James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

He genuflects, as Senator Scarr has interjected, to Mr Somyurek in respect of his authority and control over the federal parliamentary Labor Party. He made similar claims about the influence he exercises over the member for Macnamara, Mr Burns, and the member for Holt, Mr Byrne.

These claims of influence and control might just be boasting—they might just be big claims made by Mr Somyurek—or there might be some truth to them. It is incumbent on all Labor MPs named and those not named, including the Leader of the Opposition, to front up today in the interests of transparency and explain exactly what their connections to Mr Somyurek are, exactly what their involvement with Mr Somyurek is and exactly what knowledge they have of Mr Somyurek's activities. Are we seriously to believe that last night was the first time that Mr Albanese had a whiff that maybe something was not completely kosher about Mr Somyurek, that maybe something was amiss and that maybe he was engaged in multiple recruitment or even branch stacking in the Labor Party? His activities in the Victorian Labor Party are notoriously well-known. No-one involved on any side of politics would be unfamiliar with Mr Somyurek's reputation, so it beggars belief that Mr Albanese, who was happy to sit on the national executive with him yesterday, suddenly has a problem and is going to act on it today.

On the involvement of federal Labor parliamentarians with Mr Somyurek and in the interests of transparency, it appeared from the footage last night that at least some of it was filmed inside the office of a federal member of parliament. You could clearly see from the footage an Australian Parliament House login displayed on one of the computer screens. I don't think they have those in state parliamentary offices. I could be wrong, but I think they're only in federal parliamentary offices. Also in that footage were some electoral maps, particularly one that came up time and time again, a map of the electorate of Holt. I don't know why a state member of parliament would have that in their office. Perhaps it was, indeed, a federal parliament office. And in fact, later in the program, you could also see a close-up shot, where Mr Somyurek was pacing up and down while on the phone, of some corflutes that appeared to have Mr Byrne's name on them. They appeared to, in some way, be connected to him.

Clearly, in the interests of transparency, it's up to Mr Byrne, Mr Albanese, and the other MPs named in last night's episode and in the papers today to come forward and explain what they knew about Adem Somyurek's activities. It is not sufficient for them to say this is a state matter. It is not sufficient for them to say this is a matter for Mr Andrews. If they don't do that then I think Mr Albanese has failed a very important test of leadership. Mr Albanese made a big song and dance about how he was expelling John Setka from the Labor Party. That didn't quite go to plan. Finally, Mr Setka left the Labor Party, although certainly not by Mr Albanese's hand. This is yet another test for him and his leadership. Is he actually going to ensure that Mr Somyurek is out of the Labor Party? He has been sacked from Mr Andrews's cabinet, but he remains a member of parliament, he remains a member of the Labor Party and, while he does so, that reflects very poorly on Mr Albanese's leadership.

The key question that, in the interests of transparency, I think all Australians would like to have answered is: who runs the Labor Party? Is it the faceless factional men like Mr Somyurek, who boasts that he will be choosing who replaces Mr Andrews when he retires as Premier and who says that Mr Albanese cannot be protected and that he in fact runs the Labor Party, or does Mr Albanese run the Labor Party? Does the federal parliamentary leader of the Labor Party run the Labor Party? That is the key test today. The fact that Labor MPs have been willing to tolerate this behaviour for so long in such an open and acknowledged way up until today reveals a lot about them and their commitment to transparency. Many speeches will be given in the Senate this morning about transparency. Any speech that doesn't deal with this core issue on the front of everyone's mind today, on the matter of transparency, I think reflects on the contributions of those that are making them.

Turning now to the bill, as I understand it, the purpose of the—

Senator McCarthy interjecting—

Thank you for the interjection, Senator McCarthy. You weren't in the chamber, previously, when your colleagues were making contributions to this debate. Senator O'Neill gave a very long speech in which I'm not sure she even referred to the bill, on any occasion—certainly not any provisions or detail of the bill. I think others were the same. Anyway, I'll turn to the bill now, and I promise in the six minutes and 53 seconds I have remaining I'll talk more about the bill than any Labor senator has so far in the debate. Maybe others will rise to the challenge as they come to speak next.

As I understand it, the purpose of the opposition's bill is to amend the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, otherwise known as the PGPA Act. It's to increase transparency in government operations, relating specifically to act-of-grace payments and waivers of debts. I'm advised that it would require the Department of Finance to include in its annual report details of decisions made under that act to authorise act-of-grace payments or to waive debts owed to the Commonwealth.

I note that in recognition of the privacy and confidentiality concerns the bill only seeks that the total number of matters authorised and the total value of those authorisations be disclosed. The act-of-grace and waiver-of-debt powers exist under the PGPA Act to enable the consideration and resolution of matters that fall outside the usual legislative frameworks. They are intended to be exercised only as a last resort, but they are important powers as they provide flexibility for the Commonwealth to deal quickly and effectively 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 used. For example, these powers were an important part of the government's response to COVID-19, enabling the waiver of annual levers in the fishing industry and the waiver of Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students levy for the education sector to help support these sectors in this challenging time.

In considering this bill, it's important to note that there is already a robust system in place for the exercise of these powers. The Department of Finance consults broadly and confidentially with the applicants and impacted Commonwealth agencies to ensure that decision-makers have all the relevant information in considering each claim. Further, the consideration of the exercise of these powers for amounts over $500,000 can only occur after an advisory committee, comprising relevant public officials with knowledge of both the process and the policy issue, has been established and has provided advice to the Minister for Finance or to the Assistant Minister for Finance. There is, of course, merit in disclosure of some data where individual payments will not be identifiable. Indeed, the Minister for Finance has reported some aggregate data in his answers to questions on notice.

The Senate estimates process provides a very important oversight to powers exercised like these by ministers and is a very welcome part of this Senate, and I note the recent 50th anniversary of such oversight committees. Most recently, the debt-waiver data was provided in response to a question from Senator McAllister during the October 2019 Senate estimates, and, no doubt, in our upcoming Senate estimates, in October later this year, senators will have further questions about how this power was exercised, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that is an appropriate question to ask. They could also explore this issue through the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, of which I serve as deputy chair, which is conducting ongoing oversight of all decisions of government and advice to government in this period.

Many of these payments are to individuals or small businesses and small organisations, and sometimes the value of that payment can pertain to sensitive issues such as the value of lost income. However, amending 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 in the view of the government. 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 would be too rigid for discretionary payment data, where some years can yield few discretionary payments and a risk, therefore, could arise that the value of an individual payment could be deduced.

There's also an issue of appropriate consultation. Ordinarily, the annual reporting requirements are not changed without consultation from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. 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 PGPA annual reporting rule or through direction from the finance minister to his department, taking into account the risks of disclosure and amending the presentation of the data in a sensitive way to reduce that risk.

Requests for act-of-grace payments or waivers of debt are made on the basis of utmost privacy and confidentiality, as is appropriate. This bill, though, could create a risk that, in those years where there are a small number of matters authorised, as I said earlier, the rigid reporting as envisaged by the bill could serve to identify a particular claimant and therefore breach their privacy. There are no safeguards in the proposed bill to protect against this possibility. Rather than the approach that's proposed in this bill, it is preferable that the government releases data in a way that ensures there are no inadvertent disclosures that may compromise the Commonwealth's commitment to treat claims in confidence. I am advised that the Minister for Finance has directed his department to commence disclosure of annual and five-year aggregate data in relation to act-of-grace payments and debt waivers, including in the 2019-20 financial year. There are sufficient payments, I am advised, in the 2019-20 year that there is not a concern about privacy this year, and I understand this data will be made public later in this calendar year on the Finance website and on the transparency.gov.au website, and no doubt that will be able to be pursued in the appropriate way through Senate estimates and other means.

In conclusion, the government believes that this bill is unnecessary and an inflexible expansion of the PGPA Act—and it has not been considered by the JCPAA. The government of course strongly believes in transparency in government operations, and that's why the finance minister has made that direction to his department to release the information the proposed bill is seeking, and that will be publicised later this year through appropriate public mechanisms.

In closing, I just want to return to the point that I made in opening. It's all very well and good for Labor senators and others to come into this chamber and extol the virtues of transparency, but we should take them at their word when they seek to choose to exercise that transparency about their own activities, about their own affairs, about their own misdeeds, which we have seen so prominently displayed in the media today.