Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to be Minister for Government Services. What information has the royal commission discovered in its first week of public hearings that would otherwise have remained secret? Who were the relevant ministers during the operation the robodebt scheme?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Member for Lingiari, for your question. At the conclusion of the first week of public hearings of the robodebt royal commission Australians have learned that the previous coalition government received departmental and legal advice that the robodebt scheme was unlawful from its inception. Specifically, Australians have learnt, firstly that, in 2014, at the dawn of the robodebt scheme, the then Liberal-National government received advice from their own lawyers that the scheme was 'likely illegal'. Secondly, we've learned that the former Department of Social Services director of payments and integrity, who was responsible for seeking the 2014 internal legal advice, had warned that income averaging to raise welfare debts was 'likely unlawful'. He said he and his team were almost immediately concerned about the proposal, which he also described as 'unethical'. The same official said that the DSS legal advice was 'black and white'. It should have ended the proposal. Indeed, he likened the robodebt scheme to be Dallas buyers club scam of speculative invoicing of unsuspecting victims. Thirdly, we've learned that in 2018 top law firm Clayton Utz provided advice that the scheme was not able to be justified.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! members on my right will cease interjecting.

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

There's a royal commission underway at the moment and there is a well-respected principle that the House, the parliament, not interfere in judicial processes or, indeed, other bodies—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Attorney-General will case interjecting.

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

and as practice itself notes, royal commission proceedings have a quasi-judicial character. So it is an important public policy question whether the minister ought to be offering a running commentary on what is an important process that is underway right now. That is an important question, Mr Speaker, for you to determine.

Governme nt members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my right! There's far too much noise.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the point of order: it's been raised before and so the Manager of Opposition Business, I presume, knows, because he's going to keep reading from page 524 of practice, which is the quote he just read, where it acknowledges that, in the ordinary event, debate is allowed on royal commissions in the House: certainly not on jury trials, but certainly yes on royal commissions.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm listening carefully to the Minister for Government Services. I thank the manager for raising that point.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians have learned three things. Firstly, the internal legal advice was that this was most likely illegal. Secondly, the former director in charge of integrity and payments said the scheme should have been stopped. Thirdly, top law firm Clayton Utz provided advice in 2018 that the scheme was not able to be justified. This prompted an internal email saying that it was 'catastrophic'. Clayton Utz offered to rework the advice. But for these this royal commission, these three revelations that the Liberal-National government received departmental and legal advice that robodebt was illegal from 2014 onwards would never have seen the light of day.

The other part of the member for Lingiari's questions was: who were the relevant ministers during the operation of this unlawful scheme? They were: the minister for Cook, the Minister for Social Services, 2014-15; the former member for Pearce, Minister for Social Services, 2015-17; the member for Wannon, Minister for Human Services and Minister for Social Services; our friend the member for Bradfield, Minister for Families and Social Services; the member for Fadden, Minister for Human Services; and the member for Aston, Minister for Human Services.

In conclusion, there have always been three explanations for the conduct of ministers in this operation: first, they were obeying the law and it was lawful; or second, it wasn't lawful, but they just didn't know what was happening beneath their noses, so they were essentially negligent; or three, that they did know but didn't care. We've eliminated the, 'It was lawful, Your Honour' defence. We wait to see what the answer is to the remaining two explanations.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Aston is warned.