The unlikely hero that could be our next great export after HECS
It’s often easy to forget how unique some of our institutions are, particularly when it comes to providing services to those who might not have access to them otherwise.
The School of the Air, which delivers lessons to children on remote outback stations, and the Royal Flying Doctor Service spring to mind.
And so it is with the Parliamentary Budget Office, certainly less heroic in the nation's imagination, but no less practical.
It is not widely appreciated but the PBO is among the only independent fiscal bodies in the world that costs the policies of opposition, to give them some of the economic heft afforded to government through Treasury.
There are many budget offices that operate as a watchdog - keeping government promises realistic and putting a lid on debt - but only Australia and the Netherlands have a charter to work for the opposition.
The Australian flag flies above Parliament House in Canberra.
Photo: Brendon Thorne“I think that others have a lot to learn from the constructive contribution to fiscal rectitude that this part of our mandate plays,” the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Jenny Wilkinson, told a transparency forum at the Australian National University in March.
And our East-Asian neighbours, particularly the South Koreans, are increasingly taking notice, seeking advice on how they can establish their own.
Done correctly, the Parliamentary Budget Office has the potential to be a great political-economic export in a democratising Asian region, doing for policy accountability what HECS did around the world for university fees.
But just because something is unique, does not mean it can’t be improved.
In March, Labor announced it would end cash-back refunds for retirees who earned income through dividend imputation on their share portfolios but paid no tax.
It had been costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, we were assured.
The honest truth is we were left guessing who would be impacted by the $55 billion hit.
We still do not know the granular details of the policy because Labor has no obligation to release its costings despite announcing it was election ready.
The same is true for the other side of the aisle. The government is not required to release Treasury costings, and when it does - it often does so selectively in order to garner favourable coverage.
It partly explains why the government might be reluctant to increase the transparency of the PBO, for fear of it being forced to open its own books.
This is not good enough.
As in the business world, political parties must be able to consult confidentially. They should be allowed the time and space to throw around good and bad ideas without the threat of electoral backlash.
It would be foolish to suggest that all policies in development form should be released publicly. Politicians would swiftly find ways around them.
But if a policy is to stand up without spin - the independent costings should be released once it has been cemented as party policy - as they are in NSW - and as important business announcements are released to the ASX and updated in annual reports.
Now is the time to have this debate. In the six years since the PBO was established it has been on an expedition towards policy transparency in Australia.
The office is available to fact check press releases a parliamentarian intends to release to make sure they are consistent with the costing advice they have provided.
And it will tell them that it will be forced to correct the record if they are misrepresented
We are assured this threat of public humiliation is enough to ensure public policy claims are accurate, but it raises the inevitable question, what are the politicians hiding?
Trust is at a low ebb - Australia ranks 21st out 28 countries surveyed by Edelman on faith in their politics and their institutions - the public deserves full disclosure of policies that will materially impact on their lives.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull
In addition, the number of policies costed by the body has tripled from 1297 at the 2013 election to 4146 in 2016 but if Malcolm Turnbull goes to the polls in May next year, we won’t see the PBO's assessment of the full fiscal impact of the policies until June.
The constraints of time and staff - the PBO only has 40 - compared to Treasury’s 800, means it is not feasible for the $7 million body to get comprehensive costings done for all parties during the caretaker period.
We are again told the retrospective threat of a policy being called out is enough of an incentive to make sure parties are accurate.
But here, we could learn from the Dutch, who established their PBO equivalent in 1945 and has now grown to 115 employees.
Their system has evolved to the point where it is almost unheard of for a party to got to an election without having their policies publicly costed and released.
A Dutch style system is not conceptually beyond the PBO, they just need more time and money.
We should fund it, Australia would be better for it.
Ross Gittins is on leave