Download Fragment

Monday, 19 September 2011
Page: 10514

Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (16:35): In order to assist the process, the member for Lyne was asking for a very specific piece of information. I think he was contesting the assertion of the opposition on confidentiality, to which he placed considerable weight, so that members could seek, with confidence, confidential advice and have some interaction. We were highlighting how that is compromised and he was contesting that, if that is a fair characterisation. I draw his attention to proposed section 64L of the bill and I will read it. This is under the heading 'Caretaker period policy costing requests made before polling day—public release of requests and costings.' It says:

This section applies in relation to a policy costing request that is made under subsection 64J(2) or (5) before polling day during the caretaker period for a general election.

It goes on to say:

As soon as practicable after the request has been made and before polling day, the Parliamentary Budget Officer must publicly release the request and a costing of the policy.

That is the practical black-and-white provision to which we were referring and I hope that is helpful. I was seeking to illuminate the parliament—and it is perhaps not as helpful as I might hope it would be and, dare I say it, the Member for Lyne, I have been there before, but I will persevere—and I hope that is helpful.

The point I was making and that the shadow Treasurer has made is that, up until the caretaker period, the base against which costings are provided is provided by the Treasurer. The Treasurer owns that costing basis. He can do whatever fiscal magic and wisdom he feels is appropriate to release his figures. The point I was trying to emphasise—and perhaps I did not do it well, and I stand admonished for that—is the only time the Treasury has undiluted, unadulterated data during the entire period between elections available is from the PEFO, the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. That is the only time, Member for Lyne, that the dataset upon which you are placing such great weight is actually the Treasury's dataset. The rest of the time under those other economic and forecasting bases it is the Treasurer. So if the member for Lyne places such an enormous weight and respect, as I do, on Treasury, let Treasury be heard. That is really what the opposition is on about.

But what we are also saying is if you are only interested—sorry, not you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Yes, I was going to say to everybody that perhaps if he keeps—

Mr BILLSON: I have been pretty good up to that point.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, everybody has been pretty bad. I may enter the debate, seeing as I sat on the inquiry, but I won't be that cheeky. The member for Dunkley has the call.

Mr BILLSON: I hope the clerks take that 15 seconds off your time and not mine, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I was trying to make to the member for Lyne is that if the Treasury figures are to be allowed to be used, let them be used, not the Treasurer's figures. The only time in which the Treasury's figures are used are during the caretaker period. So any effort by anyone in this chamber to rely upon Treasury's figures only happens during the caretaker period where there is this obligation under 64L to release all the material. There is no opportunity to go back on the basis of the analysis that is provided to recalibrate, to contemplate whether it is worth 'moving forward', dare I use a phrase, on the material that is provided—none whatsoever.

So if he is fair dinkum about Treasury, let them be heard. But if he is also only wanting to hear one tune—that we have all got to be on exactly the same tune in this nation's parliament—then persist with his point of view. If he would like to hear other voices, other options, other analysis to make sure there is rigour and robustness to this work, he must support the opposition's amendments, because there is a range of other analysis available that will strengthen the quality of governance in this country, and not have the parliament handcuffed to whatever the Treasurer thinks is advantageous from his political perspective.

We are on about good governance in this country; not what is good for the government. He has been hoodwinked into being locked into this 'PBO Lite' that relies upon the magic of the Treasurer doing whatever he likes with material that Treasury might produce, to have that as the starting point, to say, 'No other voice interests us; no other basis of analysis has any value whatsoever.' I get a bit sick of hearing unctuousness about public servants. We respect public servants, but when they get rolled out and manipulated by a dodgy, poor government, that is a problem for everybody. My last point is: what about the Parliamentary Budget Officer? Is he or she not deserving of the respect to go and source advice where he or she sees fit? I have respect for that position as well, not just some that are chosen to be favoured. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired—with extra time for my interruption.