Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. We are halfway through the second week of public hearings of the royal commission into robodebt. What have we learned about who was responsible for the unlawful robodebt scheme?

Honourable members interj ecting—

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

Order! The Minister for Climate Change and Energy will cease interjecting. The Minister for Government Services will resume—

Government members interjecting—

Order, members on my right! We will 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, this conduct by the government on this matter risks bringing the royal commission into disrepute. The royal commission has been established to make findings of fact—that is clear from its terms of reference—and we are now seeing a series of questions which presume to do the royal commission's job for it. This is quite inappropriate, and these questions ought not to be allowed.

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

The point of order is that the question was out of order?

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

Yes.

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

I'm just clarifying what your point was.

Government members interjecting—

Order, members on my right. 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

To the point of order, I wasn't sure if he was going to raise it based on standing orders or a conflict of interest! It has been the practice for a long time in this chamber that, when a royal commission is on that has been commissioned by the government of the day, matters of evidence will be discussed in this place. The member opposite has a very short memory if he thinks this is new.

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

I call 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

On the point of order, it is for the royal commission to make findings of fact based upon the evidence put to it. It is not for this House to do that. With the approach the government are taking, they are trespassing across ground that they ought not to be on.

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

This matter was raised in the House on Monday. Practice does indicate that matters before a royal commission the House can treat with some flexibility to allow for variations in the subject matter. Practice has also indicated over the years that matters before a royal commission can be discussed during question time. That question is in order. I refer the manager to pages 521 to 525 of Practice. I give the call to the Minister for Government Services.

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

RTEN (—) (): In just under two weeks of hearings in the royal commission into robodebt, we've learned several facts. First, the previous government received departmental and external legal advice that robodebt was unlawful from its start. We've also learned that a top-tier law firm, Clayton Utz, provided legal advice to the former government that the scheme was not able to be justified, prompting internal emails noting that this particular draft view was catastrophic. We've also learned that the former director of Payments and Integrity at the Department of Social Services and his team saw the income averaging and what became robodebt as unethical from the beginning. The initial legal advice warning that this was unlawful was black and white, and that should have been the end of the proposal.

As to who was responsible for the unlawful robodebt scheme, I draw the attention of the House to a speech concerning the demarcation between ministerial responsibility and the Public Service given by the former Prime Minister on 19 August 2019 at the Institute of Public Administration Australia, outlining his key six guideposts underpinning the approach in government. The then Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, said:

… responsibility for setting policy, for making those calls and decisions lies with the elected representatives of the people …

He continued:

… at the end of the day our ministers, I, my colleagues, have got to look constituents in the eye, face the public, look them in the eye, and be responsible for those decisions.

He then shared that memorable farmyard anecdote:

When I played Rugby, my coach used to describe this difference as the bacon and eggs principle, the chicken is involved, but the pig is absolutely committed to the task.

He further explained his analogy:

That is why under our system of government it must be ministers who set that policy direction.

He added:

It's important not only to establish clear lines of accountability. It is also fundamental to ensure our democracy keeps faith with the Australian people.

We do not yet know if or when the member for Cook or the other former ministers responsible for the unlawful operation of the robodebt scheme—those ones sitting opposite—will be called to give evidence to the royal commission. But we do know this: applying the former Prime Minister's principles—the leader of the former government—they cannot simply pass the buck onto the Public Service for their almost five-year illegal, unlawful shakedown of hundreds of thousands of Australia's most vulnerable citizens. I table the former Prime Minister's speech about ministerial responsibility for government policy.