Senate Economics Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 2:10:00 to 2:15:34
Senator Pocock questions the Tax Practitioners Board on the transparency of internal investigator accounts in Senate responses.
Topics: Integrity, Whistleblower protections
Speakers: Senator Barbara Pocock, Speaker 4, Sarah Amos, Unknown Speaker, Senator Lisa Darmanin
>> Thank you. Um Senator Pot, thank you.
Um, I I think I see Assistant Secretary Janette Lou at the back. I would ask her to come to the table. I have a question. I can follow. >> Thank you, Assistant Secretary Lou. Um, uh, you would have heard the earlier discussion. I'll wait for you to sit.
>> Yes, I did. Thank you.
>> You would um were you uh did you play a role? Did you prepare a draft uh answer to question AET 031 that we were discussing earlier?
>> I would have to refresh my memory in particular in relation to that particular question on notice, but generally yes, that would be the case when it comes to questions and notice more broadly.
>> And who directed you to prepare that draft?
>> Um that would have been with Mr. Dua.
Um, and Mr. de Cure, do you recollect asking uh, assistant secretary Aloo to prepare that answer, the draft?
>> Specifically, Senator, I I I don't have a specific recollection of giving a direction, but I I will say that um, I think there's an interesting discussion here about the operation of the Tax Practitioners Board, which is a creature of the Taxation Services Act of 2009. And the board is comprised of individual board members and the act obligates the commissioner to provide atto officers to assist the board in their work.
>> I understand that.
>> And so the it it's our normal procedure that we will work with our team uh in relation to matters of answering senators questions and questions on notice. Uh we work together to to craft those answers in response to the questions. So, it's a perfectly normal part of what we do for Miss Lou andor now Mr. Mr. Or as the secretary um to be engaged in drafting and preparing of answers and checking our records and systems to make sure that the answers are factually correct. Um we do our best to make sure that we take care to answer the question that is put to us. Uh and I I note your question uh today asking for an initial draft. Um so I I'm happy to look in for previous question in relation to Mr. O'Neil's initial draft.
>> Oh no, that wasn't the question on notice to be explicit. You said you understood. >> Well, I I believe I did. >> If I may, >> do you want to finish what you're saying? No, >> you go. >> Well, it was very specific. It was not asking. It specifically said I don't want an answer from the TPB. I don't want an answer from the board. I I don't want to read it again. It's boring. I'm being asked to be quick. But I asked you specifically >> given the controversy, >> the pressure to uh on an on an investigator in the middle of an investigation. I wanted his account of the events that were indicative of pressure he felt as an investigator. And you said you understood that and that is not what has happened here.
>> Okay. I
>> I asked him to prepare it. Senator, can I Senate asking you?
>> Senator, can I say uh I agree with the answer I gave. I do understand that question tonight. Absolutely. Uh so we'll we'll take that on notice. >> I'm not sure I understood it as specifically as you've outlined it tonight on that previous occasion.
>> Well, it's in was in black and white and supplied to you
>> and I I I accept that to be correct. So uh you you've been very specific tonight and I
>> No, I was very specific on the 14th of February 2024 and I accept that Mr. de Cure and it is a matter of considerable weight that you did not respond. You did not give the this the parliament the answer that was sought and it is not uh a mere coincidence and misunderstanding from for my money. It is a very significant f outcome because Mr. O'Neil, as I understand it, had no role, did not read, did not see what you submitted as a T against the specific request. It's important.
>> Yeah, I'd like to go back and check.
>> Well, I have the documents in front of me. I'm telling you,
>> and I'd like to check our records.
>> Do you accept that you have misled the Senate in not complying with my request to have Mr. O'Neil's version of events which he did prepare? You have agreed to supply them to the Senate. >> They weren't supplied to the Parliament. Do you agree you have misled us in not responding to a very clear request?
>> S I would like I would like to check our records before I answer that question.
>> so I will go to another question and I look forward to that answer. And it's very evident to me that uh the question that was posed to you two years ago was very clear and was not answered and Mr. O'Neil wasn't able to give his response to the various pressures he felt through five different mechanisms while he was trying to investigate a very significant uh failure by a very large uh partnership. Um the PJC uh for corporations and financial services over the signature of my colleague uh Senator