Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Can the minister confirm that Centrelink requires people to inform it of a change in their circumstances within 14 days, including the purchase or sale of any shares or investments? Doesn’t Centrelink’s website state that a failure to do so leaves the individual open to the criminal charge of fraud and a possible fine or a requirement to do community service hours? Can the minister confirm that age pensioners, single parents and people on a disability pension have to comply with this requirement? How can the government insist that individuals comply with these requirements while excusing a senator who repeatedly failed to meet his obligations to report significant share dealings over many years?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were substantive parts to that question, which I will have to take on notice. The issue that it goes to in terms of equity and accountability is very clear: Senator Santoro has had to meet with a number of obligations in terms of his shareholdings, and so have a number of other people on this side and that side of the table. We have a clear and transparent process in this place concerning declarations of interest, particularly with regard to share portfolios. Quite clearly, the Prime Minister found Senator Santoro to be in breach of those arrangements—and he paid a very high price. You cannot ask for more transparency than what has come from this government. In fact, before this government, I did not see any processes in terms of creating a transparent and accountable framework to ensure that there was complete probity in regard to ministerial responsibilities and potential conflicts of interest. I am very proud to be part of a government that has set the way in that regard, and I do not think there is any inequity concerning requirements for people to make presentations on Centrelink payments and the very high cost that the senator has paid in this regard.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that, if a Centrelink client stated that their failure to report 72 share dealings, involving tens of thousands of dollars over a period of 16 months, was an inadvertent oversight, the breach would be excused? Would the minister consider this excuse believable? Or does he agree with the Prime Minister that such a repeated failure to properly report these matters could not have been an oversight?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very clear that the senator is trying to make some sort of comparison between what may happen with a Centrelink breach and a clear breach, an accepted breach, by the minister on this side. He has paid the highest price. I cannot see that we have to answer this in any other way. He has paid the highest price in terms of a breach. Very clearly, the question goes to equity. If someone were on Centrelink payments, would they be required to answer in some particular fashion? I am sorry, I do not have any particulars or details of a Centrelink individual. But what I can say is that this minister has been found wanting by the Prime Minister and he has paid the very highest price.