|
senate vote 2020-09-02#8
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-02-03 13:09:37
|
Title
Committees — Community Affairs References Committee; Report- Committees - Community Affairs References Committee; Report - Adopt recommendations to produce documents
Description
<p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>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:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-09-02.237.1):
- > *That the Senate adopt the recommendations contained in the report.*
- West Australian Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert) (Greens), who introduced the motion, [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-09-02.237.1):
- > *Today the [Community Affairs References Committee](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs) 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.*
- The Committee recommended [that the documents be produced](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-09-02.237.1).
<p class="italic">That the Senate take note of the report.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the Senate adopt the recommendations contained in the report.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Siewert to adopt the recommendations of the report be agreed to.</p> -
-
|