Senate Economics Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 1:47:42 to 1:54:23
Senator Roberts raises concerns about ATO conduct in the King v Clark and Jiang cases, alleging oppression and administration of justice issues.
Topics: Integrity, Government legal services, Human rights
Speakers: Senator Malcolm Roberts, Rob Heferen, Unknown Speaker, Senator Lisa Darmanin
>> thank you, Chair. >> Thank you for appearing tonight. Are you familiar with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland in the case the King versus Clark?
>> Uh, yeah. Yes, I think I am.
>> Okay. This is a case dating back to 2017 in which the ATO alleged fraud in a research and development application and in which the ATO referred the matter for criminal prosecution. The Queensland court found there was no criminal case to answer on the initial allegation, but the ATO persisted. In the recent court decision on the final matter, this was again thrown out and the court found the ATO officers concerned deliberately altered expenses statements. The ATO was involved in the preparation of false statements. The ATO officers provided misleading information and affidavit to obtain search warrants. The ATO officers lied in a briefing note to the Queensland bar, failed to disclose emails, ignored the fact that the R&D funds were spent on legitimate expenses. The court also found the ATO undermined the fundamental right of the defendant to remain silent. The conduct of the ATO amounted to oppression of the defendant. The conduct of the ATO has brought the administration of justice into disrepute and has the tendency of undermining the integrity of the court. the defendant self-represented for more than four years. Now I understand that for some days during the the during the trial the CDP in the ATO and the attorney general's department had some 12 in the combined legal teams including three to four barristers plus numerous ATO staff in attendance. Would you agree, Commissioner, that on the basis of this case alone and the court decision that senators could readily form the view that there is something seriously wrong, possibly sick, within the ATO to go to such lengths of persecuting an innocent person?
>> Um, uh, Senator, no, I don't think that's a a fair characterization. Um, uh, make the point that when decisions go to, uh, when matters go to court, uh, we work with the CDP. CDPB actually is the one that takes uh people to court, not the ATO. Uh so the ATO doesn't in this case. I mean there are a very narrow range where we would uh take prosecution. He was not one of them. It's the CDP. Um and the other thing I just might note is that uh as I said the CDP has uh has appealed that decision and we're awaiting the outcome of the appeal. So and and so until such time we get the result of the appeal um I think it's probably best to wait and see what happens and then on the appeal uh on the outcome of that we're going them in a stronger position but but the the the facts that are in the at the first instance referred to um actions of uh a tax office that was named in uh in the case. Um say we it'd be prudent to wait for the outcome of the appeal to see what the appeal court and I I I don't want to I mean I shouldn't step in the world of speaking hypothetically, but if it is the case, in fact, that officer uh did behave uh poorly, um I think taking the actions of one officer and spreading it over 20,000 uh is it would not be a fair assessment.
Okay. I just wonder how much that could have been done by one person alone. So, let's move on. Are you familiar with or aware of and familiar with the case of Mr. X Jiang reported on a current affair on 14th and again on 15th of July 2025?
>> Uh, reasonably familiar.
>> The Jang case has similar patterns to the Clark case that I just mentioned. That's the fact the ATO caused criminal charges to be brought against Mr. Jen. His ca case dates back as far as 2011 after protracted legal activity. The case against Mr. Jen was dropped because quote the prosecution had no evidence to offer. End of quote. Similarly, charges against employees of Mr. Jen were dropped because there was no evidence to offer. Yet, in this period, Mr. Jen spent time in jail and his sister suicided after her bank accounts were falsely frozen by the ATO. Has the ATO got blood on its hands over this? Uh
Senator, I mean no. Uh and when that uh when that um TV show aired with those serious allegations, uh I referred the matter to the tax ombudsman. Um and as it turned out, I didn't need to refer it to her because she was going to take uh her own motion uh activity. Uh she did that. She looked at it very thoroughly. Uh Mr. Jang was involved in that. Mr. Jang uh I believe got copies of the uh the report that um uh the tax ombbudsman did uh because it was about a single case I don't think that was made public um but nonetheless um the the results where I mean I can can say as the as the the allegations and the actions of my officers leading to those um you know tragic outcomes was not established.
>> Thank you. Do you see any parallels in between in these two cases and the behavior of the ATO and the Robo debt scandal? Specifically, the false income assessments by social services were based on incomplete and arguably misleading income data provided to it by the ATO and the ATO knew or should have known the data was unreliable for the roboted exercise. Any parallels? No, I
see zero parallel. >> Zero.
>> In the Clark and Jang cases, do you accept that the behavior of the ATO has resulted in major financial, emotional, and business harm to the persons the ATO
>> Oh, I think had in sights is a um uh unnecessarily inflammatory uh in the context of what uh ATI investigators need to do when they uh undertaking audits. And as I said in the case of the Clark case, the matter is under appeal and so I think it'd be prudent to wait for the outcome of the appeal uh before um you know before deciding on a concluded view.
>> Chair in the interest of time I'll continue with another set of questions and put the rest of this set of questions on notice.
>> I'd be most appreciative. Thank you.