Download Fragment

Tuesday, 13 September 2011
Page: 9967

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (20:48): We truly have seen an example of why the seat of Lindsay will change hands at the next election. I think we should send out copies of that speech to all his electors. When the member for Goldstein said he was a boy on a man's errand, he was quite right. The reason that this debate is fast and furious is—

Mr Crean interjecting—

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Oh, Simon, I thought better of you and there we were touting you for leader. We were putting odds on you, Simon. We were really giving you substance. What an unkind chap he is. But, rather than wasting time on Simon's eligibility for leadership, perhaps we will go right back to the Parliamentary Budget Office—

Dr Leigh: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that you direct the member for Mackellar to refer to members by their parliamentary titles.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The member for Mackellar will be reminded to refer to members by their titles. In this case I am sure the minister for regional development would be a suitable title.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Is that what it is? It would be perfectly satisfactory because the point I want to make is this: the way in which the government has crafted this legislation is to make the Parliamentary Budget Office totally tied to the coat-tails of Treasury. We have seen Treasury become totally politicised under this government. What better evidence could we have than the fact that, when Treasury came out and said that there was a so-called black hole of $11 billion in our costing, it was because there was a disagreement on assumptions that were made which related to models that Treasury had which disagreed with others that were created.

The fact of the matter is that Treasury and the head of Treasury have been well rewarded. The former head of Treasury who performed this business, Mr Henry, has now been appointed, under section 67 of the Constitution, to a position on the Prime Minister's staff at a sum of $528,000 per year. The parliamentary secretary admitted in the consideration in detail of the appropriations bills that no job description had been agreed upon but the sum of money that he was to be paid had been agreed. Because it is under section 67 of the Constitution it will not be gazetted and we will not know the terms and conditions of his appointment, but we do know that he has been granted this very lucrative position on the staff of the Prime Minister's office.

If people are concerned that Treasury does not appear to be independent then the drafting of this bill proves the point. The agreement before the election was that both parties said that we needed an independent office that would give truly independent assessment and have the ability not to be constrained by the modelling of Treasury. But, because you have so politicised that office and because you have been seen to reward those who serve you faithfully, we now have this bastardised version which is in your legislation.

If you have any shimmer of decency left in you, you will support the amendments as moved by the shadow Treasurer, which will give some legitimacy to the bipartisan agreement we had before the election that this was a needed new office. Both parties went to the election saying they would have such an independent office, but once again—just as we have a Prime Minister who said there would be no carbon tax under a government she led—the independent office that you promised has now been made subservient and attached to the coat-tails of Treasury, which you have politicised and controlled. You have no shame if you bring forward this bill and send you, the member for Lindsay, to try to argue the case. I think it is a final insult that you do not even have anyone of seniority at the table. Perhaps the potential leader, the member for Hotham, over there could add some substance to the debate. Bring it on.