Former prime minister Scott Morrison will appear at the royal commission into the robodebt scheme on Wednesday.
Morrison was the social services minister when the program was devised and launched, treasurer when it was expanded and prime minister when it faced two legal challenges.
The program saw hundreds of thousands of Australians issued unlawful welfare debts. Many faced adverse financial and psychological consequences and a court labelled the saga “shameful” while approving a $1.8bn settlement. Only last week, a victim told the royal commission her robodebt forced her to sell her car and seek help from a charity.
The royal commission has heard it was Morrison’s support for the plan that saw it progress from a fledgling idea worked up by public servants into a policy proposal rushed into that year’s budget.
While prime minister, Morrison eventually apologised for the “hurt and harm” caused by the scheme. He dismissed the need for a royal commission – and claimed the central plank of the scheme had also been used under Labor. The claim has been rubbished by experts.
Morrison is likely to face questions about what he knew about the scheme when it was being devised, why he was attracted to it – and what he did once it came under fire.
Those questions could include:
1. What did you know about the legal concerns with robodebt when it was being devised and implemented at your request?
The royal commission has heard evidence Morrison received a brief in February 2015 that outlined the robodebt plan alongside other welfare compliance measures. That brief noted the proposal would likely need legislative change and said government departments were working through the issue. When the final proposal was presented to Morrison, it said no legislation was needed. Morrison’s understanding of the different legal positions (what changed?) will likely be probed by the commission.
2. What attracted you to what became the robodebt scheme in 2015?
Upon coming to the portfolio, Morrison spoke of wanting to be a “tough welfare cop on the beat”. Morrison used similar language when he introduced the plan to parliament in 2015. At the same time, the inquiry has focused on the mammoth $1.2bn budget savings initially promised, in a context where the Abbott government was hoping to make significant savings and had struggled to get many measures through a hostile Senate.
3. What discussions did you or your office have, if any, about whether it would be difficult to get welfare compliance measures through the Senate?
The commission is trying to work out why the advice from public servants changed – from saying it needed legislative change, to then saying it didn’t. Public servants who have faced the commission have made vague references to their understanding that measures that required legislation were less attractive. There is no suggestion of political pressure, but it is an issue that may be explored.
4. Did you turn your mind to the legality of robodebt when it hit the headlines in 2017?
By 2017, Morrison was treasurer in the Turnbull government. He would have signed off on an expansion of the robodebt program in the midyear economic and fiscal outlook. Robodebt launched at full scale in mid-2016 and led to the first headlines about the scheme by late 2016.
Morrison is likely to be asked whether he joined the dots between the advice he received in early 2015 (suggesting legal change was needed) and the situation in 2017. It’s important to note the final advice Morrison (and cabinet) got in 2015 stated there was no need to change the law to launch robodebt.
5. What involvement did you have in the legal challenges brought against robodebt in 2019?
Victoria Legal Aid launched a legal challenge to the scheme in February 2019. The government dragged out the case through tricky legal tactics. It sought advice from the solicitor general in August 2019 and settled the case in November 2019. Again, Morrison will be asked if this legal challenge – and a separate class action launched in September 2019 – prompted him to turn his mind to the advice he had received in 2015.
6. Did you think robodebt was fair – and if so, how?
The royal commission has shown it is interested not only in whether the scheme was legal (and who may have known or ought to have known it wasn’t) but also its logical and ethical failures. The program accused people of being welfare cheats with no credible (or lawful) evidence. At its heart was a problem of logic and mathematics: the tax office data used to claim people were overpaid related to annual income; the income people reported was fortnightly. Morrison may be asked to explain how this was fair and ethical.
7. Why did you claim that robodebt was not new?
Even after closing down the program, Morrison claimed the method used in robodebt – “income averaging” – was a longstanding process of successive governments. This appears to become the position of some public servants in 2015 when they were advising Morrison on the plan (and trying to get it into the budget) and by 2017 it was the public position of the Department of Human Services. However, there is very little evidence to support the claim. Morrison may also invoke this defence in his evidence and, if so, it will be scrutinised.
