Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. How do the actual findings of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme compare with what members of former Liberal governments say about robodebt?

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

The member for Calwell's question is very important to Australians because those opposite would like to think that robodebt's now in the rear-vision mirror of Australian politics, and they just want to move on. But the nation cannot move on until those who were in government, now in opposition, actually accept accountability and responsibility. It is inevitable that, if they don't learn the lessons of the past, Australians can expect this again in the future.

The then government ministers have had a lot to say about robodebt. The member for Cook has said that the royal commission findings on him are just wrong, and, with his trademark blame-shifting, he said this was a political lynching of him and that he would like Labor to move on. But how does the nation move on when the member for Cook says one thing but the commission rejected Mr Morrison's evidence as untrue?

The commission says Mr Morrison knew that the policy proposal that he brought forward to the cabinet:

… represented a complete reversal of the legal position without explanation.

The royal commission said:

Mr Morrison allowed Cabinet to be misled …

I'll repeat that because it seems that some on the opposition front bench don't realise:

Mr Morrison allowed Cabinet to be misled because he did not make that obvious inquiry.

It goes on to say the former Prime Minister of Australia:

… failed to meet his ministerial responsibility to ensure that Cabinet was properly informed …

But it wasn't just the member for Cook. A generation of coalition cabinet ministers have had their legacies tainted by the unlawful actions of the robodebt scheme. I remember Mr Tudge saying he was going to 'find the welfare cheats and hunt them down'. But the commission said about former minister Tudge that he made the decision to:

… publicly release the personal details of one particular person to the media, following an opinion piece she wrote, critical of her treatment by Centrelink …

The royal commission said:

Mr Tudge's use of information about social security recipients in the media to distract from and discourage commentary about the Scheme's problems represented an abuse of that power. It was all the more reprehensible in view of the power imbalance between the minister and the cohort of people upon whom it would reasonably be expected to … dependent on the … minister …

There was, of course, our friend the former member for Fadden, Mr Robert, who came up with the new doctrine that cabinet solidarity meant that he could actually make statements of fact as to the accuracy of debts which he knew could not be right. The royal commission said about that cabinet minister:

Nothing compels ministers to knowingly make false statements, or statements which they have good reason to suspect are untrue …

The real issue here that Australians want to hear is: do the rest of the coalition agree with Mr Morrison about the royal commission or do they accept responsibility for breaking the law for 4½ years?