Jamie Briggs MP > Jamie’s View

SPEECH - Parliamentary Budget Office, Consideration in detail - Monday 19 September 2011

20 September 2011 in Speeches

Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (15:49): I rise to endorse particularly the member for Goldstein's contribution. The parliamentary secretary is a trier—I will give him that—but quite clearly he has not addressed any of the issues which are raised in the debate we had the other evening. In fact, he has tried to divert the argument by suggesting that this was a recommendation made in a report of a parliamentary committee. We do not accept the parliamentary secretary's argument that, if a parliamentary committee finds that in some way, the parliament has to agree. These debates have no purpose at all, apparently, if a parliamentary committee comes up with a recommendation. I am not sure why we sit. We should just let committees sit and come up with their recommendations.

The amendment moved by the member for North Sydney is probably the most important amendment of the lot that we are moving because it is about having that contested advice. The parliamentary secretary's view is that you cannot question Treasury. If you go through the history of our government and now your government, the Treasury never gets the numbers right on its forecasts. That is not a criticism; that is just the truth. For instance, last year they forecast—

Mr Perrett: The GST they got right.

Mr BRIGGS: Right on cue, the member for Moreton. No, they did not, member for Morton. The numbers changed—of course they did, because they are estimates, based on models. As the member for Goldstein rightly pointed out, they put numbers into a model and it spits out other numbers. The assumptions changed and the realistic outcomes changed. The point is we should have contestable advice from an independent Parliamentary Budget Office. If you want to take away the politics of the costings in an election campaign, which is what the member for Lyne talks about doing, and have a genuine assessment, you should have a genuine independent body.

One of the reasons the parliamentary secretary gave that we cannot go down the route of the Congressional Budget Office was that the funding for the Congressional Budget Office was $50 million a year. Of course, the United States is a slightly bigger country than Australia, Parliamentary Secretary, so it is little surprise that it would have a larger budget office. But quite clearly there is a need for additional powers for the Parliamentary Budget Office so that they can make their own assumptions and arrive at their own numbers based on an analysis of the information that comes before us. The ideas contained in the arguments that the member for Goldstein and the member for Mackellar have just put forward would reduce the unhappiness of an opposition—and, if you think that this is the first opposition to be unhappy with costings during an election campaign, you have not been around for very long. The same problems have arisen in election after election, and it is the very reason that we need and want a genuinely independent parliamentary budget office. The reason you do not want to go down this road is the short-term politics of today. That position is ill thought through, because in the long term it will have consequences for the effective operation of what should be a genuinely good development in Australian public policy.

This is a smart amendment. It addresses genuine concerns that have been raised about the reliability of the numbers, the independence of the decisions and the release of the information. It should be supported, and if you are serious about doing this, Parliamentary Secretary, you will take on board and answer some of the genuine questions that have been raised rather than try to cover them over with half-truths, as you have so far. This is an important debate and you should take it seriously.

Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (17:10): I wanted to just address a couple of issues which were raised earlier, particularly one raised by the member for Denison who said, in one of his cheap shots, as the member for Goldstein described, about doing work now in preparation for the next election campaign to avoid the release of confidential information which you would be familiar with. Budgets change. Numbers change quite substantially over a period of time, so much so that the government of the day's numbers change between the mid-year budget review and the final outcome. In fact, we do not know what the final outcome of the budget was last year, because the revenue numbers change and the parameters you work with change.

If you understood the Commonwealth budget and how budgeting works, member for Denison, you would understand that you cannot do a costing now for a tax cut you might want in two years time for an election campaign. Guess who does not do that themselves? The executive. So, in your view, it is okay for the executive to have that right to test their policies to get it right but not for the opposition or in fact yourself. That is completely illogical, but we should not be surprised, I guess. It is as logical as attacking any public servant appointed by John Howard but then getting outraged if anyone raises questions about current public servants. It is a completely illogical position. It is all right to slander the former Prime Minister, but if it is anyone in this place it is a great outrage. Hypocrite—absolute hypocrite.

I go back to the issues raised by the member for Lyne. I point this out to him: in the questions he raised to the parliamentary secretary, who did not answer those questions, he did not point to the sections but said, 'There is nothing which will stop it.' I thought that was a fascinating answer for the third question you raised. I put this to you, member for Lyne: 64B of the bill says:

Purpose of Parliamentary Budget Office

The purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Office—

I am reading from the bill—

is to inform the Parliament by providing, in accordance with this Division, independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals.

It then directly rules that out when in 64E2 it says:

The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s functions under subsection (1) do not include:

(a) preparing economic forecasts; or

(b) preparing budget estimates

Give me a break. This is an absolute sell-out of this policy. If you want to go through the history, you do not own this. In fact, this was owned by the coalition who proposed this in the budget in reply, but that is not the point. If we want good outcomes in this place, if you want the parliament to work properly, as you say—and I take you at your word on that—this is a really good reform if you make some changes. What they are proposing is a halfway house.

It is the same as when the Labor Party opposed the Charter of Budget Honesty in 1996. We do not take these people on trust. They opposed the Charter of Budget Honesty in 1996 because they completely politicised the process in 1995 and 1996. The member for Denison probably forgets that. It might have been one of his hazy periods. They completely politicised the budget process in that time, and that is why, when the Howard government came to power, there was a $10 billion black hole in the budget. That is how the Charter of Budget Honesty came about.

This is our proposal from when the member for Wentworth was the Leader of the Opposition. It is a good proposal, with some improvements, including making it genuinely independent to give it the power to make its own forecasts. You know what: the Treasury is not always right. They would say to you themselves that they are not always right. It is economic forecasting. Access Economics does it. Lots of people do it. Lots of people on the internet do it these days. It should be a contested thing. We should have the right to improve policies in this place and get decent and genuinely independent access to information, including forecasts. This is a good amendment. It is not about playing politics; it is improving what is decent reform in this place.