Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Despite the antics of those opposite, as deputy chair of the Community Affairs Reference Committee, I rise to place on record why the government senators voted against the recommendations in the substantive Community Affairs References Committee's third interim report into Centrelink's compliance program.

As has been mentioned in the first, second and, now, third interim report dissenting comments, it is the strong view of the government senators on the committee that the claims of public interest immunity in regard to relevant cabinet materials and legal advice provided with respect to the Income Compliance Program made by the Hon. Stuart Robert MP on 11 February 2020, and subsequently reiterated on 31 July 2020 and 13 August 2020, are valid.

During my speech on the first interim committee report, I noted that it has been a longstanding practice of successive Australian governments not to disclose legal advice. This was originally stated by Minister Robert in his initial public interest immunity claim. Furthermore, and as I stated, this has also been the practice of both Labor and coalition governments. The committee requested a copy of the executive minute to the Minister for Social Services dated 12 February 2015 that was referred to in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's 2017 report, Centrelink's automated debt raising and recovery system. Minister Robert then wrote to the committee on 13 August 2020 outlining a public interest immunity claim over the executive minute. In his correspondence to the committee, the minister stated:

Revealing this information would or could reasonably be expected to disclose the deliberations of the Cabinet. On that basis, I claim public interest immunity in relation to providing the Minute.

It is in the public interest for the deliberations of the Cabinet not to be made public. The deliberations of the Cabinet and its committees should be conducted in secrecy so that the freedom of those deliberations can be preserved. It is not in the public interest to disclose information about the Cabinet's deliberations as it may impact on the Government's ability to receive confidential information and make appropriate decisions impacting on the Australian community. This is a well-established basis for a public interest immunity claim.

The Labor and Greens senators question whether the minute would disclose the deliberations of cabinet, on the basis that Services Australia appear not to have refused to provide the document to the Commonwealth Ombudsman as part of his investigations into the program, despite the purported availability of a public interest immunity exemption at the time. It is important to note that a limited disclosure to an operational Commonwealth entity is not inconsistent with the maintenance of cabinet confidentiality. The minister's advice to the committee is that the disclosure of the minute would, or could be reasonably expected to, disclose the deliberations of cabinet and that this is acceptable grounds for a public interest immunity claim.

Those on the other side of the chamber have used this whole inquiry—not just the public interest immunity claims—to feed into a political narrative. Using the term 'robodebt', which was created solely by the media, to refer to Centrelink's compliance program is flawed, and has caused significant confusion not only among the general public but among those sitting opposite. Ironically, their use of the term is inconsistent, with the term being used in various ways by the opposition, the media and on social media to include any debt or compliance letter received from Centrelink, not just those issued through the income compliance program.

I do note that there were initial implementation issues when the program commenced. However, since then, the government has made significant enhancements to the program through the later iterations. The government has worked quickly to rectify these issues and, as clearly stated in evidence received, refunds for those who had repaid money on debts raised solely or partly using averaged income data commenced in July 2020 and the majority of refunds are expected to be paid by November this year. As shown by the earlier motion, government senators and government members of the committee strongly believe that the public interest immunity claim by Minister Robert is valid.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.