Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. I refer to the minister 's comments yesterday on Sky News about the attack on franking credits from this government, and the attack on franking credits he proposed in the 2019 election. Has the minister reflected on the difference between his honesty in 2019, which saw him lose an election, and the Prime Minister's dishonesty which saw him win an election?

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! I think I know what the Leader of the House is going to say, but I give him the call.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I submit that the question is out of order on a number of grounds. Certainly, the tag at the end is something that can only be made by direct resolution, not through the form of a question. And, in terms of the policy carriage of the issue, it's not directed to the accurate minister.

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

I'll 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

The question relates directly to comments that the minister made in the media yesterday. The principle is well established, that a minister can be asked questions about comments that he or she has made publicly. If there are concerns about the last sentence then the member ought to be given the opportunity to rephrase the question.

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

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

In respect to the point that the Manager of Opposition Business just made about whether a comment that someone makes can automatically be asked about during question time: the reference to that in the Practice is specifically when it refers to a previous portfolio. That's on the basis that you can't ask someone about something other than their portfolio. You can only ask about a previous portfolio if they've made a statement on it. To say that if they make a statement on any policy at all it suddenly becomes open slather in question time. It would be a brand-new precedent that we've never had.

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

I am going to allow the deputy leader to rephrase the question and I want her to rephrase the question with respect to standing orders regarding the minister's portfolio. I will give her another crack to ask the question and I am asking her to rephrase the question so it is in relation to his portfolio and the administration that he is responsible for.

Order! The Minister for Home Affairs is not helping.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the Minister for Government Services' comments yesterday on Sky News about the attack on franking credits from this government and the attack on franking credits he proposed in the 2019 election. Has the minister reflected more broadly across his portfolio responsibilities on the difference between his honesty in 2019 when he spoke about franking credits which saw him lose an election and the Prime Minister's dishonesty which saw him win an election, a dishonesty that covers every portfolio in this government?

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! Members on my left and right. That question was barely in order but I will allow the minister to respond in relation to his responsibility as a minister, and if he strays too far he will be sat down as well.

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

I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I did have one prepared about honesty and government in my portfolio. The royal commission into robodebt reflects, I think, one of the low points of honesty by a government, and in our portfolio now we are cleaning up the mess. But one important point which goes to—

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Welcome back to the dispatch box, Bill.

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

Thanks for the robodebt question, Sussan. One important point which goes to this question of honesty in government is really this: there have been a lot of witness statements given by a lot of victims of robodebt in the royal commission and they do make harrowing reading. I'm not sure that the member—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

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

Manager Opposition Business, the question was so broad in terms of honesty and the minister's responsibilities. He is in order, but I'll hear from you.

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

It goes to relevance. It was a question about franking credits and this minister's track record. If he can't answer it, he should sit down.

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

Resume your seat. To reflect about his portfolio, I'll give him the call. He is in order. You've asked the question. It was very broad. The minister is in order.

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

The robodebt royal commission is casting a light on matters which haven't been dealt with before the royal commission. The members opposite, I think, are aware that for 4½ years there was an unlawful scheme raised—an unlawful scheme. And as much as the members opposite don't like to talk about the robodebt royal commission, part of the reason why we are having the royal commission is for 4 ½ years the then government did everything they could to bury the truth. We have heard in a number of question times—oh, my goodness.

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 been very clear on your rulings when it comes to the royal commission that the minister is not entitled to draw conclusions. He is only entitled to refer specifically to evidence. He has been a serial offender on that. He is offending again, and I ask that you direct him back to your ruling.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Manager of Opposition Business and members of the opposition know, the question they've asked goes to all areas of honesty across the portfolio. That is what the question goes to. So, therefore, drawing on material about that doesn't have to draw on whether or not there will be a particular conclusion from the royal commission. The question of those opposite has given us a much broader way of asking those questions.

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

You may resume your seat. We just need to get through this. I give the call to the minister. Do not reflect on findings within the royal commission; proceed with your answer.

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

The robodebt royal commission is necessary because, after 4½ years of breaking the law, the old government never actually explained how it happened. We've had the harrowing statements from witnesses. We've had countless statements from victims. At last count, there were about 400,000 victims of the previous government's illegality. This goes very much to the honesty of services.

In the royal commission, the evidence has come through, and it tells a terrible story. But the reason we're having the royal commission, and the reason why members of parliament should listen carefully to some of the stories that we're hearing now, is that it went on for 4½ years. I don't think any government is immune from making mistakes. I understand that. But surely we need to have the conversation both on this side of the House and on that side of the House. How could you keep breaking the law? That's not a matter for the royal commission. The Commonwealth solicitor said the scheme was unlawful. That's already a fact. But has anyone on that side stopped to think, 'How did we keep breaking the law for 4½ years?' Coalition members may see this as just a partisan issue, but, if we don't understand why it happened and how it happened, so far what we've had is a lot of people saying, 'I don't recall.' But I contrast the honesty of the victims who are bravely retelling their stories with the cowardice of the— (Time expired)