Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (12:12): I am happy to speak on this motion largely to correct the record and also to explain how the system works, where it was derived from and exactly what the law says in relation to the release of information to correct the public record. I will start with the main point of the member for Barton where she says she is asking for an apology. I would like to remind the member for Barton and other members opposite exactly where this system started. This system started, as they would know, in 1990. It started in an act which Graham Richardson introduced under the Hawke government. That was the first time that we had this system of checking the veracity of Centrelink information with Australian Taxation Office information. The Labor Party then introduced in 2011 a system of automation. As the member for Sydney and the Leader of the Opposition know, they were in fact the two presiding ministers at the time who introduced a system of automation. We have done more compliance work as we have gone on. When we came to government we expanded the amount of compliance work government was doing. It is important for the member for Barton to know that historical context in relation to how this system works. I point out to the member for Barton that the methodology which we use is the same methodology that the Labor Party introduced in 1990—that is, it looks at what the individual has self reported to Centrelink and it compares that with what the Australian Taxation Office has in relation to the income on their files. Dr Aly interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan! Mr TUDGE: When there is a discrepancy, the person gets an opportunity to explain why there is a discrepancy. The Labor Party introduced that. We use the same methodology today but we use slightly more automation in order to do it. I would like to specifically address the issue of the release of Andie Fox's information, which is the subject of the particular motion, along with the many other allegations that have been made. As the member would know, the personal information about welfare recipients may be used by the Department for social security law or family assistance law purposes in order to correct the record. The Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 162 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 allow the department to correct the record in cases where a person makes a public statement or complaint about the department's handling of their welfare payments that does not accord with the records which we have, including via the media. As such, disclosure made for the purpose of social security law or the family assistance law does not need to be formally authorised by the secretary. Although, I will just point out— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat for a second now that he has finished reading that section. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: That is exactly the point that I was going to make. The level of interjections is ridiculously high. It reflects very poorly on those members. There were no interjections through the speech by the member for Barton. There were none. I think you ought to be able to conduct this debate without a wall of interjections. The members for Lindsay and Cowan, and certainly the member for Lyons, and a number of others, are just interjecting uncontrollably. I will take action—the member for Wakefield, as well. I am going to let the minister now have the call. I will take action, and it will not always be 94(a). Don't think you will be out for an hour and back in time for question time. The minister has the call. Mr TUDGE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I could, again, summarise what I was saying in relation to the social security law: in cases where people have gone to the media with statements that are incorrect or misleading, which are printed or broadcast, we are able, under the Social Services Act, to release information about the person for the purpose of, as I quote, correcting a mistake of fact, a misleading perception or impression, or a misleading statement in relation to a welfare recipient. That is what the law allows. It allows the correction of— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a). The member for Griffith then left the chamber. Mr TUDGE: false information which has been placed into the media. In relation to Andie Fox, there was false information placed in the media in a column which she herself penned. So information was provided to correct the record in relation to those allegations. We also know that because the member for Barton has admitted herself that, in all of the cases which the Labor Party has put up to the media, many of them actually have no idea about the veracity of the claims which they are putting up. In fact, the member for Barton herself said to The Australian, 'We can't guarantee that in every case they are innocent.' And, yet, they are placed up to the media as if the system is wrong and that those individuals do not owe debt when we know from the analysis done by my department that in at least a third of the time they had nothing to do with the online compliance system and, in the majority of times, the people actually do owe debt to the taxpayer. It is allowed under social security law for the government to be able to correct the record for when individual case studies are put up alleging that there has been a breach of the system or an incorrect allegation has been made in the system. That is exactly what we have done in relation to the Andie Fox example—to correct the record. And that is the main allegation. I will point out, by the way, Mr Speaker, that the Labor Party has put up and encouraged well over 50 people to come forward and put their public details into the public domain. The member for Jagajaga, an experienced member, would know what the social security law is in relation to being able to correct the record. But they have encouraged these people to go into the media and have their details put up. I know that the member for Bendigo is very quiet there. The member for Bendigo gave details directly to her local media outlets without at any stage approaching myself or my office to try to get what she believed was an issue that needed to be fixed. In fact, we are still waiting for the member for Bendigo to receive that information. Nevertheless, she emailed details directly to WIN News TV in Bendigo. She provided them with the address, the name, the mobile phone number. I have it here in an email because the email was subsequently forwarded to us. So the member for Bendigo has provided all that information about these individuals through to WIN TV. As I said, I am still waiting for that information to come to me to be able to investigate if there is, in fact, something that needs to be corrected. Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo! Mr TUDGE: I have made this point before in relation to cases which the Labor Party has been placing either into the media or in this parliament: if they are actually serious about trying to fix any problem which they foresee—and, admittedly, problems occur in any large system; we have had one which was identified and discussed in this parliament—can I ask them to actually approach me or my office if they are genuinely concerned about some of these recipients so that we can actually address them. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs! Mr TUDGE: In many cases, they have put them up to the media and they have raised them in the parliament and, yet, we still have not had them approach us. We will continue with our compliance system because it is important to protect taxpayers' money. They want to be assured that the people who are in receipt of welfare payments get the right payments, and no more and no less. Unfortunately, over the years, including in the Labor years, there were a great many cases which the Labor Party just overlooked which we are subsequently uncovering. I have spoken in this parliament about the case where a person reported $5,000 that he earned in a particular financial year while on Centrelink payments, but the Australian Taxation Office said that he earned more than $100,000. That was one case that the Labor Party overlooked when the member for Sydney was in charge, but we have not overlooked that. That is exactly why we have this system in place—to do a proper audit, to identify discrepancies like that and to ask the person to explain that discrepancy, and if they cannot they will be asked to pay back a debt. Of course they have review mechanisms. Of course they can get through to the 1800 number, which has a waiting time—this was the member for Sydney's point—of less than five seconds. (Time expired)