Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the third interim report of the Community Affairs References Committee on Centrelink's compliance program and documents presented to the committee. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Today the Community Affairs References Committee is tabling its third interim report for the inquiry into Centrelink's compliance program. This report informs the Senate about the several claims for public interest immunity received from the Minister for Government Services. To date, the committee has received two claims of public interest immunity relating to legal advice sought and received by the Commonwealth regarding the colloquially known 'robodebt' program and one claim of public interest immunity relating to an executive minute which was cited in a report into robodebt by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. I'll deal with the first public interest immunity claim in relation to legal advice first.

In the first interim report, the committee reported its resolution that the minister's claim did not sufficiently justify withholding information requested by the committee. The committee concluded that the information it was seeking was vital to the conduct of this inquiry 'as it goes to the legal foundation of the program and its administration'. The first interim report recommended that the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services provide answers to a series of questions placed on notice relating to legal advice relating to the Centrelink income compliance program. However, all responses to the questions on notice related to legal advice from Services Australia on that day continued to rely on the rejected public interest immunity claim. The committee wrote to the minister seeking clarification of whether it was the intention to provide answers to the questions on notice which continued to rely upon the rejected claim. Unfortunately, the committee did not receive a response to this letter.

The minister's failure to respond to the request for clarification was a blatant disregard for both the committee's decision and the resolution of the Senate. As a result, the committee recommends that the Senate adopt the resolution, which is contained in the report, that the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 6 October 2020 to provide an explanation of the government's continued reliance on the rejected claim of public interest immunity in answers to questions on notice.

I'll now address the second public interest immunity claim in relation to legal advice. At the committee's public hearing on 31 July 2020, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services tabled a further claim of public interest immunity from the minister relating to questions about legal advice and the robodebt program. This claim makes no reference to the first rejected claim even though it largely deals with the same material. The claim covers all legal advice provided by internal or external lawyers to ministers, departments or agencies in relation to the Centrelink income compliance program or in connection with the class action. The minister notes in his letter that 'if the matters are made public, this could result in undue prejudice to the Commonwealth and loss of confidentiality of interactions between lawyers and government clients'. However, the committee continues to hold the view that the requested information is vital evidence for the inquiry into this program. As a result, the committee resolved that it did not accept this further claim of public interest immunity.

The committee maintains that it is ultimately in the public interest for the Commonwealth government to be transparent about the legal advice it received in relation to this program. The committee acknowledges the public sensitivities of materials related to legal proceedings and is willing to accept material in camera regarding the legal issues surrounding the program. The majority of questions on notice have been regarding the circumstances of legal advice relating to the income compliance program, and not regarding the specific content of that legal advice. The committee fails to understand why information relating to the circumstances of legal advice, such as the dates advice was provided, cannot be provided to the committee in public let alone in camera. As a result, the committee recommends that the Senate adopt the recommendation that's contained in the report requiring the production of documents: that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services no later than 12 pm on 6 October 2020, either: revised responses to all questions relating to legal advice and the program; or a letter confirming that responses will be provided to the committee in camera.

I'll now move to the claim in relation to an executive minute. On 13 August 2020, the committee received a new claim of public interest immunity from the minister in relation to a request for the Executive Minute to the Minister for Social Services. The minister claims revealing this information could or would be reasonably expected to disclose the deliberation of cabinet. The committee is concerned that this blanket statement provided by the minister fails to establish whether the executive minute would actually disclose the deliberations or describe any genuine risk of public harm in its disclosure. The committee is of the view that the Executive Minute would not, in and of itself, reveal cabinet deliberations. In fact, it was apparently provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for the purpose of a review without resulting in a claim of immunity. This document is another item of evidence the committee believes is important for its inquiry. The committee is therefore of the view that this document should be provided in camera if the perceived harm can only result from its publication. As a result, the committee recommends that the Senate adopt the following recommendation—as it is contained in this report that I'm tabling—requiring the production of the documents: that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services no later than 12 pm on 6 October 2020 either a copy of the Executive Minute or a letter confirming that this Executive Minute will be provided in camera to this committee.

The government cannot hide behind these unsubstantiated claims for public interest immunity. It is holding up this inquiry into Centrelink, and that, I think, is obvious to the people that are paying very close attention to this inquiry. I look forward to the minister's responses to these recommendations on 6 October, as we work to uncover what did happen in the instigation of the program that is known as robodebt. I seek leave to continue my remarks later on the motion to take note.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate adopt the recommendations contained in the report.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Siewert to adopt the recommendations of the report be agreed to.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand there were still some speakers on the original motion to take note, so with the concurrence of the Senate we will resume on that.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the third interim report. I am very pleased to see that the Senate has supported the recommendation of the report that the government's public interest immunity claim be rejected. There is a very, very good argument about why it should be rejected that was put on the record by Senator Siewert just then. In essence, why we should support the recommendation of this report is because this government is permanently addicted to covering up and hiding the truth from Australians through a litany of announcements and failures of delivery and, in this instance, with regard to robodebt, a gross failure of fair and decent government of this nation. The robodebt program was responsible for the destruction of lives, for untold financial and emotional anguish and for the systematic harassment of some of the most vulnerable members of the Australian community—and for what? To prop up Scott Morrison's budget bottom line to sell a few kitschy 'back in black' mugs. That's how cynical this government is.

This report that's been tabled this afternoon and whose recommendations have been adopted here in the Senate is the third report of the income compliance inquiry regarding the public interest immunity claims the government has trotted out, another example of this government's war on transparency and accountability. These public interest immunity claims, as presented previously in letters from the minister, are a repeat of the pattern that we see: conceal, repeat, conceal, repeat, conceal, repeat. That is all this minister knows.

Minister Stuart Robert argued previously and again in recent days that there would be specific harm to the public interest if legal advice that he had used to establish robodebt was made public.

The great harm that's been done to the Australian public has been done by their own government pushing onto hundreds of thousands of Australians debts that were unlawfully raised by their own government—an attack on the citizens of this country by this Liberal-National party government. The claim that it is against the interests of the public of Australia to know what the government knew when they concocted and inflicted this terrible scheme on Australia is a sham. Nearly half a million debts were sent out and nearly a billion dollars in payments were refunded due to legally insufficient grounds for the program, and this government continues to say that the advice at the very heart of this omnishambles is not in the public interest. That claim and the cheek of it are just outrageous.

As more Australians than ever are using Services Australia, and while under this Liberal National Party government we head into a deep recession for the first time in a generation, we need to restore confidence in the department and the minister more than at any other time in living memory. The report of this inquiry tabled yesterday complements the tabling of the report this afternoon. Yesterday's tabled report showed that robodebt had grievously undermined Australia's trust in government services. That trust will only be further undermined by the government's continuing lack of accountability. This report wisely recommends that this paper-thin excuse be rejected and that the minister representing the Minister for Government Services table the relevant documents requested by the inquiry or provide an explanation to the Senate as to the minister's failure to table these documents. I'm pleased again to put on the record that the Senate has just voted in support of the report of the community affairs committee to make sure that this government comes into this chamber and tells the truth. I know it'll be new. I know it'll be novel. We should be able to sell tickets to that—if only people could get in the building! The Australian people are yearning for the truth, not for more robodebt and more of the same from this government.

The second interim report of this inquiry, tabled yesterday, went to the heart of the legality of the problem. It tells us what the government should have known: that average income isn't real income, and that using income averaging to subsequently support raising an overpayment debt has never amounted to sufficient evidence of a debt under social security law. It never did until this lot, this shameful government, inflicted their fake debts and all the damage they did on the Australian people. Robodebt particularly affected workers with itinerant employment. It affected workers who are casual labourers. It affected workers who are in the short-term unemployment market. It affected students whose peripatetic jobs left them eligible for support payments but vulnerable to the very tool that the government sought to use to exploit and get money from those who could pay the least. Minister Morrison, as the Treasurer, thought he could get $2.1 billion, and he bragged about it to his mates. 'I've got this great new scheme. We're going to average income and we'll rake in the dollars.' That's what they did. They got advice. They inflicted this pain and suffering on the Australian people and they need to pay for that at the next election.

Those eligible for support payments were the most vulnerable to averaging and they were the most affected. I recall the case of a building labourer constantly in search of work who came to my office on the Central Coast after receiving a robodebt for over $10,000. To a casual labourer, that $10,000 is a lot of money. With the support of my office, that debt was subsequently reduced to a tiny fraction of that amount once a proper review had taken place. Thank God that labourer had enough sense to come and get support from his duty senator. The problem was that so many Australians totally freaked out when they got a letter from the government, accepted that the government couldn't possibly give them a fake debt and just paid the money. They just paid. They trusted the government, and their trust was abused. Yesterday's report recommends that Services Australia immediately review its evidentiary responsibilities for raising overpayment debts in all of its compliance programs, as well as recommending an independent review into the policy, design, administration and impact of Centrelink's compliance program, including the Income Compliance Program.

We demand, on behalf of the Australian people, more evidence, not less—not cover up, not hiding, not public interest immunity claims, not the nonsense, the shame, the lies, the disgraceful behaviour that we consistently see from this government. The government knows what it did was wrong. It relied on insufficient legal advice to unleash a predatory program on our most vulnerable Australians. We then saw the government spend $34 million on legal fees, trying to cover their tracks and to fight inevitable lawsuits. It concocted bogus public interest immunity claims to hide the legal advice used to create and sustain the program.

As recently as last month, the secretary of the department responsible for robodebt remarked that she didn't even know what the term 'robodebt' meant. That is the depth of denial that exists in the government and in those they have serving them. The Public Service is called the 'Public Service' because it's supposed to serve the public, not the government of the day and the cover-up that is characteristic of this robodebt scheme at every turn. The department responsible, worst of all, denied the testimony of two brave mothers of young men who took their own lives after being harassed endlessly by debt collectors. The department, representing this government, refused to acknowledge the ultimate pain that they inflicted on these families—all this for the bottom line of the budget, for a campaign ad and for a few bits of merchandise.

The work of this inquiry isn't over, and our work will not be done until every debt that was levied on innocent Australians is returned, and those responsible are held accountable. Even now, I hear rumours that payments are being funnelled into cashless welfare cards instead of bank accounts, and that payments affect the liquid assets test of Australians who are currently out of work, pushing their payments down at a time when they can ill afford it. I can tell the people of Australia that Labor will stand up for you against this government that is attacking you every day and this robodebt is a signature of their attacks on you.

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.