Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion proposed by the member for Maribyrnong. I'd like to start by again expressing the opposition's regret, and I extend our apologies to those Australians who received unlawful debt notices under the income compliance program administered by the Department of Human Services and Services Australia. To those Australians, I simply say: we are sorry.

The apology I have repeated today is of course consistent with the apology given by the then Morrison government in 2020. When the previous coalition government became aware of the problems with the program, we cancelled the program and ensured that those affected received a refund or had their debts zeroed, and we delivered compensation payments. In fact, by November 2020 the coalition government had delivered 95 per cent of the compensation payments two years prior to the commencement of the royal commission. To date, 99 per cent of the payments have been delivered.

Although this matter had been addressed by the previous government, and addressed on our watch, the present government came to power with a policy of holding a royal commission to examine what occurred. Given the substantial time, energy and public money which have been expended in the conduct of the royal commission, it is important that it be taken seriously and its conclusion studied carefully. The motion that the member for Maribyrnong has moved, in the terms that he has moved it, unfortunately is inconsistent with the objective of taking seriously the work of the royal commission and is an inappropriate course of action by this parliament.

I therefore move as an amendment to the motion moved by the minister:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

this House:

(1) expresses its regret and apologises to the Australians who received unlawful debt notices under the income compliance program administered by the Department of Human Services and Services Australia;

(2) notes that the Morrison Government cancelled the program and it ensured that those affected received a refund or had their debts zeroed, and that, to date, 99 per cent of refunds have been issued; and

(3) notes that debate on this motion moved by the Member for Maribyrnong is diverting parliamentary time from the pressing challenges which Australian are facing, including eleven consecutive mortgage interest rate increases under this government, gas and electricity prices increasing dramatically in the face of the government's inability to deliver the promised $275 reduction in power bills, and soaring inflation which is creating a cost of living challenge for Australians.

The first reason why this motion is inappropriate for this parliament to pass in the terms that it has been moved by the member for Maribyrnong and why instead the terms of the motion as amended, as I have moved, are appropriate is that, firstly, it is for the government to respond to the royal commission, not the parliament. As yet, we have not seen a formal response from the government.

Secondly, the nature of this motion reveals on its face that it is a political exercise rather than a considered response to the royal commission. The report of the royal commission is over 900 pages long and has 57 recommendations. Many of these go to detailed issues of public administration, but this motion makes no attempt to address those. Instead, this motion speaks only about accepting the findings against ministers and is silent about all of the other findings and recommendations. This is a very good indication of the motivations of the member for Maribyrnong. He is very interested in a political witch-hunt targeting former coalition ministers. He is not at all interested in a measured consideration of the lessons for good public administration that should be drawn from this royal commission. I note that the royal commissioner, in her preface, observes that what politicians say and do sets attitudes. The member for Maribyrnong would do well to reflect on those words.

It is not in dispute that our government made mistakes in relation to the income compliance program. It is also not in dispute that the mistakes were made based on advice from the Public Service doing exactly the job it is supposed to do—that is, advising ministers and implementing decisions made by ministers. The royal commission's report makes it crystal clear that the central idea underpinning the income compliance program was developed by officials within the Department of Human Services. Again, with the benefit of hindsight, it is now not in dispute that the central idea was one which required legislative change to implement. The public servants who came up with the idea failed to recognise that fact, and the legislative change did not occur. Of course, it also not in factual dispute that the cabinet submission and the new policy proposal prepared by the Department of Social Services for the minister of the day said that legislative change was not required. In other words, the Public Service gave the minister of the day clear advice, but the advice was wrong.

The royal commission goes through the sequence of events very carefully. Its findings deserve careful analysis and consideration. There are several factors to be weighed up here. Of course recipients of social services payments must be treated with dignity and respect. At the same time, it is important that there be continuing scrutiny over the validity of social services payments and an ongoing process to identify instances of overpayment, whether innocent or fraudulent. Every dollar paid in social services benefits is a dollar raised from a hardworking Australian taxpayer, and taxpayers rightly expect that there are controls in place so that social services benefits do not go to people who are not entitled to receive them under the law.

This is a proposition that the member for Maribyrnong is on the record as agreeing with. Let's not forget that in June 2011, when he was Assistant Treasurer, the member for Maribyrnong issued a media release with the then Minister for Human Services titled 'Welfare debt recovery process to be automated'. In that release it was announced that the Labor government within which he was a senior minister would automatically match data from Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office to 'claw back millions of dollars from welfare recipients who have debts with the Australian government'.

Of course, close observers of the career of the member for Maribyrnong will know that it would be naive to expect any consistency of approach from him, particularly if that consistency stands in the way of a potential political opportunity he sniffs out. Let us remember that the Labor Party supported the income compliance program at two elections. For the 2016 and 2019 elections, with the member for Maribyrnong as its leader, the Labor Party submitted policy costings that presumed the continuing existence of the income compliance program. It was only after the 2019 election defeat, as part of the member for Maribyrnong's search for continuing relevance, that he reversed his position and began campaigning against the compliance program, resulting in the Labor Party promising to hold a royal commission.

The motion moved by the member for Maribyrnong is objectionable, then, because rather than being a careful weighing up of the complex issues considered by the royal commission it is at its core simply an exercise in political pointscoring. And it is objectionable for another reason. There is an appropriate process and there are appropriate next steps in relation to the individuals, both politicians and public servants, about whom the royal commissioner draws particular conclusions. There is a clear process set down by the royal commission and by the government itself in terms of the considered next steps that should be taken to respond to the royal commission. The government has said that former Public Service Commissioner Mr Stephen Sedgwick will carry out an independent review of the adverse findings.

The royal commissioner has obviously given very careful thought as to how individuals should be dealt with, and she has prepared a separate sealed section of her report which is understood to contain materials specifically in relation to specific individuals and recommendations for actions against those individuals. Of course, members of this parliament have not seen this sealed section, yet the motion from the member for Maribyrnong is asking members to reach a conclusion about specified individuals.

The broader point is that any individual, whether a politician or a public servant, is entitled to procedural fairness. There may be proceedings against individuals in the future. I do not know, and the parliament does not know, but there may be. And there is a serious risk that the passing of this motion could compromise the rights of particular individuals who become the subject of proceedings in the future. If the royal commissioner is recommending future processes, these should be carried out in a way that allows those accused to have the benefits of all the usual safeguards that the law in Australia allows.

It is deeply unfortunate that the Prime Minister and the member for Maribyrnong have sought to politicise this royal commission, given the serious nature of the issues it raised. I conclude by reaffirming that the opposition is focused on learning the lessons from the royal commission.

See this speech in context