Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. After the recent fortnight of public hearings at the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, what have we learnt about who was responsible for the shameful robodebt scheme?

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

I give the call to the Minister for the National—

Government members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right! I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

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

Mr Speaker, I just want to draw your attention to the words of Speaker Snedden when a similar issue arose about the extent to which commentary should occur in this place about the proceedings of a royal commission. What Speaker Snedden said—

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

He said:

… I regard it as going beyond the bounds of our sub judice rules if the honourable gentleman puts any construction on the matter for the simple reason that if the Royal Commissioner in fact concluded in a way which was consistent with the honourable gentleman's construction it may appear that the Commissioner was influenced …

So this is a very important issue, which has been considered by previous speakers. We have seen the minister who's about to come to the dispatch box trample over this important distinction before, and I urge you to consider this carefully.

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

I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

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

In considering it, as has been asked by the Manager of Opposition Business, I'd just refer to Practice, where it's really clear that royal commissions are allowed to be asked about. If you look at royal commissions that were held during the life of the previous government, a very different argument was being put back then. There is a long-held precedent on being able to deal with royal commissions.

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

I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

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

The question is not whether royal commissions are entitled to be asked about. The question is: what are the guardrails that should be put around what is said about them? That is the point that Speaker Snedden was going to, because it goes to the question of whether there is an appearance of the royal commissioner's findings being influenced.

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

I had a feeling this subject would be raised and I want to give some direction to the House because I'm sure there will be further questions on this matter. As a first principle:

The application of the sub judice convention is subject to the discretion of the Chair at all times. The Chair should always have regard to the basic rights and interests of Members in being able to raise and discuss matters of concern in the House.

That is from page 521 of Practice. I'm going to refer to former Speaker Smith, who noted in relation to comment in proceedings about a royal commission:

… it would be a ridiculous restriction of debate if matters that have been raised in public and reported in the media could not be aired in the national parliament.

I will be listening to the minister carefully, but that is the direction I'll be following, and I refer members to Practice, pages 521 to 523. I call the minister.

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

HORTEN (—) (): So far, with the royal commission into robodebt, we've seen a perp walk of former coalition ministers who were, at different times, responsible for the design, the implementation and the administration of this unlawful scheme. Last week we heard from the former human services minister, the member for Aston. During his evidence to the commission, the member for Aston—

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

The minister will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In light of your earlier words, I just don't know how the minister's response, particularly in his opening remarks, is consistent with your advice to the chamber.

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

The minister has the call.

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

The royal commission into robodebt has seen a conga line of coalition ministers, not a perp walk.

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

I'll just ask the minister to get to the substance of the question he has been asked.

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

During his evidence to the commission, the member for Aston acknowledged that (1) he was responsible for the administration of the robodebt scheme between February 2016 and December 2017, (2) he knew that robodebt produced inaccurate debt notices, (3) he did not think to raise questions about the legality of the scheme for the duration of his time as the minister, (4) he requested the personal files of 52 Centrelink recipients who had complained in the media in the period between Christmas 2016 and January 2017, and (5) he did think, however, to get legal advice about accessing the personal files of the 52 public complainants, as opposed to seeking advice as to the lawfulness of the whole scheme. The member for Aston did pay forensic attention to people complaining about the scheme but never the complaints. He investigated the messengers but never the message. Furthermore, when the minister was asked about his responsibility, he shifted responsibility for the scheme to the former Prime Minister, former Treasurer and former finance minister for prioritising and finding savings. He also shifted responsibility for not understanding the illegality of the scheme to senior public servants, one of whom is now deceased. Further, he said that he had no visibility of the scheme—

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

The Manager of Opposition Business, on a further point of order?

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

Mr Speaker, the standing orders are very clear. Standing order 90 states: 'All imputations of improper motives to a Member … shall be considered highly disorderly.' We've just had a series of character assessments from the minister. This is a clear breach of the standing orders.

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

I understand the minister was reading reports from the royal commission. Under the standing orders, he is entitled to refer to reports, media reports and the actual royal commission itself about what was said. I'm listening to the minister carefully. If he strays from that point, he will be pulled into order. I give him the call.

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

The minister, when he was asked about responsibility, made it clear that he blamed the ERC. He made it clear that he blamed the senior public servants. It wasn't his fault that he didn't know about the illegality. Instead, he said senior public servants should have told him, including one who is now deceased. He said that he had no visibility of the scheme when it was brought to cabinet. He said that the issues of current policy responsibility were a matter for the former social services minister. At different times, not only did he blame most of his current cabinet colleagues; he then blamed the left-wing media, and he then blamed previous Labor governments. The human blame factory here also blamed the complainants of the scheme.

However, I thank the last word about the evidence that we heard from that particular minister concerning the unlawful robodebt scheme should be left to his former media adviser, who put it better than most: 'The minister requested the file of every person who appeared in the media in order to make other victims think twice before coming forward.' What a fine specimen of coalition ministerial responsibility.