ABC news article: Voice to Parliament referendum pamphlets for Yes and No camps published by AEC

On the Australian Electoral Commission's website:

• The case for voting Yes

• The case for voting No

The Sydney Morning Herald / The Age newspapers have provided annotated versions of each pamphlet:

• The Yes pamphlet annotated: 14 things you should know

• 17 things you need to know about the No pamphlet

As has been observed in those annotation pages, there is no legal requirement for either of these pamphlets to be truthful or factual, and there is no obligation for the AEC to fact-check them (in fact, the AEC is legally restrained from commenting on those pamphlets in any way - its role is restricted to disseminating those pamphlets, because it must stay neutral).

Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Tabled_Documents/2743

Some summary quotes:

From the Preface:

It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme’s legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings. Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the Scheme’s lack of legal foundation coming to light. Equally disheartening was the ineffectiveness of what one might consider institutional checks and balances – the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, the Office of Legal Services Coordination, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – in presenting any hindrance to the Scheme’s continuance.

From the Conclusion:

The report paints a picture of how the Robodebt Scheme (the Scheme) was put together on an illconceived, embryonic idea and rushed to Cabinet. If ever there were a case of giving an unproportion’d thought his act, this was it.

The application of [public interest] immunity has also limited the Commission’s ability to reveal the entirety of the documentation concerning how the original proposal which became Robodebt, was passed and what was put to Cabinet thereafter. The salient points have been able to be made, but large parts of the relevant ministerial briefs, materials put before Cabinet and Cabinet minutes themselves have not been able to be revealed.

One of the questions in the Terms of Reference is when the Australian Government knew or ought to have known that debts were not, or may not have been, validly raised. [...] Some DHS senior executives always had that knowledge; some DSS senior executives must have suspected it, at least by 2016. As to members of the Government, one Minister, Mr Morrison, took the proposal to Cabinet, knowing that it involved income averaging and that his own Department had indicated that it would require legislative change, but on the basis of the contrary indication in the NPP checklist, proceeded without enquiring as to how the change had come about.

And... this ticking time-bomb from the covering letter:

I have provided to you an additional chapter of the report which has not been included in the bound report and is sealed. It recommends the referral of individuals for civil action or criminal prosecution. 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.

Some news articles:

• Robodebt royal commission findings revealed, individuals referred for criminal prosecution

• ‘Dishonesty and collusion’: Robo-debt report recommends criminal and civil prosecutions

• Robodebt royal commission final report: key findings on Scott Morrison, Stuart Robert and Kathryn Campbell

• Royal commission into robodebt scheme ‘recommends referrals of individuals for civil and criminal prosecution’

Yesterday, the Australian government announced it will pay back $721m as it scraps Robodebt for Centrelink welfare recipients.

But the class action lodged against the robodebt scheme will continue, because "the Government still needs to answer to claims of compensation and claims of damages and inconvenience and distress that this system has caused".