Download Fragment

Tuesday, 13 September 2011
Page: 9970

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (21:03): It is with great regret that I see this debate on what is an important piece of legislation being used as a vehicle by those opposite to utter the most disgraceful and defamatory accusations against a highly respected public servant.

The fact that the member for Mackellar can stand in this place and use the parliamentary privilege to defame a man who has given years and years of his life to serve both sides of politics and to provide the highest level of economic and social advice to this country is nothing less than disgraceful. It is a spray that deserves an answer. It deserves an answer from those opposite. If they stand beside the member for Mackellar and the accusations that she has made in this chamber tonight then they, too, stand condemned. I say to the member for Mackellar that if she has the courage of her convictions she will not stand in coward's castle and make those accusations; she will go outside and choose to say exactly the same thing. That was nothing short of a disgraceful, defamatory spray on a man who has served this country very, very well. It does absolutely no service to either side of politics that they should allow this to go unanswered.

We are locked in a debate over a pretty important matter, and that is the formation of the Parliamentary Budget Office. You would think on the face of it that it is something that all sides of politics could agree with. Listening to some of the contributions to the debate, it would sometimes appear to me that all sides of politics think that this is an important initiative that should be agreed to. But then you listen to some of the objections and you have to wonder what the motives are that lie behind them.

Some of the objections really ring pretty hollow. After 11 years of government those on that side of politics did absolutely nothing, so the objections that they stand here and raise tonight are pretty damn hollow indeed.

Mr Briggs: What about the Charter of Budget Honesty?

Mr STEPHEN JONES: The member opposite raises the issue of the Charter of Budget Honesty. It was an important piece of legislation that was introduced by those opposite but then shredded in the lead-up to the last election, where they did not have the guts to put their own policies out there for independent costing. We know why: there was an $11 billion black hole in their costings, because they cannot count. They have learnt nothing over the last 12 months because they are now arguing amongst themselves about how they fill the next big black hole in their budget costings—a $70 billion black hole in their proposed budget.

They do not like public servants, and we have heard from those opposite—the member for Goldstein and the member for Mackellar—that they do not trust them. We already know that they intend to sack 12,000 of them if they ever find themselves over on this side of the House. We can understand from the contributions of the member for Mackellar and others on that side that probably a whole heap of Treasury officials' jobs are on the line if those opposite get their way. They do not like public servants, they do not like the Department of Treasury, they do not like economists as a breed, they do not like scientists. In fact, the list of people that they do not like seems to grow by the minute. Basically, the only criterion needed to find yourself on the hit list of the coalition is to disagree with any of the policies that they have the temerity to put up.

Their list of enemies is growing daily because those opposite are waging a war on knowledge, a war on expertise, a war on science, a war on economists, a war on anybody who has the temerity to disagree with their ridiculous propositions. Their serious proposition to deal with climate change is going to lead to individual households being whacked with an additional $1,400 per annum. These are the sorts of things that they put up. Instead of being engaged in a serious debate about an important initiative, they are using this debate in a cowardly attack on high-ranking former public servants and anybody else who happens to disagree with their view of the world. I commend the bill to the House. It is worthy of the support of all members.