Scott Morrison has rejected the robodebt royal commission’s findings but not said whether he has been referred for further civil or criminal actions, in contrast to claims from former Coalition ministers Christian Porter, Alan Tudge and Stuart Robert ruling themselves out.
In a statement on Friday, the former prime minister said he “completely” rejects adverse findings, claiming they were “wrong, unsubstantiated and contradicted by clear documentary evidence presented to the commission”.
That followed Anthony Albanese highlighting the “extraordinary” conclusion that the commission “rejects as untrue” Morrison’s evidence that he was told income averaging was an established practice.
The scathing report, released on Friday, contains criticisms of senior Coalition ministers and public servants for their handling of the robodebt scheme, described as “crude and cruel” and “neither fair nor legal”. But the public has been left in the dark about who is the subject of civil and criminal referrals, contained in a confidential sealed chapter.
Commissioner Catherine Holmes’s decision to keep referrals confidential was taken “so as not to prejudice” civil or criminal actions, the prime minister noted. “And I think people want action as a result of this.”
At a press conference in Canberra, Albanese quoted findings that Morrison, as social services minister, had “failed to meet his ministerial responsibility to ensure that cabinet was properly informed about what the proposal actually entailed, and to ensure that it was lawful”.
Holmes also found Morrison had “allowed cabinet to be misled” because he did not make the “obvious inquiry” about why his department had changed its view on whether legislation was required to change social security law. “He chose not to inquire.”
“The commission rejects as untrue Mr Morrison’s evidence that he was told that income averaging as contemplated in the executive minute was an established practice and a ‘foundational way’ in which [the Department of Human Services] worked,” the report said.
Albanese labelled this “an extraordinary comment about a former prime minister”.
In a statement, Morrison said: “I once again wish to acknowledge and express regret for the unintended consequences of the scheme and the impact that the operations of the scheme had on individuals and their families.”
Morrison said he had “fully cooperated” with the royal commission, which made no findings about his time as treasurer or prime minister.
In relation to his nine months as social services minister from December 2014 and September 2015, Morrison said: “I reject completely each of the findings which are critical of my involvement in authorising the scheme and are adverse to me. They are wrong, unsubstantiated and contradicted by clear documentary evidence presented to the commission.”
As the cabinet minister who brought the robodebt proposal to cabinet, Morrison said he had “acted in good faith and on clear and deliberate department advice that no legislation was required to introduce the scheme”.
Morrison said that he had “no reason to question the veracity” of advice that legislation was not required, and said executive government would be “completely unworkable” if ministers could not rely on advice.
“There is no evidence before the commission which establishes that I was responsible for the departments ceasing in their duties to stop giving frank or candid advice to me regarding the need for legislative change,” he said.
“The proposal was initiated within the public service and was not a government-initiated measure by ministers. It was initiated by departments before I became the minister for social services.”
In the report Holmes noted evidence from Morrison that robodebt was “initiated” by the public service and described the statement as “entirely correct”.
But she said this account “[ignores] part of the story” and “fails to take into account the context and environment in which the measure was conceived”.
Holmes said the robodebt proposal was “precisely responsive” to the Coalition government’s policy agenda communicated by the minister for social services “against the backdrop of a drive for savings”.
“The perceived need to ‘just get it done’ meant that concerns about the immature level of development of the proposal went either unexpressed or unheard”.
Morrison said it was an “offensive and baseless assertion” to claim he pressured public servants to say the robodebt scheme did not require legislation.
Holmes found that Porter, the former social services minister, “could not rationally have been satisfied of the legality of the scheme” and should have at least asked his department to produce any legal advice about its legality.
In a statement, Porter’s lawyers said he had “discharged his ministerial responsibilities acting in good faith based” on advice.
“Porter was not informed at any stage whilst he was acting minister for human services or minister for social services that there was any issue as to the lawfulness of the robodebt scheme,” the statement said.
“Mr Porter has not received any notice of referral (or proposed referral) to any investigative body for civil action, criminal prosecution, or otherwise.”
The report said Alan Tudge, the former human services minister, used information about welfare recipients “in the media to distract from and discourage commentary about the scheme’s problems”, labelling this “an abuse of [his public] power”.
In a statement Alan Tudge said he strongly rejects “the commission’s comments of the way I used the media and that I had abused my power in doing so”. “I reject that finding in the strongest term.”
“At no stage did I seek to engage in a media strategy that would discourage legitimate criticism of the scheme. It is part of a minister’s role to publicly defend government policy when that policy is subject to criticism.”
Tudge noted that individuals who had been referred had received prior notification. “I have not received notification that I have been referred.”
“My legal team has not identified any basis of which any civil or criminal prosecution could successfully be made against me.”
The former government services minister Stuart Robert appeared to rule himself out, telling Guardian Australia that he had “not received a notice of inclusion in the ‘sealed section’”.
The royal commission rejected Robert’s claims that he was obliged to publicly defend the scheme in its dying days, concluding that he had made “statements of fact as to the accuracy of debts, citing statistics which he knew could not be right”.
But Robert welcomed the report and its “sensible recommendations”, describing himself as “the minister that worked hard to get the legal advice and close down the income compliance scheme”.
The Coalition opposition has largely gone to ground, with no comment yet from the Liberal leader, Peter Dutton, who claimed ahead of the report’s release that criticisms are being “ramped up by [government services minister] Bill Shorten” a week out from the Fadden byelection, triggered by Robert’s resignation.
Dutton conceded there was “no question that there were problems” with robodebt but claimed the government had “politicised” the royal commission in a bid to smear the Liberal National Party ahead of the 15 July poll.
Albanese said he had released the report as soon as it was handed to government to be as “transparent as possible”.
The report found that Kathryn Campbell, the secretary of the department of human services, had done “nothing of substance” when information “brought to light the illegality of income averaging”.
“When presented with opportunities to obtain advice on the lawfulness of that practice, she failed to act,” it said.
Asked about the fate of public servants including Campbell, Albanese said “agency heads are of course are empowered to take immediate action, pending further investigations and I am very confident that they will”.
