Mr PRICE(4.59 p.m.) —I have been privileged to witness an amazing speech in the parliament. I thought I was inured to shocks, given my service in this place, but this is the second surprise I have received. The first was to learn that one of the newer government members, newly elected in 1996, had stated in his local paper that he was convinced that rich children were more intelligent than poor children. Of course, that viewpoint appalled me, as it did a number of other people.

I listened to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) referring to Otto. I have to confess to the House, almost by way of personal explanation, that I so doubted that he could have been referring to Sir Otto Niemeyer that I went and checked and said, `Surely he's not speaking about that gentleman?' Of course, in the rest of his speech he did. I suppose what shocks me is that a government member could get up and praise a gentleman who caused so much pain and suffering to Australians during the Depression. Clearly, I was not around then, but I certainly had relatives who were and who remembered the hardship, the bitterness and the stress of those days. I think the charter of budget honesty does have some things to commend it, but I do not think any legacy of Sir Otto Niemeyer should be prayed in aid.

As members of parliament, when we engage in slanging matches across this chamber we tend to turn off the ordinary men and women of Australia. They expect better behaviour from us. So I should say from the outset that, sure, a charter of budget honesty sounds like a good thing and something one ought to be intrinsically in favour of. It is interesting that it was given its greatest weight during the last election, notwithstanding that Labor actually had a record of improving the information associated with the budget—for example, publishing three-year forecasts of outlays and having a six-monthly review of the budget and publishing that.

But during the election there was a disagreement between the then Prime Minister and the then Leader of the Opposition. Basically the then Prime Minister said, `We've been no slouches in providing information. Indeed, Mr Howard, we're providing a helluva lot more information than you did as Treasurer. We've got a six-monthly review published and we'll publish the data that you require in due course.' The then Leader of the Opposition said, `No. It's an election period and I'm entitled to have an update of information by the responsible bureaucrats.'

I would have to say that the now government really cannot complain about the people's verdict on this and on other debates that occurred during the election. Clearly they were the winners. In fact there were some on our side saying that we were not benefiting by the stance we were taking. Therefore, I support the proposition that at election time there should be a report prepared by officials who would be seen to be neutral and not politically involved—that is, the head of Finance or the head of Treasury—certifying as to what the state of the economy was.

As the member for North Sydney pointed out, one of the problems in doing that is that, with the best data in the world, you still have to make judgments about growth and trends and make estimates—after all, that is what a budget is. A budget is not a snapshot that looks to the past so that you are accurately, with no mistake whatsoever, reporting past events. A budget is really a prediction about the future—the ensuing 12 months. It is inherently difficult.

If the member for North Sydney wants to say, `Look at the Labor Party; don't they actually have a terrible record in financial matters,' then I have to say that I think the only Treasurer since Federation who has been absolutely renowned for rubbery figures was the late Phil Lynch, whose budgets were laughed at. They were so manipulated that they were laughed at. I am not particularly trying to score points on that matter. All I am saying is that budgets are about estimates and predictions of the future over a 12-month horizon and that inherently—notwithstanding great expertise and great expenditure on computers and number crunching—it is quite easy to get them wrong, even when they are not deliberate wrong.

But what does this mean for ordinary Australians? Are we now going to have a superior form of election campaigning where people will actually have greater faith in us—that is, when a government makes an election commitment, the people will have greater belief that that commitment will be carried out? The member for North Sydney is very proud of his government and proud of their record of openness and honesty. But let us go through some of the election promises they made—and I see the shadow minister for the aged, family and community services, the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), is at the table. For example, this government made a promise that they would not abolish the dental health program—a program that assisted 600,000 people in the 1996 calendar year.

Is this charter of budget honesty going to prevent a promise like that to vulnerable Australians being broken in the future? If I went back to my electorate and said, `We ought to be excited; I know the government is introducing a charter of budget honesty and we're all going to be much more honest,' they would say, `Are they going to break promises?' If I went to the Rooty Hill senior citizens, they would ask, `Are they going to bloody break promises and are you going to do the same if you're given half a chance? Does this charter prevent it?' Regrettably the answer is no. You are still going to be able to go into an election and cruelly deceive the Australian people the way they were deceived in 1996. They said, `Were not going to do anything for the dental health program.' They did not even tell them that they were going to introduce a fee on nursing homes. That was not even told.

As members of parliament—not as ministers or parliamentary secretaries or members of the shadow executive—can we be sufficiently confident and complacent to say, `Look, those things don't matter. We are passing this Charter of Budget Honesty Bill and just because we continue to break promises it does not matter'? I think that is wrong. I actually welcome openness and honesty in this place. Perhaps we ought to try to use a different word because I think it is a bit tarnished these days—if you like, `more accountable and responsible government'.

For a political party that is in government, it is easy to go into an election and make firm commitments because it has the machinery of government to cost its promises. It is much more difficult for the opposition. By the way, this charter of budget honesty does not really help the opposition with that task. It is always very frustrating for governments because they tend to make certain speeches—such as the headland speech in the last parliament—and not specific promises and they leave as late as possible the specific promises. Under this charter, these opposition promises can be costed only if the request is put through the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister agrees.

People are going to say, `That is not the sort of hands-off, impartial separation that we would like to see.' When you are costing promises, some of the underlying assumptions are always difficult. What oppositions did—and the government was no exception when it was in opposition—was have firms of accountants cost their promises. I think that was a welcome advance. So even this charter of budget honesty does not guarantee too much. It makes it difficult for the opposition to have its promises costed.

Worst of all for the men, women and young people of Australia, it does not guarantee anything about a promise being broken. If we are talking about honesty, when the government of the day makes a promise and does not keep it—such as not abolishing a dental health care program benefiting 600,000 people in one year—surely we ought to have a system whereby the citizenry can take such an arrogant government to court.

I know that the government members have been queued up to give a rah, rah to this bill, but we do have a responsibility to go back to our electorates and talk to people. What ordinary people worry most about is governments and oppositions doing what they say and there being some relief for them, other than the next election, should they not do it. So that is what I would be suggesting.

I hope no future government speaker attacks me because I have failed to go through the whole list of broken promises during the election. I know that when we were in government we did not keep all our promises. I cannot say that we had a perfect record, but it is a bit overbearing to hear some of the contributions by government speakers thinking that they are all light and purity when I think the 1996 budget was probably one of the worst budgets that I have ever experienced—and we had a pretty bad one in 1993.

The Joint Committee of Public Accounts does a lot of good work for this parliament. In the last year it brought down an important report into the role of the Auditor-General. If parliaments really are to become effective, there are a number of ways and means that we need to look at to guarantee that we can claw back some of the power that has, by default, gone almost completely to the executive. One of them is the committee system and the other is independent officers.

I sincerely hope that, as part of its so-called commitment to honesty, they will look at the report of the joint committee into the role of the Auditor-General, who, they say, should be clearly spelt out as an officer of the parliament. I have taken a real interest in the role of the Ombudsman because I think that her role is equally important to the parliament. In fact, I introduced a private member's bill on this issue. I regret to say that the government was not sufficiently interested to pick it up, but my bill tried to strengthen her independence and cement her role as an independent officer of the parliament.

I cannot understand why the government objects to referring this bill to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. It is true that sometimes in committees we can get very partisan and very ideological, but that is the exception rather than the rule. I found when I was pleased to served on that committee that most, if not all, members took a genuine interest in the problem and wanted to come up with workable solutions. Clearly, this is the committee that should look at such legislation.

This is the committee that has an opportunity to take expert witnesses—if the Liberal Party wants to do it, that is fine—from people in Treasury and in Finance, from academia and from interested citizens about this charter of budget honesty. Is this what Australia needs at this particular time? I am happy to concede that we certainly need something. I am even happy to say, as I did when I started this speech, that intrinsically I am in favour of a charter of public honesty.

The Attorney-General (Mr Williams) is on record as saying that he is principally concerned not so much with people's rights but with their responsibilities and duties. Do you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker? When you look through the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill, it can be seen that no responsibilities, no duties are required in it—no duties, no responsibilities.

I believe that in the age in which we live, people are no longer interested in tokenism. Once upon a time I think you could have got away with a bit of flowery rhetoric, saying, `We're fixing everything up,' `We're going to be super-honest,' `This is a great innovation,' and `We will not have to do anything more about it.' But I think those days have gone.

I believe there is a very well-informed public out there who will be really surprised by the fact that this legislation will not stop people from breaking election promises and that, if they do break them, ordinary citizens will have no recourse. We can have a charter of budget honesty with dishonest election promises unfulfilled, and there will be no recourse—and this is somehow improving the parliamentary system in Australia! This is something with which we should be rushing around ASEAN countries saying, `Look, aren't we really good? This is what democracy is all about, this is what truth and honesty are all about'!

The bill also incorporates the creation of a five-year intergenerational report, which has been commented upon by a number of speakers. That report will look at the government's current policies and assess those policies in the light of future demographic changes. For example, the number of aged people in our community, rather than lessening, will increase dramatically and then very steeply. I think it is very appropriate that there be, if you like, this kind of audit or report. I suppose it will test whether or not a government, in the way it is operating with its policies, is taking into sufficient account, for example, the projected increase in the aged. I think that is a pretty good innovation, and I am sure it will be supported by all opposition members.

I wanted to refer also to the fact that, of course, with a lot of fanfare, the government had a National Commission of Audit. This was set up to review all aspects of, and make recommendations to, the government. But I have noticed that the government is walking away a little bit from the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Audit—and this charter of budget honesty is no exception. Unfortunately, I cannot find the reference to elaborate on that. Perhaps, given that time has run out, I will leave it.

As members of parliament in this place, we have a joint responsibility—government and opposition—to improve the regard in which the people of Australia hold us. Therefore, I believe it is very important for us not to be hypocritical in anything we say; that when we say we are doing things that will improve standards—in this case, election promise standards—we really do them; and that, if we fail or if those standards are broken, there ought to be relief so that ordinary citizens should have the right to make a government accountable in the courts for promises and commitments it made during an election period. (Time expired).