|
senate vote 2023-03-21#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-04-14 10:49:01
|
Title
Documents — Treasury: Australian Securities and Investment Commission Investigation; Order for the Production of Documents- Documents - Treasury: ASIC Investigation - Order for the Production of Documents
Description
<p class="speaker">Andrew Bragg</p><p>I move:</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2023-03-21.109.2):
- > *That the Senate—*
- >
- > *(a) notes the failure of the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with order for the production of documents no. 160, relating to the report of an investigation conducted by the Treasury into allegations made about the conduct of an Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Deputy Chair, referred to in a letter from Treasury Secretary, Dr Steven Kennedy, to ASIC Chair, Mr Joseph Longo, on 1 February 2022;*
- >
- > *(b) notes that on 9 March 2023, the Minister made a claim of public interest immunity in relation to the report in its entirety;*
- >
- > *(c) acknowledges the public interest in personal information relating to confidential informants remaining confidential, but rejects the Minister's claim of public interest immunity over the remainder of the report; and*
- >
- > *(d) requires that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 23 March 2023, the report referred to in paragraph (a), with appropriate redactions to protect the identities of confidential informants.*
- Read more about these types of motions on the [parliamentary website](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Brief_Guides_to_Senate_Procedure/No_12).
<p class="italic">That the Senate—</p><p class="italic">(a) notes the failure of the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with order for the production of documents no. 160, relating to the report of an investigation conducted by the Treasury into allegations made about the conduct of an Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Deputy Chair, referred to in a letter from Treasury Secretary, Dr Steven Kennedy, to ASIC Chair, Mr Joseph Longo, on 1 February 2022;</p><p class="italic">(b) notes that on 9 March 2023, the Minister made a claim of public interest immunity in relation to the report in its entirety;</p><p class="italic">(c) acknowledges the public interest in personal information relating to confidential informants remaining confidential, but rejects the Minister's claim of public interest immunity over the remainder of the report; and</p><p class="italic">(d) requires that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 23 March 2023, the report referred to in paragraph (a), with appropriate redactions to protect the identities of confidential informants.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>tor CHISHOLM (—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (): I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>The government will be opposing this motion. The government notes that the complaint, investigation and ruling all occurred under the previous government and were not disclosed. As the government has previously explained, it would be inappropriate for a report into a confidential workplace investigation to be tabled in the parliament. Even with redactions, there is a risk that the tabling of such a report would have implications for the privacy of the subject, complainant and witnesses and could act as a deterrent for further complaints.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>The Greens will not be supporting this motion, but I want to make it clear that we do not accept the government's public interest immunity claim on the ground that the document contains legal advice. However, the governments claims in respect of the privacy of individuals, the integrity of investigations and undue prejudice have some merit. This is not necessarily the end of the matter. I intend to raise this issue at the next meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics to examine whether the committee might be able to assure itself of whether this document is confined to a workplace relations matter or whether, and if so how, it has any broader public policy ramifications.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 181 standing in the name of Senator Bragg be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|