Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's third interim report into Centrelink's income compliance program that was presented a little earlier today. There are so many things wrong with the address that Senator O'Neill gave on this subject a little earlier today. It was emotional, it was inflammatory, it was not factual and it wasn't aligned in any meaningful way with the balance of the evidence that has been received by the committee. But in many ways that doesn't surprise me, because the majority report, which was essentially the Labor Party and the Greens working together, selectively incorporated evidence, ignored highly relevant evidence and included multiple inaccurate assertions that the averaging of ATO income data had been used in the identification of discrepancies before seeking confirmation from an individual as well as to subsequently calculate debts. That's not the case. A completely separate methodology was used, and that was very clear on the evidence that was given by Services Australia to the committee in 2017. So you could forgive me for treating everything that has come from Senator O'Neill and, indeed, Senator Siewert on this subject today with a grain of salt.

But the main reason I wanted to speak today was to put aside many of the absolutely wrongheaded matters that have been put before this chamber today in relation to the public interest immunity claims made by the minister. Quite in ignorance of the longstanding practice when it comes to public interest immunity claims, quite in ignorance of accepted legal principle, that report has refused the minister's claim. That should be shocking for all of us. It should not be the case that, on a matter of political convenience, longstanding principle that is fundamental to the integrity of this institution and its ability to function is cast aside on a whim—yet that's what they have done. For instance, it's been a longstanding practice of successive Australian governments, including Labor governments, not to disclose legal advice. Yet, in this report, Labor and the Greens demand that principle be cast aside. Furthermore, whilst legal professional privilege alone has not been accepted by the Senate as grounds for withholding information, PII claims that are based on legal professional privilege have been accepted where it has been:

… established that there is some particular harm to be apprehended by the disclosure of the information, such as prejudice to pending legal proceedings or to the Commonwealth's position in those proceedings.

This isn't some fanciful thing I've just made up. These aren't my words. This is direct from Odgers, the Senate practice that we use in this place.

The risks of harm to the Commonwealth from the disclosure of the information that's the subject of this aren't imaginary; they are borne by the taxpayer. There's a class action in relation to this program. The potential prejudice to the Commonwealth in the context of that litigation alone meets the test of the Senate. That prejudice is quite particular. Because there is a claim for negligence in that case, among other things, the knowledge of the Commonwealth or Commonwealth officials at particular times is relevant to determining those claims, so disclosing information about the cost, timing and provider of relevant legal advice is meaningful to people in that litigation, is harmful to the Commonwealth's prospects and, as such, is harmful to the taxpayer. That cannot be something about which we just cast aside longstanding principle.

Quite frankly, that class action, which is run by a Labor aligned firm in circumstances where the questions at hearing bore a remarkable—

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The questions they asked at the hearing bore a remarkable resemblance to a fishing expedition for the purpose of helping their mates in the litigation, and that cannot be on. There were PII claims in relation to an executive minute dated 15 February that were cast aside. That is not on either, in circumstances where it is in the public interest for the deliberations of cabinet not to be made public. That's how we get good decisions out of cabinet. They're happy to cast that aside, even though there is precedent for the idea that the Commonwealth Ombudsman having a limited access is uncontroversial. There are so many problems— (Time expired)