Speech to Parliament on the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme
31 July 2023
Canberra, Australia
(Mr MORRISON (Cook) (16:10): The recent report of the Holmes royal commission highlights the many unintended consequences of the robodebt scheme and the regrettable impact the operations of the scheme had on individuals and their families, and I once again acknowledge and express my deep regret for the impacts of these unintended consequences on these individuals and their families. I do, however, completely reject the commission's adverse findings in the published report regarding my own role as Minister for Social Services between December 2014 and September 2015 as disproportionate, wrong, unsubstantiated and contradicted by clear evidence presented to the commission. As Minister for Social Services I played no role and had no responsibility in the operation or administration of the robodebt scheme. The scheme had not commenced operations when I served in the portfolio, let alone in December 2016 and January 2017, when the commission reported the unintended impacts of the scheme first became apparent. This was more than 12 months after I had left the portfolio.
Media reporting and commentary following the release of the commission's report, especially by government ministers, have falsely and disproportionately assigned an overwhelming responsibility for the conduct and operations of the robodebt scheme to my role as Minister for Social Services. This was simply not the case. In that context I particularly note the commission made no adverse findings in their published report in relation to my subsequent roles as Treasurer and Prime Minister, where I closed the scheme down during the operational phases of the scheme when the issues and unintended consequences first arose. Specifically I reject commission's findings regarding allowing cabinet to be misled, at page 106; providing untrue evidence to the commission, at page 102; and pressuring departmental officials, at page 107.
My obligation was to discharge my duties as a minister under section 64 of the Constitution. To this end a rigorous cabinet process was followed and satisfied for this measure, and as the Minister for Social Services I was constitutionally and legally entitled to assume the officers of the department had complied with their obligations under the Public Service Act to advise their respective ministers. As a result my obligations were fully and properly discharged. The contention by the commission that ministers should not be able to rely on the advice of their department and should therefore be required to relitigate the details of every submission their department prepares for their submission to cabinet not only is wrong but would make executive government unworkable, especially on technical matters that require legal and subject matter expertise. That is the point of having a department.
During the development phase of the robodebt scheme initiated by the Department of Human Services prior to my arrival as minister and then proposed to me in an executive minute I had instructed my department and the Department of Human Services to work together to resolve any outstanding issues identified in the brief, including outstanding legal issues, before finalising and bringing it forward as a new policy proposal for consideration by cabinet in the department's forthcoming portfolio budget submission. The final proposal contained in the NPP developed by the department provided clear and explicit advice from the department that legislation was not required to implement the scheme and the scheme was therefore lawful, conveyed in the due diligence checklist completed and authorised by the secretary of the Department of Social Services in accordance with their responsibilities under the Public Service Act. Such advice superseded all prior advice, including the earlier executive minute upon which the commission relied. The commission failed to understand the significance of this government process.
The Department of Social Services continued to maintain the scheme was lawful and did not require any legislation until the provision of the Solicitor-General's advice in 2019, five years after the cabinet submission was first considered. This was evidenced in three subsequent tranches of submissions to cabinet by subsequent ministers in relation to the scheme following my departure from the portfolio and the department's interaction with the Ombudsman's inquiry into the scheme in 2017. In a submission to cabinet in May 2020 the department advised cabinet that at no time prior to the provision of the Solicitor-General's advice to ministers had the department advised any ministers responsible for the scheme that the scheme was unlawful. Also, at no time did the department advise me as minister of the existence of formal internal legal advice prepared prior to my arrival in the portfolio regarding the scheme. I only became aware of the existence of this advice during the discovery phase of preparing my submission to the commission in 2022.
During the sworn evidence to the commission, the former deputy secretary of the Department of Social Services informed the commission that the existence and content of that information had been withheld from me as minister. As minister I had no reason to doubt the integrity, professionalism, subject knowledge, experience and legal expertise of the department secretaries and other senior officials who were involved in preparing the new policy proposal and the completion of the due-diligence checklist required under the cabinet process. I also note that the new policy proposal was one of 51 such separate new policy proposals in that portfolio budget submission and that in more than 30 of these cases the department had indicated the need for some type of legislation, including changes to the Social Services Act and other acts under the administration of the department. Given that the department had clearly indicated when legislation was required in relation to other new policy proposals in the portfolio budget submission, it is entirely reasonable for me to have formed the view that where they had explicitly noted that legislation was not required, including the robodebt scheme, this had been thoroughly interrogated by the department and earlier issues had been properly resolved as I had requested.
The commission's suggestion that it is reasonable that I would have or should have formed a contrary view to this at the time is not credible or reasonable. Such views were not being expressed by senior and experienced officials. In fact, they were advising the opposite. Such views were also not being expressed by others at the time who later became critical of the scheme. Following the announcement of the scheme in the budget, the opposition did not raise or express any concerns regarding the lawfulness of the scheme in 2015 and would later commit to continuing the scheme at both the 2016 and 2019 general elections, as evidenced in the detailed policy costings they submitted prior to both elections when the now Minister for Government Services was Leader of the Opposition. For the government to now condemn me for holding a view that they shared and sustained for more than three years after I left the portfolio is rank hypocrisy. Similarly, concerns were also not expressed at that time by social service advocates such as ACOSS. The commission's finding unfairly and retroactively applies a consensus on the understanding of the lawful status of the scheme that simply was not present or communicated at the time. This is clearly an unreasonable, untenable and false basis on which to make the serious allegation of allowing cabinet to be misled.
In relation to the commission's finding regarding untrue evidence, I also reject this as unsubstantiated, speculative, and wrong. In making their finding the commission has sought to reverse the onus of proof to establish their claim. I had stated in evidence what I understood to be true. The commission failed to disprove this and simply asserted it unilaterally as fact. In my evidence I stated that to my knowledge the use of income averaging to raise debts was an established practice of the Department of Human Services. This was a truthful statement on my part and was not a controversial position at the time. I was therefore not surprised when the department had included, in the final draft of the new policy proposal for submission to cabinet, the text 'There would be no change to the way PAYG income is assessed and debts calculated for income support purposes.' I accepted this as a true statement by the department and relied upon it.
In evidence supplied to the commission, I noted that the April 2017 report of the Ombudsman's inquiry contained the observation that 'the DHS has always had the process for averaging ATO data to calculate debts'. I also noted the sworn evidence provided by the former DHS secretary Mr Jackson, who noted his interactions with DHS colleagues, including 'Ms Golightly, Ms Harfield, Craig Storen and others who were principally involved in the program', that in relation to income averaging they said: 'This is how we've have done it always. It's been done this way for 30 years.' There was therefore a reasonable likelihood that such views would have been conveyed to me at the time.
I also noted in evidence departmental statistics on the sole use of income averaging to raise debts under Labor ministers Plibersek and Bowen and form and actual letters used by the department going back as far as 1994 that highlighted this practice. The evidence I provided to the commission was entirely truthful.
Finally, the commission's allegation that pressure was applied to department officials that prevented their giving frank advice is wrong, unsubstantiated and absurd. The uncontested fact that senior department executives withheld key information regarding the legality of the scheme from their ministers is inexcusable. As the commission itself notes, the department had already initiated the proposal before my arrival as minister. How could I have pressured officials into developing such proposals while serving in another portfolio? This highlights the absurdity of the commission's finding. The department had already taken the initiative and were the proponents of the scheme.
Also, the commission's suggestion that an orthodox policy setting of seeking to ensure integrity in welfare payments would be seen as intimidating to the department and its senior executive is both surprising and concerning. That is their job.
It was also the department who, of their own volition, advised ministers that more than $1.2 billion in preventable overpayments were being made each year. I was responding to departmental advice that highlighted significant integrity issues within the payment system. A minister would be derelict if they did not seek to act on such advice and consider proposals from the department, which I did.
The failure to advise ministers can also not be credibly blamed on the standard request to all departments, as the commissioner sought to do, before budget rounds to identify savings. The suggestion that senior department executives with decades of experience in the public sector were unable to exercise their obligations because they felt pressured by such a standard request is an insult to their competency and professionalism which I do not accept. As I noted in my evidence to the commission, had this information—that is, the internal legal advice—been shared with me when I was minister, it is highly unlikely this scheme would ever have been advanced.
Throughout my service in numerous portfolios over almost nine years I enjoyed positive, respectful and professional relationships with Public Service officials at all times, and there is no evidence before the commission to the contrary. While acknowledging the regrettable—again, the regrettable—unintended consequences and impacts of the scheme on individuals and families, I do however completely reject each of the adverse findings against me in the commission's report as unfounded and wrong.
The latest attacks on my character by the government in relation to this report is just a further attempt by the government following my departure from office to discredit me and my service to our country during one of the most difficult periods our country has faced since the Second World War. This campaign of political lynching has once again included the weaponisation of a quasi-legal process to launder the government's political vindictiveness. They need to move on. I say to the government: instead of trying to distract attention from their own failings by relentlessly pursuing these transparently partisan campaigns against me that they get on with the job they promised to do and are failing to do. At the last election, Labor claimed they could do a better job, yet Australians are now worse off, paying more for everything and earning less—the exact opposite of what Labor proposed. For my part, I will continue to defend my service and our government's record with dignity and an appreciation of the strong support I continue to receive from my colleagues, from so many Australians since the election and especially in my local electorate of Cook, of which I am pleased to continue to serve.
Access Hansard record here.
