|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [4.24 p.m.]: It is not surprising on a day when we are supposed to be talking about honesty and transparency in government that we have had anything but that from this State Labor Government in relation to the Charter of Budget Honesty (Election Promises Costing) Amendment Bill 2010. Whilst the Government is trying to force this bill through today, a couple of things are outstanding. The Opposition would have liked to have had the opportunity to move a couple of amendments to the bill, but it could not produce the amendments in time. The Government has brought the bill on for debate without consideration of them. At the same time, a meeting is to be held next Thursday with the Auditor-General, the Department of Premier and Cabinet and me, on behalf of the Opposition, to negotiate this in good faith.
The Government is endeavouring to show the people of New South Wales that it is trying to keep the word of the Premier and it is trying to look as though it is being independent, but the truth is very different. When the detail of the bill is looked at it is clear that the Government is rolling away from the public commitment that was made by the Premier during a debate. Clearly, it is using costings for political purposes in the upcoming State campaign and, indeed, for each campaign thereafter. If the Government had supported the proposal in our bill the community could have had some confidence and trust in the costing for each campaign going forward, but it has disappointingly thrown that out the window today. I am disappointed because I believed this was a chance for historic reform. I believed that this State Labor Government had a chance, with the support of the Opposition through our proposal, to pioneer for other State governments, and the Federal Government, a way forward for community surety as to costings and election commitments.
As I said in the agreement in principle speech to my bill, the Government cannot promise a community a piece of infrastructure such as the widening of The Spit Bridge, which was to cost $59 million—I will not go through each example I gave, but I will use the example of The Spit Bridge because it is the most pertinent—and less than a few weeks after the election tell the community that it would cost too much. In fact, it was evident that the Government had walked away from this proposal before the election, but it did not have the honesty to explain to the Northern Beaches community why it was not going to proceed. Indeed, the widening of The Spit Bridge was going to cost $115 million to $120 million—double the original cost projections. It is time that we had an independent costing methodology and process used for New South Wales campaigns—the bill proposed by the Opposition provided that opportunity.
I will now outline the facts that have transpired to get us to a point where the Government has walked away from handshakes, agreements and good faith discussions that have been led by this side of the House. The Premier agreed on television that the Auditor-General would oversee independently costed election promises. The Opposition gave notice of our motion to the Parliament, which outlined that premise in December—well before that debate was undertaken—and introduced its bill shortly thereafter. Our bill was simple. The Opposition wanted to amend the New South Wales Charter of Budget Honesty (Election Promises Costing) Act 2006 to shift the responsibility for auditing the cost of election policy commitments from the New South Wales Treasury to the New South Wales Auditor-General. Under our proposal, the costings of election policy commitments were going to be undertaken independently from Treasury with the oversight of the Auditor-General.
They would certify announcements by the Government or Opposition that contained a funding commitment that was to be funded out of the 2010-11 budget or was an additional commitment. Our bill requires the Auditor-General to maintain a record of Government and Opposition promises, commitments and decisions that were made following the release of the 2010-11 budget; removes the pre-election period restriction so that election promises could be checked at any time, not 60 days prior to the State election; and provides access to Treasury officials on a confidential basis.
Treasury is an arm of Government. That is a matter of concern to the community. How can it be argued that Treasury retains independence when it is part of the Government? I am not maligning the individuals within the organisation; I am merely stating a fact and suggest that Treasury as an arm of government cannot be deemed independent. I have made that point previously and I have given various examples of our concerns about the use of processes to support Government in this whole sorry affair of ongoing costings. Our proposal was for an independent entity, not Treasury, to cost the election promises of both sides.
I negotiated with Brendan O'Reilly from the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Again, I am not criticising him. I understand that he is carrying out instructions on behalf of the Government and the Auditor-General in good faith. The Opposition presented its bill and we were happy to open discussions on amendments to achieve community outcomes. Our bill provided that costings be undertaken by experts. In this way the community could be confident that independent experts had undertaken the processes and ticked them off. The costings must be done free of the political process. If they are not it is open to the Government of the day to overinflate or underinflate, depending on how it suits the Government's purposes. We indicated at the time that an independent entity free of political imperatives must undertake this process.
I attended a meeting to talk about our bill and how it could be constructed to suit the Auditor-General and the Government, on the back of the Premier's commitment. Unfortunately, the next port of call was that this bill came before the House. With the introduction of this bill, I reiterate, the Premier is walking away from her promise. The Premier has walked away from the statement she made earlier, "Absolutely, I would be delighted to have the Auditor-General undertake the costings." This bill does nothing more than maintain what is already in place, that is, Treasury undertakes all the costings. That is a matter of particular concern. The Opposition wants independent costings that are free of political imperatives and motives. I refer there to the behest of the government of the day, not the individuals involved.
The Government also has walked away from an opportunity to play a pioneering and historic role in providing independent and rigorously tested costings for the people of New South Wales. With independent costings, communities in my electorate and across the State, when confronted with policy and infrastructure announcements, could be confident that the Government will deliver because it has provided a true cost. With a rigorous and independent process, people will have the surety that the Government has the ability to meet its commitment, unlike the examples we have heard today.
The Opposition has proposed amendments to this bill. I apologise to Parliamentary Counsel, but the Government has given us no option. At the meeting we were to have on Thursday we were going to run through the amendments to make sure that the Premier stuck to her word and introduced independent costings. Unfortunately, that meeting is not going to happen. We cannot support the bill before the House. Due process has not been followed. We have not had enough time or an opportunity to discuss our amendments. I indicate that the Opposition will move amendments to the bill in the upper House. The amendments reflect the spirit and essence of what we were trying to achieve in our bill on behalf of the community.
Under our amendments the Auditor-General and the independent financial consultant, not Treasury, will cost all policies. I clearly indicate to the House that we were trying to establish a historic process of independent costing free of political imperatives. We want an independent financial consultant. In this bill the Premier has put forward that Treasury will undertake costings on behalf of the Government and the Opposition. Under our amendments all new announcements from the budget onwards of both the Government and the Opposition are to be costed, not only announcements made 60 days before an election. Why is the State Government so keen to reduce the amount of time available to prove costings on a rigorous basis? It would be in the State's interest that the costings are considered in due time and due process by experts. That is what our bill proposes. There is no justification for the process to be undertaken in a constricted or restricted timeframe. It is an ongoing process. We would happily commit to every policy that we provide from this point forward to be overseen by an independent financial consultant. In relation to our policy announcements, the community will know that we have gone through the costings with an independent consultant and the Auditor-General has ticked off on them. That is our proposal and we remain firm on that.
We want the Opposition and/or the independent financial consultant to have confidential access to Treasury officials to discuss costings of potential policy initiatives. Treasury would assist the independent financial consultant in relation to any concerns, inquiries or additional information to ensure that the consultant has all the information as it undertakes the costing of Government and Opposition election promises. Any Treasury officials contacted would sign appropriate confidentiality agreements. That is a standard practice that is consistently used in markets that deal with sensitive information. Clearly, Government and Opposition policy information is sensitive material. Therefore, we would seek confidentiality in that regard. The role of Treasury would be to provide information that the independent financial consultant required or assist the consultant in its inquiries.
Unless an independent financial consultant is at the core of this process it is nothing more than a ruse designed to make the Premier look as if she is going part way to keeping her commitment. The truth is that she has broken her promise. The Premier has walked away from her promise. The Government wants Treasury to do the costings; it does not want independent costings. That is not in the interests of the community. There is genuine disappointment in the community. This was a historic chance for the Premier to walk away from the politics of old—and this State Labor Government needs to walk away from the politics of old—and change the narrative to one in which she understands it is in the community's interest that an independent financial consultant, free from political imperatives, undertakes the costings. The Premier has walked away from that opportunity.
This is not a political stunt on our part. We have committed to this reform by our proposal. If we are elected to government we will support it. Today we have seen the Government in the raw. The underbelly position of this State Labor Government is, in Richo's words, "Do whatever it takes." This Government does not care about the community. It does not care about introducing a process that will improve the costings and budgets of the Government and the Opposition. All it cares about is getting back into power.
If the State Labor Government controls the costings it can play the same old games: it can use the resources of Treasury to try to poke holes in every costing from the Opposition at every opportunity. I support the rigour, but the rigour should be by an independent financial consultant. We should take the politics out of it and put the community first. There is an opportunity to improve this whole debate to a point where with each policy commitment that is made there is confidence in the community that it is costed properly and there is confidence in the community that we are moving beyond the politics of old. But, unfortunately, in walking away from the promise the Premier has walked away from integrity. The negotiations that have been undertaken in good faith in her office demonstrate that the Premier has no intent and no interest in keeping her word. The Government wanted this to go away so it could try to get out of the very nasty position in which it finds itself.
Again, I apologise to Parliamentary Counsel for not giving them time to prepare these amendments. I also acknowledge that the Government clearly had no intention of negotiating on this issue on Thursday this week. It is nothing more than a stunt. This is a sad day for New South Wales because a historic opportunity has been lost. We will oppose this bill as it is being rammed through with breakneck speed with no consideration of good faith or process. The amendments that we propose today will be taken to the upper House and argued strongly and loudly for the benefit of the New South Wales community.
|
