Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What advice does the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme provide to governments about how they should respond to adverse decisions made by bodies hearing appeals? How did the former government respond to legal challenges or threaten legal challenges?

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

I thank the member for his question. The robodebt royal commission found that an effective merits review tribunal to hear appeals against government administrative decisions is essential to protect the rights of individuals and to hold the government to account for bad decisions. But the royal commission found that successive coalition governments had effectively neutered the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a key protection for Australians during robodebt.

We know that robodebt launched in 2015, in circumstances where initial legal advice was that robodebt wasn't in accord with the legislation—we know that. But from 2016 the AAT made a series of decisions that questioned the legal basis for income averaging. Victims would appeal to the AAT, and the AAT made a series of decisions saying the government was wrong. The coalition government at that point had the choice to appeal the decision, because the AAT had got it wrong, or to change their policy, but they took a third strategy: they just pretended the decisions weren't happening.

Subsequently, on 8 March 2017, Professor Terry Carney handed down the first in a series of five explosive decisions, giving reasons for concluding that robodebt was unlawful—in 2017. And, again, what did the government do? Nothing. It just didn't happen! In fact, the royal commissioners found no less than 424 cases where the AAT said that the use of income averaging to assess part or the whole of the debt was wrong—424 cases; that's a big number. That's a shocking number. They found that, in 424 cases, when the government had been told, 'You're wrong,' the government had neither the intestinal fortitude to appeal the decisions nor the courage to actually say, 'We're going to stop it.' They just ignored the problems. This royal commission evidence is damning. What these successive coalition governments said was: 'You're the victim. You've gone through trauma. When you finally get to the AAT, get your hush money settlement. Settle up!' But what this coalition government never did—what none of you ever thought to do—was join the dots.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order.

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

How many cases does it take before a government realises it's breaking the law? Do you know what the royal commission found out? In over 500 cases at the AAT, not once did the government's lawyers ever argue that they could rely on any law. It was a cowardly government. I'd just ask for one thing from the Leader of the Opposition: admit you were wrong then. (Time expired)