And with that, we will leave you to your evening.
Thank you for joining us for Scott Morrison’s testimony to the royal commission. It will form part of the commission’s conclusions – and there is still the proof Scott Morrison has been asked for, for his assertions that income averaging has always been used, as requested by the commissioner Catherine Holmes, to come.
Luke Henriques-Gomes will continue his stellar coverage of the royal commission as it continues.
And as always, if you or a loved one were impacted by robodebt, we hope you will get the answers you deserve.
Take care of you.
If you haven’t had a chance to read it, here is Luke Henriques-Gomes piece on the first half of Scott Morrison’s evidence. He is working on updating it with the second half of the testimony right now.
And to his main evidence – robodebt in his opinion wasn’t an issue, as income averaging had been done since the early 1990s, as far as he was concerned. He is not sure where he learned that, but someone gave him verbal advice that income averaging had been used since about 1994 and he never questioned whether or not it was an issue.
Updated
So in his answer to his own counsel there, Scott Morrison repeated his “regret” at what had happened with robodebt (which he had previously expressed to the parliament) and made the points he wanted to make throughout his entire evidence: he acted with the information at the time, and if he had seen the legal advice saying it was unlawful, then the government of the day probably wouldn’t have gone ahead with the program.
Why didn’t anyone make sure he did see that legal advice? Who can say, says Scott Morrison.
Updated
Morrison concludes appearance before royal commission
And so, with that, Scott Morrison is excused from the royal commission into robodebt.
Updated
Morrison recommends public servant training emphasise ability to give free and frank advice
Scott Morrison continues:
And as a result, I think there are important lessons to be learned and I have no doubt commissioner, that is what you’re directing your attention to. And I appreciate the work of you and the commission and the senior counsel and what you’re attempting to do here.
But in looking at all of that, if I look back at the one critical point where the system didn’t do what it needed to do – to assist good decision making is where someone was aware of something that significant – it must be brought to the attention of the minister in order for them to make that decision.
I understand the point about ‘why didn’t you ask’. I understand that. We’re not dealing with a situation here where there wasn’t advice and the minister then asked for advice and then they would have then gone and got it.
We’re talking about a situation where there was advice, and a very clear set of advice, I stress, once I’ve had the opportunity to see it, and how that did not get elevated and raised with ministers will remain a mystery.
And I hope that one that is solved to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
Is that something Morrison would recommend the Australian public service commissioner might take up in training public servants in the future, his counsel asks?
Oh, absolutely. I mean, the provision of free and frank advice is an important part of the public service and it’s something that I’ve always relied on and I must say in my experience as a minister I’ve got plenty of it. Plenty of it. And I welcomed it, and those who provided free and frank advice, I know appreciated the ability to give it, but the other thing that I always appreciated was secretaries and others I work with that haven’t given that advice and a minister making a decision.
Or a prime minister, for that matter, making [a] decisions. Those public servants got on with their responsibility to implement the government’s decision, which takes me to the speech, which counsel assisting referred to earlier (the expect and respect one).
Updated
Morrison gives a closing monologue
So there are Scott Morrison’s answers to those seven points.
He is then given the opportunity to make a closing monologue of sorts, from his own counsel. A royal commission dixer, if you will.
Scott Morrison:
I’d simply say this as ministers, the process is the guardrail. The process is something that ministers rely on to be fulfilled, and they rely on those who are professional in ensuring submissions are comprehensive, to give cabinet ministers confidence in the information that’s in front of them. And that process is very exhaustive.
And I know, understandably, the points that are raised by the counsel assisting, if you’ve not been directly involved in the pulling together of these submissions within government, then it is understandable that you might form an outsider’s view that that period of time is not a long period of time, but I can tell you in government, you’d be surprised how quickly it moves.
As I said, I saw that with the public service at its best when Australia was under such great threat during the pandemic, with measures that were in the tens of billions in terms of expenditures, as well as very important health measures. So I would simply say that the process in Australia is a very sound one.
And one that I think has a great deal of strength and credibility in which ministers, I think, are quite reasonably able to rely upon, whether it was my government or the one I was part of, indeed, the government now … they would be equally well served, I’m sure by their officials, and they will be following similar processes. I have no doubt and that is what … ministers and I hope the public [have] confidence about how these matters [are] dealt with.
So is therefore when the system doesn’t work, and there is a failure in the system such as the one we have discussed today. And that is deeply concerning. And of course, I believe everybody, including whether they are the secretaries of the departments through to the frontline service, people within services Australia, as well as all ministers and their staff, deeply and deeply regret how this programme impacted on individuals and I certainly do and I expressed [as] such in the parliament as prime minister.
Updated
Morrison: critical failure in the system was that the issue was not raised with the ministers at any time
Scott Morrison:
And in relation to the finance brief in 2010. Well, I think that’s a practical reality … if that meant that the 2010 year was not available, and if it wasn’t legislated in that time, then simply … the estimates would have been adjusted.
And that wasn’t a reason either to go ahead or not go ahead, and that would be my reflection now, in terms of what you’ve suggested are the cumulative impacts of all of these things.
And now I don’t accept that proposition. I can’t conceive of any arrangement with any of these things that would say to a department who had that advice in the form that I have now seen it, and to hold that for ministers, not just in 2015, on multiple occasions in which these issues were brought back … time and again between then and 2019 and to read as we did in May 2020. In the very submission before cabinet, that this issue had never been raised with ministers at any time.
Those are not my words, but those of the department.
So that is the situation we found ourselves in and you’re right. The critical failure in the system.
And I’m making no judgments on any individuals, was that this advice, which had been sought prior to my turning up, was not brought to the attention of ministers. And I believe there was an obligation and duty to do so. And that … was a reasonable expectation of a minister of the department.
Updated
‘Savings was not the primary objective of the measure’: Morrison
Scott Morrison:
The primary issue here was the matter of integrity in the system. By pursuing integrity of the system, you ensure that there are not overpayments and taxpayers money that has been improperly paid is recovered.
And that has a positive savings outcome on the budget, not by withdrawing entitlements from anyone or putting taxes on anyone. So had the measure not been feasible, then it wouldn’t have been pursued. And as a result that that would not be a a savings measure that could have been included in the budget.
And … [had] we formed the view and had I formed the view that on the basis of legislation, that wouldn’t be achievable … it simply wouldn’t have been pursued. Which is why the non-coming forward with … advice is so disappointing. In this process, had that advice come forward, I sincerely believe we would not be sitting here today.
… there would either been legislation, dealt with it and was achieved or the measure would not have been pursued by the government and I would not have pursued it as minister. Remember, this was not a measure that the government initiated … this was a measure that was initiated within the public service and brought to us which we agreed to take forward based on those representations.
So on the savings, the savings would have been in the budget, but that was not the primary objective of the measure.
Updated
‘I don’t suggest that having a strong view on enforcement is extraordinary in any way’: Morrison
Scott Morrison:
But whether it required legislation that would have been considered and if we didn’t believe it was possible, and it wouldn’t have been pursued on the Senate crossbench, the success, well, it is as you say: we have many … legislated measures.
And I can only repeat what I’ve just said in relation to point five, which is the policy position on [the] ‘welfare cop’ aspect: I think you read too much into that. I was simply articulating, I think, a fairly … ordinary principle.
And I don’t resile from that: as minister I expected that only the payments that should have been made [would] be made. So we can ensure that the payments that needed to be made could be made to those who needed the most. And that was what I meant by welfare integrity.
You [the] ensure integrity of a programme to protect the programme, because you care about the people who most need that programme.
And so no, I don’t suggest that having a strong view about enforcement is extraordinary in any way. And I would have hoped that that would have been something that would be shared on the issue of savings.
Updated
Morrison: legislative change timeframe was not a major factor
Scott Morrison:
So the legislative change timetable. Well, no, that was not … a reason for it not to proceed. And it’s not a reason that it may or may not have been accomplished if we had the view, and there was a fair view that we already had as a government, a fairly long list of legislated measures, and … had this measure required legislation, then we may well not have pursued it.
In fact, it would have been unlikely that we would, because there were many other issues that we were pursuing.
I note in the the portfolio budget submission that this item was not even referred to in any detail in the introduction to the submission referred to … the many other government priorities that were set out in my charter letter and, and and as we articulated particularly in the speeches that you referred to, which did not include the SI WP item. So the legislative timetable issue, I would respectfully suggest was not factoring heavily.
Updated
Scott Morrison:
(The waver to the voice is gone by this next sentence)
The legislative change timetable and the suggestion that this wasn’t practical. Well, this wasn’t something that became material.
So … as you probably picked up, counsel, from my answers to earlier questions, whether it needed to be in place by the first of July 2015 or 2016.
I can’t tell you because we still don’t know what the legislative change would have been. It may have allowed the pilot [programme] to proceed on the first of July to 2015, but knowing that it would need to be legislated by the time of the broader-scale implementation 2016, I don’t know. So it wasn’t a material issue of consideration.
At that time in terms of any stop date, my honest understanding of the issue at the time, there were … other measures in the 51-item portfolio budget submission that did have those requirements. And I was aware of those … We did get them legislated in that timeframe, despite the situation on the crossbench that you refer to which [was] real.
Updated
Scott Morrison:
Secondly, I mean, we’ve talked about the issue of asking for advice and not asking for advice. I relied on the department, I had great faith in the department. I understand, under the cabinet handbook, what my responsibilities are and I put trust in that relationship and being able to assert about the correct status of the sufficient terms of the timeframe as I noted, that is not an unusual timeframe. And I’ve seen departments work that at timeframes a 10th, if not, even more quickly than that on difficult measures.
(There is a little waver to his voice here)
I saw the public service in this country at its best during the pandemic, what they are capable of, only ministers and prime ministers I think can really appreciate and that’s why I have great respect for them. They’re not infallible, they’re not invulnerable. They will make mistakes from time to time as will others. But I have the greatest respect for all of those I work with on these matters.
Updated
It was ‘inconceivable’ that advice would not come to me from the department: Morrison
Here are Scott Morrison’s answers to those contentions.
Well in relation to point one, as I indicated before, it is inconceivable to me in all my experience as a minister and a prime minister that your own department who had had legal advice – certainly that had predated even my coming into the portfolio – that I wouldn’t have been elevated within the department and that would not have been raised directly with me.
There was not the idea that I would have assumed that they had advice and weren’t giving it to me … [that’s] inconceivable. In my knowledge of those individuals … had that information come forward in the way that I’ve now seen it, which I did not see at the time and certainly before late 2019 in terms of the solicitor general’s advice, but the actual advice that was circulating, even prior to my arrival in the portfolio, then I doubt we’d be sitting here today.
Updated
Seven points as to why robodebt proceeded
Justin Greggery then goes through seven points he may make to the commissioner, Catherine Holmes, and asks Scott Morrison to note them, so he may respond to them.
Greggery (after saying that there might be later evidence which gives some light to this):
…in the evidence so far, there are a number of features which give rise to a possible finding about why legal advice was not drawn to your attention.
The first is that it was not asked for by you when you had the opportunity to ask for it from your department.
The second is the short timeframe between your signing of the executive minute and the development of the proposal within perhaps as short as two weeks and as long as five weeks.
The third is that the identification of the need for legislative change in the executive minute was not practically possible, or the introduction of the measure, in practice, by [the first of] July 2015.
The fourth is the time constraint issue … the constitution of the Senate, with the Coalition having 33 seats, the Labor party having 25 and there being 18 crossbench positions, was not a positive indicator for the success of legislative change proposals.
Five is that you had communicated a policy position prior to receiving the executive minute on the radio which use[d] strong language about welfare reform and cracking down [in] dealing with fraud.
Six is that the matter had real attraction to you because of its significance as a savings measure towards a balanced budget.
And seven, the feature identified in the finance comments about the statute of limitations and the urgency from that perspective.
Updated
Morrison: the system did present some real challenges to people who were asked to meet a high standard
Pressed on who may have given him that advice, Scott Morrison says it was seven years ago.
Justin Greggery points out that recipients of a robodebt notice had been asked to find payslips from seven years ago.
Greggery:
Do you appreciate the irony of the position now that you are now in having to recall events from seven years ago? To the position that this measure placed welfare recipients or former welfare recipients in, in having to prove evidence of fortnightly income from as much as six years earlier? In order to avoid the raising of a debt?
Morrison:
The difference that I would only note is this – you’re asking me to recall an oral conversation of seven years ago.
Morrison then says that if he needed to get his bank statements from the past, when the debts were raised, he could. Greggery makes the point that bank statements were enough – people were first asked to get payslips from seven years ago.
You’re well educated and it might not be a big matter for you to get bank statements from years ago, but as you identify, that wasn’t permitted in the early stages of the scheme: people had to find payslips and that presented some real challenges, didn’t it, to people who you’re asking to meet this very high [standard]?
Morrison:
It did and that’s why I’m pleased that they altered the programme.
Greggery:
Putting to one side the question of legality, and putting to one side the question of whether you sought advice or didn’t seek advice [on] all of those issues … did you appreciate that this was a measure which asked a lot of a potentially vulnerable cohort of Australians?
Morrison (after taking a few beats to think):
The management of the social security system is a very difficult task for those who administer and I’m not talking about ministers. I’m talking about those who administer it each and every day [in] Centrelink services Australia offices around the country. And they deal with these difficulties whether it’s this programme or any number of others. Every single day.
So, in seeking to ensure the integrity of the system, then that does of course put obligations on individuals who have been the recipients of payments. That is unavoidable. And in seeking to ensure the integrity of system and any overpayments are dealt with, then that is a difficult part of the system to manage.
Pretending that overpayments aren’t made, I’m not sure there is a way that you can’t deal with that in fairness to the taxpayer as well.
Updated
So we have Scott Morrison agreeing that he believed income averaging was a long standard practice, and that someone had given him verbal advice to that effect, and he never questioned it, because he believed it was the way the department had operated since at least 1994.
He doesn’t know when he received that advice, or from whom, but he is convinced income averaging was the way things had always been done.
Morrison rebuked over comment
Scott Morrison then uses the same sort of cheap shot he would make towards journalists or opposition MPs who challenged him on answers he gave: “Well you may have a different view about that and it may not suit your position”.
It is the second time Morrison has said something to that effect. Justin Greggery then picks him up on it.
Mr Morrison, can I just take up with you something you suggested about my position in your answer where you said that I may have a different view about that and it may not suit, and I assure you my questions are directed towards the gathering of evidence, not my personal view.
That it’s the second time you’ve said it, and you should be clear about my position.
Updated
Income averaging was 'an established practice': Morrison
Scott Morrison on averaging:
It was established practice, it was it was not a matter of controversy. It was not a matter of intense scrutiny at the time and including by stakeholders. This was the purpose of me engaging with stakeholders … to understand what their priorities were and to see what sensitivities there were and things that I should be aware of in administering the portfolio.
This was not an issue that was receiving the focus and attention that it is today. And so the circumstances were very different. It was an established practice. That was my knowledge of it.
Catherine Holmes
Your understanding was [it] was an established practice for DHS to raise debts on the basis of average income data in the absence of a response from the recipient.
Morrison says yes.
Holmes:
All right, and that’s from some verbal advice you got somewhere along the line … I’m just trying to get to how you got that understanding.
Morrison:
You’re asking me to try and describe to you how I knew something in 2015 in January, and I’m seeking to give you as best as my recollection as I can. But in reasonableness, it’s given this was not an issue that was receiving significant attention at the time.
This was an established practice of the Department of Human Services, and was not under question. And it had not been raised with me by the stakeholders. I cannot honestly recall the specifics of a conversation that may have taken for less than an hour seven years ago.
Holmes
In 2019 when the solicitor general said that it clearly was not a lawful basis for raising debts, did you think back to how did I get the idea it was?
Morrison says he knew that some of that came from the submission he took to cabinet.
So we have just gone round in circles. Morrison knew what he knew when he knew it, until he knew differently.
Updated
Morrison received verbal advice that income average was standard practice from someone he can’t identify at a point in time he can’t pinpoint
Scott Morrison says he received verbal advice at some point that income averaging was standard practice.
Justin Greggery summarises it like this:
It was the information you’d received orally from someone you can’t identify at some point in time. You can’t identify anything new, which led you to not be troubled by the assertion that it was new.
Morrison interrupts to say it was seven years ago. But then responds:
Your opening statement refer to the fact that the notion of averaging was not [on a] scale … previously attempted, I agree with you. That’s that’s what we’re really dealing with here. This was taking a practice that had been used by the department and was doing it at a different scale with the use of new technology and new data sources.
And it is always the case in my experience in government, that the technology available to me as minister in 2015 was very different to the technology available to minister Richardson back in in the early 90s. And back then it was done with the transfer of a tape, I assume by a courier.
And in 2015, things were different. And the department rightly would always be looking for ways in which it could use new technology to better manage its responsibilities and that what they found was that by using the automated processes, that this could be … at least five times more cost effective in performing their responsibilities, that would seem to be … an understandable and proper thing for them to be doing.
Updated
Morrison to provide evidence income averaging had occurred since 1994
The commissioner then asks Scott Morrison to provide proof that income averaging had always occurred, as he has contended throughout his appearance at the royal commission (and previously, in parliament):
Catherine Holmes:
Alright, Mr. Morrison. I want to give you every opportunity and respect, so what I would invite you to do – because I am dubious about what you say is evidence of it happening as a regular standard practice, because all you’ve referred to in the past seems to be politicians saying we’re data matching, which seems to be a different thing – but if you would like to provide to the commission a list of evidence of previous use of averaging, we’d be very happy to receive it with reference to documents if you can.
Scott Morrison smiles with some satisfaction.
I thank you for that, commissioner. I suspect that will get us back in the same territory of PII.
Holmes:
I’m having trouble following that because I’m just going over the … evidence of the practice in the department.
Morrison says it is the “very evidence that I sought to table today”.
Holmes asks if this is the Stuart Robert statement from 2020 to the parliament. Morrison says:
No, what I’m talking about … is … these are letters from the mainframe of the Department of Social Security, which are addressed to people to whom debts are being raised on the basis of income averaging, in 1994.
Holmes says the commission will be getting those letters.
Justin Greggery picks it back up:
You were asked how you knew about this long history of income averaging. And you said, because you went through the briefings, and then a little later years it was because well, you relied upon it coming up early in the course of information at some point. Do I take it from your answer, that the practice of averaging was not referred to in any of the written briefings that you received?
And in terms of the oral information that you received, and you can’t identify who gave that to you?
Morrison:
No, because there were many discussions, but there’s just a foundational way of the way DHS worked.
Greggery:
And you can identify from which department that information came from?
Morrison:
That will not only have come from DHS, I assume in discussions that I had, but I can’t recall it. Specifically. It was not a controversial matter at the time.
Greggery:
And in the context of that oral information you received. You don’t recall being provided with any documentary support for the information.
Morrison says no.
Updated
Commissioner dubious on Morrison assertion averaging had been happening since at least 1994
Scott Morrison:
So the objective of the process is to understand what the actual fortnightly income was. And so the technique, method, process, call it what you like, that had been adopted by governments going back as far as 1989.
He goes on.
Catherine Holmes:
Well, we won’t go into how they’re obliged to provide it at assuming is no response. What happens next?
Morrison:
The same has been occurring for the previous 20 years … that is, manual intervention where possible, okay, and then averaging. That’s what was going on, as far back as 1994.
Holmes:
… You keep asserting that, but I’m a little dubious about your evidence for it. At any rate, coming back to the actual process of averaging, which you accept was going to apply if somebody didn’t respond: how could that accord with your understanding of the basis of entitlement under the Act, which is actual fortnightly income, in the absence of any other information provided by the recipient and the irregularity which has been identified by their annual income, and in the absence of any information provided by the recipient when they’ve been given the opportunity to do so?
Morrison:
Well, that was the approach the department took … the path that governments took for decades. Which … goes back to the Department of Social Security and minister Richardson [in 1991].
Holmes then goes back to how if nothing was changing, there was advice about the need for legal advice (which then changed).
Morrison goes back to what he had previously said about stakeholders – that no one was raising it as a problem – as proof that income averaging was normal practice.
None of these stakeholders [were] raising issues about the use of income averaging, none of them. There was no question really about this as being … an issue at that time … Now, in hindsight….
Holmes:
Would it be? Did you consider that they weren’t raising income averaging because it wasn’t happening on any regular basis?
Morrison:
Well, Commissioner, it was.
Holmes has had enough.
Updated
Morrison: I did not ask for legal advice on the practice of averaging
We then get back to Scott Morrison’s claim that averaging had been done for years before robodebt.
Catherine Holmes:
Did you ask DHS at any stage for advice about how averaging had actually been applied for the last 20 years?
Morrison:
It was a given in the system. It had been done for so long.
Holmes:
How did you know that?
Morrison:
Because I’ve gone through my briefings. This had been an established practice.
Holmes:
You had a briefing that said averaging was an established practice.
Morrison:
It was part of the DHS debt recovery operations. We were talking about welfare integrity as the executive minute and others demonstrate this is a matter that was discussed.
The issue is that you’re trying to find out what the actual income was, and getting that information from the recipient. And when the ombudsman undertook their inquiry to this they found that when the information was correct, the OCI programmes they referred found that the … debt accuracy was … very, very accurate. Or the objective here by the Department of Human Services was not to raise debts that didn’t exist. Quite the opposite.
Holmes:
I’m asking you about 2015. Had you received any advice from DHS? As to how averaging actually operated?
Morrison:
It would have come up in verbal briefings I’m sure. I mean, I was aware of it. I can’t give you a specific piece of advice or when or where, but it’s it had been around for a long time.
Holmes:
Did you ask at any stage for advice on the legality of this practice?
Morrison:
No, I did not.
Holmes:
Why not?
Morrison:
Because there was no issue that was being raised. There were no cases.
Holmes:
Mr Morrison, If I can stop you. You’re familiar with the Act, which I would infer meant that you also knew that for income support payments entitlement was worked out on the basis of actual income per fortnight? Here is a completely different approach which is just to take a year’s income and divide it by 26. Which common sense will tell you is not the same thing. You didn’t see the need over to check how that could happen.
Morrison:
It is part of a process.
Updated
Morrison: department said that legal advice was not needed
Justin Greggery:
Would you agree it’s also an unremarkable position to adopt that you would want clear legal advice if there was going to be a programme introduced which required significant taxpayer expenditure? And the question had been raised at any time about whether it required legislative change to implement it or not, if that position had been resolved?
So was it unusual to not seek legal advice on issues such as these? Or to check whether legislation would be needed?
Morrison refers to a 2019 speech he gave about the public service (which Greggery had previously raised):
I expected … and I respected the experience, professionalism and capability that the public service bring to the table, both in terms of policy advice and implementation skills. And as a minister, you have to make assessments and judgments about the capability of the people you are working with in order to fulfil your responsibilities and to be able to deal with the many matters that you have to deal with.
And I did have a strong relationship … I’ve had that with all the public servants I’ve worked with and and as a result, that is why I was able to make decisions and made decisions that I did in relation to this matter.
I take, obviously, responsible for submissions that go the cabinet and in in full, informing that view to go forward with that, I’d asked that this matter be progressed to be worked up. And it came back to me saying no legislation was required. If they’d come back and said legislation was required, then we may well not be sitting here at all.
Catherine Holmes:
So the answer is you didn’t think in those circumstances that clear legal advice was required.
Morrison:
The department was saying it wasn’t. I trusted their judgement.
Greggery:
When was that point reached in your mind?
Morrison:
When it said no legislation was required, 25 March. That was the ultimate cabinet submission put forward, but as you note, that was the position of both departments back [on] the third of March …
Greggery:
Now I didn’t know that at all. I know that the DHS had drafted a new policy proposal and sent it to your department on the on the third of March ...
Morrison attempts to interrupt.
Please don’t interrupt me, Mr. Morrison, you’re doing it again. Courtesy please. You agreed to it.
Updated
Morrison: need to ensure welfare integrity a ‘rather unremarkable objective’
Justin Greggery, after outlining some of Scott Morrison’s other statements (cop on the beat etc):
Do you agree that going on the radio and talking about a tough welfare cop on the beat, the need to detect and deter fraud and the like, for you’d received all of the proposals … that is, the executive minute really adopted a policy position which you were expecting the departments to deliver … as it was your clear communication to the public that this was the position you were adopting?
So: given Morrison kept banging on about it to the public, did that then put pressure on it to become policy?
Morrison:
I believed that we needed to ensure welfare integrity. And I believe that was my responsibility as minister, as I had done in other portfolios, for the integrity of those programmes.
Greggery:
You set the pace on the policy direction: ‘tough welfare cop on the beat’. The crackdown language such as that – before receiving the executive minute, which contained the proposals that you’d asked for.
Morrison:
What you’re implying [is] that I had particular initiatives in mind at the time of saying, which I did not.
Greggery:
I’m talking about the tone and the policy direction in which you were taking the department. It was the policy you had.
Morrison:
The particular initiatives that were proposed by the department was the policy of the government. And it was my intention as minister to ensure the more than $100bn that are paid out [of] taxpayers money to people every year was done so properly, and accordance with the rules, and that it wasn’t defrauded.
That should be [a] rather unremarkable objective for a minister for social services, and a rather unremarkable objective for [a] department administering such taxpayers funds. I would say that is an important principle.
Updated
Morrison gives explanation about ‘welfare cop’ language
We get to a 2015 media release, where Scott Morrison welcomes “a strong welfare cop on the beat”.
Morrison is asked whether he agrees his language in the media release is similar to the language in his 2015 Sky interview in January. He says yes.
Yes, I do and we literally … in the initiative had a federal police officer in a seconded role to detect welfare fraud
(Which is him saying this is why I used ‘welfare cop’.)
Morrison had previously said he used that sort of terminology as he is a policeman’s son. I am a policeman’s daughter and can say I don’t speak in terms of “cops on the beat”, so it’s not a one size fits all.
Updated
You get the feeling that Scott Morrison has missed this – not answering questions in a variety of ways.
After admonishing Scott Morrison again for jumping in to cover issues not raised by the question, Justin Greggery points to what the Department of Finance advised:
The central point made by the finance department is that … there was an inadequate evidence-based business case for the costs and outcomes over the proposal.
Morrison says finance had questions over how it would achieve that much money, given manpower etc.
Greggery:
I asked you earlier about whether you ever asked the question about how 1bn+ dollars was going to be raised in gross saving terms, and you said that it would be worked out during the rigorous PRC process [in] consultation with the Department of Finance. Right.
Would you agree with me that by the 25th of March 2015, that rigorous, detailed consultative process reached the point where the Department of Finance didn’t support the measure?
Greggery is saying finance was questioning the costings.
Morrison, after a few detours (Greggry says at one point “Please let me finish, I can see you gearing up again”) eventually answers:
They they weren’t necessarily questioning that there wasn’t an outstanding level of overpayment. They were questioning as to whether the method that was proposed would actually be successful in recovering that overpayment, which are two different issues.
Updated
We now go back to 2015 and what the Department of Finance thought about all of this:
That was a brief detour. Back to 2015. pic.twitter.com/V6Cw7KprQ6
— Luke Henriques-Gomes (@lukehgomes) December 14, 2022
Updated
Morrison: our focus was to pay the money back and ensure we settled it quickly and faithfully
Greggery:
Surely you understood that when hundreds of thousands of Australians in vulnerable financial circumstances had debts unlawfully collected from them by the government?
Scott Morrison:
That wouldn’t be a matter of some significance in terms of finding out where the process went wrong, whether there were significant other events or not. I think what was most important was paying the money back and ensuring that we settled the matter as quickly and as faithfully as possible, which we sought to do. And that was the focus of myself and my ministers at the time.
Updated
Morrison: we were not focused on robodebt in 2019 and 2020 due to the pandemic and bushfires
So let’s get into those pressing matters.
Greggery:
But here we are concerned with this pressing issue. You would agree where this process went wrong and how it affected so many people, that’s a pressing issue?
Scott Morrison:
Surely, this is why I’ve been obviously pleased to attend today and seek to assist the commissioner where I can and, as the commissioner has kindly noted, I’ve come here prepared to offer what I can.
These are matters that I would certainly hope would be addressed by the public service commissioner … in what, if any, changes they need to make. I noticed that regrettably many of the officials who are involved here have either, firstly in [the] case of Ms Golightly’s position, that she’s passed away, which is deeply regretted and our condolences I’m sure all to her family and her friends. But equally, the secretaries and deputy secretaries have also since retired. Except Ms Campbell.
Greggery:
Did you take any steps to ask in 2019 [or] 2020 to identify where this went so horribly wrong in 2015?
Morrison:
In 2020, as prime minister that was not something I was focused on. We had a global pandemic.
Greggery:
What about 2019?
Morrison:
It was in late 2019 and we had bushfires.
(And Hawaiian holidays.)
Updated
Justin Greggery:
So ultimately, is it your position that you hang your hat on the NPP due diligence checklist as validity for the lawfulness of the scheme, which was said to recoup more than a billion dollars in effect over 850,000 people?
Scott Morrison:
I would also add that in my experience, that if there were any legal impediment to pursuing a course of action by the government, not only would it be noted in that checklist, but it would be amplified in the document itself and there was no such reference and there never was.
After a bit more back and forth, Greggery asks:
You didn’t consider that perhaps, given the position adopted by DSS – that is your own department in the minute you signed on 20 February 2015 – that you would want some greater assurance than the end result of the NPP process within that short space of time, by direct advice to you?
Morrison:
I had great confidence in my officials and I had every reason to have that confidence, I believe.
Greggery:
Your belief was proved wrong with history.
Morrison:
Unfortunately, yes. As I said, the suggestion to me that even internal department legal advice was not conveyed to ministers was unthinkable.
Greggery:
And yet it happened.
Morrison:
Yes.
Greggery then moves to when Morrison was prime minister:
Well, one of the questions this commission is concerned about is how that could be the case. That is, what went wrong with this process.
No doubt, as prime minister, when you became aware that something had gone wrong with this process in 2019, after receiving the solicitor general’s advice, and then in 2020, when various players were drawn to your attention, they were greatly concerned about the problem – that must have existed to create this mess?
Morrison:
While in 2019, when I was prime minister, and was this was brought to my attention by the minister for government services, my immediate concern was dealing swiftly with that information, calling a meeting of the expenditure review committee and engaging the processing of shutting this programme down. With that, to be honest, that was my primary focus at that time, and when we’re in 2020.
When many of these matters were being progressed, you’ll be aware of the many other pressing issues I was dealing with as prime minister.
Updated
Scott Morrison goes off-track again and Catherine Holmes again steps in, rebuking Morrison with:
This has got nothing to do with the question you were asked.
But the main point in this evidence is that Scott Morrison did not ask for any advice or clarification from the departments between when the 20 February new policy proposal was submitted and when the 3 March NPP was submitted.
(That is when there was the change in views on whether legislation was required. At first it was, and then it wasn’t. Morrison didn’t ask why there had been the change in view.)
Updated
Catherine Holmes has absolutely had enough with Scott Morrison’s tactics answering questions.
Justin Greggery is again trying to set out a timeline for discussions, and confirm he did not ask for any advice on the changing positions on legislation.
So, the point we’re coming to is whether you can explain by either the third of March or soon thereafter, if you saw the draft, or by the 25th of March at the time that the ERC is considering the NPP how it is that there are polar opposite descriptions of what of the same process in a period of about four weeks, the process of effective discussion and collaboration between very experienced public officials who know these issues better than any of us in this room?
Morrison then argues that there was a difference of opinion between the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services.
Greggery asks him to take him to it – where is the difference in those documents we have been talking about?
Morrison says:
I mean I’m asked to prove the negative.
(Which is exactly what people being given debt notices were being asked to prove when they challenged those debt notices during robodebt).
Updated
Justin Greggery takes back the reigns. He is also sick of Scott Morrison’s handling of questions by this point.
The NPP (new policy proposal) and the draft NPP is the same process as was described in the executive minutes.
Morrison:
I’m not giving that statement.
Greggery:
Well, you’ve identified this change. But can you point to any others? I’m simply restating what’s in the submission.
Morrison:
The submission that is made, that is set out here that was considered by cabinet. I’m simply agreeing to what was in that document. The document upon which cabinet made the decision? That is my evidence.
Greggery:
Just that may not be my question.
Morrison goes to interrupt.
Greggery:
My question is – please don’t interrupt me. I have given you the courtesy of not interrupting your answers. I expect the same Mr. Morrison. Fair enough?
Morrison:
Fair enough. Happy to do so. Thank you.
Greggery:
I’m suggesting to you that the process which was characterised as a new process in the minute and characterised as the same as the previous process in the new policy proposal, is the same process in the terms, but it’s described at the income averaging is being used.
Morrison:
Yes. And the way that overpayments are being calculated. Yes, yes.
Updated
As Luke has previewed, we are now into March.
Scott Morrison is arguing again that there was no need to question why there was no need for legislation.
Justin Greggery:
What has what has occurred from the documents is that although the process appears to be materially the same as the process described in the executive minute, the characterisation given to the process … by the HS and DSS is the opposite of the characterisation given to the process in the executive minute.
It is it involves new elements and a new approach in the minute to involving no change, the current process in the new policy proposal would you agree with that?
Morrison:
All I am simply agreeing to is that the difference between the two documents is the inclusion of the phrase insisted upon by Ms Wilson, which was – Ms Wilson has extensive experience in this area, and I … have a very high regard of Ms Wilson and all the officials I worked with. And this based on her evidence, because I was unaware ...
A visibly exasperated commissioner jumps in here.
Catherine Holmes:
Look, could we just have your evidence, Mr Morrison? Nevermind Ms Wilson’s evidence, just answer the question if you could.
Morrison:
I’m seeking to answer the question because I’m being asked about how the view changed. I’ve been asked about two documents and I’m saying that those two documents are different and that there was a fundamental change between the document of February and the document considered by cabinet.
And those two changes were: one, the inclusion of a statement which said the approach on how income is assessed and overpayments calculated has not changed, ie, that means what we’ve been doing as a government for more than 20 years is unaltered.
And secondly, that legislation previously thought to be required is no longer required. That is what I’m agreeing to – I take it you’re also agreeing to – the proposition that putting aside those characteristics’ change, no change that what is described as the process.
Updated
The royal commission has released the next witness as there is an acknowledgement the commission won’t be getting to anyone else today.
That witness will now give evidence virtually.
‘Peak vintage Morrison’: Bill Shorten responds to former PM's testimony
The royal commission has reconvened, but before we get there, Bill Shorten, the minister responsible for the portfolio now, is giving a press conference on what Scott Morrison has said so far:
Scott Morrison had an opportunity today to attend the royal commission, to personally apologise, to accept personal responsibility as social services as treasurer, as prime minister, for this massive unlawful scheme against hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians.
Morrison had the chance to engage in healing and accept responsibility and redeem the reputation of the Coalition government, at least in accepting responsibility. Instead, what we got was peak vintage Morrison: lecturing, hectoring, not answering questions, splitting hairs on simple yes-no questions.
We’ve seen Mr Morrison lecture the commission, we’ve seen Mr Morrison basically say ‘I knew nothing, I did nothing, I’m a good person’.
And it’s almost to the effect, as one person has observed to me, he’s almost sitting in the stand saying, “Robo what and who? I didn’t see anything”.
He has blamed nearly everyone in his own government and the previous Labor government and this is a shocking train wreck performance by the former prime minister. It shows no self-insight. It is a defensive lecture about why everyone else is wrong and he’s right.
The fact the royal commissioner has had to literally tell him, “Are you listening at all to the questions?” It is almost the sort of television which you watch between your fingers over your eyes and you’re peaking to see the next [bit of] incredibly poor behaviour.
Updated
The view from Luke Henriques-Gomes
Some thoughts before we return: things went off the rails there for a little bit.
Senior counsel assisting, Justin Greggery KC, has spent the day so far trying to establish Scott Morrison’s knowledge of the robodebt scheme’s issues at the time it was being developed.
We are really talking about a small window of a few months in early 2015.
Greggery wants to do this in a methodical way. As we’ve seen with other witnesses, he will ask what a person knew in 2015. To put it simply, if they knew important things, he’ll ask what they did with that knowledge (either in 2015 or later when robodebt hit the headlines). If they didn’t know, why not? Why didn’t they seek out the knowledge, especially if it was their responsibility to know?
This process has proven a little more time consuming than Greggery had hoped, because Morrison has been keen to expand on his answers with what the, commissioner Catherine Holmes, called “unnecessary detail” .
On several occasions, it has been a little unclear whether Morrison’s answers have reflected what he knew in early 2015 (when he was considering the robodebt plan) or what he knows now and is offering as a post-scandal political defence. What’s relevant at this stage in the questioning is the former, not the latter. (Morrison will get the chance to make the other arguments.)
It’s been slow going, but we’ve gotten through the February 2015 minute where Morrison was told about the robodebt proposal and that it might need legal change.
We have established a few things:
His evidence is he had directed his departments to work through these issues.
His evidence suggests a good understanding of the brief (he doesn’t claim he wasn’t across it, which is important because he signed it).
In particular, he understood the potential issues the brief was raising: that legislative change might be needed to allow the ATO annual data to calculate fortnightly income (and raise debts a la robodebt.).
Now we’re getting to the moment where Morrison considered the proposal in March and then took it to cabinet before it was included in the May 2015 budget. As Morrison said in his own defence today, the proposal said “no legislation was required”.
He’s already been asked why he didn’t ask what had changed. He’s said he had faith in his department and they’d provided “clear advice”.
But you can expect him to be grilled further on this. Greggery has already taken him to the cabinet handbook which requires ministers to bring forward accurate proposals to cabinet. He will likely build on the reasons why Morrison ought to have asked more questions.
That will be further bolstered by Morrison’s evidence this morning. When quizzed about some aspects of the robodebt plan today, he’s gone to specific sections of the Social Security Administration Act (echoing arguments made by DHS staff at the time in support of the proposal). He gave a long answer about past compliance processes to suggest the robodebt scheme didn’t change how things worked.
Again, he hasn’t simply said he didn’t understand the granular details of the plan and went along with his department.
One suspects this Holmes assertion will be revisited later on: “If you were so familiar with the act, you ought to have been concerned about whether the act was being complied with in the development of this proposal.”
Updated
This is your 15 minute warning – we are coming back very shortly and we have a bit to get through. Scott Morrison will be doing what he does best, so it will be interesting to see whether the counsel assisting the commission, Justin Greggery, shakes up his approach any.
Updated
For those wondering, the royal commission won’t resume for another 30 minutes or so. So go make another cup of tea – or whatever it is you need to get through this.
The hold music is quite something, though: it never seems to properly crescendo, so you are left slightly anxious the entire time it’s playing.
Updated
For those just joining us, so far Catherine Holmes has said in response to Scott Morrison’s answers:
“Oh please, don’t give us an example.”
“Mr Morrison, it might be better if you just wait for the question.”
“That was really not that relevant.”
and:
“Can I just get you to 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 and just answer it without extra detail, unnecessary detail.”
As well as:
“Are you even listening?”
Updated
For anyone in Brisbane at the royal commission, there are some excellent lunch choices around there, including at Sage on Anne. (This is not a paid endorsement, just one from many days covering commissions and court cases in the area)
Mid-break summary of events
The commission is on another short break.
For anyone watching this, seeing Scott Morrison duck and weave questions, or attempt to wrestle control of the commission and send it down directions he wishes it to take must seem very … familiar.
The difference here (to either a press conference or question time) is the commissioner can order him back to the question, or just ask him to stop talking.
Still, it is very slow going. So far, Morrison is trying to contend that robodebt wasn’t different to previous government policies (which is what the Coalition had contended after the court’s ruling it was unlawful) and is using statements Stuart Robert had made in parliament (as the minister at the time of the ruling) as his evidence.
But what Robert said in parliament is not relevant here – the commission can just ask the department directly.
Morrison has also been unable to adequately answer why he never questioned his department on why legislation for robodebt wasn’t needed, when it had previously advised that it would be.
Updated
In that last part of evidence, we go back to what Scott Morrison understood the lines of responsibility to be.
It is still very slow going, as Morrison continues to interrupt, jump ahead, question, reframe, “clarify” or query every point Justin Greggery makes or asks.
At this point, you would have to say Morrison will be back tomorrow (when parliament is sitting) as it does not seem like the commission will be able to get through the day’s questions in time.
Updated
The commissioner then questions whether Morrison understood that discrepancies didn’t necessarily mean debt.
Holmes:
Did you understand the process of the ATO sending over to DHS annualised income figures, which would then be compared with the gross amount that the person had declared in relation to their fortnightly income?
Morrison:
Yes. That was originally done with magnetic tape back in the 90s.
Holmes:
Did you appreciate that sometimes there’d be very good reasons for the discrepancies?
Morrison:
Of course, and that is why it was so important to get the engagement with the individuals, and one of the learnings from the pilot phase that began on the first of July to that …
Holmes:
Please, I think you’re getting off the point. So you did appreciate the discrepancy did not mean a debt necessarily.
Morrison:
Not necessarily.
Updated
Holmes points out Morrison’s figure of ‘a billion dollars a year in overpayments’ pertains to four-year period
Scott Morrison has continued to refer to “a billion dollars a year in overpayments” which is why he felt he had to pay a lot of attention to it (hence the whole Welfare Cop thing).
Catherine Holmes pulls him up:
Can I just ask you about something – you say that this brief had drawn to your attention a billion dollars a year in overpayments, but all I can see is that for a four-year period, there’s supposed to be a billion dollars in overpayments.
Morrison gives a tight-lipped expression which would be very familiar with anyone who has watched him over the last couple of years – it’s one he made when pulled up on a factual point.
Morrison:
Well, I was I was aware of the broad position that there was a flow issue.
(“Flow issue” is to do with funds.) Holmes:
But it’s not in here [the brief Morrison has been referring to].
Morrison:
I’d have to check. I’m happy to note that a billion dollars, whether in stock or flow, is a lot of taxpayers’ money that required my attention as minister.
Updated
Scott Morrison then makes the point again that there was no evidence to him that there was advice that the proposal was unlawful:
There was nothing to suggest to me in the submission that went to cabinet that it was unlawful, and no evidence was presented about that submission that it was unlawful at that time, or at any other time, until the solicitor general provided the minister for government services with advice in 2019.
Updated
It is also worth noting that the commission is still going through one of the first documents – the executive minute – because of Scott Morrison’s detours.
It has been almost three hours. At this rate, Scott Morrison WILL be returning tomorrow.
It is worth noting that the man who lost the prime ministership – who used one of his first statements out of government (to his church) to say people shouldn’t trust government – is now saying he didn’t ask a question of his department because he trusted their advice. But we move on.
Updated
Morrison says DSS did not arrive at changed stance on legislation ‘lightly’
Scott Morrison then starts talking about the ERC (economic review committee of cabinet) and the proceedings are muted under the public immunity ruling (cabinet discussions stay private).
When the proceedings come back, Holmes says Morrison had not been relevant.
Look, all I’m asking you, Mr. Morrison, is you’ve got a cabinet. You’ve got an executive minute which says to you legislation is required. Your own department says legislation is required.
Within a matter of a few weeks, you’re getting a new policy proposal. It says legislation is not required. You have said yourself you are familiar with the act. This was a proposal going back some years. Why no concern about that as the responsible minister?
Morrison:
I think you summarised it yourself, commissioner, in what you’ve just said, and that is the department themselves said, had flagged, that legislation may be required. And then the department themselves said – the very same department said – that it was not required.
Now, I do not consider that the department and the professional offices that were there arrived at that matter lightly. I just – we all now know that they had advice at that time. It is inconceivable to me that that would not have been raised with ministers. It’s just inconceivable.
Updated
Holmes: ‘How is it that you are content to just see no legislation required and leave it at that?’
Scott Morrison then moves into talking about the legislation and Catherine Holmes asks him whether or not he is reading from the act.
Morrison says no.
Holmes asks if he has received advice on it:
So are you doing this from memory or have you got a record of some sort? Or you just noted the sections?
Morrison said he has made some notes.
We move on to what Holmes was trying to get at – why didn’t Morrison question why legislation wasn’t needed?
Holmes:
So why were you not interested in what legislative change was required? Because you must have wondered, didn’t you, about the power to do these things?
Morrison:
Well, not at that point. Because it was still a proposal under development. Nor had it reached the point where it said that legislation was required.
And I would have expected to see all of that, of course, and then would have made judgments about whether that would have been proceeded with, and in all likelihood, then I suspect it would not have, if you were so familiar with the act.
Holmes:
You ought to have been concerned about whether the act was being complied with in the development of this proposal to the new policy proposal point. How is it that you are content to just see no legislation required and leave it at that?
Morrison:
Because that is how the cabinet process works. I had been a member of cabinet for a long time. And the way the cabinet process works is it has the inbuilt disciplines across the public service to fully interrogate these matters to enable what is put forward to ministers who were dealing with multiple submissions in this submission alone.
There were 51 new policy proposals, yes, multiple submissions, and it is part of the process. These matters to be interrogated. Now, in the executive minute I received, it said it noted there were issues; that is not uncommon. I’ve seen that many times and then only once finished.
Holmes:
So why were you content that that vanished – you were familiar with the act? Why didn’t you want to know how it was that legislative change wouldn’t be required for this proposal? To go back some years?
Morrison:
Because I was satisfied that the department had done their job. I had great respect for the department and for their professionalism and for their knowledge of these issues.
And I would never have conceived that had there been legal advice suggesting this was unlawful. It had never an event into my imaginations that that would not be raised with ministers.
Holmes:
OK, … you have the minute that says legislative changes required. And it’s your own department that is 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:
Well, because I didn’t see it as necessary, because they had come to a view so strongly, and that I had great faith in the department to work through the matters that they were working through. And that was not uncommon … I mean, it is not uncommon in the course of government, which deals with multiple policy proposals in a budget course.
Updated
Morrison argues legal basis of DSS seeking information from people no longer receiving benefits
Catherine Holmes has wrestled the commission’s proceedings back from Scott Morrison. He took hold there for a good 20 minutes or so.
Holmes is now asking the questions. (That is not to say that Justin Greggery can’t –Holmes just seems a bit fed up with it all.)
Holmes asks Morrison if he was familiar with the legislation. He says yes. She then asks in relation to the legislation:
What did you understand about the position when somebody was no longer on benefit?
… The advice that we received was there had been overpayment to the extent of around 3.6% of the annual payments, and that you said you were familiar with the act. I’m just wondering what you identified as the provision which would entitle you to ask people who hadn’t been on benefit for some period.
Morrison:
The department, … under the act, has an ability to raise debts.
… I don’t think there’s any dispute about that.
Holmes:
That’s not the question. On what basis were they to be asked for information using this online system as to their income, because the idea was that they’d be asked to confirm what the ATO said.
Morrison:
Well, they were asked to clarify what their income was at the time. And based on the fact that there was a an identified irregularity between what their annual income was, and the process was built to seek to engage – this is my understanding. The great frustration, as was explained to me, was the Department of Human Services headed engaging with individuals.
Holmes:
That’s not my question. You said you are familiar with the act. I’m just asking you what you understood to be the legal basis for [asking] … someone who may not have been on benefit for six months, or three years, or whatever, to confirm or deny ATO data.
Morrison:
Because the department under the act has an ability to raise debts in relation to previous overpayments.
Holmes:
That’s a different issue from what they can ask people to do. You will appreciate …
Morrison:
Well, no, 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 apprised of the beneficiary’s income at the time.
Holmes:
It is it legal?
Morrison:
Yes, it is.
Updated
Commissioner stops Morrison from trespassing into parliamentary privilege
The commissioner then makes clear that the documents can’t be referred to, because it trespassed into parliamentary privilege.
Catherine Holmes asks Scott Morrison:
Mr. Morrison, you do understand about parliamentary privilege, don’t you?
Morrison seems a little offended.
Of course.
He then starts trying to quote from another document, to which the commonwealth representative again jumps in and stops because he is worried about parliamentary privilege.
Holmes:
One might have thought that as a parliamentarian, you’d appreciate the significance of parliamentary privilege.
Morrison insists he wants to quote from a public document. But Holmes has had enough and orders that we return to what Justin Greggery was trying to ask.
This whole detour was at the behest of Morrison, who is trying to contend that the Coalition government didn’t do anything different with robodebt from what the Labor government started. (This is not what the court found, and also is what this whole royal commission is about).
Updated
Income data from ATO was used to flag discrepancies for review, Holmes says
Catherine Holmes then pulls Scott Morrison up on his contention (in a very long, roundabout way) that robodebt was an extension of existing policies.
Holmes:
I am going to stop you there – income matching is not income averaging.
Morrison then starts going through Stuart Roberts’ 11 June 2020 statement to the parliament, which rejected that the Coalition was responsible for robodebt.
Holmes stops him again:
Do you appreciate that what was happening with the data from ATO was that it was being used to flag discrepancies. And the evidence before the commission is that when discrepancies were flagged, a review would be undertaken … Are you listening at all?
Morrison is flipping through papers as Holmes speaks. Morrison:
Absolutely.
Holmes:
Thank you. A review would be undertaken in respect of the one of the, say, 20,000 [cases] a year in which there were very clear discrepancies. And there were some other criteria for identifying them. And it would be on that basis that discrepancies were identified.
Morrison then refers to other statements made in parliament, to which Holmes says:
We can hear directly, Mr. Morrison, about that from the department which has been asked for the information. Hearing what was said by way of parliamentary speech probably won’t firm that up for us so much as evidence directly from the department.
Well, I’ve given you a good deal of leeway on this …
Morrison then picks up again and refers back to what has been said in parliament, or what was tabled in parliament:
Also in a subsequent statement by the then minister, he tabled two documents and these were formed letters ….
The commonwealth representative then jumps in and says Morrison is straying into parliament privilege territory and the commission can’t refer to it.
Updated
Morrison says neither Labor nor stakeholders including Acoss objected to income averaging used in robodebt
Asked again about whether he was concerned over the lack of legislation for robodebt, Scott Morrison says:
I mean, I if I go back to the time, as I said, I mean, this might come up … and I don’t want to divert and I would like counsel to be able to remain on his line of questioning, but … since 1989, this was established and the use of computers, the use of income averaging was followed by numerous governments over decades.
And when I met … [with] stakeholders, not just the Department of Human Services, but many stakeholders including Acoss (Australian council of social services) – and I worked quite closely with Acoss in the lead up to that budget, particularly on the pension reform initiatives – my point was that no one, no stakeholder, was raising any concern about income averaging being used by the department, including in this method.
And that was borne out when the measure was announced in the budget, that Acoss themselves at the time, and indeed, the Labor opposition at the time, made no mention of as it being in any way extraordinary or improper.
Updated
Greggery: ‘The last 10 minutes has been consumed’ by Morrison ‘straying off’
Justin Greggery loses his patience.
The last 10 minutes has been consumed because the simple answer ‘no’ to my question about [whether] you asked why these things weren’t provided to you has strayed off in other areas – which we will come to. You can be assured you will get every opportunity to address the contents of the final new policy proposal, including the due diligence checklist available to the commission.
Well, you might not be available tomorrow. And if we keep [spending the hearing like this, it] will take considerable time.
Scott Morrison:
I’m happy to be available tomorrow and the day after.
(The day after would be when parliament is sitting, so Morrison doesn’t seem worried about that.)
Updated
Justin Greggery running out of patience with Morrison’s answers
Justin Greggery seems to be running out of patience here.
He asks Scott Morrison:
My question was not really about what you had discovered in your preparation for evidence about the conduct of others. It was: did you ask any question about why that package of policy and legislative changes was not produced?
Morrison:
No. And that was because I had confidence in my department, as I had instructed in that earlier memorandum, that any of these issues would have been resolved. And they were, and the clear advice given to me and the advice, therefore, to the expenditure review committee of cabinet was very explicit. There was no legislation required. Now the cabinet process in my experience, it is not a small matter … and I refer you to the NPP proposal …
Morrison continues and asks Greggery to go to the last page of the document he is referring to.
Greggery:
Mr. Morrison, I’m not going to the last page.
He says Morrison has given the answer “no”.
Morrison continues to bring up other issues.
Updated
Morrison says DSS ‘did come to a formal view’ that legislation change was not required
We come back to whether or not legislation was required and what changed.
Justin Greggery:
It’s clear that there wasn’t a package of policy or legislative changes developed. Did you ask any questions about why?
Scott Morrison says it was the view of his department. He then goes through a very comprehensive view of the evidence in front of him:
And so to answer the question, with the commissions indulgence, can I refer you to the evidence that was provided by Ms. Wilson and Mr. Flavel, I’m referring to exhibit 1213, which is the separate treatment supplementary statement of Serena Judith Wilson.
And in that statement … paragraph 25 B through D recounts a process by which there was engagement between her as DSS and DHS, about the nature of the issues that they were seeking to resolve and what was ultimately included in the submission.
Now, that indicates that they did discuss it, they did work it through and they did come to a view in their formal advice that legislation was not required. And that is what was contained in the cabinet submission that was drafted by the department.
There was no information that, had there been such information, I would have expected that to be brought to my attention, which it certainly was not, in terms of the legal advice that has been the subject of this royal commission.
Ms Wilson herself gave evidence to say that that was never relayed to me as a minister. And in the documents that you have and in my own statement, you will know that it is in May of 2020.
There was a specific reference made in that submission with the department, made very clear, that at no time – from this time all the way through to the time of that advice from the solicitor general ultimately being provided to the government, and the department never relayed any issue despite multiple opportunities over multiple budget submissions over multiple years – that there was any legal question in the department’s mind, and I’d refer to Matt Flavel as advice.
So a supplementary statement … where he recounts the following of the process that went through after that executive minute mode refer to paragraph 87.
It says the material which I’ve reviewed to date indicates to me that the department gave consideration to the ledger issue of legislative amendments in relation to the SI WP and VP, noting that key areas requiring legislation change were then still at scoping study status.
That’s what he’s referring to the status of what their view was, when that memorandum was provided. And then B/C subsequently appeared to inform the view that no legislative change was required, and that the program was operating in line with legislative arrangements.
Now, that was the view of my department. And that was a view that I had no reason to question is effectively made submissions on the evidence.
Catherine Holmes:
Mr. Morrison, you’ve given a view of the evidence rather than giving evidence, but you seem very familiar with the exhibits. You’ve gone through everything, have you?
Morrison:
Well, I take this commission very seriously, commissioner.
Holmes:
OK.
Updated
What we know so far
Some key takeaways from this morning’s evidence:
1. Morrison won’t back away from the “welfare cop on the beat” rhetoric
As we heard, Morrison embraced the “welfare cop” label when he became social services minister in late 2014. He saw his approach as a continuation from what he did as immigration minister. This will become important when the commission further probes why the robodebt proposal went ahead – and continued once implemented. It may paint a picture about the motives of politicians and public servants.
2. His decision to “pursue” welfare compliance measures including robodebt was not “authorisation”
Morrison was given a key brief (he’d requested) in February 2015 that outlines various welfare compliance proposals, including the idea for robodebt. It noted that robodebt might need legal change. Morrison circled “pursue” – which saw the formal policy proposals developed. He repeatedly insisted, though, that this did not mean he authorised the policy, just that officials should discuss them and work through issues. “Agreeing was only the development of a package.”
3. Morrison says doesn’t recall seeing the new policy proposal that outlined robodebt when it was first sent to his office in March 2015
He says this doesn’t mean that he didn’t see it. He noted that the advice was that no legislation was required.
4. Morrison claims his department, Social Services, “changed their position” on the need for legal change
This is crucial, because we know DSS had opposed the robodebt plan due to questions about its legality. If they changed their position and articulated this to Morrison before the plan was implemented, that’s important. There has been no other evidence from the time confirming DSS ever came around to the plan.
Updated
Justin Greggery again pulls Scott Morrison up – he says that is not what he was asking or contending and pulls him back to the main question he had been asking – that DSS continue to progress the work it was doing.
On that, there is agreement.
Morrison says signature on document only indicated agreement ‘to the development’ of policy package, not actioning
We get to the version of the document Scott Morrison knows he has previously seen – because his signatures are on it.
He again tries to jump in and reframe or clarify each line of what Justin Greggery is saying.
But we have agreement it is his signature. (We don’t have agreement on what “agree” in terms of the document means.)
Agreeing is not the action.
Agreeing was only to the development of a package, the contents of which … had not been agreed to; what was agreed here, as it notes in paragraph 11, is that the department continues working with the DSS to undertake the above analysis and develop a package of policy and less than changes for you to take forward.
That’s all it agreed to – that further work be done. This was not determined at this point.
And nothing gets to even the stage of it being considered by cabinet until I raised the matter with the prime minister. And from this point, all the way through to that, there is the opportunity for the minister not to proceed with that new policy proposal. So we were not at any stage at this point of proceeding authoritatively with this.
Updated
And we are back.
Justin Greggery is straight back into the 12 February 2015 document we left on.
Scott Morrison tries to jump ahead and ask if there are any differences between the documents he is being shown (there are multiple copies of the same document).
Catherine Holmes again jumps in and asks Morrison to stick to the questions he is being asked instead of trying to anticipate questions.
Updated
The commission then takes a short break.
We will resume very soon.
Morrison says document was not marked up according to his usual practice
Justin Greggery:
Now you’ve indicated, Mr. Morrison, that these briefs pass through many hands before they get to you.
Scott Morrison:
And then they go back.
Greggery:
Yes, let’s just deal with it step by step. The hands that they pass through before they get to you include advisers in your office. Anyone else?
Morrison:
It’d be odd for a DLO [department liaison officer] to mark a document, but not impossible.
There is a back and forth over who gets the document. But Morrison says he cannot say who highlighted or underlined parts of it. He says he had no practice to either highlight or underline as a rule.
Morrison then says again that the documents go through many hands.
He then says:
I can tell you absolutely that at the start of that brief that I circled ‘agreed, agreed, agreed’, and that was in relation to pursuing, not endorsing, particular measures and seeking further discussion on items.
And that I signed that brief on the 20th of February of 2015.
Now it was my practice as an immigration minister, as a treasurer and as a prime minister, that if I wished to convey any additional messages to the department, I would have actually written under where I signed.
That was my normal practice when I was communicating something to the department.
That is what I would do, to take you up on that example, and I did not do on this occasion [as there is no writing under his signature].
Greggery: If you wanted advice on legislative change as a result of what you read in the minute, you would have made a note about that?
— Luke Henriques-Gomes (@lukehgomes) December 14, 2022
Morrison: Correct
Updated
Scott Morrison says there seems to be a difference between the underlining and the highlighting and whether or not that is what his attention is being drawn to.
The underlining is the same, but different parts have been highlighted.
Looking at two versions of the same document. Trying to figure out here who has done the highlighting and underlining pic.twitter.com/TgbmdFVNdV
— Luke Henriques-Gomes (@lukehgomes) December 14, 2022
Updated
Morrison ‘can’t conclude’ that markups on policy document were by him
We then go to attachment B, which the commission received late last night. It has been marked up and one part has been highlighted.
Morrison “can’t say who made the highlights and for what purpose”.
I can’t conclude that I made them and I don’t think there’s … anything that does suggest whether I made them or not. I just don’t think it can be concluded in the document on the left.
… These documents pass through many hands.
DSS say attachment B has been marked up with highlighting by someone. Morrison insists he can't be sure the version found by DSS recently is the one he was given in Feb 2015.
— Luke Henriques-Gomes (@lukehgomes) December 14, 2022
Updated
Morrison says he does not recall reviewing robodebt policy proposal
Scott Morrison doesn’t recall reviewing the robodebt policy proposal though (a policy proposal is known as an NPP) as there were 51 NPPs at the same time.
Catherine Holmes points out the one the counsel assisting the commission is talking about.
We then go back to the minute and the fact that Morrison kept “attachment B”.
Morrison says that is not unusual, as he sometimes kept papers to read more carefully.
Morrison:
I did that on a number of occasions; over the course of many portfolios you get a large amount of paperwork, and sometimes you want to take further opportunity [to review].
To the minute. It is 17 pages, including attachments. Noted on 23 Feb in email to Malisa Golightly it's been signed. Morrison has "kept attachment B". He says he would do that from time to time, to read more carefully. "Not uncommon." pic.twitter.com/QbFqfuE9gy
— Luke Henriques-Gomes (@lukehgomes) December 14, 2022
Updated
Morrison: asking for something to be pursued did not mean he ‘authorised’ policy
So on the executive minute on the policy proposal for robodebt, Scott Morrison says the executive minute did not mean he “authorised” the policy. Just that it be pursued.
Morrison:
It says pursue, which means people should keep working on it and deal with and resolve any issues that need to be resolved in finalising a submission. And to do that, in accordance with that, is a very exhaustive cabinet process.
The cabinet process is built to ensure that ministers can have confidence that, when submissions come before it, that those checks and balances have been applied through the workings of the public service in how submissions are prepared.
Email from Payne/DHS staffer to Morrison staffer talking about the welfare compliance proposals. The NPP is attached pic.twitter.com/vgPc4DmsTk
— Luke Henriques-Gomes (@lukehgomes) December 14, 2022
Updated
The meaning of “pursue”
This is taking a very long time as Scott Morrison seeks to clarify or reframe almost every question or line put to him by Justin Greggery.
For an example on the question of the meaning of “pursue”:
Well, if you didn’t say, to progress it then it would not have been progressed that is wouldn’t have continued to roll along towards the new policy proposal, of course, but pursue does not mean agree.
Updated
Questions focus on early days of robodebt
Scott Morrison is doing his usual tactic of using semantics to try and deflect from answering a question directly.
It is not working here. Justin Greggery calmly takes him back to what he is asking. When Morrison tries to rework the question before answering it, Greggery again brings him back to what he has asked.
Greggery is trying to establish what role Morrison played in the early days of the robodebt policy.
Staying on Payne's role. "You assumed or expected" she'd be involved in not only the executive minute but the NPP? "That's my assumption." (Payne said yesterday she hadn't seen the final policy proposal.)
— Luke Henriques-Gomes (@lukehgomes) December 14, 2022
Updated
‘You are wandering a bit’
Scott Morrison is asked what he meant when he acknowledges Marise Payne as “leading the charge” on reform.
He says that was about the Wpit program (the ongoing IT revamp).
Justin Greggery:
Did you understand that she had a role in drafting or developing her department’s executive minute?
Morrison:
I assumed so, yes.
Asked about the minute again, the commissioner jumps in and asks Morrison:
Did you talk about it before you got it? Do you know?
Morrison:
I don’t recall. I should stress at this point that this was a proposal under development. The proposal at this point had not yet been finalised. There was certainly no decision at this point, for a, a submission or even to ultimately be taken to cabinet. There was certainly I as I said in my response to the memorandum If I go to that …
Catherine Holmes:
Thank you. You are wandering a bit because all I’d asked was had you talked about it before you got it. So perhaps if we leave it to Mr Gregory to ask again.
Morrison:
I was also actually going back to the question that the counsel was putting.
Holmes:
I’ll leave it to Mr. Greggery to ask it again.
Updated
Morrison agrees with prior statement that 'there does need to be a strong welfare cop'
Justin Greggery is trying to examine whether or not Scott Morrison, as the minister, was concerned with saving money in the portfolio and whether (this is my contention here) that attitude is what led to robodebt being embraced.
Just before the NDIS comments, Justin Greggery references this interview with Graham Richardson on Sky News.
Greggery:
… Richardson towards centre of the page, prompts you to adopt some language. You can see that in the centre of the page he says, … ‘You are not put in there to be a pussy cat’.
Morrison:
He always had colourful turn of phrase, from my experience.
Greggery:
Indeed. You can see towards end of that paragraph what he says is, ‘Who are you going to crack down on? Because a bloke like you cannot going to sit there and do nothing. Does that mean anyone on the dole has to look out?’ And your response is, ‘Anyone who is trying to rip-off does’, – the language that ‘crackdown’ was obviously suggested to you by the interviewer, but it appears to be language that you are comfortable to adopt at that point?
Morrison:
I didn’t use that phrase, I don’t believe as the next paragraph says, and given you make reference to it, I would draw attention to the comments that I made. I said, ‘Anyone who is trying to rip it off does.’ That’s who I was referring to.
And then I go on to say, ‘Anyone who is trying to rip-off the welfare system because every benefit paid is paid by another taxpayer,’,which is indeed true.
On average an Australian who works is working a whole month to pay for someone else’s benefits, that’s true.
There’s a broad range of people that need and deserve our support, I said.
Whether those on the age pension or worked hard all their life and had a clear deal, they went through life, that if and when they worked hard they would be an age pension at the other end. Now, I think retirement incomes have changed a lot since then, I go on to make a range of comments.
So I acknowledge both that there are people who are indeed very deserving of the benefits that are paid under the system. There are people who pay for those benefits which are taxpayers, and there are those regrettably in my experience having a minister for immigration, where I have seen people seek to defraud the immigration system, I have been a minister for social services and seen people seek to defraud the social services system, I have been a treasurer and I have seen people sought to defraud the tax system, so regrettably that is an aspect that ministers must be conscious of and, in fact, taxpayers demand that we be so.
Greggery:
The end of that paragraph that you read out in part continues, you say, ‘I think Australians generally are quite happy to have a system that helps people who are genuinely in need and deserve our support. What they won’t cop, just like they won’t cop people coming in on boats, they’re not going to cop people who are going to rort that system. So there does need to be a strong welfare cop on the beat and I will be certainly looking to do that, but I will be doing that because I want to make sure the system helps the people who need it most.’
Morrison says this is all correct.
Greggery:
Alright. Did that reflect your view as minister that that was the approach you were going to take in respect of welfare reform?
Morrison:
Yes, and I – and I restate it. ‘I want to make sure this system helps the people who most need it.’
Updated
Justin Greggery asks briefly about the NDIS as part of a wider examination of Scott Morrison’s brief and what he believed his job to be.
Greggery:
….You’re linking, as I understand it, reforms with the social security system as part of the funding required for the NDIS.
Morrison:
What I’m simply saying - and by the way that bill is now $50 billion, not $12 billion, when it comes to the NDIS….
The commissioner steps in again and cuts Morrison off.
Catherine Holmes:
Mr Morrison can I get you to 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 and just answer it without extra detail, unnecessary detail, if you can.
Morrison:
Certainly Commissioner. Happy to help the commission.
He looks slightly chastised.
What you refer to is the responsibility that I had as Minister or Social Services to ensure that that portfolio was exercised in accordance with its legislation and that there was not payments that were made that were being inappropriately made, and the reason for that is to ensure that the taxpayers’ resources were available for those purposes that were - were very necessary. Now, whether that’s the NDIS and I make that reference deliberately, and still am of that view, as Social Services Minister, it was my job to ensure that the system was run appropriately, efficiently, and there were not payments being made that were not supposed to being made, because that means there would be lesser resources available for other important objectives of the Government. Now, I would say that I had the same objective when I was Minister for Immigration, when I was Treasurer, but as Minister for Social Services ensuring the efficient operation of that portfolio, that is how I could ensure that I was doing my job to contribute to the broader objectives of the Government by ensuring that taxpayers’ resources were not being expended inappropriately.
‘That is not an endorsement of every single word’
Scott Morrison argues the toss:
It’s what I – Commissioner, it’s what I said. I simply said, “We discussed generally the issue of integrity in the welfare system,” and I asked to see some suggestions about how we could do that better. I think the meanings are probably the same, but ...
Justin Greggery steps in again:
I’m not sure you’re accepting what was conveyed back to you in the executive minute which was that you were asked – you asked Ms Campbell to prepare a brief outlining the department’s current approach.
Morrison answers:
Well, I accept that’s how the department in the brief has characterised that and I don’t know if there’s a great difference in what we’re saying. I’m just choosing my own words as to what I believe I said. When briefs are sent to you as a minister – and I served as a minister September of 2013 until May of 2022 – when you respond to a brief, you are simply responding to the recommendations that are listed. You give your specific response to those, as I have in relation to that minute, but that is not an endorsement of every single word in every way it’s expressed. That’s the view of the department that it’s expressed and I’m simply saying that this brief was a product of a general conversation where I asked how can we do this better, I like to see some options about how we can do that with no specificity, with no suggestion.
Updated
‘Is that a no?’
Scott Morrison is trying some very political answers here, which the commissioner is cutting through quite adeptly.
Asked about one of his first meetings with Kathryn Campbell when he became minister and the understanding he had of the Department of Social Services after it, Morrison says:
I had a general understanding. There are people who work in the Department of Social Services who spent 30 years trying to understand this system and even then, they would be the last to say they knew it comprehensively, so I would say humbly I wouldn’t have pretended to that level of detailed knowledge not within several days of having been sworn in as minister.
Justin Greggery tries again:
The description placed on the meeting in the executive [memo] is in these terms. ‘That the department was asked to prepare a brief outlining the department’s current approach to protecting the integrity of the welfare system outlays.’
That description is one that you would accept as accurate?
Morrison:
We discussed generally the issue of how it was managed … the integrity of the welfare system and I was interested in learning how we could do better and I had no specific suggestions about that, I just knew it was an important responsibility I had as minister to ensure the integrity of the welfare system.
Now, with the commissioner’s indulgence, I have learned as a minister for immigration that if there is not confidence in the immigration system, then Australians lose confidence in the very important program of immigration.
And as a minister for social services, I was equally keen to ensure that I could improve confidence in the social security system because people need it and I wanted to ensure that people had confidence in that system and that there was integrity in it. So not unsurprisingly, as part of a general discussion, I asked the department to suggest to me how we could do things better.
Greggery:
I’ll make it a shorter question – did you ask Ms Campbell to prepare a brief outlining the department’s current approach to protecting the integrity of the welfare system?
Morrison:
I defer to my earlier answer - what I asked is how can we do things better and make some suggestions.
Commissioner Catherine Holmes steps in here:
Is that a no?
Updated
Morrison questioned about priority of balancing budget
Here is just some of the morning’s exchanges:
Justin Greggery: There are a couple of points at which take up with you in briefing letter, the first is the third is abstaining paragraph on that page commencing at the same time.
… And identifying one of the challenges was reducing operating costs in accordance to previous government decisions. In broad terms, previous government decisions is a reference to the Government ‘s desired to produce a balanced budget over time?
Scott Morrison:
I don’t think you can presume that from that statement.
Greggery: How did you understand the statement?
Morrison:
As subsequence meetings demonstrated in particular my engagement with Minister Payne, one of, if not the largest, being undertaken by the Department of Human Services, what was known as Wpit. The Wpit program is a complete transformation of the ICT system of the Department of Human Services and this was an extremely resource-intensive program that was going to be able to transform the department’s capability to be able to manage the payment system which accounted for a third of the budget.
And so, making that project a success, was the overarching discussion that I had with Minister Payne. This was an enormous ICT program. Incredibly, located, many risks associated with it both from a cost point of view but also coding and all other technological elements. And so that was the decisions have been taken prior to me becoming the Minister for Social Services and prior to Minister for Human Services taken on her role to go ahead with this program, a lot of work had been done and that was a big part of our focus.
Greggery: Do you recall independently of the letter that it was the aim of the government to deliver a balanced budget over successive years?
Morrison:
It should always be. [Governments should always] worry about that.
Greggery: I’m not suggesting it is extraordinary, Mr Morrison.
Morrison:
I know, that was a clear position prior to the 2013 election. One that we are able to achieve just before the pandemic hit. Which I was pleased that we were able to do so, it took a little longer than we anticipated.
Updated
Balancing the budget
Senior counsel assisting, Justin Greggery has asked Scott Morrison whether or not balancing the budget was a priority. Morrison says it should always be a priority. He then goes on to state that it was something his government was able to achieve just before the pandemic hit.
Updated
Scott Morrison starts giving evidence
Senior counsel assisting Justin Greggery KC is going through the particulars of dates with Scott Morrison. He says each is true. When it gets to his time as prime minister, he answers “my privilege”.
There is just a bit of back and forth over whether Morrison can agree that the redacted version of his statement is “true and correct.”
Morrison says he can’t speak to its completeness. There is a bit more back and forth and then the commissioner Catherine Holmes steps in and says it’s about whether he believes it to be true and correct.
Greggery goes to move on and Morrison steps in again and says he did not ask for the redactions and would be happy for his full statement to be released.
We move on.
Updated
The hearing begins
Commissioner Catherine Holmes AC SC has opened proceedings and Scott Morrison has chosen to take an oath on the Bible.
Updated
OK – let’s get started.
Updated
Scott Morrison and the cabinet documents
Just before we get under way with the hearing, it is also worth pointing out that Scott Morrison’s lawyers wanted him to have a free run with cabinet documents in order to defend himself. (It was denied.)
Luke has reported on that here:
Lawyers for Scott Morrison have said his reputation is ‘on the line’ as they argued the former prime minister should be able to refer to secret cabinet documents when he gives evidence at the robodebt royal commission.
The inquiry was shown damning evidence on Tuesday that government lawyers warned officials in March 2019 that the robodebt scheme may have to be wound up – eight months before it was finally shut down.
James Renwick SC, counsel for Morrison, asked the commissioner, Catherine Holmes SC, to allow his client to refer to cabinet documents when he appears next week on Wednesday.
Renwick said Morrison would not be able to properly defend himself from criticism without the use of such documents – which are generally protected and Holmes has ruled can’t be released.
Updated
Now there isn’t a live transcription feed of the hearing (as there are with some royal commissions, which is why I mention it) so some of this will be paraphased and some will be just a little behind the beat, as I transcribe it myself. But we will get it to you as soon as possible.
This blog will focus on the royal commission. If you are looking for general news, you will find that here:
Updated
‘Isn’t that stealing?’: yesterday’s evidence from Centrelink worker
Luke Henriques-Gomes has already told you some of the story of Colleen Taylor, the brave Centrelink worker who tried to stop robodebt as it started, by challenging her superiors over the scheme.
Her email, which included the statement “as a compliance unit we should not be the ones stealing from our customers” highlighted her concerns.
Her superiors dismissed her concerns.
Yesterday, Taylor gave evidence at the royal commission. Luke covers that off here.
As Luke reported:
Taylor spoke of her anguish about how staff were told “not to interrogate” a customer’s record for better evidence and that they knew the “income averaging” method central to the robodebt scheme was “wrong”.
Taylor’s memories were generally not obstructed by the passage of time: the injustices seemed to happen yesterday.
In a February 2017 email, Taylor warned the secretary of the Department of Human Services, Kathryn Campbell, that she was “being misled about robodebt”. “As a compliance unit, we should not be the ones stealing from our customers,” Taylor, one of 30,000 DHS staff members, told the person leading the organisation.
She said on Tuesday: “If we know there’s no debt, and yet we’re sending a debt notice out to someone, isn’t that stealing?”
Updated
Good morning
We will be live blogging Scott Morrison’s appearance at the royal commission into robodebt, giving you live updates to the questions he has been asked and the answers he is providing.
Luke Henriques-Gomes’ coverage of the royal commission to date has been second to none. If you are wondering what Morrison is doing at the commission, or what he might be asked, you can find those answers here:
One of the key moments for the (unlawful) scheme was when it received the backing of the then portfolio minister – Morrison.
Internal legal advice had already raised doubts over the scheme, five years before the Coalition accepted it was unlawful.
Eventually, a court approved a settlement for victims of robodebt. But it has done little to address the financial loss, stress and mental angst of the time for people already suffering financial stress who were then chased for debts they never owed.
Today, Morrison will be questioned at length over his role, what he knew, and why he pushed ahead. It is the first time Morrison has been made to answer these questions – in parliament, he may have apologised for the “hurt” the scheme caused people, but he deflected answering questions about his own role.
We will bring you all the updates, as they come. Luke will be popping in from time to time with some context, but otherwise, I (Amy Remeikis) will be guiding you through the appearance.
The hearing is in Brisbane where Morrison is due to appear from 10am local time (so 11am DST).
We’ll get started in earnest then.
Updated
