Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I won't go through the technical details of the inquiry that the Economics Committee has been undertaking. Firstly, my colleague and friend Senator Bragg went through that in detail. Secondly, sadly, I haven't had the time to participate in this particular inquiry, even though the topic is of great interest to me. However, I do wish to rise to speak on this matter, as we have seen a creeping stretch of the use of public interest immunity from agencies and ministers in this place.

Just two days ago I was in this place talking about a public interest immunity claim that came out of the Attorney-General's office. The claim was about a meeting that occurred with the then head of the AAT in the Attorney-General's office and was on the basis of cabinet-in-confidence, which seemed very odd to me, but also on the basis that it would in some way impact the relations between ministers and agencies—organs of the government, organs of the state. The first one was odd, but let's put that to one side. The second is one we see reflected here in the public interest immunity claims from ASIC and ministers. It's not an acceptable ground, one that this place has ever considered to be worthy of upholding a public interest immunity claim.

The Senate's job and the role of committees is to investigate, and in order to be able to investigate, the Senate committees need the information that is available. Now, of course there are times when legitimate claims are upheld by committees, and I can say, with hand on heart, that in both government and opposition, as chair of a committee, I have both upheld and rejected public interest immunity claims. When, for example, they prejudiced ongoing investigations, it has been very common in committees, regardless of which particular member of this place was chairing, for those claims to be upheld.

I'll just cite one of ASIC's particular claims. They start by saying that the material is related to an ongoing investigation. But then, two bullet points lower, they say that that investigation is closed and they're planning to take no further action. Now, if you took this approach to its logical conclusion, any material collected by ASIC which could possibly be used in a prosecution or an investigation at some future point, I suspect, would actually be every piece of information collected by an organisation like ASIC. If you took that to its logical conclusion and then extended that across other parts of the Public Service, effectively, you would have a blanket PII claim on everything. To say that the fact that a piece of information could be used at some point in the future for an investigation or a prosecution is a legitimate public interest immunity claim is patently ridiculous, and I do find it very strange that that's even found its way into a claim from what is a reputable agency—a reputable organ of the government. It strikes me as being beyond belief.

In relation to personal information: yes, again, impacts on personal privacy have been accepted as public interest immunity claims in the past, but that has to be weighed against the public interest in allowing committees of this place, committees of the Senate, to do their jobs, particularly regarding organisations such as ASIC, which has extraordinary powers—the right to enter premises, the right to bring along the AFP to do raids, and very significant powers to demand and collect information. The fact they have those powers means that the scrutiny on them needs to be there. Again, I have not looked, as Senator Bragg has, at the detail of the particular cases involved here, but in some cases that information should be brought to the light of day. As a legislating body, we do need to understand how these powers are actually being used in practice. If they are not having the outcomes that, obviously, we would want in a piece of legislation in terms of bringing criminals to justice, then we need to understand why that is the case and why serious investigations have been lapsing.

I'll continue through the public interest immunity claim here. The next item bought up by ASIC was that it would reveal legal advice. Again, the provision of legal advice is not covered as a matter of routine by a public interest immunity claim. Just because something is legal advice does not mean the option to claim public interest immunity on it is available. That has been made very clear in this place time and time again. It is one that's often wheeled out as an excuse not to reveal information. As we've seen in this place many times, from this government on a number of occasions, when it's in their political best interests to reveal legal advice, they do. Again, in the case of an ongoing investigation where it might damage that investigation or prosecution, a claim on legal advice has been accepted, but not just on the fact that it is legal advice.

Going through the list of claims made, very few of them actually stack up. And that's why I think it is completely legitimate for the committee, through Senator Bragg, to bring this matter back to the Senate and to continue to try and have this investigation—at least, as much as possible of this investigation—in the light of day. That is what the Senate committee system is for, and that is what we are all here to do.