Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

BATES () (): I wish to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 51. The matter involves the former Prime Minister and member for Cook and whether statements made by the member for Cook constitute a possible breach of privilege or contempt of the parliament. The member for Cook made statements in the House in relation to the robodebt scheme that have subsequently been shown to be false by the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. Just last week, the member for Cook made statements that clearly contradict the findings of the royal commission. This is the first sitting week since these statements were made and the earliest opportunity I have had to present this matter to the House in the manner required.

In response to a question without notice on 11 June 2020, the member for Cook stated:

Where we have advice and where matters indicate, as has been the case in relation to the use of income averaging as the sole determinant of raising a debt, then obviously government practices change.

At no point did the member for Cook report to the House that the robodebt scheme was implemented without legislative change and was therefore illegal. Even after the release of the full report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, the member for Cook has deliberately made assertions that are clearly false. Given the evidence before the royal commission and the timing of the member for Cook's statements after the release of the report, it appears clear that he not only deliberately made false statements but did so in order to mislead the House.

On 31 July 2023, the member for Cook said in a statement on indulgence that he 'relied on the advice of the department', disclaiming responsibility. In fact, as the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme found, Mr Morrison allowed cabinet to be misled. As the royal commission noted, the eighth edition of the Cabinet Handbook explicitly stated:

Ministers are expected to take full responsibility for the content, quality and accuracy of advice provided to the Cabinet under their name.

Despite the member for Cook's statement in response to a question about robodebt—'Where we have advice, then obviously government practices change'—the findings of the royal commission clearly show that government practices did not change for several years, despite clear advice on the illegality of the scheme, until the matter was before the courts.

Given the intense public interest and media scrutiny on the robodebt scheme that had persisted for several years by 2020, it appears extremely likely that, in answering the question, the member for Cook not only misled the House of Representatives but did so knowingly and deliberately. This is especially important in light of the royal commission's finding that he had earlier misled the cabinet.

I will give two subsequent examples. On 10 June 2020, the member for Cook stated in response to a question without notice on the robodebt scheme:

This has nothing to do with the issues of technology or how technology is used to do this.

On 8 December 2020, he stated:

So there is no issue, as those opposite seem to suggest, regarding the use of technology …

In relation to the use of technology, the royal commission very clearly sets out, in the conclusions in chapter 17:

The automation used in the Scheme at its outset, removing the human element, was a key factor in the harm it did.

These statements made by the member for Cook also, prima facie, satisfy the test under section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act in that they were 'intended to or likely amount to an improper interference with the free exercise by the House of its authority or functions'. The critical functions of the House that were impeded in this regard were the ability of the House to seek information and clarification on government policy, and the surveillance, appraisal and criticism of government administration. It is fundamentally apparent that the House cannot hold a minister or, indeed, a Prime Minister to account if the relevant minister makes false statements to the House.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to consider granting precedence to a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members Interests. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this important matter, and I table the documents referred to in support of this request.

See this speech in context