Robodebt royal commission live: Scott Morrison accused of having ‘strayed off’ after taking 10 minutes to give ‘the simple answer no’

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 at 20.06 EST

Key events

Filters BETA

Key events (5)Scott Morrison (33)Justin Greggery KC (19)Catherine Holmes AC SC (14)DSS (8)Department of Human Services (4)

Scott Morrison then makes the point again that he was not aware 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.

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 used one of his first statements out of government (to his church) to say people shouldn’t trust government says he didn’t ask a question of his department because he trusted their advice, but we move on.

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 the 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 and 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.

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 at 21.57 EST

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 at 21.49 EST

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 at 21.37 EST

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 at 21.33 EST

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 at 21.29 EST

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 at 21.24 EST

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 at 21.22 EST