Former Coalition minister Stuart Robert said he wasn’t permitted to tell the truth about the unlawfulness of robo-debt a week after urging then-prime minister Scott Morrison to shut the program down.
Giving evidence before the royal commission into the Coalition’s illegal welfare crackdown, the former government services minister admitted making false statements in support of the scheme, but said he was obliged to defend it as a cabinet minister.
Former Coalition minister Stuart Robert said he wasn’t permitted to tell the truth about robo-debt’s unlawfulness.
“I had a massive personal misgiving, yes. But I’m still a cabinet minister,” Robert told the commission on Thursday of his closely-held position while presiding over the automated debt-recovery program in 2019.
Robert said he provided information about the program’s viability during media interviews despite believing “it couldn’t possibly work”, including by quoting figures to journalist David Speers of the overall accuracy of the debts raised.
Counsel assisting the commission, Angus Scott KC, put to Robert: “So what you said there to your knowledge at the time was false.” Robert answered: “My personal view, yes.”
Speaking on a similar scenario during an interview with ABC journalist Laura Tingle, Robert said: “Just because I have a reservation, it doesn’t mean I’m going to go on Laura Tingle’s program and say the government’s program is wrong … that’s not the way the Westminster system operates”.
He was also taken to an exchange during a National Press Club speech on November 14, 2019, a week after he had urged then-prime minister Scott Morrison to shut the program down after receiving high-level advice that it was illegal.
During that address, Robert was asked if he was so confident about the legality of robo-debt, why Centrelink never defended the debts in court. He responded by saying the use of averaging was an “entirely appropriate” way to notify welfare recipients of possible debts.
Counsel assisting the commission, Angus Scott KC, put to Robert: “The truthful response to the questions from the members of the press gallery at that point in time would have been to acknowledge that the government had reached the point where averaging was unlawful.”
Stuart responded: “It may well be truthful Mr Scott, but I wasn’t permitted to [say that].”
“The ERC [economic review committee] made it very, very clear that any public announcement was to be agreed with the prime minister, treasurer and minister for finance, and the attorney-general. I needed for senior ministers to agree with me before I said anything,” he said.
Robert said he didn’t believe income averaging was an appropriate method of raising debts for welfare recipients.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen
The scheme used Tax Office annual income data and averaged it over 26 fortnights, presuming income was the same across each, and put the onus on welfare recipients to prove they didn’t owe the government money.
Robert said he knew from his time as an assistant treasurer that smoothing income data over the course of a year wasn’t sufficient to calculate discrepancies in fortnightly payments.
“I’d often given an example where, if over 25 fortnights you earn nothing but on the 26th fortnight you earned $1 million, in that case you are entitled to earn welfare for 25 fortnights,” Robert said.
“In my view the maths couldn’t possibly add up.”
Asked by commissioner Catherine Holmes whether he took any responsibility for the government’s failure, Robert said “absolutely”.
“But I also take responsibility for being the minister to call it out to say we’ve got to get advice and stop it,” Robert said.
The former minister said he became aware of the seriousness of the issue facing the government in mid-2019, and following a meeting with senior bureaucrats in July sought high-level advice about the legality of the scheme.
He told the commission he asked whether there was existing legal advice about the scheme and was told there wasn’t, and said he didn’t recall legal issues being put to him verbally during that July session.
He said had he been briefed then, he would have done what he did on November 7 that year after receiving advice from the solicitor-general.
“I walked straight into the prime minister’s office, put it down and said we need to stop this,” he said.
Robert said he rejected in the “strongest possible terms” that former departmental secretary Renee Leon had to convince him to end the program, saying bureaucrats held onto legal advice for several weeks.
“On the fourth of July, I wanted it [advice]. My department took months and months to get it to me, and when they had it, they ostensibly sat on it for six weeks to work through what to do,” he said.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.
Most Viewed in Politics
From our partners
Source: Read Full Article
