Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Ruston, the Minister for Families and Social Services. On 18 February 2020 The Guardian reported that the government is arguing in documents filed in the Federal Court that it has no duty of care to income support recipients harmed by the illegal robodebt program. Does the government have no duty of care to all Australians, or is it just people on income support?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Siewert for her question. I will disregard the second part of her question, but in answering directly the first part of her question, the question goes directly to the technical legal matters that are currently before the Federal Court, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd challenge that it's inappropriate for the minister to report here. Does the minister have a duty of care, through her role, to aged pensioners, to people looking for work, to students, to single parents? Has the government a duty of care to these Australians who are receiving income support through this government? It's a simple question.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Minister for Families and Social Services, I take my responsibility to deliver government policy to assist all Australians, but particularly Australians that come under my jurisdiction as the minister for those particular areas. Australia has a system that supports people in a comprehensive and very targeted way, a social welfare system that looks after all Australians who require some help. As the primary service delivery arm, obviously Services Australia is absolutely committed to providing a level of supportive customer service that is appropriate when dealing with people who require the taxpayers' help when they find themselves in tough times. I think it's absolutely reasonable to expect that the Australian community expects a level of responsible stewardship of their taxpayers' money when we help people out.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is simple: does the government—do you—have a duty of care to Australians, including those receiving income support?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can absolutely confirm that I have a responsibility to support Australians who require assistance through the social welfare system. A hundred and eighty billion dollars of taxpayers' money is provided to Australians in need every year, and I have a responsibility to make sure that that is targeted to the people who need it in an appropriate way and that they are supported at a time when they may need a little more support than the average Australian. But we also need to realise that we have a responsibility—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Siewert on a point of order?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw the minister's attention to my question. I was very clear: do the minister and the government have a duty of care to income support recipients and all Australians? I didn't ask about responsibility; I asked about duty of care.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the minister's answer to the first question, I may have misinterpreted your second and third questions, in the sense that I was interpreting them in the common meaning of the words rather than as a legal term. I was allowing the minister to answer the question on that basis. I'm happy if you would like to correct me on that, but that's the basis on which I have been allowing the minister to answer the question.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely I have a responsibility to make sure that Australians who need my support and the support of the government and the support that is afforded to them through social security payments—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Mr President.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Pratt.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert made it very clear that she was asking about the legal duty of care, and the minister is obliged to answer, because legal professional privilege is not a grounds for not answering the question.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a couple of points. I'm sorry. That was my offer to Senator Siewert before.

Senator Siewert interjecting—

Sorry, I didn't see you nod on that basis. On that basis, I do have to advise senators, as the Clerk has just reminded me, that one can't ask a minister for a legal opinion. But, on the basis you would like the question interpreted that way, I will remind the minister of the specific nature of your question and what that term entails.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the basis of that reinterpretation of the question, I would refer back to my previous answer to the first question, and that is that, if you are referring to the legal matter that is currently before the Federal Court, I cannot comment on that.