The former prime minister also repeatedly frustrated those examining him over the way he answered questions.
‘I didn’t see it as necessary’
Morrison was persistently asked about the discrepancy between the draft advice he was given regarding the welfare crackdown proposal and the submission that ultimately went to cabinet,in which text identifying the need for legislative change was erased.
‘This is your reading of the act?’
Holmes also grilled Morrison on his knowledge of the legislation underpinning the program,particularly in relation to issuing debts to past welfare recipients.
‘I’m happy to be available tomorrow’
Morrison was chided by both commissioner Catherine Holmes and her counsel assisting,Justin Greggery,over the length and nature of his answers. Here’s one exchange conveying the commission’s frustration:
‘Your belief was proved wrong by history’
Morrison’s persistence that he believed the scheme was legally sound was followed by a concession that it was ultimately shown not to be. In late 2019,a Federal Court judge said the scheme and its primary method of debt calculation,income averaging,was unlawful. Later a class action was settled by the Commonwealth.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news,views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley..