Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Waiver of Debt and Act of Grace Payments) Bill 2019, which will amend the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 to make public the number and dollar amounts of act-of-grace payments and waivers of debt.

We have here another grand gesture by those opposite to create optics that they have the monopoly on the idea of good government. Yet again, we have another example of something they've put forward which may look quite reasonable on the face of it, but, when you peel back a few layers, you discover exactly what it is: just a facade. It's nothing more than a set on a movie sound stage. If you go up to it, you'll see that it has got a thin veneer, has no substance to it and wouldn't really stand up to any serious scrutiny.

This bill was thought up and drafted without the appropriate consultation. It just seems like another one of their back-of-the-envelope kinds of ideas. As a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—the committee responsible for the oversight of these matters—I would have expected this to have been raised in some forum, socialised and consulted on with that committee. But, sadly, it wasn't. And I think there's a very clear reason for that—because, had that been done, those opposite would have discovered that this bill is in fact not required. If the JCPAA had been consulted, they might have suggested that the intent of this bill could be better addressed through an amendment to the PGPAA annual reporting rule or through a direction from the finance minister to his department to make this information available while taking into account the risk of disclosure and amending the presentation of the data to reduce that risk. But, sadly, those opposite did not consult on this, and I think this alone has demonstrated how high this bill really is on their list of priorities.

The fact remains that we already have robust accountability and transparency procedures in place, and forums where these payments can be explored, as we do, in fact, for the whole of government. That's demonstrated both through the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and, importantly, through the estimates process. Without going down the path of detailing the role of the parliament and its committees—because we'd expect that everyone in this place would in fact know what that's all about—there are mechanisms which exist that can examine these kinds of issues in detail; they are there already. If there is a payment or waiver which we—and I mean any of us here in this place—believe warrants particular attention or scrutiny, then we can already deal with that. We have inquiries, estimates and questions. These are all important accountability measures in our democratic tradition.

Indeed, in certain cases, the government also make public the details of waived debts to the Commonwealth and open these decisions up to broader scrutiny. Recent challenges have demonstrated where this is the case. As a senator for Western Australia, I can point to the fishing industry in particular, where there has been a case recently where certain liabilities to the Commonwealth were waived. But, if you then look at some of the minor or individual waivers of payments that would have been covered under this amendment, a number of privacy concerns come to mind. I note, as a number of other contributors have in this debate, that, in recognition of privacy and confidentiality concerns, the bill only seeks that the total number of matters authorised and the total value of those authorisations be disclosed. But this is not sufficient.

There is merit in disclosure of some data where individual payments will not be identifiable. Indeed, the Minister for Finance has reported some aggregate data in answers to questions on notice. For example, data on waivers of debt was provided in response to a question from Senator McAllister during the October 2019 Senate estimates. But many payments are to individuals or small businesses and small business organisations, and sometimes the value of a payment can pertain to sensitive information such as the quantum of lost income. Requests for act-of-grace payments or waivers of debt are made on the basis of the utmost privacy and confidentiality. This bill creates the risk that, in those years where there are a small number of matters authorised, rigid reporting as envisaged by this bill could serve to identify a particular claimant. There are no safeguards in the bill to protect against such a possibility. The act-of-grace and waiver-of-debt powers under the PGPA Act are to enable the consideration and resolution of matters that fall outside the usual legislative frameworks. They are provided to be exercised as a last resort but are important powers as they provide the flexibility for the Commonwealth to deal quickly and efficiently with issues where special circumstances arise.

The government does not use these powers lightly, but they are a necessary capability to respond to fast-moving events where existing legislation may not be able to be used. For example, these powers were an important part of the government's response to coronavirus, with the waiver of levies on the fishing industry, as I touched on earlier, and the waiver of the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students levy for the education sector, for example, to help those in those sectors during challenging times.

I touched earlier on the transparency and accountability measures. The process by which these powers are exercised is equally rigorous. The Department of Finance consults broadly and confidentially with the applicants and the impacted Commonwealth agencies to ensure that decision-makers have all the relevant information in considering each claim. Further, consideration of the exercise of these powers for amounts over $500,000 can only occur after an advisory committee, comprising relevant public servants with knowledge of both the process and the policy issue, has been established and has provided advice to the Minister for Finance or the assistant minister for finance.

Mending the PGPA Act, as proposed by this bill, to mandate disclosure in Finance's annual reports is an unnecessary and inflexible expansion of the PGPA Act. The normal approach is for annual report requirements to consist of fixed requirements that do not change from year to year. That model for reporting is, however, too rigid for discretionary payment data, where some years can yield few discretionary payments, and risks could therefore arise that the value of an individual payment could be deduced.

There is an issue here of an appropriate consultation. Ordinarily, annual reporting requirements are not changed without consultation with the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. Rather than the approach in this bill, it is preferable that the government release data in a way that ensures that there are no inadvertent disclosures that may compromise the Commonwealth's commitment to keep claims in confidence.

I understand that the Minister for Finance has directed his department to commence disclosure of annual and five-year aggregate data in relation to the act-of-grace payments and debt waivers, including in the 2019-20 financial year. There are sufficient payments in the 2019-20 year that there is not a concern about privacy in this particular year. I understand this data will be made public later this calendar year on the Finance website and through the transparency.gov.au website. The government strongly believes in transparency in government operations, and that is why the finance minister has directed his department to release the information the bill is seeking on the Finance website and the transparency.gov.au website later this calendar year. This bill is not required, and, as such, I will not be supporting it.