After a long day of evidence at the Robodebt royal commission in Brisbane, Senior Counsel Assisting Justin Greggery used the final minutes of questioning to put seven matters to former prime minister Scott Morrison.
Mr Morrison's evidence during his much-anticipated appearance focused on the fact that he relied on department officials, who were advising him when he was Minister for Social Services in 2015, to tell him if the policy was legal or not.
Mr Morrison said that while the need for policy and legislative change had been flagged in a February 2015 executive minute to him — the advice that later went to Cabinet was "very explicit" and he trusted that that question had been resolved.
At the end of his questions, Mr Greggery said he wanted to raise a number of matters for Mr Morrison's "consideration and comment".
He said that the evidence heard so far at the Commission had given rise to a possible finding about why legal advice was not drawn to Mr Morrison's attention.
"When those considerations are taken in a cumulative sense, members of your department may have felt constrained in whether they could freely and frankly raise with you the fact that this measure, if introduced, would not be lawful," Mr Greggery said.
He said he didn't want to put additional questions, but wanted to invite Mr Morrison to make comment.
Here are the seven matters, and Mr Morrison's responses
1. "That [legal advice] was not asked for by you when you had the opportunity to ask for it."
Mr Morrison said it was "inconceivable" to him, in all his experience, that his own department, if it had had legal advice, wouldn't have raised it directly with him.
"The idea that I would have assumed that they had advice and weren't giving it to me was inconceivable, in my knowledge of those individuals, and surprising," he said.
"I relied on the department; I had great faith in the department."
2. "The short time frame between your signing of the [February 2015] executive minute and the development of the proposal, within perhaps as short as two weeks and perhaps as long as five weeks."
The royal commission heard the proposal had perhaps been developed within two to five weeks.
Mr Morrison said it was not an unusual time frame.
"I've seen departments work at time frames a tenth, if not, even more quickly than that on difficult measures."
3. "The time-constraint issue."
This is a second timing issue.
Mr Greggery put it to Mr Morrison that if the need for legislative change was identified in the February executive minute, it may not have been practically possible to do that in time for the measure to be in practice by July that year.
"This wasn't something that became material," Mr Morrison said.
"Whether it needed to be in place by the first of July 2015 or 16, I can't tell you because we still don't know what the legislative change would have been.
"It wasn't a material issue of consideration at that time, in terms of any start date.
"That would not have been a reason for it not to proceed."
Mr Morrison said there were other budget submissions in the portfolio that did in fact have the need for legislation where that was achieved.
4. "The constitution of the Senate… was not a positive indicator for the success of legislative change proposals."
At the time that the proposal was being discussed, the Coalition held 33 seats in the Senate, and Labor 25, with 18 crossbench senators of varying political stripes.
"We had many unlegislated measures," Mr Morrison said, and referred to an earlier answer that if something required legislation, it may well not have been pursued due to other legislative priorities.
The junior minister at the time, Marise Payne, earlier gave evidence that that wasn't how she had been approaching policy.
5. "You had communicated a policy position prior to receiving the executive minute, which used strong language about welfare reform and cracking down and dealing with fraud."
Mr Morrison was quizzed during his evidence about media he had done where he promised to be a strong "welfare cop on the beat".
"In respect, I think you read too much into that," Mr Morrison said.
"As Minister, I expected that only the payments that should have been made, to be made, so we can ensure that the payments that needed to be made could be made, to those who needed them most, and that was what I meant by welfare integrity.
"So no, I don't suggest that having a strong view about enforcement is extraordinary in any way."
6. "The matter had real attraction to you because of its significance as a savings measure towards a balanced budget."
It was estimated that Robodebt would result in more than $1 billion of savings.
Mr Morrison said the primary issue was the matter of "integrity in the system".
"That has a positive savings outcome on the budget, not by withdrawing entitlements to anyone or putting taxes on anyone.
"Had the measure not been feasible, it would not have been pursued."
7. The statute of limitations
The royal commission earlier heard that the Department of Finance flagged issues with the statute of limitations.
Basically, how far back the automated scheme could be applied.
Mr Greggery said irrespective of whether or not this was current, it could have created urgency.
"I think that's a practical reality, and if that meant the 2010 year was not available, and if it wasn't legislated in that time, then simply the estimates would have been adjusted," Mr Morrison said.
"That wasn't a reason either to go ahead or not go ahead."
Mr Morrison also said he didn't accept the "cumulative impacts" suggested by Mr Greggery.
He returned to the point that legislative change had not been raised with ministers "at any time".
He said that was the "critical failure".
The royal commission will hear two final days of evidence in Brisbane this week.
