QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway—Attorney-General) (15:13): I thank the member for her question and the way in which she has engaged on this matter. I must respectfully say that the premise of the honourable member's question is not correct. I would point out for the benefit of the House that it was this government that initiated a royal commission into robodebt because we understand the importance of restoring integrity to what was an illegal scheme that destroyed lives.

Secondly, only weeks ago, we as a government announced the single largest class action settlement in Australian history to bring that sordid matter to a close. But I will say in relation to the cabinet exemption about which the honourable member asks that these changes are designed to clarify existing exemptions. That is to make sure they are consistent with their original policy intent, so that they are applied where they should be applied and cannot be applied where they shouldn't be applied.

The cabinet exemption has been amended to clarify its operation and ensure it appropriately protects information central to the cabinet process, which is consistent with its original intent. Speaking of robodebt, to address a concern that was raised in the 2023 royal commission into robodebt, the amendments would also make it absolutely clear that merely labelling something 'cabinet-in-confidence' does not make it so.

That is a fundamental part of this legislation that is proposed. I would also point out that the proposed amendments are consistent with provisions that already exist in a number of state jurisdictions. I want to make it clear, because the honourable member has asked about robodebt, that the government accepted or accepted in principle all 56 recommendations made by the royal commission.

In relation to the closing observation made by the royal commission about the cabinet exemption, the government stated that it is critical that the cabinet, a key decision-making body of government, is comprehensively informed in all its deliberations because the decisions taken by the cabinet are collective and the principle of collective responsibility requires that ministers should be able to express their views frankly in cabinet meetings in the expectation they can argue freely in private while maintaining unity in public when those decisions have been reached.

This, in turn, requires that opinions expressed in the cabinet and cabinet committees, including in documents and any correspondence, are treated as confidential.