we do not have another pink batts blow-out, another school hall blow-out, another blow-out of tens of billions of dollars in the National Broadband Network; so that we do not have to suffer the rather insufferable blow-outs in defence procurement, or the situation where the government is caught out sending $900 stimulus cheques to people who are dead or who are overseas. In fact, the Prime Minister of New Zealand said to me, 'Thank God for that stimulus from the world's greatest Treasurer—because, I tell you what, it did wonders for tourism to New Zealand.' People were taking the $900 cheque, which was meant to stimulate the Australian economy, and they were going to New Zealand. It is a shame they did not hold the World Cup at that moment; they would have doubled their audience.

But, of course, there is the world's greatest Treasurer; he does not make mistakes. He is not one to blow the budget—$154 billion in deficit and yet to have his first budget surplus. I thought there was only one Bradbury in this parliament, but Steven Bradbury is the Treasurer—coming skating through after everyone else has fallen over. There are two Bradburys in this House. How wonderful!

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One could talk under wet cement.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right; and one is deathly silent.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The member for Chifley on a point of order?

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Speaker was quite particular earlier, indicating the need to make sure that comments are directly relevant to the amendment.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. I am the chair at the moment and I am well aware of what the Speaker has said. I agree with his ruling. This is a finite and close debate. I call the member for North Sydney who will confine himself to the amendment before the chamber.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just say to the House: we need to know what information is behind government decisions, in order to make this a truly independent PBO, and, without these measures and this amendment, it cannot be done. (Time expired)

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Going back to the bill and the purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Office is 'to inform the parliament by providing … independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals'. How on earth can that objective be achieved if the members of the PBO have to go on bended knee to the plethora of government departments, companies et cetera to get the information they need to be able to give that advice?

The whole purpose of this amendment is to open up the accessibility of information, to make it possible for the officers of the Parliamentary Budget Office to achieve the purpose that is set out in this bill. It is almost like, as the member for Dunkley said earlier, the PBO has been nobbled. I think the owners of Fine Cotton would be blushing at the job this government has done in nobbling the PBO.

Key areas that these amendments are seeking to address are: to strengthen the functions of the PBO; to improve the information gathering powers and secrecy and—most of all, given the debate that has been going on for the last few hours—restoring confidentiality to the costing of policies. And that benefits both sides and the Independents and gives an opportunity to assess the analysis from the PBO so that we can go back and work on those policies before they are released publicly.

I do not understand the difficulty the government has with this amendment; unless, as has been pointed out by a number of members, they have something to hide. What could they possibly have to hide? Let's have a look at a long list: pink batts, school halls, home insulation, small technology credits, AWRA—the list goes on.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Set-top boxes.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The list goes on and on. We could spend all night just on the list.

These arrangements purely and simply have been made to benefit the government, the departments and their agencies. They are not for the benefit of the parliament or the Australian people by giving proper access to all sides of the House to the actual information underlying assumptions that are being made. It is time for this government to honour its commitment to openness, honesty and transparency; and, for the Independents, whose absence is testament to their interest in this debate, to let the sun shine in under the new paradigm.

All we are interested in is having proper access to the information so that we can have proper, effective costings of our policies done, so that the opposition—or the Independents or even the government—can have costings released at a time when the relevant party sees fit to release those costings for their own policy purposes. The PBO is there to prepare costings and policies submitted by members and senators, but the opposition lacks access to the underlying assumptions. The assumptions underlying the carbon tax are a classic case in point. The government still has not released its modelling—some of its modelling has been done at $20 a tonne and some at $23 a tonne, but we have no idea what modelling says about $139 a tonne or $131 a tonne. Another purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Office is to allow those things to be properly assessed. That way everybody in this House will have proper access to a wide range of information, including external sources of information that are independent of the government. That will mean that the policy-making and decision-making processes of this House are enhanced, and the people who will benefit most from that are the Australian public. I commend this amendment to the House.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This second amendment to the bill goes to the heart of transparency; it goes to the heart of this government's capacity to be truthful not only with the opposition but also with the Australian electorate. It goes to the heart of this opposition's ability to project its costings models from the same point that the government does. There is no greater injustice to the electorate than an opposition putting up its costing models with assumptions that are different to the assumptions that have been made by the government.

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

You're arguing our point.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No; but it is wonderful to hear from our parliamentary secretary friend. If you are going to have a chat, get on your feet and start answering the 15 questions that were asked of you by my colleagues earlier tonight and last night. I draw attention to the fact that the parliamentary secretary has all of a sudden found a voice against the wishes of the Manager of Government Business, who came in and instructed him last night not to say anything on this bill.

I feel like the solicitor in the movie The Castle when he says 'it's just the vibe'. But this amendment goes to more than 'the vibe'; it goes to the strength of the parliament and the right of the public to know. We want answers, and we want to have faith in a system that is able to provide the opposition and the government with answers that are given on the same footing. We cannot get them here—there is a degree of arrogance being shown by the government in not engaging in the debate, not answering questions and not providing the opposition with the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

I refer your attention to section 64F of the bill. It talks about 'arrangements for obtaining information from Commonwealth bodies.' Subsection (3) of section 64F says, 'The Parliamentary Budget Officer must ensure that an arrangement made under subsection (1) is made publicly available.'

That is another issue—confidentiality. Who knows what will happen when you put a costings model up? You might be out there having a shot, or you might be out there trying to work out what your costing forecast is going to be. But you put your costings model up to be tested and it comes back and does not happen to be consistent with where you thought it was going to be, and it is on a webpage—it is out there in the public—and you are basically handing the government a bat to bash you around the head with.

It was the coalition that introduced a charter of budget honesty. The party that is in opposition now saw fit to introduce transparency into the government and into this parliament in such a manner. The shadow treasurer mentioned the number of government bodies, agencies and departments that would go to creating an absolute bureaucratic nightmare in which there would be so many memorandums of understanding. The point was made by the member for Goldstein that it could take up to three years for those processes to happen if we were going to have a truly transparent government.

This amendment is truly about nothing but transparency. Why are we at this time of the night still debating this amendment? We are doing it because we do not trust the government. In other debates during the week we have heard about the 500 business houses that are going to be taxed under the carbon tax. But to date—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who are they?

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is my very point. Members on this side of the House are asking 'Who are they—who are the 500?' That is exactly my point—they will not tell us. When you have a debate and you do not have transparency, it is very hard to come to a conclusion. (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This amendment ensures that the Parliamentary Budget Office has enough powers to get from government departments the necessary information to ensure accountability and transparency. We in this House should all hold accountability and transparency in the highest regard. If there are two things that I get asked regularly about when I talk to constituents in the Riverina they are accountability and transparency—that is, why this government will not show any accountability or transparency.

I question why the parliamentary secretary will not come to the dispatch box and answer the questions that have been put him to tonight. I suspect it is because the government has gagged him. I suspect the government is not keen to have anyone talk too much at all in this House because of its haste to push through the Clean Energy Bill 2011, known across Australia as simply the carbon tax—the carbon tax the Prime Minister said we would not have as a nation under any government she led. I suspect that is why tonight we were to have 16 speakers, all of them from the coalition, debating the carbon tax until the adjournment at 9.30.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to bring the member back to the amendments before the House.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member would be aware that we are focusing on a particularly narrow amendment. He will direct his remarks to the provisions of the amendment before the chair.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to know why the government was not providing any speakers on the legislation when it is of such national importance.

The government was quick to remind us all today in question time about doing things in the national interest. What could be more in the national interest than accountability and transparency to avoid the budgetary sins of the past—the blowouts, the overruns and the rorts? This amendment ensures that the Parliamentary Budget Office will have enough powers to ensure that they get the information from government departments to avoid the blowouts, the overruns and the rorts. We think of the Green Loans—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I put it to you that it is highly disorderly for the member to be accusing governments of any political persuasion in this country of being guilty of rorts.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Riverina is skating very close to the mark. He will observe the standing orders and confine his remarks to the very narrow provisions of the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not use the word rorts; I will just refer to the blowouts and the overruns that this government has been so guilty of in its four years—overruns and blowouts but not rorts that have led us to a $200 billion deficit which is going up by the day.

People out there in the electorates that we on the coalition side represent are wondering why there is no accountability or transparency. These amendments that have been put forward by the member for North Sydney seek to achieve that. The amendment seeks to remove one subsection and insert a new section, 64F, to provide greater powers of information and the ability to glean that information. The independent member for Lyne, who we have heard talk so often about letting the sunshine into this place, about the new paradigm and about openness in the budgetary process, is surely in favour of what the member for North Sydney is proposing. This amendment is important and it is in the national interest. It seeks to provide that accountability and transparency that is so desperately lacking in this government.

I cannot understand why this government would refuse to allow these amendments given the fact that we need to get information from government departments to ensure that there is accountability and transparency in everything that this place seeks to achieve so that we avoid the blowouts and the overruns—not the rorts but the blowouts and overruns—that this government has been so guilty of in its four years.

This government was left with a huge surplus which has been wasted because we have not had accountability and transparency. This amendment seeks to put in place that accountability and transparency that is so obviously lacking from this government. I urge that this amendment be put and passed so that we can get accountability and openness.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some further remarks on the heavy, important and substantive question before the House, which is: which of the two alternative regimes ought best be adopted to give effect to the optimal operation of the Parliamentary Budget Office? We have two alternative proposals. The first is that embodied in proposed section 64F contained in the bill moved by the parliamentary secretary.

In passing, may I commend the parliamentary secretary on the mastery, the Socratic method, he is demonstrating as he listens with all-knowing, all-seeing patience to the various submissions which are being put. I have a simple confidence; I have a simple faith; I have a simple trust—I believe that the parliamentary secretary is open to reason, persuasion and a consideration and an independent, fair-minded weighing up of the evidence. I am confident that the parliamentary secretary is not going to disappoint me or this House as he weighs up the heavy question before him of whether he ought to stick to the earnest but rather limited form of proposed section 64F of the bill that he has put before the House or whether he is going to join with the opposition in adopting the broader, more expansive, more empowering version of proposed section 64F which we have put before the House out of a fair-minded and disinterested concern to ensure that the Parliamentary Budget Office operates with the maximum degree of efficacy, independent advice and capacity to discharge its heavy obligations.

I do not say that this is an easy question to weigh up. I do not say that these matters are straightforward. I do not say that these matters admit of an easy or an instant answer. But what I do say is that, while these questions may be heavy and while the burden may be a difficult one, I have confidence that the parliamentary secretary at the end of this period of near Delphic silence will rise and impress us all with his capacity for fair-minded weighing up of the different positions which have been put to the House this evening. The position that I want to put this evening for consideration by the parliamentary secretary, by the government and by all fair-minded members of this House—joined as we are with a concern to ensure that the Parliamentary Budget Office will operate with maximum efficacy—is simply this: section 64F in the bill that has been put before the House this evening by the government, through the office of the parliamentary secretary, is inadequate. It is manifestly inadequate in order to allow the Parliamentary Budget Office to discharge the heavy responsibilities that we are all seeking in a fair-minded way and to allow it to discharge its obligations in an effective manner.

I put this to the House: if the Parliamentary Budget Office is to operate with efficiency and efficacy, in a way which gives force to the great hopes that all of us share for it, it is essential that it is given the broader powers that are contained in section 64F as proposed in amendment (2) of the excellent set of amendments put before the House by the member for North Sydney. That is the proposition that I put to the House this evening. We have two alternative versions of 64F. One is manifestly superior. I am confident the parliamentary secretary will recognise that in due course. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Hockey's) be agreed to.

The House divided. [22:36]

(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Slipper)

Question negatived.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (3), (4) and (5):

(3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (line 22), omit "; and".

(4) Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (lines 23 to 25), omit paragraph 64H(3)(d).

(5) Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (lines 26 and 27), omit the note.

These amendments relate to the information-gathering powers and secrecy requirements of the Parliamentary Budget Office. Schedule 1, item 16, paragraph 64H(3)(d) provides that a request by a senator or an MP for the costing of policies outside the caretaker period may include a direction to treat the request as confidential. That is, it is required that the senator or MP notify the Parliamentary Budget Office that the information that they are providing to the PBO is confidential. This is the wrong way around. Senators and MPs need to be assured that their interactions with the PBO will be confidential at all times unless they specifically direct otherwise. That is our view. It should be entirely the prerogative of senators and MPs whether any aspect of their interaction with the PBO is made public. I move that paragraph 64H(3)(d) be omitted.

In schedule 1, item 16, subsection 64H, the note refers to subsection 64V(2) for confidentiality obligations relating to those requests. This note will be redundant following the omission of 64H(3)(d) and I am moving that this note be omitted. Obviously, in schedule 1, item 16, page 9, line 22, the word 'and' is redundant following the two prior omissions and I move it be omitted. These omissions will be replaced with stronger confidentiality provisions under a new schedule 2, which I will come to in a moment.

From our perspective, the question is whether MPs can, in fact, make submissions which are automatically treated as confidential by the PBO. Under the current bill before the House, which the Independents are strongly supporting, this is not going to be the case. Question put.

The House divided. [22:48]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (6) and (7) standing in my name:

(6) Schedule 1, item 16, page 10 (lines 10 and 11), omit "publicly announced".

(7) Schedule 1, item 16, page 10 (line 25), omit "publicly announced".

These amendments relate to requests for costings and the requirement for public announcement. Schedule 1, item 16, subsection 64J(2) provides that during the caretaker period an authorised member of a parliamentary party may request the PBO to prepare a costing of a publicly announced policy of the parliamentary party. I daresay that this is the most contentious of the issues in the Parliamentary Budget Office bill.

Schedule 1, item 16, subsection 64J(5) provides that during the caretaker period, an Independent member may request the PBO to prepare a costing of a publicly announced policy.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I do not wish to interrupt the member for North Sydney, but if members are remaining in the chamber they should do so silently. The member for North Sydney has the call and he should be heard in silence.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These provisions restrict the facility for requesting the PBO to cost policies during the caretaker period. It allows costings to be prepared only for policies which have been publicly announced. This means that a Parliamentary Budget Office is no different from the Charter of Budget Honesty provisions, the ones that the Labor Party railed against in 1996 and supported amendments to in 1996. Now they are voting against those amendments. If they go into opposition, they will be crying foul about this. I say to the members of the Labor Party, this is your chance. Should you go into opposition you will be begging for this amendment. And you know what: if we are in government, we just might not give it to you. How about that? The world's greatest Treasurer will not be here so he will not be worrying about it. Who will be the Treasurer? The member for Melbourne Ports will be the Treasurer and he will be begging for this amendment, and he will not get it.

This requires policies to be publicly announced before they have been costed. Let me be very clear about this. The only new information that belongs to the Treasury and the Department of Finance that is published and used by the PBO—published by those departments and used by the PBO—is the pre-election fiscal outlook. So if the Independents have a policy that they take to the Parliamentary Budget Office outside an election period and get it costed, should they choose to send it back to the Parliamentary Budget Office on the basis that it has new data in the pre-election fiscal outlook, their numbers will be published and wrong. So they will now discover the true impact of this decision. It means that the numbers will inevitably be wrong because the numbers the Parliamentary Budget Office uses before the election will inevitably be incorrect after the election is called because of the time difference between MYEFO and the budget itself. So that is great work. It means that no matter what policies go to the PBO, after the election is called the numbers will be incorrect when based against previous work of the Parliamentary Budget Office. So brilliant is this bill as it stands!

The dilemma is significant. So to address this issue, I moved that the words 'publicly announced' should be omitted from subsection 64J(2) and 64J(5). This will allow a parliamentary party or an Independent member to submit policies to the PBO for costing before they have been publicly announced. It will provide a discretion to include or not include a policy in the suite of election policies and will allow the full budgetary impact to be assessed prior to the announcement, and with the PEFO numbers that belong to the Treasury rather than the obsolete numbers which now the Independents, with the Labor Party, are tying this to.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The whole purpose of this bill is that there be an independent authority which does the costings for both sides of politics in an election period. We want to see honest and open and transparent policy calculations during an election period. There are many questions which these particular amendments raise. We have already asked five or six quite deliberate questions. The parliamentary secretary was silenced by the Manager of Government Business last night. The parliamentary secretary through many hours of debate has been mute, except for his snide remarks to his colleagues, because he has been silenced by the Manager of Government Business.

We need to know with regard to these provisions, whether the government's policies will be costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office during the caretaker period. That is question number 8 that the parliamentary secretary has yet to answer. Will they?

Mr Bradbury interjecting—

You are here to provide answers to questions. That is the nature of this session.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Goldstein will address his remarks through the chair. He will ignore the interjections, and the parliamentary secretary will not interject.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this provision of the bill, as soon as we release or announce any policy for submission to the Parliamentary Budget Office, those costings are automatically released. If we have a situation where we have two policies to consider, this provision requires the costings of both of those alternatives to be released without us having the opportunity to make a decision about which policy we would prefer.

We face a situation where we are denied, during the caretaker period, the opportunity to have costed various alternative policies that we might be considering. The costings have to be automatically released. In other words, this provision of the Parliamentary Budget Office bill means that the provisions during the caretaker period will be absolutely no different to those we experienced during the last election. They will be no different to that which we experienced under the Charter of Budget Honesty. What we will have is another dogfight for 33 days, instead of a debate about the policy. This is what the government has intended by the way in which they have corrupted the intention of this bill. We looked for honesty, transparency and integrity.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Honourable members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the House for silence on both sides. The member for Sturt will resume his seat. I will not be lectured by anybody when both sides of the chamber are in uproar. I have attempted to give an indication that the member for Goldstein has the call. He should be heard in silence by both sides.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I was seeking to make—which was a prelude to more questions which I suspect will again not be answered—is that the way this bill has now been structured and misrepresented from the original intent means that there will be no difference in the caretaker period between what we experienced last time, which was an almighty dogfight and a politicisation of the process of costings by the government of the day. We have seen a bill which has now been— (Time expired)

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I seek to make a point of order. You have asked the chamber to come to quietude so that the member for Goldstein can continue his remarks. There are members sitting outside their usual seats, who are heckling and jeering the member for Goldstein. I know that this is a late hour—it is five minutes past 11—but the member for Goldstein is making a very important point. So I do not want to lecture you, but—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt will resume his seat. Members who wish to conference can do so outside; if they have made a decision to remain in the chamber they will do so quietly. There are approximately 130 of you out of your places; you could be done as a job lot.

Government members interjecting—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you all keep your mouth shut then we might get something done.

Government members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I would suggest that those members who cannot listen in silence leave the chamber and come back at some stage. The member for Goldstein has the call.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think some others have too. I am nearly as mute as the parliamentary secretary opposite me. Mr Speaker, we have spent several hours here tonight asking a lot of legitimate and serious questions; none of which have been answered, because the Leader of the House came down here last night and said to the parliamentary secretary, 'This is not question time; you do not have to answer any questions.'

'The MOU offers options for recourse by the officer should the requested information not be provided.' In regard to this provision in the bill, if the Parliamentary Budget Office requires information and it is not covered by the memorandum of understanding, I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary, firstly, is there a requirement for the Parliamentary Budget Office to carry out an FOI? How will that apply when the period of grace is 28 days within a 33-day period of the caretaker provisions?

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

You've got the wrong amendment.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the right amendment.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary is not assisting. The member for Goldstein has the call.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to know: during this caretaker period, what opportunity does the Parliamentary Budget Office have to seek additional information without the provision of an FOI? Secondly, if there are options for recourse, what are those options for recourse? The bill is silent, vague, open-ended and discretionary in regard to that recourse item, which means again we will face politicisation of this process. Last time we were subjected to the politicisation of this process, so much so that the secretaries of departments were brought in and used by this government to politicise the process and to in fact mislead the Independents in this House, who subsequently took a decision to go with the Labor Party to form government—much of that predicated on the misuse of the Charter of Budget Honesty. As a consequence, we requested this bill some years ago.

This bill has been prepared by the government under duress. They have now misrepresented in almost every provision of this bill the original intent of this bill. This bill will again lead to a dog-fight over the 33 days of the campaign, where there will be nothing more or nothing less than accusations going from both sides of politics about the costings, the veracity of the costings and the inability of the Parliamentary Budget Office to acquire information and about the inability of us to keep material confidential until we wish to release it.

This is an appalling situation where the government has totally bastardised this bill to the point where it cannot be trusted. There is no trust associated with this bill. That is the problem with this situation. There will be no trust. You can pass this bill tonight—you can get this through—but there will be no trust. As a consequence, when we come to the next election and the issue of costings is presented, there will be no trust on either side of politics. There will be another dog-fight. Policies will not be discussed according to their merits. We will see another debacle, which means that government could hinge on the result of the politicisation of this process of costing—this process that should be above politics.

We should be able to have confidence in an authority that does the costing for both sides of politics independently so that we can put that aside and debate the merits of the policies. But here tonight we have a man who has been silenced for hours—who has made an absolute spectacle of himself because of the orders of the Leader of the House. (Time expired)

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before calling the member for Mackellar, I advise that Aldo Giurgola, as the architect, had lobbies provided in this building—and just outside the chamber. I suggest that those members who cannot contain themselves should make use of those lobbies. Those who are interested in the debate should remain here and do so silently.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the remarks made by the member for Goldstein, who had to make his original remarks under the most appalling disorderly House I have seen for some time. This amendment that we are debating here relates to the requests for costings of policies during the caretaker period and is particularly important to oppositions. Under our system, the government always knows when the election will be called. The government can plan in advance how to use the Parliamentary Budget Office. It can have the advantage. Its costings may not be disclosed. But the opposition never knows when the government will call the election. Accordingly, it is always in a position where it may wish to use such an office, a parliamentary budget office, during the caretaker period.

This is precisely the sort of facility we need and yet this section of the act as drafted by the government means that all that information which the opposition would put forward to the Parliamentary Budget Office would be disclosed publicly, and once again we would be placed at the same disadvantaged as were to be placed with the use of Treasury when they were used to brief the Independents when they were to make their decision about who would form this government. So the amendment moved by the shadow Treasurer is very important and needs to be passed.

The Independents were ably briefed by Mr Henry, who subsequently left the Treasury and has now been appointed to the Office of the Prime Minister. The parliamentary secretary, Mr Dreyfus, in the consideration detail stages of the appropriation bills, explained that although the salary for Mr Henry had been set at $528,000 a year and would be on a pro-rata basis for his part-time service, the fact of the matter is that the terms will not be made until later this year.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar is straying way beyond the motion before the chair.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make those points as being directly relevant to the this period of caretaker government where we would wish as an opposition to utilise the services of the Parliamentary Budget Office, because we cannot trust Treasury—to whom the coat-tails of the Treasury are connected to this proposed parliamentary budget office as the government sees it.

It is quite shocking that we have been debating this for many hours. The shadow minister for finance has asked many direct and pertinent questions of the parliamentary secretary who has been placed in change of the carriage of this legislation. He was told he may not speak and therefore none of the questions have been answered. This is yet another example of the duplicity of this government with everything they bring into this House. And, unfortunately, they are being aided and abetted by the Independents, who were the beneficiaries of the fallacious briefing on the so-called black hole of the budget costings of the opposition prior to the last election.

In fact, Mr Windsor, straight after that briefing went on Lateline and announced that the Treasury had told me that the so-called black hole was between $7 billion and $11 billion. Even Tony Jones had the grace to say, 'That's a $4 billion difference. Can't they be more accurate than that?' He was flummoxed; he could not answer. But it was good enough—he accepted it—and they went with the government. This amendment is vital to having an independent source of costing—one where we are not subject to having a politicised Treasury manipulate figures and present a case which is fallacious. There was no $11 billion hole. It simply did not exist. I have outlined in this parliament on two occasions, on two separate interventions, why it simply was not true.

We cannot have this situation where, again and again, the opposition is placed in the position of not being able to have a truly independent system of costing their policies. That is why this amendment is important. The government knows when the election will be called; the opposition does not. The caretaker period is vital to its being a valid exercise.

Question put.

The House divided [23:19]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived. The House divided. [23:23]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move amendments No 8, 10 and 11 circulated in my name.

Leave granted.

These amendments relate to the public release of costings, responses and submissions. Schedule 1, item 16 sections 64L and 64L(a) of the current bill provide that requests for costings made to the PBO during the caretaker period and before polling day—and the costings themselves—must be publicly released as soon as practicable. I move to omit these sections and to substitute new sections 64L, 64L(a) and 64L(b).

The new section 64L provides that costing requests and the costings themselves can only be released by the PBO if it is requested to do so by the relevant senator or member or by an authorised member of a parliamentary party. The new section 64L(a) provides that responses to other non-costing requests can only be released by the Parliamentary Budget Office if it is requested to do so by the relevant senator or member. The new section 64L(b) provides that the Parliamentary Budget Officer must publicly release both requests by parliamentary committees and its standard reports done in performance of its functions.

These amendments clarify what information can be publicly released by the PBO in the normal course of its duties and what information cannot be released without the explicit direction of the relevant member or senator. The key point is that, whatever the policy might be, it is the copyright of the member that submits it to the Parliamentary Budget Office. That member owns the policy initiative; therefore, if it is sent to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Parliamentary Budget Office does not have automatic authority to release the policy or its assumptions.

Just as the Parliamentary Budget Office has to treat information provided by a department secretly and cannot release information provided by a department without the express approval of the department, the bill as it stands says that the Parliamentary Budget Office can release whatever it wants that belongs to member of parliament. That is a great idea that you are guys are supporting again—just release that information without the approval of the person who is the author of the policy initiative! We will wait and see how this all closes out. What I am doing is allowing the PBO to get on with its job of publishing independent analysis of the budget cycle while at the same time ensuring that information belonging to an MP is treated as confidential.

With these amendments I am also moving that PBO employers are required to observe requests for confidentiality relating to the budget or for policy costings outside the caretaker period. So what I am saying is that these confidentiality provisions of the bill as it stands do not relate to policy costing requests made during the caretaker period. This section is made redundant by the new 64L and 64L(a), and I move that 64V be omitted.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The question is that amendments 8, 10 and 11 moved by the member for North Sydney be agreed to. Question put.

The House divided [23:31]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (9) circulated in my name:

(9) Schedule 1, item 16, page 13 (lines 1 to 7), omit section 64M, substitute:

64M Disclosure of personal information

A requirement to publish under this Division does not authorise the disclosure of personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988 ) without the consent of the individual concerned.

This amendment relates to information-gathering powers and secrecy. In particular, I move to omit proposed section 64M and substitute a new 64M. This provides that a requirement to publicly release information does not authorise the disclosure of personal information without the consent of the individual concerned. This will protect the privacy of individuals. It is possible that, in meeting requests for information or policy costings or in the performance of its other duties, the PBO will be required to access information of a personal nature. It is important that the rights of individuals to maintain confidentiality of private details is protected.

Question put.

The House divided. [23:41]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived. Question put.

The House divided. [23:41]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

I move opposition amendment (12).

This is the seventh set of amendments debated before this House in debate that has taken some hours. In many ways, this is in fact the most important of the amendments. This gives the Parliamentary Budget Office the same powers as the Auditor-General to be able to obtain information from government departments that will suit the needs of members and senators in this place.

Let me be very clear: under the government's own Parliamentary Budget Office bill the only information that can be obtained by the Parliamentary Budget Office for the purposes of fiscal estimates and economic forecasts is the information that is released by the Treasurer—not the Treasury—in the budget outcomes in MYEFO and in other scheduled Charter of Budget Honesty publications other than the pre-election fiscal outlook, which is the sole document that is going to fuel the needs of the Parliamentary Budget Office that in fact comes from an independent department. The only one!

So the Parliamentary Budget Office's sole source of economic information is published information. There is no independence about it: none. And this government, together with the Independents, thinks that is a great idea. Given that the Canadian budget office has just moved from this set up of being restricted to published treasurer or minister for finance information to the obtaining of independent information, and that the American congressional office already can obtain independent information and make economic and fiscal forecasts independent of their own equivalent of the Department of Finance and Deregulation; no, this government, together with the complicity of the Independents has now decided that the PBO will be so restricted that it is simply going to be a post box for the government of the day.

So you have called it Let It Be. In addition, the great brainwave of the government, combined with the Independents, is that the only information that can be obtained from other departments has to be based on a memorandum of understanding between the Parliamentary Budget Office and that department. A memorandum of understanding! The Treasury put in a submission to the parliamentary committee and said that the benchmark for the release of information should in fact be tighter than the FOI provisions. And this is the Parliamentary Budget Office. The Treasury wants the Parliamentary Budget Office to be so restricted in its information-gathering powers that it is actually easier for the Parliamentary Budget Office to FOI government departments than to obtain it from them. But no—this is an independent Parliamentary Budget Office established by the Labor Party and the Independents, and this body is going to be so independent that it is going to rely solely on the Treasurer's own figures and then after that it has to enter into a memorandum of understanding with hundreds of government departments and agencies—literally—and Commonwealth companies. And those memoranda of understanding need to be negotiated before the next election. What a joke!

This is the most symbolic example of a group of Independents who are complicitly walking in the footsteps of an incompetent Labor government. We make no apologies. We want a truly independent Parliamentary Budget Office. We want one that stands up for the members. We want a Parliamentary Budget Office independent of the government. We want a Parliamentary Budget Office that serves the needs of members and senators, no matter what political party they come from. We want a Parliamentary Budget Office that serves the needs of the people of Australia and not the needs of the Labor Party and the Independents. Question put.

The House divided. [23:54]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that this bill be agreed to.

The House divided [23:59]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question agreed to.