Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Waiver of Debt and Act of Grace Payments) Bill 2019. I note that many of the speakers who have spoken in the debate haven't necessarily spoken in relation to the bill, so I am going to try to do my best to stay to the actual content of the bill. I want to place on the record how important it is that there be a regime under which the Commonwealth can waive debts and set off debts against other debts and how the government can make act-of-grace payments.

One of the things I've learned since becoming a senator on 1 July last year is that there are many people out there battling the Commonwealth bureaucracies—doing their best—and sometimes the result is not just. There are cases where waivers should occur and there should be acts of grace. It is an extremely important part of the fiscal arrangements of the nation that we have this scheme whereby the federal government can exercise its discretion in certain matters and provide justice to people who genuinely are aggrieved—and have every right to be aggrieved—where their engagement with the federal government bureaucracies has not led to a just result. So I think that's the context in which this debate should be set up, and I think all of us should bear that in mind as we engage in this debate.

I'd like to turn to the clauses of the bill which would provide that the annual report prepared by the Department of Finance and given to the finance minister under section 46 for a reporting period must include, in relation to authorisations waiving amounts under section 63, the number of such authorisations during the period and the total amount that was waived as a result of those authorisations; and, secondly, in relation to authorisations of payments under section 65, which is the grace-payments provision, the number of such authorisations during the period and the total amount that was paid as a result of those authorisations.

In considering the amendments contained in this bill I turned my mind to the sections in the act, and a number of things concerned me arising from this bill. I don't think it necessarily does what it's trying to achieve. I think greater care should have gone into the drafting of this bill, and it would have assisted if the bill had gone through a committee process of the JCPAA, of which I am a member—and I'll go to the role of the JCPAA shortly.

The first limb of the proposed amendment deals with waivers. But section 63 of the act refers to the waiver or modification of the terms and conditions in which an amount owing to the Commonwealth is to be paid. So the actual section of the act doesn't just deal with a waiver per se—for example, if I owed someone $100 and they waived the debt, I would no longer owe them $100. It also includes circumstances where a debt is modified. If the debt is modified, that might mean instead of owing $100 I owe $50. That comes within section 63 of the existing legislation but it isn't covered by this bill. Another circumstance might be where the terms and conditions on which I owe that $100 are modified. The payment time might be modified. The date for payment might be modified. A quid pro quo—something given in return—could be added as a condition of that payment being made. But none of that is covered by this clause in the bill as well. It is not covered. So there is a yawning gap in terms of what this bill is trying to achieve.

There is then the curious matter as to why section 64, dealing with set-off amounts, isn't covered. A set-off of an amount of $100 million would be of more concern to me than the waiver of an amount of $1,000. The waiver of the amount of $1,000 is covered by this bill but the set-off of an amount of $100 million wouldn't be covered by the bill—under section 64 it would not be covered by the bill. So a waiver of $1,000 is covered but a set-off of $100 million is not covered—and there is absolutely no explanation for that. I've read the explanatory statement. I've read the remarks of Senator Gallagher when she introduced the bill. I can find no explanation of that whatsoever. So that is another yawning gap in terms of this bill. It doesn't cover modification of debts, it doesn't cover terms and conditions varied with respect to debts, and it doesn't cover the set-off of amounts where amounts are owed between parties and one amount is set off against another. None of that is covered by this bill, which is calling for greater transparency, and that is disappointing.

If this bill had been referred to the JCPAA, I would have raised those matters, as a member of that committee, and I would have teased out those issues. But I wasn't given that opportunity, so I'm here to raise those issues, those flaws with this bill, in the context of this debate. If those concerns had been raised through the committee, in good faith—and it would have been in good faith—I would have raised them. Instead, the committee process has been denied the opportunity to improve this bill and to make it workable, and that's disappointing. I would seek that Senator Gallagher would refer bills such as this to the committee, and she might see that the committee process can, indeed, add some value to these pieces of legislation.

The second point I would like to make is in relation to the allegation of transparency. When this bill was first introduced, I was curious as to what the concern was. What was the mischief? What was the opposition trying to achieve? What was the private senator trying to achieve through the introduction of this bill? In the remarks we heard earlier this morning, the senator referred to the waiver of the Tasmanian housing-related debt to the Commonwealth. Is that a transparency issue? I've got here before me a media release dated 8 September 2019 which is entitled 'Morrison government to waive Tasmania's housing debt to Commonwealth'. I'll read from the announcement:

The Australian Government is continuing to address housing affordability and homelessness concerns by today agreeing to waive Tasmania's housing-related debt to the Commonwealth.

This is in a media release. You didn't have to go down any rabbit warren to find out that this occurred. This was on 8 September 2019. On 22 October, my friend Senator McAllister, in questions on notice in the Finance portfolio, asked questions in relation to the number of waivers and the amounts that had been waived with respects to these debts. On 22 October the questions on notice were asked, but the media release from the government was on 8 September 2019. So it was actually publicly announced 1½ months before the questions on notice were asked, and months and months before it would have been released through an annual report. So where is the transparency issue? I'll continue reading from the media release:

"The Morrison and Hodgman Governments have worked hand in hand to support the growth ambitions of Tasmania. Waiving this loan will support the Tasmanian Government's efforts to reduce homelessness …

Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what we should be trying to achieve here? It continues:

… increase access to social housing and improve housing supply across the state …

Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what we're trying to achieve here? So what is the problem? What is the problem that this bill is seeking, in a very amateurish way, to try and address? I can't see it.

Let's go to the questions on notice and the answers given to my friend Senator McAllister. I was actually sitting on this committee when these questions were put on notice. I always listen very carefully to any contribution Senator McAllister makes on a committee, because I do value her insight and intelligence. She asked a question with respect to the number of debt waivers that have been granted and the total dollar value, and she also asked a particular question with respect to the 2019-20 financial year to date. She received a response from the department on 13 January 2020. The first part of the answer states:

Over the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2019, there have been 723 decisions by the Finance portfolio ministers or delegate to waive debts, with a total value of $159.5 million.

Under my arithmetic, that means each debt was for an average amount of $220,000. That was over the period of those five years. Full disclosure. The second part of the answer is:

For the 2019-20 financial year to date there have been 26 debt waiver decisions by the Finance portfolio ministers or delegate, with a total value of $158.6 million.

Now, we know—and I knew, when this question was asked, and I knew, as the Australian public knew, when these questions were answered—from the press release on 8 September 2019 that of that $158.6 million, referred to as the amount of debts waived up to that point in time, $157.6 million was in relation to the Tasmanian debt, which meant that the other 25 matters amounted to the princely sum of $40,000 each! That's it!

Can I say to those who've been making the point that we can disclose this in a way which doesn't reveal the identity of those who received the waiver et cetera: I don't think you are being transparent enough. Let me tell you why. Under your own scheme as you have proposed it, if nothing else had been disclosed, you wouldn't have known that, of this $158.6 million, a total of $157.6 million went to one party. So someone just looking at that general statement might well say, 'Oh, so there are 26 debt waivers with an average of $220,000 each,' when in fact there was one debt waiver of $157.6 million and the other 25 were, on average, $40,000. It just shows why matters such as this should be going through a committee process so they can be carefully considered instead of being put up in a way which has not taken into account all the ways in which the matter should be considered in terms of reporting, because, if you'd just reported that bland statement on an aggregate basis, you would have had no insight into the fact that over 99 per cent of that waiver was in relation to one debt.

But of course, as I said earlier, the government had already made the announcement on 8 September. It was already public. It was in the public domain. How can you be more transparent than that? Would those sitting opposite have liked the government to sit on that information and wait until the annual report, so many months after? Absolutely not. I think it was entirely appropriate that the matter be dealt with in a media release, the way it was, and an announcement be made to the public as soon as possible.

I'd like to make some comments in relation to the robodebt issue, and I would simply say that, on the basis of what has occurred, the issue with respect to robodebt, which has impacted tens of thousands of Australians, simply has not been dealt with under the waiver and grace period legislation. It hasn't come under the terms of that legislation. As all senators here would know, a class action was launched and the litigation involved thousands of recipients. In response to the claims which have been made, the government is in the process of making refunds to 190,000 Australians. And so be it. But it doesn't come under these bills. I wouldn't have expected anyone here would have wanted those 190,000 Australians to have to go through the process contained under section 63 or section 65 of the legislation which this bill seeks to amend. So, again, why is the issue of the robodebt being raised in the context of that bill? If you've got hundreds and hundreds of people affected by a policy decision, the last thing you want to do is to force every single one of them to go under the provisions of this legislation.

With that, I'll cease my contribution to the debate. I'd just ask senators to reflect on the usefulness of the committee process.