Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (15:32): I thank the member for her question. The member knows that we have dealt with this extensively in this parliament as well as through the Senate estimates process through my department. Andie Fox, as the member knows, wrote a 1,300-word column in the Fairfax papers. That column made several allegations, including that she— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Members on my left! Mr TUDGE: had been terrorised by Centrelink and that she had been barred from receiving Centrelink payments, amongst other allegations. Mr Feeney interjecting — The SPEAKER: The member for Batman! Mr TUDGE: They were incorrect allegations. On the basis of formal advice from the chief legal officer from my department, we were able to correct the record against those allegations that she made. A very small amount of information was provided in order to correct the record, and it was corrected on the basis of a specific request from a journalist who was about to write a further column referencing this particular article on whether or not the allegations were, indeed, correct. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Minister for Human Services might just pause for a second. I am just going to make the point again to those on my left, who have asked the question. I anticipate that, as some point, they may want to raise a point of order. That happens in a lot of answers. I cannot hear the minister when they interject. Mr TUDGE: On the basis of the legal advice, this was a proper disclosure of information to correct the record. These are laws that have been available to successive governments to correct the record when serious allegations have been made that could end up de-legitimising government institutions. The implication from the member opposite is that they can put up cases in the media, which they have done time and time again—indeed, they have put up dozens of cases in the media—two-thirds of which are wrong. In most of the cases, they may well have known that, because she herself said to TheAustralian newspaper that when she puts up these cases she has no idea about whether these people owe debt or not or whether they are in fact innocent. Government members interjecting — The SPEAKER: Members on my right! Mr TUDGE: She stated this clearly to TheAustralian newspaper, and now she comes in here— Mr Tim Wilson interjecting — The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein is warned. Mr TUDGE: she pretends that she is concerned about the private information of individuals. Yet on 50 occasions the Labor Party encouraged individuals to come forward, put their private information into the media, knowing—which she admitted—that they did not know whether those people owed debt or not. She admitted it herself. We take the privacy of people's information very seriously. It is governed by the Privacy Act, which has very strict provisions. But there is also provision in the law to provide discrete pieces of information to correct the record on certain occasions, and on this instance, with clear legal advice from the— (Time expired) Mr Pasin interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Barker can leave under 94(a). The member for Barker then left the chamber.