QUESTION TIME

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What advice does the Royal Commission into Robodebt provide to governments about how they should respond to adverse decisions made by bodies hearing appeals? And how did the former government respond to legal challenges or threaten legal challenges?

BILL SHORTEN, MINISTER FOR THE NDIS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES: I thank the Member for his question. The Robodebt Royal Commission found that an effective merits review tribunal to hear appeals against government administrative decisions is essential. It's essential to protect the rights of individuals and to hold the government to account for bad decisions. But the Royal Commission found that successive Coalition governments effectively neutered the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a key protection for Australians during Robodebt.

Now we know that Robodebt launched in 2015, in circumstances where initial legal advice was that Robodebt wasn't in accord with the legislation. We know that. But from 2016, the AAT made a series of decisions that questioned the legal basis for income averaging. Victims would appeal to the AAT and the AAT made a series of decision saying the government was wrong. But Coalition governments at that point had the choice to appeal the decision because the AAT had got it wrong, or to change their policy. But they took a third strategy. They just pretended the decisions weren't happening. Subsequently, on the 8th of March 2017, Professor Terry Carney handed down the first and a series of five explosive decisions, giving reasons for concluding that Robodebt was unlawful. 2017.

And again, what did the government do? Nothing. Just nothing. It just didn't happen. In fact, the Royal Commission has found that in no less than 424 cases where the AAT said that the use of the income averaging to assess part or the whole of the debt was wrong. 424 cases. That's a big number. That's a shocking number. They found that in 424 cases, when the government has been told you're wrong, the government neither had the intestinal fortitude to appeal the decisions, nor did it have the courage to actually say we're going to stop it. They just ignored the problems. This Royal Commission evidence is damning. What this government did, these Coalition, successive Coalition governments did is, you're the victim, you've gone through trauma, you finally get to the AAT, you get your hush money, settlement money, settle up. But what this coalition government never did, what none of you ever failed to do was that you joined the dots. How many cases, how many cases does it take before a government realised it's breaking the law? And do you know what the Royal Commission found out? In over 500 cases at the AAT, not once did the government's lawyers ever argue, ever argue that they could rely on any law. It was a cowardly government. I just ask one thing from the Leader of the Opposition. Admit you were wrong then.

QUESTION: Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What new information has been brought to the attention of government in relation to deficient procurement identified by the Watt Review and by other reviews of government services procurement?

BILL SHORTEN, MINISTER FOR THE NDIS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES: Thank you. Members will recall that on November the 24th last year I updated the House on disturbing reports in The Age/Sydney Morning Herald, about how the former Member for Fadden, Stuart Robert, used his status as a federal MP to assist undeclared Canberra lobbying firm Synergy 360 sign up corporate clients. The allegation was essentially that Synergy 360’s business model is that Mr. Robert was their sort of ace in the hole and could open doors for them.

Following these revelations, two agency heads initiated the Watt Review of procurement practices led by eminent former public servant Dr. Watt. One procurement, reviewed as part of the Wat review, was a massive multi-million-dollar contract awarded to software giant Infosys. That was to upgrade the welfare payments software, it was called the Entitlement Calculation Engine. Also, what has emerged is that Infosys, who got this big contract, had a commercial relationship with Synergy 360. Now, the ECE procurement was meant to transform the way welfare services were delivered in this country, and Infosys and its subsidiaries have been paid $126 million to do this. But after multiple delays and problems, Infosys never delivered what they promised. So, Services Australia has made a decision to stop throwing good money after bad and it's written off the former Liberal government's project at a total cost of $191 million to the taxpayer.

But today in the SMH and Age, there are reports that Stuart Robert frequently met with Infosys beginning in September 2018 when he was Assistant Treasurer and then as a recycled Cabinet Minister after 2019. And furthermore, in documents tendered to Mr. Hill's committee, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit by Infosys, it's revealed that on no less than 11 occasions, Mr. Robert met with Infosys with no probity adviser or APS representative in attendance and at least six of these meetings, miraculously, Synergy 360 was in attendance.

Now we know from Infosys testimony to public hearing that Infosys, who got $126 million from the former Coalition government, paid Synergy 360, $16 million. Of course, the other thing that we've learnt here is that somewhat decently Synergy 360 in 2017 they gave Mr. Roberts chief fundraiser in Queensland, Mr. Margerison, whereabouts unknown, they gave him a free 20% share of the lobbying company. So now this is where we're at. Mr. Robert’s left the building. Mr. Margerison has left the country. There's been $191 million splashed up against the proverbial wall of taxpayers’ money. Now the question is for the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition, what steps have you taken to satisfy yourself as to the probity of Mr. Robert’s conduct? Have you asked the Queensland LNP where Mr. Margerison is and is he still an LNP member? And will you repudiate Mr. Robert’s conduct?