Scott John Morrison the current Liberal MP for Cook sits on the Opposition benches in the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament, holds no parliamentary party positions and sits on no parliamentary committees.
As Minister for Social Services from 23 December 2014 to 21 September 2015, Treasurer from 21 September 2015 to 28 August 2018 and Prime Minister from 24 August 2018 to 23 May 2022, Morrison had considerable influence on the creation and implementation of social security policy and programs.
Including the infamous and unlawful ‘Robodebt’ debt recovery scheme which appears to have its genesis during his time as Minister for Social Services and Marise Payne’s time as Minister for Human Services in the Abbott Government.
Christian Porter followed Morrison as Minister for Social Services from 21 September 2015 to 20 December 2017, Stuart Robert followed Payne as Minister for Human Services from 21 September 2015 to 18 February 2016 and later becoming Minister for Government Services from 29 May 2019 to 30 February 2021 responsible for Services Australia, while Alan Tudge was Robert’s Assistant Minister for Social Services from 30 September 2015 to 18 February 2016 and then Minister for Human Services from 18 February 2016 to 20 December 2017, thus all three men had a hand in refining and implementing the punitive horror that was Robodebt as envisioned by Morrison and Payne.
Approximate tenures of assorted departmental heads during the period December 2014 to December 2021:
- Secretary of Dept. of Social Services -
Finn Pratt (18 December 2013 to 18 September 2018)
Kathryn Campbell (18 September 2018 to 22 July 2021)
Raymond Griggs (22 July 2021 to present day)
- Secretary of Department of Human Services -
Finn Pratt (September 2009 to 7 March 2011)
Kathryn Campbell (7 March 2011 to 17 September 2017)
Carolyn Edwards, Acting Secretary, Department of Human Services (September 2017)
Renée Leon (18 September 2017 to 16 March 2020)
Name change to Services Australia -
Chief Executive Officer Rebecca Skinner (16 March 2020 to present day)
The commencement of successful legal actions, in an individual filing by a person who received a debt recovery notice and a class action on behalf of a group of persons receiving Centrelink pensions, benefits or allowances who had received debt notices, saw the Morrison Government end the Robodebt scheme.
The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme was established on 18 August 2022 and commenced its public hearings into the circumstances surrounding this scheme on 22 September 2022.
In particular the Royal Commission is seeking information with regard to the following matters:
who was responsible for the scheme’s design, development and establishment
why it was considered necessary or desirable
any advice or processes that informed its design or implementation
any concerns raised about its legality or fairness
the use of third party debt collectors under the Robodebt scheme
concerns raised following the implementation of the Robodebt scheme. In particular;
how risks were identified, assessed and managed in response to concerns raised
the systems, processes or arrangements in place to handle complaints about the Robodebt scheme
whether complaints were handled in accordance with those systems, processes or arrangements
whether complaints were handled fairly
how the Australian Government responded to legal challenges, including decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
when the Australian Government knew, or ought to have known that debts were not, or may not have been, validly raised
whether the Australian Government sought to prevent, inhibit or discourage scrutiny of the Robodebt scheme
the intended or actual outcomes of the Robodebt scheme including;
the impacts that the scheme had on individuals and families
the costs of implementing, administering, suspending and winding back the scheme, including associated costs such as obtaining advice and legal costs.
On Monday 31 October 2022 the Royal Commission published Exhibit 1-0001 - CTH.2013.0012.5070_R - Advice prepared by Solicitor General to AGS re use of apportioned ATO PAYG data which in my opinion clearly shows that a competent Prime Minister, Minister for Social Services, Minister for Human Services, any other relevant ministers and their department heads should have been aware or were aware that the Robodebt debt recovery scheme that had been in operation since April 2015 was at best legally fraught and at worst unlawful in all or part of its design, implementation and compliance measures. That this situation was being discussed at some level during 2015 and 2016 and was widely known by August-September 2018.
From 24 September 2019 there was a 46-page legal opinion to that effect — written by the Solicitor-General Stephen Donahue QC, Nicholas Owens SC and barrister Zoe Maud — available to then Prime Minister Morrison, relevant ministers and department heads.
At its 31 October hearing the Royal Commission heard evidence from Victoria Legal Aid and two women who made ‘debtors’ by the Robodebt scheme.
The 1 November hearing heard evidence from:
Principal Lawyer, Department of Social Services; and
Former Assistant Director, Payment Review and Debt Strategy Team, Social Security Performance and Analysis Branch Department of Social Services.
At the 2 November hearing evidence was heard from:
Group Manager, Redress Group, Department of Social Services;
Former General Counsel, Programme Advice and Privacy
Department of Social Services; and
Former Director of Payment Integrity and Debt Management
Department of Social Services.
Over the course of 1 and 2 November hearing days it became clear that government departmental awareness of the probability of a lack of legislative support for and flaws in the Robodebt scheme preceded that of the general public.
Matters revealed in evidence should become quite interesting in coming days, weeks and months.
The full witness list for the period 31 October to 4 November 2022 can be found at: https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2022-11/witness-list-31-october-2022.pdf
Hearing transcripts for 2 to 4 November 2022 can be found at:
https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/hearings
A mainstream media perspective…….
ABC News, 2 November 2014:
...The commission, being held in Brisbane, has been hearing evidence from public servants involved in formulating the earliest legal and policy advice about the bungled Robodebt scheme that wrongly claimed hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients owed debts to Centrelink through a process of income averaging.
Counsel assisting the commission Justin Greggery KC questioned Social Services Department lawyer Anne Pulford about external legal advice the department obtained in August 2018 that raised concerns about income averaging by scheme.
The advice was sought after a decision was handed down in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal relating to Robodebt.
Mr Greggery drew Ms Pulford's attention to email comments from government lawyers about the external advice including one describing it as "somewhat unhelpful" and another which stated: "They might be able to rework the advice if this causes catastrophic issues for us but there is not a lot of room for them to do so."
He asked Ms Pulford if she appreciated "that, at that point, the department had in its possession an external legal advice which said the Robodebt scheme was not lawfully sustainable".
Ms Pulford said she didn't recall the details of the advice but presumed she did appreciate the significance.
Mr Greggery drew Ms Pulford's attention to an email she sent, noting the income-averaging approach was not supported.
"You are signalling there that this advice if accepted means the end of the Robodebt scheme," he said.
Ms Pulford said she did not recall what she was trying to signal by the words.
Under questioning from Mr Greggery, Ms Pulford said that, from information she had seen, the external legal advice was not converted beyond a draft advice form.
She said that, if an external advice was not formalised beyond a draft, then it was "treated as not representing the departmental preferred view and arguable still open to discussion or comment or potential revision".
The reference prompted Commissioner Holmes to ask if, when the department received unfavourable advice, was it "just left that way and then never represents anything that you deal with, is that the approach?"
Ms Pulford replied that the scenario occurred "regularly" and it happened many times "that I had seen it".
Commissioner Holmes responded by saying: "I'm appalled".
Asked by Mr Greggery who would have made the decision about leaving the legal advice as a draft, Ms Pulford said the decision-making within the policy area was a matter for the internal organisation.
"I couldn't necessarily comment on saying whether that would have been if such a decision were made, it would be necessarily made at director level or at a different level,'' she said.
The commission has previously been given evidence that Ms Pulford was co-counsel on legal advice formulated by her team in 2014, which indicated the then-proposed scheme was illegal. [my yellow highlighting]
Inquiry shown emails relating to draft brief prepared for Scott Morrison
Earlier on Wednesday, the inquiry was told lawyers in Ms Pulford's section appeared to come under pressure later — when the scheme was being formulated — from then-social services minister, Scott Morrison, in relation to providing advice so it could be submitted to the Finance Department.
The inquiry was told lawyers in Ms Pulford's team provided more advice in 2015 because the Department of Human Services was advised that "Mr Morrison indicated he wants a number of potential proposals in an attached briefing [to] be brought forward for portfolio budget statements".
Ms Pulford agreed with counsel assisting Justin Greggery KC: "That it appeared pressure was coming from a clearance by minister Morrison to have a new policy proposal developed to the point where it might be submitted to the Department of Finance".
She agreed the advice was being sought in relation to proposals, such as the capability to detect, investigate and prosecute suspected fraud and noncompliance in the context of social welfare payments.
They also included the "utilisation of new technology to increase data analytics, complex network analysis and geospatial analysis and establishing a capability for real-time monitoring and risk-profiling".
The inquiry was shown internal emails between lawyers within the Social Services Department in 2015 relating to a draft brief being prepared for Mr Morrison.
Those emails referred to Mr Morrison requesting the Human Services Department "bring forward proposals to strengthen the integrity of the welfare system".
The emails went on to say the social security performance and analysis branch had provided comments highlighting the need for legislative change as well as the shift away from underlying principles of social security law.
Under questioning from Mr Greggery, Ms Pulford acknowledged the emails were seeking advice about what legislative changes were needed to get the proposal up and running.
Other emails revealed the need to provide preliminary advice to the Finance Department within just two days — a timeline that Ms Pulford agreed was "short".
The Guardian, 3 November 2022:
Plans for what became the robodebt scheme “almost immediately” concerned policy advisers at the Department of Social Services and were viewed by one official as “unethical”, a royal commission has been told.
Cameron Brown, a former director of payment integrity and debt management at the Department of Social Services (DSS), said he was responsible for seeking advice on the policy idea from its internal legal team in late 2014. [my yellow highlighting]
That was in response to a proposal from the Department of Human Services to use “income averaging” to raise welfare debts – the central plank of what became the ill-fated robodebt scheme.
At the time the DSS led the development of social policy while the Department of Human Services was responsible for administering services such as Centrelink, including welfare debt recovery.
It remains unclear whether this damning legal advice was shared with the Department of Human Services, which was responsible for the plan.
Brown said he and his team were “almost immediately” concerned about the “unethical” debt recovery proposal.
Brown compared the proposal to the so-called Dallas Buyers Club “speculative invoicing” saga in which copyright holders sent legal demands to alleged downloaders of the 2013 film for large amounts of money in the hope they would settle. [my yellow highlighting]
He noted many of the people targeted by robodebt were vulnerable and the “onus of proof” was unreasonable given much of the pay information they would need to source went back years…..
Read the full article here.
No comments:
Post a Comment