Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I present the interim report of the Community Affairs References Committee on Centrelink's compliance program, and I move:

That the recommendation of the report be adopted.

The Community Affairs References Committee has decided to table this interim report because, in the course of a hearing on 16 December—specifically into what had happened with robodebt and the fact the government had suspended the operation of aspects of the robodebt program—a claim for public interest immunity was received. The committee considered this particular matter. The claim for public interest immunity was then claimed at the hearing and the minister subsequently wrote to us on 24 January. On 24 January we received correspondence from the Hon. Stuart Robert MP, Minister for Government Services, concerning questions taken on notice at that particular hearing. It related to legal advice sought and received in relation to the compliance program. This was, as I think the chamber will understand, very, very important to the process that we are going into to look at the compliance program and its impacts.

The minister set out a claim for public interest immunity in relation to the confidential legal advice and the details surrounding any such advice, including the frequency at which the advice had been sought, the source of any such advice and the dates it may have been provided. This is very important advice, because we need to know when the government sought advice, how many times they did and how long they had known that, in fact, it wasn't legal—that some of these debts weren't legally raised. This is very important information to the community.

The committee considers that the correspondence outlining the minister's claim, which appears to be made on the grounds of legal professional privilege and prejudice to legal proceedings, does not sufficiently justify that the provision of this information to the committee could cause harm to the public interest. The Senate has rejected government claims that there is a longstanding practice of not disclosing legal advice. Legal advice to the Commonwealth government is often disclosed by the government itself, and we referenced that in our report. The committee notes that the minister's claim that disclosure of the information may materially affect the Commonwealth's position in the proceedings of a class action currently before the federal government. However, the committee is not satisfied that the minister's correspondence explains the specific harm to the public interest that could result.

The committee also notes that the minister's correspondence does not conform with the requirements of public interest immunity claims under procedural order 10(4), as it fails to address whether the perceived harm to the public interest could result only from the publication of the information, or could result equally, or in part, from in camera disclosure to the committee. As a result, the committee has resolved that the minister's claim for public interest immunity does not specifically justify withholding the information requested by the committee.

The committee considers that the requested information is vital evidence for the inquiry into Centrelink's compliance program as it goes to the legal foundation of the program and its administration. We—and I—are deeply concerned to ensure that we get access to this information in order for us to understand the basis on which this robodebt program is claimed. At the hearing on the 16th, it was extremely difficult to get the information that we required and an understanding of what was going on.

It became very clear that the government was still in the process of working out what it was going to be doing with the robodebt program, with the debts that have now been frozen and the extent to which it applies. It's not as simple as just saying, 'It applies to all debts that were based on the averaging process,' because some debts have both averaging and people have been able to provide payslips for certain areas. So we understand that it's an extremely complex issue here. But the community has a right to know, given also that last week the committee released the email trail of correspondence from the ATO about garnisheeing these debts under the online compliance program. Those are available on our website and they go through the correspondence to the ATO about the fact that it does not appear these debts due to the Commonwealth. In other words, they're not legally valid. This is very important information that we released on the committee website last week as well.

We need to understand when the government first knew about these particular debts, when they acted and under what circumstances they received that legal advice. So that's why I've moved that the recommendation contained in the report be adopted:

The committee recommends that the Senate adopt the following resolution requiring the production of documents: …

We're requiring that, and we hope that this resolution is passed. It requires:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services no later than 10 am on 24 February 2020, responses to all questions placed on notice by Senators Siewert and O'Neill relating to legal advice and Centrelink's compliance program.

I won't go through the documented list, but there's a list of specific requests that have been made so that the committee can get access to the information it needs to complete its inquiry into Centrelink's compliance program.

This is of vital interest to the committee but it's also, importantly, of vital, vital interest to the community in Australia, because people are watching this inquiry and watching what's going on with robodebt very closely, because it affects so many of them so deeply and personally. People don't know what's going on. They don't know if they're going to have to pay their debt. They don't know if they're going to get the money they've already paid repaid. It is a big mess and it is the responsibility of government to help—they made the mess! We need to make sure it's now sorted out as a matter of urgency. This legal advice will help us in our deliberations.