From 46m agoKey events16m agoRobodebt ‘gaslighted the nation’: Bill Shorten29m agoPM: robodebt was ‘a gross betrayal and a human tragedy’38m agoRobodebt ended up costing taxpayers $565m, delivered no savings46m agoScott Morrison ‘allowed cabinet to be misled’: commissioner1h agoRobodebt stemmed from ‘venality, incompetence and cowardice’: commissioner1h agoRoyal commission refers individuals to four entities for further investigation1h ago’Crude and cruel’1h agoRobodebt report.html” title=”Australian lawmakers blast Murdoch's 'troubling media monopoly' in new report”>royal commission report released2h agoRobodebt commission recap2h agoRobodebt royal commission final report confirms referrals for prosecution3h agoThe costs for legal representation at the robodebt royal commission:3h agoRobodebt royal commission report handed to governor general4h agoRobodebt: the anatomy of a five-year, billion-dollar scandal4h agoBill Shorten confirms reason royal commission sought reporting extension5h agoLabor rejects opposition demands to consider nuclear power5h agoGlobal shares rattled over fears of higher rates5h agoCity of Sydney tops NSW Homelessness table6h agoWelcomeFilters BETAKey events (18)Catherine Holmes (15)Robodebt royal commission (12)Scott Morrison (9)DHS (8)Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (8)now22.23 EDT
Albanese says they have not had time to get the appropriate legal advice about the contents of the report and as a result of it, as they received it at the same time as everyone else – including the public.
This is a common theme in both Shorten and Albanese’s answers here, and they’re leaning on it as evidence of the Labor government being more transparent than their predecessors.
4m ago22.19 EDT
A question now on accountability and transparency: is it fair that the public won’t be told who is being referred for criminal prosecution?
Albanese defers to the commissioner’s decision to seal that section of the report:
This is a decision taken by the royal commission. The royal commissioner made it clear why she has made that decision. In the letter that was forwarded, what she says is, ‘I recommend that this additional chapter remain sealed and not be tabled with the rest of the report so as not to prejudice the conduct of any future civil action or criminal prosecution.’ She is not saying that it will not occur. In fact, she is saying the opposite is why that has occurred. That is the decision that has been made.
We have made the decision here, to be very clear, I received the report at the same time that you did today. As did the Minister. We cannot have been more transparent. Holding a press conference immediately. We gave you the same time that we had to go through. That is why I have got a document here with little quotes marks out. We being as transparent as possible. We need to sure as well but you do not prejudice action, and I think people want action. As a result of this. We would take the appropriate legal advice there as well.
7m ago22.16 EDT
‘Very different’ approach from Labor government:…
2023-07-06 21:10:18
Original from www.theguardian.com
rnrn