Four key moments from Scott Morrison’s robo-debt hearing

Key points

• Scott Morrison faced the robo-debt royal commission over his role in approving the program while he was social services minister in 2015.
• The system took annual income data and averaged it over 26 fortnights, presuming it was the same across each, and put the onus on welfare recipients to disprove alleged debts.
• Morrison told the commission he believed the scheme was legal but was ultimately proven wrong, and that the method of calculating debts, income averaging, wasn’t new.

Scott Morrison’s evidence before the robo-debt royal commission centred on his assertion that issues raised by departmental staff about the legality of the scheme and its method of income averaging had been resolved by the time the proposal went to cabinet.

The former prime minister also repeatedly frustrated those examining him over the way he answered questions.

‘I didn’t see it as necessary’

Morrison was persistently asked about the discrepancy between the draft advice he was given regarding the welfare crackdown proposal and the submission that ultimately went to cabinet, in which text identifying the need for legislative change was erased.

• Holmes: “You have the minute that says legislative change is required, and it’s your own department that’s saying that. Then you get a new policy proposal that says legislative change is not required. Why don’t you ask your own department?”
• Morrison: “Because I didn’t see it as necessary, because they had affirmed that so strongly, and I had great faith in the department to work through the matters that they were working through.”

‘This is your reading of the act?’

Holmes also grilled Morrison on his knowledge of the legislation underpinning the program, particularly in relation to issuing debts to past welfare recipients.

• Holmes: “I’m just asking you what you understood to be the legal basis for understanding how someone who may not have been on a benefit for six months or three years or whatever, [has an obligation] to confirm or deny ATO data.”
• Morrison: “I would say that in relation to the identification of a debt, then it’s not unreasonable for the secretary to seek information as to whether they were kept appraised of the beneficiary’s income at the time.”
• He went onto to say the secretary had the power to compel someone to attend the department and the power to obtain information.
• Holmes: “Mr Morrison, this is your reading of the act or you had some advice about this?”
• Morrison responded it was his “plain English” understanding of the legislation.

‘I’m happy to be available tomorrow’

Morrison was chided by both commissioner Catherine Holmes and her counsel assisting, Justin Greggery, over the length and nature of his answers. Here’s one exchange conveying the commission’s frustration:

• Greggery: “The last 10 minutes has been consumed because the simple answer ‘no’ to my question about ‘Did you ask why these things weren’t provided to you?’ has strayed off in other areas, which we will come to … you might not be available tomorrow …”
• Morrison: “I’m happy to be available tomorrow, and the day after.”
• At an earlier stage, Holmes said: “Can I just get you to the stick to answering the question a bit more? I do understand that you come from a background where rhetoric is important but it is necessary to listen to the question.”

‘Your belief was proved wrong by history’

Morrison’s persistence that he believed the scheme was legally sound was followed by a concession that it was ultimately shown not to be. In late 2019 a Federal Court judge said the scheme and its primary method of debt calculation, income averaging, was unlawful. Later a class action was settled by the Commonwealth.

• Morrison said he had “great confidence in my officials and I had every reason to have that confidence”.
• Greggery: “Your belief was proved wrong with history.”
• Morrison: “Unfortunately, yes. As I said, the suggestion to me that internal department legal advice was not conveyed to ministers was unthinkable.”
• Greggery: “And yet it happened.”
• Morrison: “Yes.”

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.

Most Viewed in Politics

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article