Extract from The Guardian
Fri 3 Mar 2023 01.00 AEDT
Last modified on Fri 3 Mar 2023 07.18 AEDTBut on Thursday, Robert told a royal commission that the leaked documents were real, that there was in fact such a proposal, one he thought at the time was “madness” and one that he had managed to “deftly” delay. Robert said he faced pressure to bring forward a plan to achieve robodebt’s budget savings from the cabinet secretary, who acted on behalf of the prime minister – that is, Scott Morrison.
The fact this proposal existed was already shocking, but much more so when considering what the royal commission has revealed.
Firstly, officials knew that in cases where debt letters had gone to those with mental health conditions in error, there had been reported suicides linked to those letters.
And, secondly, at this point, Robert’s department had been told the robodebt program was unlawful. (He told the commission this information was withheld from him at the time, which was “unconscionable”.)
But there is another issue, one which continually intruded into the hearing room on Thursday as Robert launched an emphatic defence of his actions and a fierce attack on the public servants he says hid robodebt’s illegality from him.
As Robert readily accepted on Thursday, what he told the Australian public throughout his time managing this issue over several months was not true.
Repeatedly he made comments directly at odds with what he now tells the commission he believed: that the scheme was deeply flawed. In fact, he explained its key mathematical flaw – the central reason it is unlawful – as articulately as any other witness on the stand on Thursday.
Robert accepted on Thursday that he told the public things he believed were “false” because of “cabinet solidarity”.
In a particularly memorable encounter with the commissioner, Catherine Holmes, Robert said: “As a dutiful cabinet minister, ma’am, that’s what we do.”
Holmes replied: “Misrepresent things to the Australian public?”
Robodebt inquiry: Stuart Robert admits to making 'untrue' statements to media – video
Robert was peppered with questions about various spurious claims he made to Laura Tingle (“One doesn’t tend to forget interviews with Laura Tingle,” he quipped) and David Speers, whom he told that in 99.2% of cases the debts raised by his department were correct.
Robert expanded his defence. It was not just that he was a member of cabinet, it was that he was still waiting for the solicitor general’s advice on the scheme. This was legal advice he said he had asked for and “wanted” because of the problems he says he had identified in July 2019.
Robert said he may have had “massive personal misgivings” about the program by then, but he needed to wait for that advice and hold the government line in the meantime. The commission has heard that more than 50,000 unlawful debts were raised in the second half of 2019.
Holmes suggested none of this explained why Robert had been so emphatic in his defence of the scheme. It did not explain why at the same time he was seeking legal advice on the scheme, he suggested the eventually successful class action was a “political stunt”.
As Holmes said on the figures Robert had used: “Surely it’s one thing to stick to the policy and say, ‘This is how we do it and we’re confident in the program.’ But to actually give statistics which you couldn’t have believed to be true?”
Robert said those were the “numbers from the department”.
A few days after Robert had, by his telling, won support from the cabinet to stop the scheme he believed was so flawed, he appeared at the National Press Club to speak about the national disability insurance scheme.
Initially, Robert refused to answer questions from the Guardian’s Paul Karp about whether the robodebt scheme was unlawful. Pulled up by the host, the ABC’s Sabra Lane, Robert again defended the scheme.
Robert said he had chosen his words “carefully”, emphasising he had chosen not to explicitly endorse averaging this time around. He accepted the “truthful” thing to do was to tell the public the government had acknowledged the scheme was unlawful, but again, that wasn’t an option.
He said the cabinet had decided an announcement would be made after agreement from senior ministers – so he was gagged by cabinet.
“I’m in a hell of a position now, where I know what government’s done, but I can’t communicate it,” Robert said on Thursday. “It’s a dreadful place for a minister to ever be.”
Of course, there is another version that will be considered by the commission. That is the perspective offered by the secretary of Robert’s department, Renee Leon, and her chief counsel, Timothy Ffrench.
That version says that Robert did not have the misgivings he tells the commission he had. That version, according to public servants, says Robert was the last holdout on the scheme, defying their attempts to convince him to shut it down.
Leon and Ffrench claim Robert had said, “legal advice is just advice”. Leon backs her claim with a contemporaneous note. Robert denies the remark.
Robert also denies another of Leon’s claims – that she told him in November 2019 that the government should apologise and shut down the scheme, and he replied: “We will absolutely not be doing that. We will double down.”
On 18 November 2019 Robert held a press conference in Sydney where he announced a “refinement” to the robodebt program. It would no longer use “income averaging” and only a “small cohort of Australians” would be affected.
Robert did not face questions on these statements at the inquiry on Thursday. He was not asked upon where the “small cohort” claim came from or why he made it.
But, as the 443,000 victims who won a class action against the robodebt program can attest, the cohort was not small.
Despite Leon’s recommendation, Robert did not apologise. And one week later, he told parliament: “Let me say very categorically this government does not apologise for its efforts to protect the integrity of the welfare system.”
The inquiry continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment