Another former Coalition minister whose responsibilities included administering robodebt has denied responsibility for the unlawful scheme.
Alan Tudge, who served as human services minister between 2016 and 2017 under the Turnbull government, was the third ex-minister to face the royal commission into the program yesterday.
Ex-ministers Marise Payne and Scott Morrison have gone before him; both said they weren’t aware the scheme was illegal. Christian Porter will take the witness stand later today.
While Tudge administered the portfolio of human services, with responsibility for robodebt, he said he wasn’t aware the scheme was illegal, and that in any case would have been powerless to stop it.
“You understand the concept of ministerial responsibility?” he was asked at one point by counsel assisting Justin Greggery.
“In the broad scheme, yes, but to say, the way that you put it, that I was responsible … I don’t think is right,” Tudge replied.
Robodebt used annual income figures averaged over fortnights, often incorrectly presuming the income would be the same in each two-week period, to claim welfare recipients owed the government money.
The onus was then put on the recipients to prove the government wrong. A Federal Court judge found in 2019 that income averaging was unlawful, echoing previous advice to the government.
Tudge said that as a junior minister he would have had no power to change the way the scheme worked.
“They were the cabinet decisions, which I didn’t have the authority to overturn,” he said.
“My authority was to fix the implementation and the operations of the system, which was my very sharp focus.”
He also said he wasn’t aware the scheme was unlawful, despite waging a media campaign against whistleblowers and self-identified robodebt victims.
The commission heard Tudge was personally involved in crafting a counter-narrative by “dropping” information to newspapers, including The Australian, which received a dossier from Tudge’s office based on the personal information of welfare recipients.
Tudge was also asked about an incident where his office revealed to a Canberra Times journalist the personal information of a woman who had written a newspaper column about how she felt “terrorised” by Centrelink.
Tudge said the woman’s details were shared to correct the record, and that in hindsight, he wished the department had released the information instead of his office.
He disagreed the information leak would have a chilling effect on critics.
Commissioner Catherine Holmes said it had been a “terrible idea” that “made very clear that if somebody wanted to criticise Centrelink in public, they were taking a risk.”
“That was not my intention,” Tudge said.
“Ministerial Responsibility”…as with the jawdropping incompetence of the Aged Care Minister…..why are not these incompetent clowns on manslaughter charges???. : A class action with a jury of their “Peers” would no doubt find them guilty AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THOUSANDS OF DEATHS. What is wrong with our justice systems? Waltz into a Bank with a balaclava and a shotgun gets you 25 years in the slammer. Is this gross negligence worse???
It is entirely possible for the relatives of those victims of the LNP genocide to mount a private prosecution for a range of charges, from unlawful killing, to demanding money with menaces, to involuntary manslaughter……….
I’d be inclined to wait until all the barbarians have had their say at the Commission before approaching a litigation funder, but I’d say that there are firms out there who are salivating at the potential payout.
The only thing I’d like to see is for it to be a case against these people personally – not yet another one against the Commonwealth, where the tax-payer would part with another billion dollars courtesy of the “Better Extortion Managers”.
That is the main reason these scumbags continue to behave this way: they suffer no personal consequences regardless of the crimes they commit. They get away Scott-free.
Time to bring back Madame La Guillotine and the tumbrels.
I do so wish to throw excrement all over the ‘aristos’ as they are dragged through the streets to their ultimate fate.
Their smug evasion of responsibility is an affront to the people who elected them and paid them for the tripe they dish out as ministers of the Crown.
I hope you’re right. These people need to be held accountable by criminal charges against them. They broke the law and hounded and harassed to death or illness 100’s of thousands of people by their negligence or didn’t give a sh**t attitude. Personally I think their own ideology that struggling people or those needing support and assistance from the government as unworthy and deserving of the harshest punishment has a lot to do with these horrific policies however obviously that is a difficult thing to prove.
Damn right. You tell ’em. Demanding money with menaces. Involuntary manslaughter. Suing the Liberal Ministers personally.
Three ministers, and counting, who all insist they were “not aware” the scheme they were operating was illegal.
How much curiosity did they show about the question of legality? When concerns were raised with them, or they saw the reports in the media, did any of them say to their officials that to be on the safe side it would be good to have solid advice about the legality so we can refute these concerns? What prevented them telling their officials early on that a case must go court, to get a final and definitive ruling on its legality? How is this not their responsibility? Hiding behind wilful ignorance is presumably better than admitting they knew everything. But still it stinks.
Also, and I’ve said this before, even if the “averaging” scam and extortion was somehow made legal by amending the legislation, it would still be mathematical nonsense. It cannot ever give a true income for any particular fortnight, so it could never do what it was being used for.
When those at the top assume that they have been appointed by “god”, the question of legality simply never arises……
…….as is abundantly clear from their selection of a man as chief law officer who had a positive allergy for the law.
It will be comical to see him deny any knowledge that the whole scheme was illegal………….
“Honest guv, nuffink to do wiv me………….”
When those at the top assume that they have been appointed by “god”, the question of legality simply never arises……
That says it all really.
Exactly. We all know the real reason – most of these politicians just didn’t care or they harbour a personal ideology that those who need help or are struggling are deserving of it and deserve to be punished because they aren’t worthy or contributing members of society. We probably can’t prove that of course. It is feasible if criminal charges aren’t laid against those proven to have broken the law they could still be sued for negligence but proving a direct link to harm caused to an individual as a direct result of this policy could possibly be difficult…we will see. I am sure there are law firms who would be willing to have a go.
It’s a direct descendant of Thatcherism – and Reaganism. Nice article in the Guardian today sheeting home the present industrial strife in the UK (teachers, nurses, train drivers on strike) to Thatcher’s union bashing legislation of forty years ago.
There should be a level of personal criminal liability on the behaviour of these creatures – particularly those who use their feigned belief in prosperity religions as an excuse to beat and abuse others.
I think their shallow denials are even worse than that, Rat. The Robodebt process may not have been tested by a court, but it was certainly tested by the AAT. I understand there were over 70 cases brought before the AAT, which ruled in every case against the Commonwealth. Normally the Commonwealth would appeal these decisions to avoid the establishment of a precedent. But in every one of these cases the Commonwealth decided not to appeal, reportedly because they did not want to arouse any publicity or media interest in a scheme they obviously knew was indefensible legally and in the court of public opinion.
According to the report in The Saturday Paper the DHS and DSS have a legal obligation when the AAT makes an adverse ruling to either
So when you say they merely “did not want to” that’s still too kind. Those responsible – senior public servants and their legal counsel – were engaged in, to use word applied by TSP, a conspiracy, and it was illegal just as much as Robodebt was illegal. This conspiracy did not only involve not taking the matter to court, it included a deliberate and successful plot to deceive the ombudsman who also investigated Robodebt.
Thanks. Just when you think it can’t get any worse. And still the MSM call it a ‘bungled’ scheme. It was no bungle. It worked (=extorted) just as it was intended to.
Yep. Morrison’s if we knew it was illegal we’d have just changed the law bit is one of the most horrifying things to come out of this, I reckon.
It’s actually four, not three. Don’t forget that the architect of this was Scummo himself, who appeared first before the inquiry. And no, this could never be made legal; it would be thrown out on principle as inherently unjust.
Actually, when I posted the count of three was accurate. Since then Porter put his hand up and accepted some responsibility. So I admit I’m not psychic.
Your confidence that debt averaging could never be made legal is astonishing and hard to sustain. It’s fair enough to hope that an attempt to make it legal would fail, and there’s no question it should fail. but that requires sufficient parliamentarians who see what is happening, understand it and care enough to mount an effective opposition. The change might have been made as regulation rather than primary legislation so it would easily fly under the radar and might go through with no debate at all. If it was resisted the Coalition had a majority in the lower house so that puts all the responsibility on the upper house. Would Labor have opposed it, when it was desperate to avoid any fights before the election? (Remember, witnesses at the inquiry say Robodebt was popular with swing voters in crucial seats, so this is exactly the sort of fight Labor did not want.) And if Labor did, would enough of the cross-bench have joined it?
OK, but my assertion on it’s prospective legality was made on the basis that it is the courts that determine legality, not the government of the day.
They may manage to pass it through parliament, but that is only the first step. It also needs the assent of the solicitor-general and of the GG.
That aside, the question of Labor’s possible agreement in the future is moot. With the Teals now so strong and likely to become stronger, I can’t see them allowing the proposition to pass.
As to whether they could achieve the same result a matter of regulation, rather than legislation, I put to you that neither of us have sufficient knowledge of the legality of doing so, so the point is again, moot.
While it can be useful to be aware of possible future events, the fact that they are all speculative, and IMHO hardly credible, gives them little value.
You are seriously confused, or more likely just posting twaddle hoping to produce confusion.
There is no question the debt averaging method is illegal at present and was illegal when it was being used by the last government, so it is nonsense to talk about prospective legality arising from the courts. It can only be legalised by new legislation. There is no other way to make it legal.
Nonsense. There is no requirement for the SG to assent. The SG’s job is to provide advice when asked. The SG need not have any formal involvement in bringing new legislation into force. The assent of the GG is in effect automatic so it is ludicrous to think the GG might refuse. The very most the GG might do, and even this would be extraordinary, is privately say to the PM that there might be some issues with the legilsation.
What has that got to do with anything? This is all about what the last government did and what it might have done. The Teals are completely irrelevant, they were not in parliament then. And it is silly beyond words to describe them as “so strong” now. They are a small block of MPs in the lower house where the government has a very healthy majority. That makes them practically powerless. Even if they join with every other non-Labor MP the resulting bloc is practically powerless. They cannot possibly obstruct anything. If you “cannot see them allowing” such a thing you should explain what they can do. Blow up parliament?
Speak for yourself. Unlike you, I do know what I’m on about.
It bears repeating, our political classes long ago gave up on taking responsibility and being accountable. They seek to take credit and award blame. Ministers, both state and federal surround themselves with a “liar wall” of deniability for any negative consequences of their policies and programs; in which process they are energetically supported by their parasitic agents in the press gallery.
The moral vacuity and cowardice of these individuals has been forensically exposed in this RC to any with eyes to see.
Include the head legal public servant on this, she is still employed for heavens sake!
Got a promotion, I believe.
And she wasn’t the only one, if memory serves me correctly.
I refute that all “political classes long ago gave up on taking responsibility and being accountable.”
When did you ever hear of such practises from the progressive sides of Australian politics ?
It is always the cons who behave like this – to tar all sides with this reeks of denialism.
Perhaps we could also drop the ‘Hon’ before their names. No honour amongst these thieving ratbags.
Substituting “Don” for “The Hon” might give a more accurate reflection of how the LNP operates…………….
[Tudge] disagreed the information leak would have a chilling effect on critics.
Commissioner Catherine Holmes said it had been a “terrible idea” that “made very clear that if somebody wanted to criticise Centrelink in public, they were taking a risk.”
“That was not my intention,” Tudge said.
Bull****!
That was exactly his attention.
And he does it with a straight face.