Appropriation (Parliament 2013-2014) Bill 2013 – Second Reading Speech delivered in Parliament 11 June 2013

June 19, 2013

Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) — It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Appropriation (Parliament 2013-2014) Bill 2013. It is Labor’s intention not to oppose this bill. There are a number of issues that I wish to raise in the context of my address on this bill, specifically relating to those omissions within the bill that concern the state parliamentary Labor Party. Overall it is interesting to note the disparity in the allocations identified by the Presiding Officers in terms of the evidence, and indeed the slides, they provided to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee.

The appropriation is identified in the second-reading speech, and I would ask for some clarification in terms of the disparity of the figures.

In the 2013-14 budget the total appropriation identified by the Presiding Officers was $96.9 million, the special appropriation was $33.9 million and the total appropriation for this financial year was $130.8 million. I am sure this is just an issue of clarification, but if members look at the second-reading speech associated with the bill they will see that the identification of the amount is $112.218 million for the Parliament in respect of the 2013-14 financial year. I ask for some clarity about how that appropriation is provided and at what magnitude it actually sits.

The other area that concerns me is that prior to the 2010 state election members of the Liberal Party and The Nationals made a promise quite emphatically to the Victorian community to establish a body similar to the commonwealth’s parliamentary budget office to examine the costings of political parties’ policies.

However, of course, there is no reference of any allocation for such an office, and during the course of the budget estimates the President of the Legislative Council confirmed that no funding allocation had been provided for the establishment of the proposed parliamentary budget office, either from the executive or the Parliament. In subsequent hearings the Minister for Finance, who is at the table, confirmed that the government remains committed to introducing a parliamentary budget office in time for the upcoming state election.

The basic point I would like to make is that that time is now. Indeed the longer the government leaves it, the less likely it is to be a process that will be effectively utilised by all parties. I do recall the government’s position on the parliamentary budget office was that it would be something that would be available and applied to all parties.

Indeed on 9 November 2010, when in opposition, the member for Box Hill, who is now Minister for Finance, produced a media release that said the opposition was committed to ensuring that a truly independent process was put in place. The document states:

Treasury in Victoria is part of a public service that Labor has increasingly politicised and brought under the government’s thumb and it’s nonsense to claim they are truly independent and able to treat all parties equally.

…

In Canberra, all parties have agreed to scrap Treasury costing of election policies —

all parties —

and instead set up an independent parliamentary budget office.

That is what a coalition government will do, and that is what John Brumby should commit to do.

A coalition government will establish a parliamentary budget office within Parliament, overseen by the Auditor-General.

We will transfer to the parliamentary budget office the taxpayer-funded resources Labor is using exclusively to develop and cost its own election policies, and make those resources available for all parties and MPs.

Effectively we have a quite emphatic indication of the government’s intention to establish an all-party process for costings and to reallocate resources from Treasury to the Parliament to ensure that happens.

Whilst there has been some trepidation and indeed wavering in terms of the government’s position, perhaps the most concerning thing is that we have seen no tangible evidence that there is any movement occurring. To this end I wrote to the Treasurer on 8 April and indicated the opposition’s concern about, firstly, the lack of clarity in terms of the limitation of the policy, and secondly, that if this process were not established in the context of an all-party committee looking at the operation of the legislation that would constitute the basis under which the parliamentary budget office would operate, it would have a grave impact on the ability of that body to be able to adequately perform its function in a way where it had the confidence of those parties to whom its resources were intended to be of benefit.

One cannot help but think that the longer the government delays this and fails to resource this Parliament in a way that is consistent with its pre-election promises, the more likely it is that the process will be at best shambolic and at worst predetermined in order to ensure that it has no credibility. Quite frankly, the government is bound to its election commitments. On our side we will find a process that will adequately and appropriately deal with costings in terms of our policies going forward. We will not require our luncheon mates to put them together for us, and we will do it in a way we think best utilises the resources made available to us as an opposition. If the government remains committed to its processes, well and good, and we would encourage it to continue that process but in a way that is transparent and that gives the people of Victoria and those opposition parties that seek to utilise the policy the opportunity to have confidence in it and to ensure it is adequately resourced.

Mr Clark interjected.

Mr PALLAS — I hear from the Attorney-General, who is at the table, ‘Are you going to use it or not?’. We would like to see what ‘it’ is. It may be like the commonwealth parliamentary budget office — that is, the budget office you said you believed there was value in, and you drew comparisons in terms of the desirability — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Through the Chair, not ‘you’.

Mr PALLAS — The opposition obviously believes that if a budget office is to be established, its resources and its financing to the Parliament is critical. Might I say in relation to the parliamentary budget office, the comparable equivalent that the government has drawn favourable comparison with — the commonwealth arrangements — has recently been the subject of evidence to a parliamentary Senate estimates committee. Essentially, what we are seeing is a very substantial fiscal commitment to ensure that the federal parliamentary budget office operates. Indeed, in the Senate estimates a further $1.5 million in funding was provided to that body, which will see its staff expand to 34 people by the end of July. Mr Phil Bowen, who heads up that body, said he expected to see 39 permanent staff this year giving his office what he has described as a surge capacity to deal with extra costing requests ahead of the September federal election.

He has said that his office has also used private sector contractors costing just under $800 000, and that he believed his office would be expanded by a further 12 people ahead of the election.

The point I make is this: this is a process that has been in place for quite some time. If you look at the New South Wales equivalent since 2010, these processes have not been imposed upon the community or indeed upon the Parliament or the political parties at the last minute. If you look at the level of confidence that these processes have therefore gained from the political parties, you will see that in the federal context as of 17 May there have been some 418 requests for costings from political parties and 280 have been completed. This will give the community some confidence. To cut a long story short, we support the idea of the establishment of such a body, but not in the context of an open cheque. We want to have some involvement.

I have been waiting for a response to my letter of 8 April to the Treasurer, but still it does not come. Nonetheless we live in hope.

The key thing here is that we need to start that engagement quickly. If an allocation does not come until next year, and if a process does not start and is imposed upon us at the last minute, members should not be surprised if we do not participate in it. If the government wants a serious process, it should get serious about it and involve us, and it should not worry for one moment if it thinks we might not be able to adequately ensure that we have costed our policies appropriately; that will be attended to, make no mistake. Nonetheless, there is merit in the idea of once and for all being in a position where we can have some confidence in the way that policies are appropriately configured. The idea that the government put forward that it would transfer Treasury staff into the parliamentary budget office has much to commend it, but a lot will depend on the legislative safeguards that are put in place.

If the government does not put in place effective legislative prohibition on the transfer of information to the public sector and the conveyance of information about policies under development by opposition or third parties, that would be a matter of grave concern, and we have seen how that has in many cases being misapplied in terms of the West Australian elections, where effectively we saw Treasury costings used to undermine an opposition’s capital works policy.

We say it is critically important that the government looks to these issues. We stand committed to working with the government in order to operate in a bipartisan sense to get this body up and running, but it must happen this financial year. If it is left until too late, its credibility will be underlined. Do not think that the public or the government will be able to stand up and say, ‘You are not committing to a process that we have just sought to foist upon you’. I doubt that will have any credibility with the public at large.

Once again I urge the government to get on with the job of engaging us and talking about the policy framework within which the parliamentary budget office would operate to assure us that it is in fact, as they say, independent, properly resourced and able to perform its work well in advance of the next election.

I now turn to the other aspects contained within the bill, and in particular the fact that the bill provides for a substantial allocation across a number of areas. I take members to those provisions that relate specifically to the allocations within various departments of the Parliament, and most notably I draw to the attention of members that the bill seeks to ensure that staff and salaries are adequately resourced. I also wish to recognise the staff of this Parliament who perform an outstanding job, sometimes in what would appear to be a very hostile environment. If they find their jobs hostile, I assure them that they are only collateral damage in what is a robust democratic process.

I also recognise that electorate officers do an outstanding job for all members of Parliament regardless of our political persuasion, ensuring that the government and the opposition are able to perform their tasks as local member efficiently. It is these men and women who are at the front line, of course, and who assist us in interacting with our communities and in helping our constituents to access government services where needed and to provide informational assistance on the operations of statutes that are legislated by this Parliament. We must ensure that we equip our electorate officers with the necessary resources to carry out their duties efficiently and effectively. It is therefore paramount that the government does not seek to reduce the carryover of electoral allowances from members’ budgets. The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly highlighted that the Treasurer may move to cut any such surplus carryover. Any such move would be quite harmful to the effective operations of members’ offices around the state, and I am sure the Treasurer will recognise this when he reviews these figures in future finances.

It is also of critical importance that when looking at the operation of the budget we note that there are very substantial appropriations being made to the areas of the Parliament that face budgetary pressures.

Those pressures have been identified — the resourcing for Legislative Council select committees, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and the audit office. These matters are critical to the effective functioning of this Parliament. The oversight committees need to be adequately resourced in order to perform their functions effectively.

We note that the overall rental allocation for electorate offices has increased by an average of 6 per cent per annum, with a 27 per cent increase in 2012-13. There is a 10 per cent increase in the utilities allocation for electorate offices and the parliamentary precinct, and an increase for IT leasing and communications costs. These matters remain an issue of concern to the opposition.

While I am sure there is a robust effort to ensure that all members are adequately provided with quality information technology, I note that the member for Frankston, in a contribution in this place, expressed his concern about the capacity for IT to be flexible and relevant to the needs of particular members. I will continue to reinforce those concerns.

I see that the budget also contains an increased allocation for security. Perhaps now it is an appropriate time to recognise that James Vongvixay is back at work. I am sure I have pronounced his name incorrectly, and I apologise to him. James is one of many who perform an outstanding task, and the fact that he has made a full recovery from his injuries from that most shocking attack upon him, as he provided security in effect for all of us here, is a demonstration that security is something you cannot take for granted. The people who provide it to us should be recognised and receive our highest esteem and regard, because they provide a critical function.

One area of concern I will note is that there is an allocation for electorate office relocation. The only concern I express in respect of those relocations is that one of the justifications is due to boundary redistributions. Those boundary redistributions will not take effect until the next election, so any effort to relocate members of Parliament from their existing electorate offices on that basis or justification would be pre-emptive. There may be a variety of reasons for electorate relocation. Indeed, in respect of my own electorate office some concerns have been expressed about a variety of matters that might make my tenure at that location untenable for the Department of Parliamentary Services, not for me, and in those circumstances that is just the sort of relocation that would occur in the normal course of events. But we have the redistribution coming on, and any suggestion that electorate offices would be changed from their current location to any other location would be inappropriate. Indeed, it would be a pre-emptive and political act for that to occur.

Members should remain in their electorates until their electorates are not their electorates — until the people of Victoria have determined who should represent those electorates that have been properly constituted after the election. That is an issue of grave concern to the opposition. If there were to be any relocations that pre-empted the electorate boundary redistributions, there should be discussions with the appropriate parties, because the justification for such an action would need to be quite profound.

I also take this opportunity to recognise the great work that is being performed by staff of the Department of Parliamentary Services, including the library, catering, Hansard — they in particular, given my pronunciation of certain things, have done an outstanding job — the clerks and all other assisting staff.

Whilst this is sometimes lost in the dour discussions associated with budget allocations and the highly politicised debate that accompanies the interchange of priorities and preferences, their work continues to be of the highest quality. I believe all members would join with me in recognising what has been a tremendous job under the pressures of the restructuring that is occurring and the cuts being made through government efficiency dividends and other cost-reduction measures.

I raise some significant concerns over the potential further strain placed on the services, with an estimated $2 million expected to be cut in the 2013-14 budget over the forward estimates, as well as $200 000 from this year’s budget, as outlined in the 2013-14 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings. It is important that these cuts have no impact on the functionality of the Parliament in holding the executive to account, which is the primary role of this Parliament under the Westminster system.

Just as important as holding the executive to account is the core understanding of the separation of powers. I was concerned to hear evidence of Treasury involvement and intervention — I would say inappropriate intervention — in the settlement of the electorate officers’ enterprise bargaining agreement. It is one thing for Treasury to form a view about whether an agreement would sit comfortably with policy, but at the end of the day the constitutional principle of the separation of powers — effectively meaning that the executive, the judiciary and the Parliament are three separate arms that place checks and balances on each other — is a critically important one.

I find it a matter of great concern that there is a capacity outside of the appropriation process for the itemised and managed relationship of the Parliament and its staff, and in this context I mean electorate officers. We are not talking about any public service staff here; we are talking about the staff of this Parliament, and we are talking in many cases about the staff who are representatives of all of us when we are not present in our electorate offices. That is critically important to bear in mind. These people are effectively an extension of members of Parliament, performing the functions they have been truly elected for, so I have grave concerns about the idea, beyond an appropriation, of there being a process whereby the Department of Treasury and Finance can intervene in the content of an enterprise agreement that is duly made, authorised and signed off by the presiding officers.

In that respect there are a number of points in this budget that continue to raise concern.

There is a continuation of the $4 million in cuts made last year, and the government’s efficiency dividend will once again equal a reduction in the budget of a further $300 000. The general efficiency dividend this year is $200 000 off the budget. The dividend looks to be over $2 million, which needs to be cut in the 2013-14 budget.

I note that the stonework at Parliament will cost $5.6 million. I am one of the individuals who has been expelled from their previous place of residence under the stairs. I do not know whether I was co-locating with the rats, but I do know that those offices were desperately in need of work and I accept that that work had to occur, as much as the people of Victoria probably cannot see that there is much value in it. I note also that there is overwhelming support for that proposition from my colleagues in The Nationals.

I will finish by making the point that this budget is critical to the Parliament’s effective performance of its task. It is critically important that we retain the capacity to have a properly resourced Parliament and ensure that all of the processes involved in presiding over the executive are adequately resourced. Finally, I urge the government to recognise that as a government it should honour its pre-election commitments and make sure the parliamentary budget office is adequately resourced and provided for in an adequate time frame with the full inclusion and involvement of opposition parties.

See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.