Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Government has released highly confidential personal information of Centrelink customers to the media as part of a vindictive political campaign to punish some of Australia's most vulnerable people for speaking out against the Government's robo-debt mess; and

(b) there are serious questions about the legality of the Government's actions and whether they constitute breaches of the Privacy Act;

(2) calls on the Minister for Human Services to attend the House to provide a full account of the:

(a) specific provision of the Privacy Act or any other legislation that the Government claims gives it the legal right to release this highly confidential personal information to the media; and

(b) involvement of himself, his office, his Department and Centrelink in releasing this highly confidential personal information to the media; and

(3) condemns the Minister for releasing the personal information of Australians for vindictive political purposes.

Leave not granted.

It is a scandal. I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Barton from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Government has released highly confidential personal information of Centrelink customers to the media as part of a vindictive political campaign to punish some of Australia's most vulnerable people for speaking out against the Government's robo-debt mess; and

(b) there are serious questions about the legality of the Government's actions and whether they constitute breaches of the Privacy Act;

(2) calls on the Minister for Human Services to attend the House to provide a full account of the:

(a) specific provision of the Privacy Act or any other legislation that the Government claims gives it the legal right to release this highly confidential personal information to the media; and

(b) involvement of himself, his office, his Department and Centrelink in releasing this highly confidential personal information to the media; and

(3) condemns the Minister for releasing the personal information of Australians for vindictive political purposes.

This motion must be debated today. The robo-debt debacle and the deeply flawed Centrelink debt recovery scheme have gone on for so long with no real answers from the government. This is emblematic of how heartless, vindictive and totally out of touch the government is with the Australian community. The government are not content just harassing age pensioners, those receiving the DSP or others who are receiving a Centrelink payment; they have made it clear that, if you speak out, they will target you. If you disagree with the government publicly, they will leak your private details to the media in an effort to discredit and smear you. That private information might include your relationship status and the number of times Centrelink has tried to contact you—and they will not mention that they are using an old contact number. In fact, that information could contain any number of private issues.

The first you will know about these breaches is a phone call or an email from a journalist. The minister will not even give you a call to let you know that they have shared your information. This is not right. Whether legally permissible or not, these are deeply unethical actions by the minister and the department. Leaking private information is not something a government should do lightly. I accept that there may be a need to correct the record at times and in some cases in the public interest, but it has to be done with the appropriate checks and balances. Stunningly, the department has revealed to the media this morning that at no point did the secretary formally authorise the release of this confidential information. I will repeat that: stunningly, the department has revealed to the media this morning that at no point did the secretary formally authorise the release of this confidential information. There appears to have been no formal process in place for this drastic action. They just did it because they were angry and because they wanted revenge on those who have spoken publicly about their failing administration of Centrelink.

Minister, today I call on you to stop focusing on vendettas and seeking revenge and to get on with fixing this broken system. I also call on the minister to table the legal advice he has had which gives him permission to smear people seeking answers or his advice from the secretary of the department that authorises these releases. If he cannot do that then the least he can do is explain to the House his actions. Since late last year Centrelink has been sending out 20,000 letters a week—one in five to people who owe no debt at all. If you get a letter and Centrelink decides you do owe a debt which you dispute, you face hours on the phone and sorting through payslips and tax returns trying to prove your innocence.

The minister needs to explain to this parliament and to the Australian people how this information about individuals ended up with media outlets in Australia. Is it any surprise that people are so angry that they want to tell their stories publicly? 1.7 million people will receive this letter over the next three years, sending them the message: if you do not owe the debt we have raised against you, suffer in silence or we will attack you. He can see the problems he will face if he does not fix this system soon and he is desperate to keep quiet.

Turning the political machinery of the department and the minister's office against a private citizens is a grave act and one which no-one in this place should undertake lightly. The robo-debt has been an outrage not just for individual members of the public but for many organisations, including ACOSS, the Welfare Rights Network, disabled peak organisations and the welfare rights alliance. Should they be fearful that any government funding they receive will be cut? Is that the kind of government we have on the other side? What about the Liberals who have spoken out about this system? Will the Minister for Human Services be leaking private information about Senator Abetz in the other place, who said that Centrelink has failed the Australian people? Will the Liberal Premier of Tasmania be focused on?

I was a minister for several years in the New South Wales parliament and I would have thought very carefully about whether it was acceptable to release confidential information to the media. We in this place serve the people and it is not for us to target them through the media. If the minister is unhappy about people raising concerns about this poor administration of Centrelink, he can attack the opposition, he can attack me, but not private individuals outside this place. This is a dangerous path, and I call on those opposite to call their colleagues into line. Good governments do not seek to silence criticism with threats and intimidation. They try to avoid it through good governance—none of which we have seen in this Centrelink debacle. I read the minister's comments in The Daily Telegraph this morning about disunity on the other side. He said, 'Get on with the job of governing.' I say this to the minister: perhaps you should apply that sentiment to Centrelink and fix your mess instead of attacking the most vulnerable.

There is a very clear narrative developing around this government. They are still obsessed with Joe Hockey's 'lifters' and 'leaners'. Look at the record. Look at their record on holding poor and vulnerable people hostage about the NDIS. Look at their actions yesterday about penalty rates, attacking young people, attacking women and attacking the rights of workers in this country. Look at what they have done in Centrelink. The public says it is not fair game for these political attacks.

I am pleased to see that the minister has made some changes, but the changes have not gone far enough. This system is broken. The very fact that the government think they can roll out the same system to elderly people, people on the age pension and people on DSP is just an outrage.

I want an apology and so do other people in the Labor Party to those the minister has targeted, to those he has smeared and to people who have spoken out, exercising their rights. They have been attacked for it. I want an apology for Anne Foley, an age pensioner who had her pension cut when a false debt was raised. I want an apology for Michael Griffin, who was issued a $3,000 debt which was taken down to just $50. The minister and this government should apologise to the people who woke up to find their private information in the papers without their permission. The minister should also apologise to his colleagues. He has made them look bad. All of those opposite should hang their heads in shame. They can look down at their iPads and phones and look like they are not interested, but they have had the same letters to their offices as we have.

The minister does not understand that the real reason individuals are in the media talking about the government's woeful record on Centrelink management is that they are being treated badly. This is not a big song and dance about how quickly these debt hotlines can be answered. It is not about that. People are waiting hours on hold. People know what the service is like at Centrelink. Centrelink staff are distressed because they have received a circular telling them, 'Even if you see a mistake, just pretend you didn't.' That is effectively what has happened. People are angry. The best way the minister can get them to stop talking to the media is to do his job. This minister and this government should step up to the box and explain to this House what is going on to fix the broken Centrelink system and how the private information of individuals has ended up in media outlets in this country. If the minister and the senior minister will not do that then maybe the Prime Minister should step in and take control of this and do something decent for the Australian people.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to speak on this motion largely to correct the record and also to explain how the system works, where it was derived from and exactly what the law says in relation to the release of information to correct the public record.

I will start with the main point of the member for Barton where she says she is asking for an apology. I would like to remind the member for Barton and other members opposite exactly where this system started. This system started, as they would know, in 1990. It started in an act which Graham Richardson introduced under the Hawke government. That was the first time that we had this system of checking the veracity of Centrelink information with Australian Taxation Office information. The Labor Party then introduced in 2011 a system of automation. As the member for Sydney and the Leader of the Opposition know, they were in fact the two presiding ministers at the time who introduced a system of automation. We have done more compliance work as we have gone on. When we came to government we expanded the amount of compliance work government was doing. It is important for the member for Barton to know that historical context in relation to how this system works.

I point out to the member for Barton that the methodology which we use is the same methodology that the Labor Party introduced in 1990—that is, it looks at what the individual has self reported to Centrelink and it compares that with what the Australian Taxation Office has in relation to the income on their files.

Dr Aly interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cowan!

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When there is a discrepancy, the person gets an opportunity to explain why there is a discrepancy. The Labor Party introduced that. We use the same methodology today but we use slightly more automation in order to do it.

I would like to specifically address the issue of the release of Andie Fox's information, which is the subject of the particular motion, along with the many other allegations that have been made. As the member would know, the personal information about welfare recipients may be used by the Department for social security law or family assistance law purposes in order to correct the record. The Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 162 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 allow the department to correct the record in cases where a person makes a public statement or complaint about the department's handling of their welfare payments that does not accord with the records which we have, including via the media. As such, disclosure made for the purpose of social security law or the family assistance law does not need to be formally authorised by the secretary. Although, I will just point out—

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat for a second now that he has finished reading that section.

Honourable members interjecting—

That is exactly the point that I was going to make. The level of interjections is ridiculously high. It reflects very poorly on those members. There were no interjections through the speech by the member for Barton. There were none. I think you ought to be able to conduct this debate without a wall of interjections. The members for Lindsay and Cowan, and certainly the member for Lyons, and a number of others, are just interjecting uncontrollably. I will take action—the member for Wakefield, as well. I am going to let the minister now have the call. I will take action, and it will not always be 94(a). Don't think you will be out for an hour and back in time for question time. The minister has the call.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I could, again, summarise what I was saying in relation to the social security law: in cases where people have gone to the media with statements that are incorrect or misleading, which are printed or broadcast, we are able, under the Social Services Act, to release information about the person for the purpose of, as I quote, correcting a mistake of fact, a misleading perception or impression, or a misleading statement in relation to a welfare recipient. That is what the law allows. It allows the correction of—

Ms Butler interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a).

The member for Griffith then left the chamber.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

false information which has been placed into the media.

In relation to Andie Fox, there was false information placed in the media in a column which she herself penned. So information was provided to correct the record in relation to those allegations. We also know that because the member for Barton has admitted herself that, in all of the cases which the Labor Party has put up to the media, many of them actually have no idea about the veracity of the claims which they are putting up. In fact, the member for Barton herself said to The Australian, 'We can't guarantee that in every case they are innocent.' And, yet, they are placed up to the media as if the system is wrong and that those individuals do not owe debt when we know from the analysis done by my department that in at least a third of the time they had nothing to do with the online compliance system and, in the majority of times, the people actually do owe debt to the taxpayer. It is allowed under social security law for the government to be able to correct the record for when individual case studies are put up alleging that there has been a breach of the system or an incorrect allegation has been made in the system. That is exactly what we have done in relation to the Andie Fox example—to correct the record. And that is the main allegation.

I will point out, by the way, Mr Speaker, that the Labor Party has put up and encouraged well over 50 people to come forward and put their public details into the public domain. The member for Jagajaga, an experienced member, would know what the social security law is in relation to being able to correct the record. But they have encouraged these people to go into the media and have their details put up. I know that the member for Bendigo is very quiet there. The member for Bendigo gave details directly to her local media outlets without at any stage approaching myself or my office to try to get what she believed was an issue that needed to be fixed. In fact, we are still waiting for the member for Bendigo to receive that information. Nevertheless, she emailed details directly to WIN News TV in Bendigo. She provided them with the address, the name, the mobile phone number. I have it here in an email because the email was subsequently forwarded to us. So the member for Bendigo has provided all that information about these individuals through to WIN TV. As I said, I am still waiting for that information to come to me to be able to investigate if there is, in fact, something that needs to be corrected.

Ms Chesters interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bendigo!

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have made this point before in relation to cases which the Labor Party has been placing either into the media or in this parliament: if they are actually serious about trying to fix any problem which they foresee—and, admittedly, problems occur in any large system; we have had one which was identified and discussed in this parliament—can I ask them to actually approach me or my office if they are genuinely concerned about some of these recipients so that we can actually address them.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Isaacs!

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In many cases, they have put them up to the media and they have raised them in the parliament and, yet, we still have not had them approach us.

We will continue with our compliance system because it is important to protect taxpayers' money. They want to be assured that the people who are in receipt of welfare payments get the right payments, and no more and no less. Unfortunately, over the years, including in the Labor years, there were a great many cases which the Labor Party just overlooked which we are subsequently uncovering. I have spoken in this parliament about the case where a person reported $5,000 that he earned in a particular financial year while on Centrelink payments, but the Australian Taxation Office said that he earned more than $100,000. That was one case that the Labor Party overlooked when the member for Sydney was in charge, but we have not overlooked that. That is exactly why we have this system in place—to do a proper audit, to identify discrepancies like that and to ask the person to explain that discrepancy, and if they cannot they will be asked to pay back a debt. Of course they have review mechanisms. Of course they can get through to the 1800 number, which has a waiting time—this was the member for Sydney's point—of less than five seconds. (Time expired)

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary effort from the minister here today. He has completely ignored the motion that that the member for Barton moved. He has totally ignored the fundamental issue that is before the House today: why has he released confidential information about social security recipients to the media? Why has he done that? That is what this whole motion is about.

This is a very, very serious matter. Some of the most vulnerable people in Australia are receiving social security payments. In fact, we saw on the front page of the newspaper one of the saddest stories of a young man who took his own life. In part his family blame his suicide on the way in which he has been treated as part of this Centrelink robo-debt mess. To have this minister come into this chamber today and completely ignore—now we have the senior minister and the junior minister having a bit of a laugh over there about the mess that they have created. This minister needs to explain exactly what has gone on here. Who has authorised the release of confidential information? Did the secretary release the information using his or her legal powers? I said 'his or her' legal powers though I know it is her. Did the secretary do that under the act in the way that is possible, or not? This minister needs to come to the table and explain exactly what has gone on. That is what the millions of social security recipients want to know.

The minister said in his contribution right now that we should approach him and tell him what the issues are. Why would anybody—us or our constituents—trust him or the senior minister with information about any of our constituents who are having problems with this robo-debt mess? None of us could possibly trust any of these ministers with this confidential information.

The other extraordinary revelation by the minister in his contribution right now was when he said that they have 'slightly' increased automation. Slightly increased it! There is 'slightly' more automation, which of course is what is leading to this robo-debt mess. 20,000 letters a week—that is how many letters are going out. On the government's own estimation, 4,000 of them are wrong—not because of any human error, but the cause of 'slightly' more automation. We know where the human error is. The human error in this government starts right at the very top. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Human Services all think that this is going swimmingly well. They think that this should keep going, no matter how many examples we bring forward and, as my colleagues have indicated, people themselves bring forward. There are people coming forward themselves saying, 'I have just been told by Centrelink or by a debt collector that I owed thousands of dollars.' When they bring their information forward, on so many occasions we find that in fact they owe nothing—absolutely nothing. Pensioners are being frightened out of their wits by this government with this system of automation which is sending 20,000 letters a week frightening people. People think that they owe these enormous debts, when in fact they owe nothing.

The heart of this motion today is who has authorised the release of this confidential information. This minister should come clean and tell the House what he has done. (Time expired)

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.

Debate adjourned.