David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What has the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme uncovered about what was said in public by former ministers in charge of the unlawful scheme versus what they actually believed? And how many robodebts were raised between the 29 May 2019 and 19 November 2019?

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 Bean for his question. In the most recent block of hearings at the royal commission into robodebt, we've heard from Professor Renee Leon, the former secretary of the Department of Human Services; Timothy French, DHS legal counsel; and the member for Fadden, the then Minister for Human Services.

Specifically, Mr French testified that, in a meeting in early July 2019, the member for Fadden was verbally briefed that the Australian Government Solicitor's opinion was that robodebt was on very shaky grounds—testimony which Professor Leon corroborated in her own evidence. Further evidence was given that on 31 July the member for Fadden appeared on the ABC's Insiders program, where he defended robodebt and stated, amongst other things, that 'in 99.2 per cent of the cases, the debt was correct'—99.2 per cent, he said.

However, last week, under questioning by the royal commissioner, the member for Fadden admitted that he knew that what he was saying was false. The royal commissioner said:

MR SCOTT: Well, your evidence was that you could not raise a debt based solely on averaging.

THE HON STUART ROBERT: That was my belief, yes.

MR SCOTT: And in 90 per cent of cases, that's exactly what was happening under the program to your knowledge at the time.

THE HON STUART ROBERT: Yes, that is correct.

MR SCOTT: So what you said there, to your knowledge at the time, was false, wasn't it?

And this answer is very interesting.

THE HON STUART ROBERT: To my personal view, yes. But I'm still a Government Minister, and it's still a government program. And this was the approach that Cabinet has signed off on …

The basic position of the evidence of the member for Fadden was that cabinet solidarity allowed him as a minister to give statistics on robodebt that he did not believe to the Australian—

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

The minister will resume his seat immediately. 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

Mr Speaker, you've given a ruling on several occasions on this matter. You've said that what you are less comfortable with is putting a construction on the evidence or the drawing of conclusions about the conduct of individuals who are party to the proceedings. I've listened carefully to what the minister has had to say, and he has now crossed that line. He should be reminded of your ruling and he should comply with it.

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

I'm going to ask the minister to either state from the transcript or give a page number or something to do with the order so that, if he does cross the line in giving a statement about a concluded view, he will be brought to order.

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

I say this in all collegiality, but I thank the Manager for Opposition Business for giving me the chance to go to the precise quote. The member for Fadden, at page 4,220, says:

They were the numbers from the department based on the working approach to how the program was being run. They were the accepted figures by government to use. And as a dutiful cabinet minister, ma'am, that is what you do.

And the commissioner replies, 'Misrepresent things to the Australian people?'

The evidence was very idiosyncratic for the member for Fadden. The story that was being put in the royal commission last week was that there was a doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility that allowed the previous government to mislead the people.