Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question as to the Attorney-General. Cathy, who lives in Coburg, is a scientist who was on Centrelink entitlements for three months in 2012 while working as a casual at a university. Cathy received a robodebt notice in 2017 and has spoken of her unconscionable experience. Why is the royal commission into robodebt important for working Australians like Cathy?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wills for his question. I am truly saddened to hear Cathy's story. All of us in this place have heard many stories like Cathy's. Many of our constituents all over Australia have told us about their own unconscionable experience of robodebt. The truth is that the former Liberal government's robodebt scheme was not only wrong and unethical but also against the law.

The member for Wills asked me why the robodebt royal commission is important for working Australians like his constituent Cathy. The robodebt royal commission was a key election commitment which we wasted no time in putting in place. It's important that the events which led to this cruel scheme are fully exposed, with the powers that only a royal commission has, so that those responsible are held to account, and even more importantly so that we can make sure that this never happens again.

In just the first weeks of hearings, it has been uncovered that the Department of Social Services first became aware that robodebt was potentially unlawful in 2014. But once it found favour with the former Prime Minister, the Member for Cook, it was full steam ahead. In 2016, and we've already heard this from the Prime Minister—

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

I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

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

P ractice is very clear on this. It says that one of the circumstances in which the sub judice convention should be applied is, 'Where the proceedings are concerned with issues of fact or findings relating to the propriety of the actions of specific persons'. That is precisely what the terms of reference of the royal commission go to. The letters patent authorise the commissioner to inquire into the following matters: the establishment, design and implementation of the robodebt scheme, including who was responsible for its design, development and establishment. So the royal commission has been charged with finding facts. It is particularly surprising that the Attorney-General should be trampling all over the distinction that should properly be drawn. It leads to the obvious conclusion that this exercise is nothing but a politicised witch-hunt. The interest in finding the truth is a—

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

I would just caution the manager for using that language regarding the royal commission.

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: there's a reason the Manager of Opposition Business turned up with just one page from Practice, rather than the whole book. Had he gone on reading, he would have had this reference:

The question as to whether the proceedings before a royal commission are sub judice is therefore treated with some flexibility to allow for variations in the subject matter, the varying degree of national interest and the degree to which proceedings might—

or might not—

be or appear to be prejudiced.

It would be extraordinary to argue that simply presenting to the parliament what has already been given as evidence before the royal commission could in any way prejudice it. We are simply dealing with evidence that is already before it.

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

On the point of order, I've listened carefully to both points. The Attorney-General is going through proceedings so far. I'm listening carefully to his answer and will be mindful of the matters raised, but so far his answer to the question is in order.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister has already quoted the comments of the member for Aston, former minister for human services, from 2016, but I'm going to repeat them, because they were so shameful. This is what the member for Aston said:

We'll find you, we'll track you down and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.

Those comments were made after the government knew that the scheme was unlawful. It is shameful. Our government believes in the rule of law. The former government took a cowboy approach to the legality of their actions, even on something as far-reaching as robodebt, which ended up affecting around 400,000 Australians. How could this happen? Who was responsible? What advice did they seek? What advice were they given? And, most importantly, how can we make sure that this never happens again? A royal commission will answer these questions, and I have every confidence that this royal commission will.