Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

And we were all getting along so well! I have got to say that sounded to me like something of a cheap shot, to be honest. I am rethinking my decision to withdraw the Australian Greens amendments, but I guess it is probably a little bit too late to do that. This was one of the first issues that came to light. It is probably the issue that most people outside of this building—if they had come across or heard of this bill—would have heard of, particularly in the light of the debacle unfolding around Centrelink.

I will just read very briefly again from the bill's digest so that people who might be listening to the broadcast are aware of what we are talking about. This is the ability of the minister or any future minister to disclose, for any reason that he or she sees fit, private information of Australian veterans—who have potentially been put into the line of fire or damaged in the course of their service to this country—into the newspaper to clean up a public debate or run a particular political line, as we saw Mr Tudge doing in the last couple of weeks. It is absolutely unacceptable. I do not think there is misinformation about it at all.

If it is misinformation, then the Australian Parliamentary Library is also obviously misinformed. Here is the way that they characterised it:

Under these proposed provisions, where the Secretary—

That is the secretary of DVA.

… certifies that it is in the public interest to do so in relation to a particular case or class of cases, the Secretary may disclose any information obtained by any person under the relevant Act, to such persons and for such persons as the Secretary determines. ‘Public interest’ is not defined in the Bill or any of the relevant Acts.

The explanatory memorandum goes on to state some examples that the minister thought was appropriate, but the examples are somewhat moot: it is any person and any information for any reason whatsoever, and there is no definition of what is considered the public interest.

We strongly believe, not on the basis of misinformation but on the basis of analysis, that this allows a senior public servant to leak a veteran's private information to a newspaper in order to win a political argument. That is absolutely unacceptable. I just withdrew that Greens amendments because the minister appeared to take our case at face value, without the kind of snark that we just heard from Senator McGrath. He appeared to take our case at face value that the community are extremely concerned—the veteran community in particular are concerned—that they are going to be put through the same meat grinder that Ms Andie Fox was put through by Centrelink. You find your name and your personal details in the newspaper when the government wants to win a political argument someday.

Our proposal was probably quite a bit simpler than what the government eventually came up with. What the government has come up with here is that they have simply removed the entire section of the bill that made that kind of behaviour possible. I would have congratulated the government for that move. Maybe I will just go over Senator McGrath's head and say to the minister's advisors and presumably the minister who is listening in: thanks for listening to reason; it was not that hard. We support these government amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (2), (5), (6) and (1) on sheet JC394 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.