Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. Has the minister considered the finding of the robodebt royal commission that previous coalition governments were warned about the failures of robodebt, and what is his response?

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

The robodebt royal commission not only looked at the circumstances surrounding the start of the law-breaking scheme; it also addressed the question of why the law-breaking against vulnerable people went on for 4½ years and whether there were any red flags, warnings or signs that this scheme was wrong.

The royal commission actually says that the beginning of 2017 was the point at which robodebt's unfairness, probable illegality and cruelty became apparent—the beginning of 2017. The commission says that it should have been abandoned or revised drastically. An enormous amount of hardship and misery, as well as the expense the government was so anxious to minimise, would have been averted. After hearing all the evidence, the royal commission said:

Instead the path taken was to double down, to go on the attack in the media against those who complained and to maintain the falsehood that … the scheme had not changed at all. The government was, the DHS and DSS ministers maintained, acting righteousness to recoup taxpayers' money from the undeserving.

So in 2017 warning signs were ignored.

The commission said that the scheme 'trundled on', the cover-up continued. It said DSS—the Department of Social Services—seemed to have taken little interest in the administrative appeals cases until mid-2018, when the Department of Human Services told the Department of Social Services that an AAT decision had said income averaging in the way of robodebt was unlawful. There was an AAT decision. The AAT had placed reliance on an article by Professor Carney, who subsequently wasn't reappointed to the AAT. There was draft advice from Clayton Utz saying this was right, but it was never acted on. They were told it was wrong and it was never acted on. The Ombudsman, according to the royal commission, was deliberately misled. I remind the coalition, who are trying to gainfully ignore this, that the Ombudsman was misled by the former government. That was then used by the government to resist scrutiny of the scheme.

So there were many warnings about this scheme, many warnings that the former coalition government was engaging in mass lawbreaking of its own laws against the vulnerable. The question though for the current opposition—and they've been strangely silent—is: do they agree with the member for Cook that this is just an unfair political attack? Surprisingly, the Leader of the Opposition has, but I think now we need clarity from the Leader of the Opposition. Do you accept that 'the ill-effects of the scheme were varied, extensive, devastating and continuing'? Why don't you just say, 'We broke the law for 4½ years, and we are absolutely sorry'?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.