Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government, the coalition, the Greens and the Independents are all in violent agreement that the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Office is an important and necessary step to improve the quality of the management of our nation's finances. But it has to be a strong and effective Parliamentary Budget Office. It has to be a truly independent Parliamentary Budget Office. The bill before us, the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011, seeks to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office that falls well short of those very important aspirations.

The Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Minister Wong, came into this chamber trying to give the coalition a bit of a lecture on sound financial management. Let me just make this observation. The coalition does not have to take any lessons from the Labor Party when it comes to sound financial management. When it comes to sound financial management, Minister Wong is long on rhetoric and very short on delivery, because she is part of a government that has delivered four successive deficit budgets, including two of the largest deficit budgets in the history of the Commonwealth, both in dollar terms and as a share of GDP. Minister Wong is part of a party, the Labor Party, which has not delivered a single surplus budget in more than 20 years. People across Australia know that, when it comes to financial management, the Labor Party in government stuffs things up, and people across Australia know that it always comes down to the coalition to fix up the mess that was created by the Labor Party in government. This is a Labor government in the true tradition of past Labor governments, which spends too much and then has to go for one ad hoc tax grab after another to try and make up ground. Even as it is going through these multibillion-dollar tax grabs, it actually makes further promises, meaning that the budget ends up being even worse off than when the government started imposing a new tax.

I well remember sitting with Minister Wong in a Lateline interview during the budget, when Minister Wong was queried: 'Why is it that the government hasn't included the revenue from the carbon tax in its budget figures? Why is it that the government hasn't included the expenditure attached to the carbon tax in its budget figures?' This is a minister who wants to give us lessons on transparency when it comes to financial management, who wants to tell us about being transparent with the Australian people about budget estimates and budget information. The government produced a budget, when it knew that it wanted to impose a carbon tax, without even including any of the revenue estimates or any of the expenditure estimates, knowing that the employment figures in the budget were wrong, knowing that the CPI figures in the budget were wrong. That is the record of Senator Wong.

Do you know what Senator Wong's excuse was at the time? Senator Wong's excuse was: 'Don't you worry about that. It doesn't matter, because the carbon tax is going to be budget neutral. We're going to raise all these billions of dollars of revenue off businesses across Australia and we're going to introduce all of these additional expenses, but don't you worry; it is going to be budget neutral, so it won't matter.' Well, we now know what the definition of 'budget neutral' is in Senator Wong's language. The definition of 'budget neutral'—to the extent that Senator Wong and the government have fessed up to it so far—is an additional $4.3 billion hit on the federal budget that was not disclosed at budget time, back in May 2011. We know that, from the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in November 2010 to the budget just six months later, there was a massive deterioration in the budget bottom line—an $8½ billion deterioration in the budget bottom line for 2010-11 and another $10 billion deterioration in the budget bottom line for 2011-12. We know that that has got worse since then.

Let me just talk about transparency around the fiscal impact of government or opposition initiatives. This is a government that is not even transparent about the fiscal impact of its current initiatives. This is a government that proposes to introduce a massive new tax in the mining sector and attaches a whole series of promises to it, and it is not prepared to be transparent about the revenue estimates that are the foundation of the mining tax revenue. It is not prepared to be transparent even about the cost of all the measures that it has attached to it. It is not prepared to be transparent about the cost of the promises it has made as part of the mining tax package.

Here we have a minister who tries to give us all a lecture that is long on rhetoric, but, when it comes to actually delivering now, to being transparent now, she is nowhere to be found. This is a minister that is part of a government that treats this Senate with absolute contempt, which is why it is important for us to give the Parliamentary Budget Office appropriate powers in terms of accessing information, in terms of making its own economic and budget estimates forecasts independent from Treasury, independent from government. This is a government that has had in front of it, for three or four weeks, an order of the Senate to produce costings in relation to all the promises attached to the mining tax. This is a government that has ignored an order of the Senate with a deadline of 8 November—it did not respond to it at all. This is a government that has a terrible track record when it comes to financial management. This is a government that has yet again, in the bad old tradition of Labor governments in the past, made a complete mess of our public finances.

They now try to ratchet up the rhetoric; they now try to yell and scream the loudest to make people out there believe, somehow, that they might be bad but that others might be worse. Let me tell you this, Minister: people across Australia know that the coalition has a strong track record when it comes to sound financial management. People across Australia know that the Labor Party has a disastrous track record when it comes to financial management. I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 7177:

(1)   Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (line 29) to page 8 (line 10), omit subsections 64E(2) and (3), substitute:

  (2)   For the purposes of performing his or her functions under subsection (1), the Parliamentary Budget Officer may prepare, or have regard to, either or both of the following:

  (a)   economic forecasts;

  (b)   budget estimates (whether at the whole of government, agency or program level).

[functions of Parliamentary Budget Officer]

This amendment will help to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office that is truly independent and will ensure that we have a Parliamentary Budget Office that can actually pursue its own economic forecasts and its own preparation of budget estimates. The amendment relates to the functions of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Currently, schedule 1, item 16, section 64E(2) prevents the Parliamentary Budget Officer from preparing economic forecasts or preparing budget estimates. Proposed section 64E(3) states:

... the Parliamentary Budget Officer must use the economic forecasts and parameters and fiscal estimates contained in the most recent relevant reports ...

That is a completely inappropriate constraint on the Parliamentary Budget Office. To use only the official economic and budget forecasts in its work is an inappropriate constraint from undertaking independent assessments or analysis of the economic or fiscal impacts of policy proposals.

These subsections also seem to be at odds with the purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Office outlined in proposed section 64B, which states that the purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Office is to provide:

... independent ... analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals.

The way the legislation is currently drafted would seem to prevent the Parliamentary Budget Office from preparing longer run economic or budgetary projections beyond the period of the forward estimates.

Let me just quickly reflect on this whole issue of making assessments of the period beyond the forward estimates. Again, I say to people across Australia: do not listen to what this minister says; watch what this minister does. Do not listen to what the Gillard government says; watch what the Gillard government does. Here the minister was talking about transparency and the importance of integrity in the way you present your information around the fiscal impact of various initiatives. Let us look at how the government goes about this. When it comes to the carbon tax, we were told by the government that they could not possibly provide us estimates of the fiscal impact beyond the current forward estimates. In fact, we were told that longer term fiscal costings have a low reliability and are therefore misleading. That is what we were told by the government. But former Prime Minister Rudd was pursuing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, he published a 10-year forecast for the fiscal impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in his budget papers. That was Prime Minister Rudd. Obviously, we had issues with former Prime Minister Rudd's proposals for a carbon pollution reduction scheme, but at least he was open and transparent enough to present information in his budget papers about the fiscal impact over a 10-year period.

Under the Gillard government, which was supposed to be a new era of openness and transparency, that has gone. We are now told: 'No, you can't do that. You can't possibly do that.' The opposition cannot do it in relation to the government; but of course the government can do it in relation to the opposition. This is the hypocrisy of it all. This government is all about politics and not about delivering good policy. It is a completely different rule for us. It is one rule for them and another rule for us. Everybody in this chamber would remember—and I am sure Senator Macdonald and Senator Cash and Senator Adams would well remember—when the Gillard government used the so-called department of climate change figures to assess the fiscal impact of the coalition's policy through to 2020. That is five years beyond the forward estimates. That was after they had told us: 'No, no, no, we can't give you the figures about the fiscal impact of our carbon tax beyond the current forward estimates because longer term fiscal costings have a low reliability and are therefore misleading.' As soon as they said that, to justify hiding information about the impact of their policy out they went on a political attack, just running the rhetoric, as this minister and the government always do. Here they go—they put out a press release in which they say:

The economically irresponsible Direct Action policy would necessitate the Coalition needing to spend $5.2 billion on international permits in 2020 to meet the bipartisan target of minus 5 per cent.

That is supposedly in addition to the $2 billion that direct action would spend on domestic abatement.

The Prime Minister repeated that again yesterday, but the department of climate change has since conceded that its figuring on coalition direct action is a little rubbery. Answering a question on notice about those numbers a couple of days ago, this is what Minister Combet now says:

The Department agrees with the Treasury that longer-term fiscal costings have a lower reliability than those over the forward estimates. The Department agrees with the Treasury that the fiscal estimate of climate change policies can only be prepared to budget quality over the forward estimates period.

The reason I read this out is that it demonstrates the importance of having a parliamentary budget office that is independent from government because we have a government now, and we might well have a Labor government in the future, that politicises the Public Service, that uses Treasury, that uses the department of climate change inappropriately and that compromises hardworking public servants. This is a government that politicises, that has a track record of politicising, the federal Public Service. Of course, they have verballed the Public Service. They give them directions that are inappropriate and of course they run spin after spin after spin. The minister comes out here again today perpetuating this lie out of context that, somehow, we have a $70 billion black hole. It is just not true. What the minister does is add in all of the revenue from all of its new and increased taxes, assuming that somehow we will lose all of that revenue without losing any of the related expenditure. That of course is completely wrong. The record already shows that on getting rid of the carbon tax and associated measures or on getting rid of the mining tax and associated measures, even when you do not rescind the increase in compulsory superannuation contributions, the budget is actually better off. The budget is better off by scrapping the mining tax package even if we do not rescind the increase in compulsory superannuation. These are all important matters. They demonstrate the importance of the Parliamentary Budget Office having an independent capacity—independent from government, from Treasury and from other departments that are part of government—to come up with credible independent economic forecasts and budget estimates.

This is why I, on behalf of the coalition, have moved the amendment, which would see sections 64E(2) and 64E(3) omitted. I have moved that they be replaced with proposed section 64E(2), which gives the Parliamentary Budget Office the powers to prepare its own economic forecasts and budget estimates or to have regard for existing economic forecasts or budget estimates as it sees fit. This would allow the Parliamentary Budget Office to fully meet its objective of providing truly independent analysis of fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals. If the government were serious about having a strong, effective, independent Parliamentary Budget Office they would support this very sensible amendment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As tends to be Senator Cormann's wont he has sought in volume to exceed the merit of his arguments. Certainly there was a lot of shouting in that contribution but, if I may say, very little of merit that warrants much attention. But I will go through a number of propositions in relation to the issues he raised. I see Senator Macdonald is on his feet. I would make the point that I am responding to the senator's own speech.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We now have 10 minutes left to do all of these amendments and vote on five bills. The minister is now going to take the time of the Senate in, as she said, not answering anything, because she claims there is nothing to answer. Could I ask you, Mr Chairman, if you might give me the call so that I can raise—

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order, Senator Macdonald?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That the call should have been given to someone who wants to ask questions.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The calling of senators to speak is within the discretion of the chair under the standing orders. I saw Senator Wong stand first. Senator Wong has the call.

I stood first.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition previously spoke and we do generally go to both sides of the chamber, as you know. If you have an issue perhaps your spokesperson might be someone you could speak to. I am going to respond to a number of the propositions that were raised, because I think—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

You are so relevance deprived—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Do you have a point of order, Senator Macdonald?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald, you know that you cannot do that.

Why?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Because there is a motion before the chair. You know that, Senator Macdonald.

Mr Temporary Chairman, I want to move that the standing orders be set aside.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald, I am advised by the Clerk that that is a fresh motion. It may not be done whilst there is a motion before the chair. Do you have a point of order?

Yes, that I am moving that whatever orders we are—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: No, you are ruled out of order, Senator Macdonald. That is the advice I have received from the Clerk. You know that. Resume your seat, Senator Macdonald.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald, I am not making a ruling; I am just applying the standing orders. The minister has the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may say—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is outrageous. The debate is being guillotined and the minister is now going to filibuster.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think what is outrageous is someone who is so relevance deprived coming in here and taking spurious points of order and then they cannot bear that someone else is on their feet and is the centre of attention for a moment.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have guillotined this debate.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, you are a serial offender. Even those on your side are embarrassed by you. If I may return to the debate—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we aren't.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is true. Senator Cash may not be. She may not be amongst those. I will return to the debate—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The minister is now imputing motive to senators on this side, which is incorrect. She is not allowed to impute motive to senators. She would know that and you should get her to withdraw the imputation.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, on the point of order. This is a travesty of justice. We have five minutes left, due to a guillotine applied by the Labor Party and the Greens, to deal with five bills plus the nine amendments we have on this bill. Mr Chairman, you are allowing Senator Wong to waste the precious time we have left to deal with these nine amendments and five other bills in the next 10 minutes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. Senator Wong has the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was trying to respond to Senator Cormann's speech in the Committee and also to the amendment. First, I want to place on record my disappointment that Senator Cormann has persisted with the attack on the Public Service that we have seen from the opposition in the context of this bill, particularly in the House of Representatives. I say this to Senator Cormann: if he is serious about being a senior economics spokesperson I do not think it behoves him to come into this chamber and accuse the Treasury and Finance departments of being politicised.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am accusing you.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is now interjecting, through you, Mr Chairman, and accusing me—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cormann!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a minister and I am a member of a political party—that is hardly a secret. But that is not what you said, Senator Cormann. What was asserted was the politicisation of the Public Service. I want to place on record that I believe that the comments made in the other place in the context of this bill, about the politicisation of the Treasury—personal comments and attacks on Dr Henry—were reprehensible. And I would have regarded them as being reprehensible had they been made by Labor members in opposition. Economic spokespeople from the opposition, like Senator Cormann, ought to put those things to bed. They ought to say: 'We do not agree with those propositions which were put by members on our side'—because the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation are important institutions in our economic framework and they ought to be defended by spokespeople with responsibility for those portfolios. Instead of defending them, you have gone along with it—and, really, it is quite shameful. That is the first point.

The second point I want to respond to was Senator Cormann's assertion, in the context of his amendment, that we had made up the $70 billion figure. That is a lie. I invite him to look at the transcript of at least two interviews by his senior economics spokesperson, Mr Robb, including on Meet the Press, where he made it clear that the $70 billion was your figure. I think the quote was something like, 'No, it's not a furphy.' So don't come in here, Senator Cormann, and say, 'Senator Wong has just made it up; she shouldn't be believed'. We took it from you! That is what you say is the black hole you have to fill, that is the extent of the cuts you will have to find—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to even get to the starting line. So don't come in here, Senator Cormann, and assert that we have made this up. This is the figure that your shadow finance minister put out publicly. In relation to—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are spinning it in a dishonest way, and you know it.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, you had your opportunity. I am now on my feet.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are all spin and no delivery.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cormann!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You cannot come in here—through you, Mr Chairman—Senator Cormann and accuse the government of making up a figure that your own finance spokesperson has made public. Of course, as you know, Senator Cormann, that $70 billion figure does not include the subsequent spending you have now engaged in.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is actually wrong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does not include the subsequent—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is not right.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection. He says I am wrong. That figure was put out there by the finance spokesperson for the coalition. Subsequent to that, we then have additional spending decisions by Mr Abbott, contrary to the advice of Senator Cormann, where apparently there is now a multibillion-dollar promise from the coalition in relation to the spend on superannuation that is funded by the mining tax.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Mr Chairman, I wonder if I could have only one of them interjecting at a time. I have got three at the moment and I just wonder which of them you would like me to respond to.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Order! Senator Cormann! Interjections are disorderly. Also, Senator Wong, would you direct your remarks to the chair, not across the chamber. Senators on my left are not to interject. Senator Wong, you have the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, and I will attempt to do so.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: We now have three minutes left to deal with nine amendments and five new bills and this government, because of a—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, there is no point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

deal between the Greens and the Labor Party, is filibustering on this last three minutes.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, there is no point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is outrageous.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, there is no point of order. Senator Wong, you have the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I turn now to the amendment which was moved and I will make a couple of comments on that. The government opposes—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a travesty of democracy.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are so many responses to the word 'travesty' I could make to Senator Macdonald but I will resist. The government opposes this amendment. I would ask Senator Cormann to recognise that in moving it he is actually moving a position different from that which was signed up to by his colleagues in the joint committee report on the Parliamentary Budget Office. There is a lengthy discussion in chapter 3. If you look at the concluding comments, which commence on page 45, I would make this point. This is what was signed up to by Senator Joyce and Mr Pyne in March this year. It is amazing what a difference a few months make. It says:

In fulfilling this mandate, it is further proposed that the key functions of the PBO are to prepare responses to the requests of individual Senators, Members and ... committees ...

There is then a further discussion exactly on the point that Senator Cormann raises with this amendment. It says:

Given the resource intensive nature of the work and the need to minimise the duplication of work produced elsewhere, the PBO should not be required to produce its own fiscal forecasts. Rather, it should provide analysis of the Government’s fiscal forecasts, commenting on the assumptions, judgements and overall reliability of Government assessments.

Senator Cormann ought to explain to this chamber why it is that in March 2011 senior shadow ministers, including the leader of the National Party in this chamber, agreed—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: the minister has just invited me to respond to her contribution.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, this is not a point of order.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a point of order.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a point of order. It is a debating point, Senator Cormann; it is not a point of order.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, I seek leave to move a motion to enable this debate to be extended to enable the coalition to make a further contribution to the debate responding to the invitation from Minister Wong.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, you cannot seek leave whilst there is a question before the chair.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can seek leave.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You cannot, not to move a motion while there is a question before the chair. Senator Wong, you still have the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I was simply making the point that this issue—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I would have been finished far earlier if you had just stopped interrupting me. This issue was considered by the joint committee and was unanimously supported. The position that Senator Cormann is now putting is inconsistent with the position that has been agreed to by the leader of the National Party in this chamber.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allocated for consideration of this bill and the five other bills listed on today's Order of Business has expired. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7177 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [19:04]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Question negatived.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (2) to (9) and 12 on sheet 7177:

(2)   Schedule 1, item 16, page 8 (lines 14 to 29), omit section 64F, substitute:

64F Information gathering powers and secrecy

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

(2)   A person who has obtained information in the course of performing a function of the Parliamentary Budget Officer has the obligations set out in clause 4 of Schedule 2.

[information gathering powers and secrecy]

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

[information gathering powers and secrecy]

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

[information gathering powers and secrecy]

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

[information gathering powers and secrecy]

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

[requests for costings—requirement for public announcement]

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

[requests for costings—requirement for public announcement]

(8)   Schedule 1, item 16, page 11 (line 20) to page 12 (line 31), omit sections 64L and 64LA, substitute:

64L Public release of policy costings

(1)   The Parliamentary Budget Officer must publicly release a policy costing if requested to do so by:

  (a)   if the costing was requested under subsection 64H(2)—the Senator or Member who made the request; or

  (b)   if the costing was requested under subsection 64J(2)—an authorised member of the Parliamentary party that made the request; or

  (c)   if the costing was requested under subsection 64J(5)—the independent member who made the request.

(2)   The Parliamentary Budget Officer must not otherwise publicly release a policy costing.

64LA Public release of responses to other requests by Senators or Members

(1)   The Parliamentary Budget Officer must publicly release a response to a request under paragraph 64E(1)(c) if requested to do so by the Senator or Member who made the request.

(2)   The Parliamentary Budget Officer must not otherwise publicly release a response to a request under paragraph 64E(1)(c).

64LB Public release of submissions and other work

     The Parliamentary Budget Officer must ensure that the following are made publicly available:

  (a)   requests by Parliamentary committees referred to in paragraph 64E(1)(d), and the submissions prepared in response to those requests;

  (b)   the results of any work done in the performance of the functions of the Parliamentary Budget Officer under paragraph 64E(1)(e).

[public release of costings, responses, submissions etc.]

(9)   Schedule 1, item 16, page 13 (lines 1 to 7), omit section 64M and the note, 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.

[information gathering powers and secrecy]

(12)   Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 20), at the end of the Schedule, add:

19 At the end of the Act

Add:

Schedule 2—Information gathering powers and secrecy

Note:   See section 64F.

1 Relationship of information gathering powers with other laws

     The operation of clause 3:

  (a)   is limited by laws of the Commonwealth (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act) relating to the powers, privileges and immunities of:

     (i)   each House of the Parliament; and

     (ii)   the members of each House of the Parliament; and

     (iii)   the committees of each House of the Parliament and joint committees of both Houses of the Parliament; but

  (b)   is not limited by any other law (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act), except to the extent that the other law expressly excludes the operation of clause 3.

2 Purpose for which information gathering powers may be used

     The powers under clause 3 may be used for the purpose of, or in connection with, a function given to the Parliamentary Budget Officer by this Act.

3 Power of Parliamentary Budget Officer to obtain information

(1)   The Parliamentary Budget Officer may, by written notice, direct an employee of an Agency to do all or any of the following:

  (a)   provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with any information that the Parliamentary Budget Officer requires;

  (b)   attend and give evidence before the Parliamentary Budget Officer or an authorised officer;

  (c)   produce to the Parliamentary Budget Officer any documents in the custody or under the control of the employee.

Note:   A proceeding under paragraph (1)(b) is a judicial proceeding for the purposes of Part III of the Crimes Act 1914. The Crimes Act prohibits certain conduct in relation to judicial proceedings.

(2)   The Parliamentary Budget Officer may direct as follows:

  (a)   that information or answers to questions be given either orally or in writing (as the Parliamentary Budget Officer requires);

  (b)   that information or answers to questions be verified or given on oath or affirmation.

The oath or affirmation is an oath or affirmation that the information or evidence the person will give will be true, and may be administered by the Parliamentary Budget Officer or by an authorised officer.

(3)   An employee of an Agency commits an offence if:

  (a)   the employee is given a direction under this clause; and

  (b)   the employee does not comply with the direction.

Penalty:   30 penalty units.

(4)   A determination under section 71 may prescribe scales of expenses to be allowed to persons who are required to attend under this clause.

(5)   In this clause:

Agency has the same meaning as in the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

authorised officer means a person who:

  (a)   is an official within the meaning of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997;and

  (b)  is authorised by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in writing, to exercise powers or perform functions under this clause.

4 Confidentiality of information

(1)   A person commits an offence if:

  (a)   the person discloses information; and

  (b)   the information was obtained by the person in the course of performing a function given to the Parliamentary Budget Officer by this Act or another Act; and

  (c)   the information is disclosed otherwise than in the course of performing a function given to the Parliamentary Budget Officer by this Act or another Act.

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years.

(2)   Subclause (1) does not prevent the Parliamentary Budget Officer from disclosing particular information to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police if the Parliamentary Budget Officer is of the opinion that the disclosure is in the public interest.

5 Sensitive information not to be disclosed

(1)   The Parliamentary Budget Officer must not include particular information in a policy costing, response or submission, or in any document publicly released by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, if:

  (a)   the Parliamentary Budget Officer is of the opinion that disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest for any of the reasons set out in subclause (2); or

  (b)   the Attorney-General has issued a certificate to the Parliamentary Budget Officer stating that, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest for any of the reasons set out in subclause (2).

(2)   The reasons are the following:

  (a)   it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth;

  (b)   it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet or of a committee of the Cabinet;

  (c)   it would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and a State;

  (d)   it would divulge any information or matter that was communicated in confidence by the Commonwealth to a State, or by a State to the Commonwealth;

  (e)   it would unfairly prejudice the commercial interests of any body or person;

  (f)   any other reason that could form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth in a judicial proceeding that the information should not be disclosed.

(3)   The Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot be required, and is not permitted, to disclose publicly or to:

  (a)   a House of the Parliament; or

  (b)   a member of a House of the Parliament; or

  (c)   a committee of a House of the Parliament or a joint committee of both Houses of the Parliament;

information that subclause (1) prohibits being included in a policy costing, response or submission, or in any document publicly released by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

(4)   In this clause:

State includes a self-governing Territory.

[information-gathering powers and secrecy]

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that amendments (2) to (9) and (12) on sheet 7177 circulated by the opposition be agreed to.

Question put.

The committee divided [19:08]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Question negatived.

The question now is that section 64U and 64V in item 16 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question put.

The committee divided [19:12]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011 be agreed to without amendments.

Question put.

The committee divided. [19:16]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Question agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.