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

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Australian Greens can formally submit an unlimited number of new policy proposals to the Government for analysis and costing under the Agreement for a Better Parliament: Parliamentary Reform, signed on 7 September 2010 to establish 'a basis for stable and effective government'; and

(b) on 20 July 2012, The Treasury made a decision on a Freedom of Information request to refuse access to 12 documents relating to Australian Greens' policy costings because the documents 'would allow a direct inference to be drawn about subsequent Cabinet deliberations' and they contained 'material prepared to inform deliberations of Government';

(2) recognises that the Government has previously released policy costings, namely:

(a) an Executive Minute detailing costings of the Coalition's Direct Action Plan, released in full by The Treasury on 2 September 2011;

(b) updated costings on reopening the detention facility in Nauru, released by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on 27 January 2012; and

(c) Treasury modelling provided to unaligned Members, released by The Treasury on 24 February 2012; and

(3) calls on The Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation to release all costings of policy proposals that the Australian Greens have formally submitted to the Government for analysis since the 2010 Federal Election.

I appreciate the opportunity this evening to speak to the motion in my name, and I am proud that the shadow Treasurer saw fit to second this motion, which relates to what I think is a very important issue in this place, and that is the government's double standard with regard to policy costings by the Australian Greens. It also relates to a major issue facing the Australian people between now and the next election, which is the $120 billion black hole that the Australian Labor Party has in its own budget. The reason for this motion is that we suspect that that black hole is far bigger than what we have seen in the reports of recent days because the government have gone to extraordinary lengths to hide this information over the last 12 months.

The background to this motion is that, about 12 months ago, in Senate estimates, Senator Scott Ryan pursued with the relevant departments how many policies the Australian Greens had asked to be costed under the side deal they did with the government when they formed a coalition to govern the country back in September 2010. That agreement between the government and the Greens—I am pleased to see that the member for Melbourne is in the House and is speaking on the motion, and good on him for doing so—gave the Greens the right to submit their policies to Treasury and Finance for costing. A lot of us thought that was a terrific outcome because for once we would get to see what we on this side of the House, at least, believe is the economic lunacy in the Greens manifesto exposed for what it is. We thought the costings process would help the Australian people understand just how dangerous a proposition it would be to elect Australian Greens to this place and to the Senate.

When Senator Scott Ryan, as usual doing the hard work, the hard grind, as senators do, asked those questions in estimates, the officials dodged the question, took it on notice and came back with an answer earlier this year which basically did not answer the question, you will be surprised to know, Madam Deputy Speaker Owens! At that time we thought we should FOI what was there because we did know from the answers we got that the Greens had asked for quite a number of policies to be costed, including the policy areas of taxation, education, health, environment, housing, communities, transport, regional, communications, employment, infrastructure, superannuation, science, veterans, governance and sports. There were quite a variety of policy costings that the member for Melbourne and his colleagues were interested in. So we thought, 'Let's FOI these documents; let's see how much is in there,' because we had heard the Prime Minister and the member for Lyne in September 2010 talking about the sunshine coming in, opening up the roof of the parliament and letting the sun shine in all over this place, all over the Greens' costings.

Of course, when push came to shove—and after, it must be said, a long FOI process with the department—our request was refused. But it was not the refusal that surprised me; it was the reason for the refusal that surprised me. The department claimed that the policy costings were developed for the dominant purpose of forming cabinet documents. But I thought that only the executive government formed cabinet documents. The Greens, these partners, are not in the cabinet, apparently, and not in the government, we hear. But, truth be told, they are in the government and they are in the cabinet room. The member for Melbourne and his colleagues in the Senate are in the cabinet room. We know that now because the Department of the Treasury, the premier department of all the government departments, said, 'We cannot give you those documents because they form the dominant purpose of cabinet deliberations.'

Now, if that is true—and I am sure the member for Melbourne will back this up—it means that the Greens' policy costings on taxation, education, health, environment, housing, communities, transport, regional, communications, employment, infrastructure, superannuation, science, veterans, governance and, let us not forget, sports were produced for the dominant purpose of appearing in cabinet. So let's not have this fake attack we have heard from the member for Hunter and others in the last few days. It was reported in the Australian today—this is a classic—that:

Labor frontbencher Mark Butler told the Sky News Australian Agenda program yesterday he believed support for the Greens would "taper off—

are you listening to this, Member for Melbourne?—

as people become more accustomed or get a better appreciation of the Greens party policies about things that matter to Australian families".

How about, at the end of this motion, you release the policies? We will see what the Australian Greens' policies are all about. The minister for mental health wants to! What perplexes me is that the member for Melbourne, sitting in the chamber, does not want them released either. If you are so proud of them, if they are not economic lunacy as we assert, release them, Adam! Get them out there!

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

Set them free!

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

Set them free! The Greens are all about freedom when it suits. If it is Julian Assange, it is about freedom. But, if it is their own policies, they want them locked up! 'Send them to Gitmo,' they say! What hypocrisy. And you have to wonder why. It wouldn't be because some of those policies relate to the real intention of the carbon tax, would it? Otherwise, the Greens would not have asked what you could do with certain increases in the carbon tax.

We know what the Greens really want on the carbon tax. We know that the Labor Party will tell us before an election, 'That won't happen. We won't have a carbon tax after an election. We won't have an increased carbon tax after an election.'

Let us have a look at the policies. Let us have a look at what the member for Melbourne, Senator Milne and others have sought in their information, because I have a feeling that there may be a proposal in there which talks about how much further you could take climate change. We have appealed this to the Information Commissioner and I say to the Information Commissioner, as I have done in the two letters I have now sent him in relation to this matter in the last month, that we want him to have an urgent look at this because we think the excuse that these documents were prepared for the dominant purpose of being considered by cabinet is a fake excuse. It is a fake excuse and it is trying to get around 'letting the sunshine in'. We know how committed the Prime Minister, the member for Lyne and the member for Melbourne are to that because they signed an agreement in September 2012 which said they would let the sunshine in. The curtains are over the top of this place. So let us open the curtains and see what the Greens' policies say. Let us see what those documents actually say.

In the last week we have seen that the Financial Review has belled the cat on the Labor Party's problems in government—Labor's $120 billion blow-out. We know they have a big problem because they are agreeing with everything the Greens want them to do. Last week, the Minister for Health stood there with Senator Di Natale and announced the dental health scheme. Senator Di Natale is obviously behind that plan.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have released one.

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

That is right, they have released one. The Greens have apparently had their policies costed, member for Casey, but when the Minister for Health was announcing the dental reform package last week and she was asked where the money would be coming from, she said, 'Don't worry; we'll tell you later.' Maybe all that detail is with the Greens policy costings as well.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought it was a saving!

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

No—spending $120 billion more than they take. This is the real issue before the House tonight. We do not know where the money is coming from. That is the reason we are $280 billion in debt. We know that the Labor Party are going to spend and spend and spend between now and the next election—not their money but borrowed money, money for policies they know they will never have to implement. It is about time they were honest with the Australian people and started to tell us exactly what they would do after the next election, were they to be re-elected.

The Labor Party have form. We are coming into the spring racing carnival and it is really important to follow the form. We know the form of the Australian Labor Party. We know the form of the Australian Greens. The Australian Greens usually advertise. They like people to know what they stand for. I am shocked and horrified that the member for Melbourne and Senator Milne do not want this information released. They want to hide this information, to keep it under lock and key. They are using the very questionable tactics of the FOI Act and I say again that the Information Commissioner needs to have a good hard look at this because this is information that the Australian public needs to know. This information should be released. The phoney excuse that these documents were prepared for the dominant purpose of being considered by cabinet needs to be put aside. The Treasurer should do the right thing and this evening, during this debate, come into this chamber, put the documents on the table and give everyone a look at the lunacy that it will cost Australian taxpayers—billions and billions more in the future. (Time expired)

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Talk about leading with your chin! Every so often someone comes in off a long run-up and bowls you such a full toss that you cannot believe your luck. We have just heard from the member for Mayo about form. Let us talk about form because the question of costing policies is something the coalition has significant form on. Obviously the member for Mayo does not want to hear it because he is leaving. Let me tell you first of all about the Greens' story and why we have the Parliamentary Budget Office.

At the last election, the Greens went to Treasury and said, 'We want to submit for costing the policies we are taking to the election because we believe, as the Greens, that we are a political party in the Australian parliament and the Australian public is entitled to look at our policies—exactly the same as anyone else's going to an election—and to know what it will mean for them, including what it will cost and where the money will come from. It was for that reason that we took our policies to the Treasury. Treasury said, 'We do not have the capacity, the ability under legislation, to cost the policies of minor parties.'

So when we found ourselves in the position in this parliament where no one party had a majority, we saw this as an opportunity to reform this deficit in Australian democracy. This is an opportunity now to ensure that all non-government members and oppositions would, from here on in, be able to have their policies costed. So we struck an agreement to establish the Parliamentary Budget Office. Before the Parliamentary Budget Office was established, we wanted to ensure that our policies could continue to be costed in a like manner. I would have thought that those who are interested in democracy and economic responsibility would want people to get their policies costed so that they could then decide: does this need modification, can we pursue both of these at the same time, should one be put on hold while we pursue the other, do we need to go back and re-think and, having had a look, do we need to give more information? After all of that, an Australian political party would be able to go to the Australian people and say, 'Here's what we will do. Here's what it will cost. Here's where we will get the money from.'

After negotiations and after legislation passed through here, the government has established a well-funded Parliamentary Budget Office. That is going to be good for democracy because now there is no excuse not to have policies that you are taking to the election costed. We are now going to have an independent officer, independent of Treasury, charged under statute, making independent assessments of the parties' costings. This will be an independent officer acting in accordance with the Charter of Budget Honesty. People will know that what the Parliamentary Budget Office comes up with will be in accordance with that charter.

The principle of confidentiality will apply—I alluded to that before—and that has got to be critical. This is a point that the member for North Sydney made a lot about, and he will continue to make a lot about it. Parties and members of parliament should have the ability to get their policies costed, have a look at the costings confidentially and, if others want to pursue them, produce them publicly and back them up. The Greens will now commit to the Australian people that we will use the Parliamentary Budget Office. We will go to the election with policies costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office. It is a reform that we drove. The public will then be able to put us under the same level of scrutiny as they do any other political party. The public will know that the government's policies will be costed by Treasury and that the Greens' policies will be costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office; but you can bet your bottom dollar that the coalition's policies will not be costed. Last election, so weak were the coalition's costings of their own policies that they could not even convince two conservative country Independents to support them—because there was a blow-out and a hole in their costings. Treasury found a hole in their costings, and the accountants that they supposedly used to cost their policies were later reprimanded. The coalition has some gall to come in here and talk about appropriate policy costings when loose talk about a $70 billion black hole is probably going to turn out to be close to reality.

And they are still hedging their bets, which is why I am going to move an amendment to the motion before us. On 30 May 2012 the member for North Sydney, who is here tonight, said, 'We'll have a look at who gets appointed as the Parliamentary Budget Officer before we decide whether or not we'll use the Parliamentary Budget Office.' The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been appointed now, so I presume that, when the member for North Sydney gets up to speak, he will be able to give us a commitment that he is satisfied with the independence of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and he will make the same commitment that the Greens have made and have the coalition's election policies costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office. If the coalition do not do this, the game is up. Michelle Grattan nailed it when she said, 'The opposition now has no excuses about how to handle its policy costings.'

I move:

That all words after That be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

this House:

(1) notes that the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) has now been established in accordance with the Agreement for a Better Parliament: Parliamentary Reform, signed on 7 September 2010;

(2) notes that the establishment of the PBO is a significant reform that will increase budget honesty and transparency; and

(3) calls on all interested parties, including the Coalition, to submit their policies to the PBO for costing.

I await with great anticipation the seconder of this motion because he has now had time to assess the PBO and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has circulated guidelines and explained how the office is going to run its business. The coalition should now be ready to commit to submitting their policies for costing by the Parliamentary Budget Office. If they do not commit to doing so, and if they do not support my amendment to the motion, the cat will have been well and truly belled. The government will go to the election with its policies costed by Treasury, and the Greens will go to the election with our policies costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office. But the coalition will be whistling in the wind, hoping that maybe they will pick an accountant who has not been hauled before the disciplinary tribunal and who can give some fig leaf of validity to their costings, which did not even have enough integrity to win the support of the two rural independents. I commend the amendment to the House.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

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

There is nothing uglier than a squirming greenie. Seriously, that was really awful! How embarrassing it is that a party which prided itself on transparency argued for the FOI laws and now seeks to defy the FOI laws! This is a protection racket by the government. The government is preventing the release of government funded costings of Greens policies. Let us get this right: on the basis that these documents are cabinet in confidence, the government is refusing to release documents which were submitted by the Greens to Treasury and which were costed by the Public Service. The last time I looked, the Greens were not in the cabinet. What hypocrisy this is from the member for Hunter and the member for Chifley and all these other people feigning anger at the Greens!

My colleague had a wonderful quote from Mark Butler, who said the other day on Sky News Agenda that he believes support for the Greens will 'taper off as people become more accustomed or get a better appreciation of the Greens party policies'. Here is a member of the government saying 'what we want is transparency' whilst the Treasurer and his own government run a protection racket to prevent the Greens policies from being released. Then there was the sanctimonious lecture from this weak and incompetent Treasurer saying, 'How dare you people raise the issue of our $120 billion budget black hole! You've got to put your policy proposes to the Parliamentary Budget Office.' He does not believe in transparency—he will not even release the Greens policies which have been costed by his own department—yet he seeks to give us a lecture about transparency.

If you listen carefully you can hear the rumble of Senators Christine Milne and Lee Rhiannon up in the Senate, spinning on the spot at the thought that they have their own representative in this place—in the House of Representatives—standing up to oppose transparency in relation to the Greens' own policies.

What a fraud you are, sir; what a fraud! And you will suffer at the next election because we do not back frauds. We do not provide preferences to frauds. From our perspective, this represents everything about the inconsistency of this government—a government that is weak and insipid, led by a Greens representative who is weak and insipid and headed up by an acting Prime Minister who is weak and insipid. And why? Because they do not want to deal with the truth. The truth is their sworn enemy. Transparency is their enemy. And I wonder how the member for Lyne is going to vote on this motion. Let's call him the sun god! I wonder how the sun god is going to vote on this motion. After all, he wanted to let the sunshine in. So he is himself the sun god of this parliament. Let him shine his light into the dark halls of the cabinet, where there is a Greens-Labor Party coalition acting to prevent the disclosure of information that apparently is so important to the destiny of the nation that it cannot be released, even though the Greens themselves are not in the government—or in the cabinet.

Oh what a joke! But we get a little tinker of what the Greens are really up to in partnership with the government. A little tinker came when Bob Brown went out and announced that he was advocating change to the treatment of fringe benefits tax for motor vehicles. He had it costed by the government, then released the policy and, lo and behold, the government adopted it in the budget. So now we know that there are 12 policy proposals that have been seriously costed by the Treasury and that the government and the Greens refuse to release. One of them, perhaps—we do not know—was the Greens' proposal at the last election to have a carbon tax of $23 a tonne. But of course we know that the government has a $120 billion budget black hole of at least that amount, just on its new spending promises. Take out the expected revenue falls from the dropping commodity prices, the expected revenue falls because profit season has been particularly poor this year, and other losses of revenue, including a drop in the number of people who are looking for work, and it is still a $120 billion hole to fill.

So you go back to what the Greens promised at the last election and say, 'Well, where do we start?' How about death duties? That was a Greens policy at the last election. And how about estate tax? How much would that cost? Why wouldn't the Labor Party use that, in partnership with the Greens, to start funding their $120 billion black hole? Or the company tax rate, up to 33 per cent? That was a Greens policy as well. Or how about a 50 per cent personal income tax bracket? That was a Greens policy as well. Then there are higher tariffs on four-wheel-drive vehicles, means testing for first home owner grants and the elimination of personal and business tax concessions. And it went on: road congestion charges—that's another cracker. These are the things that you obviously go to the Treasury to get costed if you are in the business of implementing your policies. And they were, because we know of the policies the Greens took to the last election. The weak Labor Party, the party led by a person with no principles at all, just did what the Greens told them to do and adopted a carbon tax of $23 a tonne. And now the government has used all its resources to prevent the disclosure of what should be publicly available information—used by the Greens, costed by public servants—to determine the policy of the nation. It is a disgrace. You are all hypocrites, entirely hypocrites, having this fake, pretend anger at the Greens. They are your business partners. They are your bedfellows. You use them and they use you, and you are running a protection racket for each other.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for North Sydney will address his remarks through the chair.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker Owens, of course. In seats like Parramatta, the member has to explain to the people why she was in bed with the Greens, protecting the nondisclosure of publicly funded information.

Mr Husic interjecting—

The member for Chifley needs to explain to his constituents—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is a negative reflection on the chair to say 'in bed with', and I would ask the member to withdraw it.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will withdraw.

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

I withdraw. Perhaps the member for Chifley can explain why he is in bed with the Greens in his seat—in partnership with the Greens, preventing the disclosure of information that goes to the heart of the amount of tax that his constituents will have to pay for the $120 billion black hole this government has left.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Labor Party cannot continue to sell its soul to the Greens and then pretend that the Greens are the enemy. They cannot continue to do this, because the Greens are unprincipled. If you need an example of the lack of principle and integrity of the Greens, look no further than the statement from the member for Melbourne just a little bit earlier. It lacked integrity. There were no principles in his statement. He sought simply to try to lay charges against us when in fact he could not defend his own hypocrisy on this matter. That the Greens have no integrity is beyond doubt. That the Greens have no principles is beyond doubt. The fact that the Labor Party is running a protection racket for the Greens is now beyond doubt. Time and time again we get the Labor Party complaining about the Greens, and time and time again all they do is jump into bed with them and consort to ensure that the people who are left worse off are the Australian people writ large. It is the Labor Party way: tax and spend, build up the credit card debt and then feign indifference to the political outcome that, in reality, all they are interested in is saving their own hides, even if it means they have no principles. (Time expired)

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion which we are debating this evening is moved by the member for Mayo, who is one of the self-appointed group of modest members. The term 'modest members' is not only a current misnomer but also a historical reference to the great Bert Kelly. In thinking about speaking to the member for Mayo's motion I thought perhaps I would go to my bookshelves and pull down Economics Made Easy by Bert Kelly. As I listened to the member for North Sydney, I was struck by the words in Rod Carnegie's introduction. He says, 'When confrontation and mutual name calling are stock forms of debate it does us all a service to learn and relearn that shouting loud and long need not be as effective as gentle persuasion.'

We have just had 10 minutes of long, loud shouting from the member for North Sydney. It is not quite clear what the member for North Sydney is saying about the coalition's position on preferencing the Greens in the electorate of Melbourne. The historical record shows that the decision by the Liberal Party to preference the Greens Party in Melbourne saw the first election at a general election of the current member for Melbourne. In his speech, the member for North Sydney said, 'We don't back frauds,' and, 'You'll suffer,' but it is not clear whether they are words which ought to be taken as gospel truth and carefully scripted remarks or whether they are merely off-the-cuff rhetoric to be thrown around in a debate and have no matter when it comes to the Liberal Party's decision on preferencing at the next election.

I would be delighted to have a modest member alive and well on the coalition's side of the parliament, but the fact is that they are dead as a dodo. Bert Kelly has no heir. Doug Anthony is alive and well, as Senator Joyce showed us in an extraordinary interview with Marius Benson this morning. The only thing that remains of Bert Kelly is a great sense of humour. You have to admire the humour that the member for Mayo brings to this chamber in moving a motion on transparency of costings. That is because we are speaking about an opposition which has a $70 billion crater in its costings, requiring $70 billion of cuts. Were the member for North Sydney in the chamber, he would doubtless shout that that is a Labor Party fabrication. Let me quote from an interview from the member for Goldstein on ABC 24 on 18 August 2011:

The $70 billion is an indicative figure of the challenge we've got … if we start to impose some discipline we should be able to stop spending in the order of $70 billion …

Or on Meet the Press on 4 September 2011:

Q: It's not like a furphy, then?

A: No, it's not a furphy. We came out with the figure, right?

Seventy billion dollars is the equivalent of stopping the Family Tax Benefit for three years; it is the equivalent of cutting the age pension for three years; it is an extraordinarily large sum of money. The amendment simply says that if the coalition has to find cuts of that magnitude it ought to follow the Parliamentary Budget Office process.

We have a Parliamentary Budget Office which came into being as a result of a bipartisan parliamentary committee—the member for Higgins and Senator Joyce signed on for the recommendations of that committee. The amendment calls on all parties to submit their costings to the Parliamentary Budget Office. Once upon a time the coalition was going to do just that. The coalition had some problems in the last election. According to Treasury, they had an $11 billion crater in their costings as a result of having them audited by a private accounting firm. Curiously, the member for North Sydney said that what they had done was an audit with a small 'a'. It is a bit strange, because there is no such thing as a big 'a' audit. 'Audit' is one of those words that comes with a small 'a'. They did not do a small 'a' audit. In fact, WHK Horwath was subsequently found to have breached professional standards in the context of the coalition's costings. So, you would think that the coalition would now be embracing openness and transparency in their costings but, sadly, they are doing anything but.

The shadow immigration spokesperson, the member for Cook, has had costings done by a catering firm, suggesting that using a private accounting firm might be the high point in quality of the coalition's costings. There have been suggestions that this might involve cooking the books and that at best we could expect to see some pie charts from the opposition, but they are lines which I will leave the member for Mayo to deliver, given that he is the great prankster in the parliament this evening. The member for Goldstein has told Sky Sunday Agenda:

I've got on my desk, as co-ordinator of our policies, 49 policy documents with covers—

It is great, isn't it, that they pick the covers? They haven't got any of the numbers checked, but they have picked the covers. It has a great Hollowmen aspect to it.

… narrative, a list of policies, what Labor has done wrong and the costings.

Apparently, the costings have been done. What we are calling on the coalition to do is no more than they indicated they would do when a joint bipartisan report was brought down by the member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer, Senator Joyce and others backing the Parliamentary Budget Office.

The member for North Sydney has said he might use the new budget office in one report. Then he has told The Insiders on 6 May 2012 that:

…we want to submit policies to it. In addition to other services, we want to submit policies to it for costing.

And then in a doorstop on 30 May 2012:

Journalist: So you are giving a commitment to submit your election promises to the Parliamentary Budget Office?

Joe Hockey: We will give some policies.

This is the equivalent of Mr Howard's immigration policy: 'We will give choose the policies we give to the Parliamentary Budget Office and the circumstances in which we give them.'

The Australian people deserve better than that. There are coalition policies that are all over the shop. The coalition wants to continue the superannuation increases but repeal the minerals resource rental tax—the profits based tax—which is a tax so supported across the political spectrum internationally that Sarah Palin signed on to a profits based tax for taxing resources. It is not a left-wing way of taxing resources; it is just a sensible way. When the price goes up, because the price is set by the world, the taxpayer deserves a bigger share of the money. Instead, the coalition wants to go back to the old royalties regime. It also wants to cut taxes on polluters. First it is tax cuts for big miners, then it is a tax cut for big polluters and then it is unwinding the means test for private health insurance. Of course, when the private health insurance rebate was first put in place it did not generate a bump up in the take-up of private health insurance, and we have seen no evidence so far that the means testing of the private health insurance rebate has seen high-income earners drop their private health insurance. But they are getting a tax cut, too, from the coalition. So that is big miners, big polluters and very high-income Australians. If you are a millionaire, you are getting back your 30 per cent private health insurance rebate under the coalition. The coalition says it will support the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but we have no idea how it will go about paying for it.

What Australians are worried about is that what they are seeing from the coalition has a lot of the smell of what is going on in Queensland. Before the election the coalition gives the notion that everything will be okay, but after the election it slashes and burns. The member for Mayo himself is on record in his so-called Modest Member column as saying:

Pensions, disability support, family tax benefits and childcare support, among others, create a cycle of dependency for millions of Australians.

That is just a hint as to where the money might come from. The Australian people deserve better than to have the opposition hiding behind the veil of secrecy. They have the right to expect that they will get what Kelly O'Dwyer and Barnaby Joyce promised them: coalition promises that are properly costed. The amendment calls on the coalition to do just that. I commend the amendment to the House. (Time expired)

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to speak on the motion on the Australian Greens policy costings that was moved by the member for Mayo. This is a motion that has both exposed hypocrisy and demonstrated contortions. It has exposed hypocrisy from the member for Melbourne and contortions from those opposite, who oscillate between their public dichotomy of hating the Greens and loving the Greens and between attacking the Greens and being in coalition with the Greens, while having to rely on the Greens to form government.

Mr Lyons interjecting—

I say at the outset, in anticipation of mindless interjections from the mindless interjector opposite, who is on mindless interjection duty, that the more you interject the more you will confirm your complete embarrassment and lack of anything sensible to say on this issue.

The previous speaker, the member for Fraser, can talk. He can talk a lot. You would agree with me, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Symon. He can talk on any subject, but the fact that the one thing even he could not bring himself to do in 10 minutes was defend the fact that the Greens and the Labor Party are concealing the Greens policies says it all. He spoke about Bert Kelly, he spoke about Queensland, he spoke about everything under the sun. I thought he would read the whole book at one point. He would prefer to read that than defend the concealment that he would be embarrassed by and that his government is a party to.

This is the show-me-the-money motion. One cannot help but think about that immortal line from that great film Jerry Maguire in relation to this motion. I include you among those who watch great films, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I do not include the member for Fraser because he might not know what I am talking about. The Australian people should be shown the money of the Greens policy costings.

As was outlined in great detail by the member for Mayo, the genesis of this motion is in a recent Treasury decision to reject an FOI request for documents that would provide a window into what the Greens policies would cost the Australian taxpayer. As the member for Mayo and the member for North Sydney pointed out, it was claimed by Treasury that to release the documents 'would allow a direct inference to be drawn about subsequent cabinet deliberations', because 'they contained "material prepared to inform deliberations of government"'. Those quotes say it all. At first blush it is hard to believe that we are talking about the cabinet, of which the Greens are not officially members, but that justification for rejecting the FOI request says it all. The rationale used by Treasury bells the cat that is the relationship at a policy level and confirms who is wagging the dog on this issue.

The response by the Greens to the Treasury decision has been quite bizarre in its own right. In a statement to the Australian, the leader of the Greens, Senator Christine Milne, expressed her wholehearted support for the Treasury's decision to keep the party's costing under wraps. As the member for Mayo and the member for North Sydney pointed out, this is the party that is part of the new paradigm that was going to let the sunlight in. It was all for transparency. But when it comes to its own transparency—surprise, surprise—it has a different view. Earlier this year, Senator Milne cited a lack of transparency as the source of her misgivings about the proposed trans-Pacific partnership free trade agreement. But there is no misgiving when it comes to the Greens' own policies. In fact, the member for Melbourne issued a clarion call to mandate increased accountability on private sector executive remuneration, but there is no accountability when it comes to their policies. Perhaps most remarkably, Greens Senator Rhiannon also weighed in in favour of new FOI laws. But the piece de resistance is of course the Australian Greens-Labor Party agreement, which stated among its principles—it is principle No. 2.1(a)—that of 'greater transparency and accountable government'. (Time expired)

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

I actually do not want to give a hard time to the member for Mayo because he is having a hard time as it is. I think he is doing some very important work on the other side in trying to improve their economic literacy. But he is having a hard time because he, the member for Casey, the member for Kooyong and the member for Higgins—a reservoir of talent there—have been overshadowed by an economic titan in the form of Senator Joyce. They have to sit there and watch as that sort of equivalent of an economic Jupiter sucks all the attention and all the policy straight into his pet issues while they try to get a bit of economic literacy on their side of the fence. So I want to support the member for Mayo in his efforts as he uses this issue to burn out a few demons on their side of the fence and those, past and present, acting as a dead weight on the coalition. Now it is up to a fitter and stronger member for Mayo to put his shoulder to that dead weight and try to get some changes on their side of the fence.

It is rare that you see a coalition member embrace the notion of transparency or financial transparency. I will correct myself actually: it is that they do not normally do it. They do it when they are in opposition because that is always the best time for them to argue for transparency. But, sure enough, they start to choke on their hubris and find it is a lot harder to do in government from their perspective than when they had their solemn hand-on-heart moment that they were going to be the most economically transparent around. The classic example is Peter Costello. He rode the wave of the 1996 election victory and introduced a charter of budget honesty. He showed himself to be a big fan of economic transparency or financial transparency. In December 1996 when he was introducing the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill, he said:

This is the kind of reform which, when enacted, will be a permanent feature, making sure that Australia's economic policy is run better, making sure that the public is better informed, making sure there is transparency in economic policy.

That was in 1996. Boy, a lot changed in a short period of time.

We had the other side complaining about FOIs being knocked back. What happened? The minute there was some scrutiny on the then coalition government's approach to taxation, in particular dealing with bracket creep and all the Treasury documents that existed about the first homebuyer scheme, there was Peter Costello stamping out any opportunity to use FOI by the media—not within this chamber but by the media—to get answers to the way they were managing fiscal policy. It was stamped out. They are champions one day of transparency and the next day they are clubbing the FOI Act themselves when they are in government. But they are here today to lecture us on transparency. Free speech is very important to those opposite. They will defend Andrew Bolt but the minute it comes to an FOI that might expose their approach to fiscal policy they say, 'No, you can't have free speech.' Then we had a whole series of conclusive certificates that were designed to shut down the entire debate by their person, Peter Costello.

Why is it relevant? It is because the member for Mayo thinks that the FOI processes should operate to hand him over info that he demands to see. He is right to call for financial transparency. I do not mind him calling for that. But, at the same time, he needs to be consistent. Look at the litany of errors that those opposite made in a short space of time during the course of the last election. They went to an election where they dodged the very thing they created—the Charter of Budget Honesty. They went to an accounting firm hardly known on the east coast and they were found to have underdone costings and disciplinary breaches and to be out of whack by $11 billion. Then they got into this parliament and opposed the Parliamentary Budget Office and confected a whole set of excuses as to why they did not want to support that.

And it kept going because then when it came to costing, for example, offshore processing, who did they use? They got burnt because they could not pick an accounting firm, so then they went to a catering firm. They used a catering firm to work out their costings on offshore processing. They outsourced immigration to Tetsuya's; they had the master chefs in there working as their ERC. And it keeps on going because in their ERC itself they leak on each other's budget costings to see who is leaking out of their ERC. So you do not have an ERC; you have an entrapment exercise. I understand why the member for Mayo is pushing this. It is as much an education process to their side— (Time expired)

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

I rise to support the member for Mayo's important motion today. The people of Australia expect and, indeed, deserve an honest and transparent government, and I strongly support the member's ongoing dedication to minimising the damage that has resulted from the Gillard Labor-Green coalition government. I note that as of last Friday, 7 September, the member for Mayo had 85 as-yet unanswered questions in writing to the government. The government's refusal to release Treasury costings of Greens policies is more evidence that Australians are not receiving those honest answers.

Firstly, I respect the right of every Australian to make an informed decision at the ballot box and to assess what is important to them on election day and vote accordingly. Every member of this House understands they represent not just the people who vote for them but each individual elector and their community at large. At the 2010 election, almost 17,000 people in Ryan gave the Greens candidate their first preference, and I have certainly undertaken to represent the strong concern in my electorate about environmental issues. Many people also vote for the Greens and then give either the ALP or the LNP their second preference in order to send a message that sustainable management of the environment is important to them.

Thousands of hopeful voters in 2008 in New South Wales voted for many Greens candidates in their local government elections. Most grievously, people in Marrickville woke up one day to discover that they had the Greens party trying to implement foreign policy through their local council. I wish I could say that this example is but an exception to the rule for the Greens; instead, it is a regretful situation that the heinous Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel is a symptom of the hard left New South Wales Greens. On Saturday, voters woke up to the extreme policies of the Greens and sent them a very strong rebuke. Indeed, in Marrickville, the Liberal Party could have two councillors for the first time in the council's 150-year history.

I think it is important in that context, however, to discuss what a Greens government would actually do to this country—and we already have evidence. As a result of the Greens, we have the world's only economy-wide carbon tax and the government is going to waste $10 billion on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We have an unfunded dental scheme celebrated by the Greens, yet another example of a multibillion-dollar announcement from Labor-Greens, without having any idea of where the money will come from.

That is why today's motion is so important and why the coalition questions Treasury's decision to refuse the member for Mayo's freedom of information request about Greens policy costings because they contained material prepared to inform deliberations of government. We are not talking about cabinet minutes; we are talking about policy and costing proposals from the Australian Greens, policies which form a direct part of many of the government's most disastrous policies. We know that the Greens pretend to be advocates for transparency; they often demand 'more transparent, accountable democracy'.

The Labor Party has trashed the system of producing regulatory impact statements, which are supposed to follow Office of Best Practice Regulation guidelines. The Productivity Commission's interim report has exposed this Labor-Greens government's trashing of accountable and transparency government. We saw this—as Henry Ergas discussed in the Australian today—during the passage of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill through the House, when the government ignored modelling from the Centre for International Economics because it exposed the legislation for what it was: poorly designed, rushed-through legislation that would result in far more costs than benefits. As is the wont of this government, it then decided that the solution was to do new modelling and—would you believe, surprise, surprise—an RIS was produced supporting the government.

Today's motion is so important because, on closer inspection of Greens policy, they believe that economic growth and trade are destroying the globe and must be stopped. On their website, the Australian Greens declare, in their own special weasel words, that they want 'an economy that meets human needs'. They declare that they would abolish the private health insurance rebate completely, increase the tax on family trusts, increase income tax, introduce a death tax and increase the company tax rate. They even want to renationalise companies which provide public services.

Australians want and deserve transparent and accountable democracy. With the current Labor-Greens government they have neither. Therefore, I strongly support today's motion and insist that Treasury do the right thing by every Australian and release the requested documents.

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

This debate has, I think, produced a fascinating dynamic. I have been in this place for 16 years and for 99 per cent of the time I find myself in combat with those who sit opposite. Of course, sometimes I was on the other side. But tonight I see something different. I have been watching this debate with great interest. I have observed those on that side, members of the Liberal Party, launch an attack on the Greens. It has been a cross-bench sort of debate—them versus the other side, as the previous speaker put it, 'The left-wing Greens from New South Wales.' I have been enjoying this immensely, because I thought it was my job of late to attack the Greens. But, tonight, those on the other side are doing it for me. It reminds us that this is not a debate about transparency; it is very much a political debate. It is really about the member for Mayo.

The member for Mayo had this brilliant idea of FOI-ing some costings that might have been put to Treasury on behalf of the Greens. He got a bit of a run on it in the newspapers, but it did not really get him the traction that he was looking for, so he thought he would have another crack at this and put a motion before the parliament. What is it really about? There is no doubt that we in this place are all for transparency, and no government has done as much as this government to further progress the FOI laws and to ensure that they operate more effectively than they ever have before. But where I find myself on a unity ticket with the coalition is on this issue of transparency. I want all of us to face the same levels of transparency.

This government, at the 2010 election, submitted all of its policies for costing and so we should. Because you cannot go out there promising the world to people without being held to account. If we are going to promise to do something we need to demonstrate that we know what it will cost and how we will pay for it. Are we going to raise taxes or cut programs elsewhere?

The coalition have refused to do that. In particular, they refused to do this at the last election. Having promoted this principle 'when in government', now they have walked away from the principle. The same thing should apply to the Greens. If the Greens are promising policies to the broad electorate they should, like us, and indeed like the coalition, have to submit their costings to the Parliamentary Budget Office. So if they are promising, for example, to abolish TAFE fees and charges, they need to demonstrate that they understand what it will cost and how they will pay for it, whether they will cut programs elsewhere or whether they will raise taxes. This has been an issue I have spoken about publicly in recent months. I am very pleased that the Leader of the Greens has now capitulated and made a commitment that, during the next election campaign, the Greens will submit their policies for costing. I therefore assume they will be explaining to the Australian people how they intend to pay for these policies.

It seems that the odd people out are those who sit directly opposite. The Greens say they will submit their election policies for costing. We, of course—as we always do—will submit our election policies for costing to the new Parliamentary Budget Office. The only lone wolf here tonight is those who sit directly opposite. The member for Mayo needs to come in here, rather than just play Joe Hockey off a break. I thought it was very interesting that the shadow Treasurer came in to speak on this motion. There is no written rule but, personally, I am not sure that I would have followed the member for Mayo in here if I were the shadow Treasurer, acknowledging his good work on this subject, particularly given that I am not sure he really believes what the member for Mayo is promoting. I would have sought the opportunity to do this myself. I think, historically, you will find that any shadow Treasurer would have done the same. So you can see, through this motion before the House, the dynamic happening on that side of the House, the tensions between the impatient young Turks on the back bench, looking for these opportunities to make the shadow Treasurer and his colleagues look bad. The shadow Treasurer walked right into that tonight, with his blustering speech against the Greens and everyone in his way. All we on this side want is for everyone to face the same rules. (Time expired)

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Talking about walking right into things, I think the member for Hunter must have a very short memory, because I recall reading one of the media articles around this issue which quoted the member for Hunter as saying, 'If the taxpayer is funding the costings of minor parties, they should be able to access the results.' Do you remember saying that, Member for Hunter?

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

Certainly. I stand by it.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So are you going to be supporting our motion then?

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

You are going to be supporting our motion. There we go. We can tick the member for Hunter as a vote on our side. That is very good. I am glad you are a man of principle and you are going to stand beside us, because that quote really sums up why we are here tonight.

I commend the member for Mayo for moving this motion. I must say I smiled to myself when the member for Melbourne decided to use a cricket analogy, because the member for Mayo—I do not know whether or not people know—was quite a handy cricketer in his day, and I am sure he put a few full tosses to the boundary. But, when the member for Melbourne said it was like being served up a full toss, I do not think he quite had the analogy right. For the member for Melbourne, it is more like ball tampering or maybe match-fixing, because that is what this is all about. This is about the Gillard government protecting the Greens, protecting their soul mates, protecting the party that they formed government with for this parliament. That is what this motion is all about.

The member for Hunter can come in and he can try and throw a few smokescreens here and there, but he belled the cat. If the taxpayers are funding the costings of minor parties, they should be able to access the results. Why can't we access the results? It is very interesting. I did a little bit of research. Before the last election, Bob Brown, as Leader of the Australian Greens, put out a Greens policy initiative called 'Integrity and Transparency in Politics legislative package'. So the Australian Greens believe that integrity, accountability and openness in politics are vital to a healthy democracy. This was Bob Brown before the last election. So I asked myself, 'What's happened?' And then I thought, 'Maybe it's the change of leadership. With a change of leadership, Bob's disappeared and we've got a new Greens leader. Maybe there's been a change of policy approach. Or maybe it is another example of, "We'll say one thing before the election and we'll do another thing afterwards."' I think that is probably more likely, because, as we have seen, the Greens have been very good at influencing this Labor government, getting them to say one thing before the last election and do another thing after. What we are seeing here is the belling of the cat when it comes to the influence that the Greens have over the Labor Party.

The Labor Party can be out saying, 'We need to distance ourselves from the Greens,' starting false wars with the Greens, but the Australian people will not fall for it. They have seen it when it comes to the carbon tax. They have seen it—as the member who spoke before me on this side argued—with the illegal logging bill and the way the risks of that were distorted. It was sent back and tampered with and the result that the Greens wanted came out. They got their way with that piece of legislation. It is about time the Greens got the focus on them that they deserve. It is about time the blowtorch was applied to them. And it is about time the Labor Party showed that it really wants to distance itself from the Greens. If you want to do that, do not preference them in 50 seats, like you did at the last election. (Time expired)

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note with interest this motion moved by the member for Mayo noting that Treasury made a decision on a freedom-of-information request to refuse access to 12 documents and calling on the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation to release costings of policy proposals that the Australian Greens have formally submitted to the government since the 2010 federal election. I am surprised that he would call attention to this issue, given that it was his own party that went all the way to the High Court of Australia to avoid sharing tax office information about bracket creep and documents from Treasury regarding the first homebuyers grant. In fact, the Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello rendered the Freedom of Information Act virtually useless when the High Court ruled in his favour.

I am sure that the member for Mayo is aware that, under the Freedom of Information Act, decisions are made independently by department officials and that the minister does not decide what information gets released. This motion is just another example of Liberal Party hypocrisy—criticising the Labor government's handling of Treasury documents under freedom of information, when it was their former Treasurer that resorted to issuing 'conclusive certificates' to ensure that the media would have no chance in getting a fair hearing and that there would be no further debate on his deliberately hiding those documents.

I am extremely proud to be a member of the government that abolished these dodgy devices so that 'conclusive certificates' can no longer be used to defeat the Freedom of Information Act. Indeed, the Labor government has pursued some of the most significant reforms to the FOI Act since it was first enacted decades ago. Labor has refined the act so that, in more cases than not, documents are disclosed to those requesting them. We have established the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to promote a pro-disclosure culture across the federal government. Significantly, under the Labor government FOI fees have been abolished to reduce the risk of fees discouraging the public from putting in freedom-of-information requests. This is in stark contrast to those opposite, who actively used fees as a disincentive, depriving applicants of their rights under the act.

The differing approaches to FOI only serve to highlight the key differences between Labor and those opposite. Labor stands for openness and transparency; the Liberals for secrecy and deceit. They continue to be destructively negative. They have put their own vested interests ahead of the needs of the community time after time—on the mining tax, on increasing superannuation for workers, on making big polluters pay for their carbon emissions—and they are doing it again.

Perhaps the member for Mayo is using this motion to try to draw attention away from the fact that his own party has never complied with the Charter of Budget Honesty, ironically implemented by its own former Treasurer Peter Costello. Or could he be attempting to distract the public from the opposition's still unaccounted budget black hole? Let's not forget that the last Liberal budget left some $70 billion worth of unfunded spending commitments unexplained.

We know that the Liberals and Nationals in government administered the biggest bribery kickback scandal in Australian history, the Australian Wheat Board scandal, and now those opposite would have us believe that they are the only ones who can govern. Since 2007, they have been undergoing the biggest dummy spit in Australia's history.

I thank the member for Mayo for moving this motion, which highlights the hypocrisy and double standards of the Liberal Party. Although I am sure it was unintentional, it only further reinforces the lengths to which the opposition will go to further their own interests and their willingness to deceive the public. After all, we know that the Liberal Party in government were the highest taxing government in Australian history. Their hypocrisy was revealed again in parliament today with the member for Wentworth's investment in the Spanish company Telefonica, alongside one in France Telecom, both of which are delivering fibre to the home, while his party insists on a second-rate broadband delivery system for Australia.

Further hypocrisy can be overcome if the member for Mayo can convince the member for North Sydney to have his budget figures fully costed by Treasury in the same way that he is demanding in his motion that the Greens have their policies examined. The Liberals preferenced the Greens and got the Greens member for Melbourne elected at the last election. The Greens are a secret society, and the Liberals are bathed in the warm glow of hypocrisy.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important motion because it goes to one of the most important aspects of Australian political culture—that is, the culture of the political parties that seek to represent and make decisions for the future of all Australians. We know that at the start of this parliamentary term the Labor Party and the Greens, together with some of the Independent members, made a big song and dance about letting the sunshine in. We heard words such as 'transparency' thrown about, and we heard a government talk about wanting to live up to a new, higher standard, a standard that it said was about providing the Australian public with confidence, in that they would know that this was a government—effectively, a coalition with the Greens—that they could have faith in.

But what we have seen come to pass is that nothing could be further from the truth, because this Labor government, together with the Greens—and here in the lower house, of course, it is the member for Melbourne—is a government that continues to operate on the basis of hiding information and only releasing the spin doctor news headlines that it is after without actually putting down the detail that the public is entitled to. So I absolutely congratulate the member for Mayo for his initiative with this particular motion, because it goes to that central issue—that is, the unreliability of this government when it comes to being transparent and open with the Australian people.

The Australian people should be concerned, because there are some fundamentals at stake in relation to this motion. Most importantly with respect to the Labor Party, we know that their inability to control the budget not only over the forward estimates but in the out years as well is rapidly becoming a major problem. We have seen announcement after announcement, headline after headline, from a desperate Prime Minister and a desperate government, which we estimate equate to around $120 billion of fiscal deficit as a consequence of the government's announcements, with no follow-through in terms of the policy rigour required to demonstrate how that money will actually be used and, most importantly, how the revenue will be derived to fund the policies that they like to be up there announcing.

In exactly the same spirit, we see the Greens. They would have to be the epitome of a political party that is all care and no responsibility. We know that the Greens have submitted policies to Treasury for costing. The member for Mayo through his excellent work on the opposition's Labor waste watch committee, which closely scrutinises the expenditure that the government undertakes—and it has been effectively an orgy of excess when it comes to the ways in which this government is wasting taxpayers' funds—put forward an FOI, or freedom of information, request for 12 documents. We discovered, off the back of that, that the government, through the department, said, 'No, you're not entitled to that information.'

Now, we know the way in which the Freedom of Information Act operates. In particular, the cabinet exemption—that is, section 34—stipulates that, if there is close contextual proximity to matters considered by cabinet, then there is an exemption for the release of that information. The act is clear in saying that it must have been brought into existence for the 'dominant' purpose of a cabinet related matter. How extraordinary then that Greens policy costings—on what, frankly, are mainly fairly zany policies, but that notwithstanding—according to the government are being submitted to Treasury for the dominant—that is, not incidental—purpose of setting government policy.

We have been saying for some time now that it appears to be a case of the tail wagging the dog, and this just reinforces that running through the Gillard Labor government is a very thick green stripe—and I use the word 'thick' very deliberately. There is a very thick green stripe through this Labor government. That is the reason why: if it sets a precedent on this matter when it comes to Greens policies and their costings, it hopes that it will not be subject to the scrutiny required when it comes to the $120 billion fiscal deficit that this government is going to run up by 2020.

It is important because, fundamentally, the Australians that have to pay for this government's largesse, the Australians that have to pay the ultimate price for this government's attempt to buy its way back into power, will be the Aussie kids of today. For the next two decades, they will be paying off its debt. It should stand up to the standards it set— (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that last week in Perth the member for Wentworth gave an important speech, and in the course of that speech he cast some doubt upon the tactics of members of the coalition in question time and the issues they choose to focus on. I would hate to verbal the member for Wentworth, but I think the point he was making was that they had spent most of the last two years focusing on issues that really should not be in the in-tray of any serious government or any serious opposition. It would appear that it is not only question time in which those opposite indulge in their obfuscation tactics; it also happens during private members' business. To see the member for Mayo dawdle into this chamber and hear him criticise the Labor government for allegedly trying to withhold Treasury documents from release under FOI is breathtaking.

Let us leave aside for a moment the fact that under the Freedom of Information Act neither a minister nor the government decides what information departments release. Under this government at least, decisions are made independently by officials in each department and not by ministers themselves. Under the government's agreements with the Greens and the Independents they can ask us to cost policies and they can ask us to consider policies as part of the budget as well. Where policies are considered for funding, they are covered by the cabinet exemption—completely in keeping with normal practice under successive governments.

The member for Mayo and his Liberal Party mates are the only mob in this parliament who have form in trying to keep Treasury documents beyond the reach of the FOI Act. Let us not forget that when those opposite were in government the Liberal Party poster boy, Peter Costello, the former Treasurer, fought the media tooth and nail all the way to the High Court—the highest court in the land—to avoid giving out tax office documents about bracket creep and Treasury documents about the First Home Owners Scheme. This is the same mob who have come in here today saying there is something crook in the state of Denmark because documents are not being released under the freedom of information laws. Peter Costello was so desperate to conceal this information from scrutiny that he issued a conclusive certificate—a dodgy device designed to shut down debate about Mr Costello hiding those documents, destroying any chance that the media might have of getting a fair hearing on appeal.

I am proud to say that getting rid of these conclusive certificates was one of the first things the Labor Party did on achieving office in 2007—a stark contrast to the approach of the member for Mayo and his Liberal Party cronies. If the member for Mayo would like some clarification about the dodgy way that the Liberal Party and the former Treasurer handled documents under FOI, he might like to take his bluff and bluster down the hallway to the current member for Higgins and have a chat with her, because the member for Higgins used to work for Peter Costello as one of his FOI advisers. She probably remembers sitting around with him in the back of his office plotting with the former Treasurer, scheming up ways they could issue one of these conclusive certificates—they did not call him 'CC' for nothing—and could defeat the purpose of the FOI Act. I am very pleased to say that, in complete contrast to those opposite, we have presided over a regime where the presumption is to disclose, where the presumption is in favour of transparency.

So, given the Liberal Party's shady past, it is hypocritical of the member for Mayo to saunter into this chamber and criticise the Labor government for its record on handling Treasury documents under FOI. If he were in London at the moment he would be standing on the dais and they would be putting a gold medal around his neck—he would get a gold medal in the hypocrisy olympics. You have to wonder who is in charge of the opposition's tactics. The member for Wentworth really did nail it last week when he gave that speech in Perth saying that you have to scratch your head and you have to wonder about the tactics and the strategies and the issues that those opposite are focusing on at the moment. They are certainly not the big issues. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on the member for Mayo's private member's motion relating to the lack of transparency in the Greens' policy costings. The Greens make a wonderful song and dance about open and transparent government and yet, when it comes time to be open and transparent themselves, so the community can really see what they are about and what their policies are really going to cost this nation, they shrink into the shadows and hide in the bushes. Maybe that is where they are most comfortable.

This government has form. In the past it has released policy costings, namely an executive minute detailing costings of the coalition's direct action plan as well as the updated costings on reopening the detention facility in Nauru. The fig leaf that many government speakers have tried to employ in this debate—that they cannot release information because it has been to cabinet, or some other fig leaf under the freedom of information laws—does not stand up to scrutiny They are quite happy to release information when it suits their purposes, but they are not happy to release information that will inform the notion of what this Greens-Labor government is really about.

There seems to be an obvious lack of transparency here on behalf of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation. It seems hypocritical at best, given the Labor-Greens push for public scrutiny and more transparency whilst arguing it is in the public's best interests for them to keep these documents to themselves. To highlight this point, I refer to the Labor-Greens agreement signed in September 2010:

The Parties agree to work together to pursue the following principles:

a) transparent and accountable government;

b) improved process and integrity of parliament …

It would make anyone suspicious of the documents' contents, especially when the majority of surprises within this government have come from the Labor-Greens alliance. The Greens have not hidden the fact they wish to increase the carbon tax. Are these details being hidden from the public within one of these documents? The question of the resulting negative consequences for our economy arises.

For the past two years, the Labor-Greens government have made life increasingly difficult for hardworking Australians. Let us start with the introduction of the world's biggest carbon tax and the creation of a $10 billion slush fund for favoured renewable energy projects. The more we see and the more we hear about renewable energy, the more it suggests this is going to be $10 billion of wasted money.

Thanks to the Labor-Greens partnership, private health insurance rebates and childcare rebates have been cut—this at a time when childcare fees are increasing and public hospitals are struggling with increasing waiting lists. We have also seen the abolition of the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, resulting in the return of union militancy to the construction industry. The Greens are also responsible for an increase in the fringe benefits tax on vehicles, for quietly dissolving work-for-the-dole schemes, for establishing an inquiry into the media and for creating marine reserves without proper community consultation. It is becoming increasingly obvious from the drop in support for the Greens that the public have had enough of their demands and are starting to see through the smokescreen.

We know that the real power in this government is held by the Greens and the decision to refuse access to their policy costings does little to dispel this perception. As the Leader of the Greens admitted recently:

… it is happening because we have shared power in Australia. Majority governments wouldn't have delivered this outcome. It is because the Greens are the balance of power and working with the other parties to deliver, not only aspirations but the process to achieve it.

We have seen, over the last little while, the creation of an enormous budget black hole by this government with the assistance of the Greens. It is time that these policy costings were transparently released for the community's benefit. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.