Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Government Services. After the recent fortnight of public hearings at the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, what have we learnt about who was responsible for the shameful robodebt scheme? The SPEAKER: I give the call to the Minister for the National— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right! I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher: Mr Speaker, I just want to draw your attention to the words of Speaker Snedden when a similar issue arose about the extent to which commentary should occur in this place about the proceedings of a royal commission. What Speaker Snedden said— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. Mr Fletcher: He said: … I regard it as going beyond the bounds of our sub judice rules if the honourable gentleman puts any construction on the matter for the simple reason that if the Royal Commissioner in fact concluded in a way which was consistent with the honourable gentleman's construction it may appear that the Commissioner was influenced … So this is a very important issue, which has been considered by previous speakers. We have seen the minister who's about to come to the dispatch box trample over this important distinction before, and I urge you to consider this carefully. The SPEAKER: I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke: In considering it, as has been asked by the Manager of Opposition Business, I'd just refer to Practice, where it's really clear that royal commissions are allowed to be asked about. If you look at royal commissions that were held during the life of the previous government, a very different argument was being put back then. There is a long-held precedent on being able to deal with royal commissions. The SPEAKER: I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher : The question is not whether royal commissions are entitled to be asked about. The question is: what are the guardrails that should be put around what is said about them? That is the point that Speaker Snedden was going to, because it goes to the question of whether there is an appearance of the royal commissioner's findings being influenced. The SPEAKER: I had a feeling this subject would be raised and I want to give some direction to the House because I'm sure there will be further questions on this matter. As a first principle: The application of the sub judice convention is subject to the discretion of the Chair at all times. The Chair should always have regard to the basic rights and interests of Members in being able to raise and discuss matters of concern in the House. That is from page 521 of Practice. I'm going to refer to former Speaker Smith, who noted in relation to comment in proceedings about a royal commission: … it would be a ridiculous restriction of debate if matters that have been raised in public and reported in the media could not be aired in the national parliament. I will be listening to the minister carefully, but that is the direction I'll be following, and I refer members to Practice, pages 521 to 523. I call the minister.