Scott Morrison rejects 'unsubstantiated' adverse Robodebt findings

In the 990-page report, released on Friday, the commission accused Mr Morrison of "allow[ing] Cabinet to be misled ... because he took the proposal to Cabinet without necessary information ... and without the caveat that it required legislative and policy change".

Commissioner Catherine Holmes condemned the scheme as "crude and cruel", "neither fair nor legal" and a "costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms" in her report, released today.

She excoriated those responsible for "venality, incompetence and cowardice".

Mr Morrison, now a backbencher, has "expressed regret" for unintended consequences of the scheme and the impact that the operations of the scheme had on individuals and their families.

"I reject completely each of the findings which are critical of my involvement in authorising the scheme and are adverse to me," he said in a statement.

"They are wrong, unsubstantiated and contradicted by clear documentary evidence presented to the Commission.

READ MORE:

The report is also critical of former government ministers including Christian Porter, Alan Tudge and Stuart Robert. Mr Robert has welcomed the "sensible recommendations" while Mr Tudge has insisted he made improvements to the scheme and rejected he abused his power with the media and was indifferent to suicides.

Mr Morrison said the findings which are adverse to him are based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of how government operates.

"I acted in good faith and on clear and deliberate department advice that no legislation was required to introduce the scheme and presented comprehensive evidence to support this position," he said.

He notes the commission made no findings regarding his roles as Treasurer or Prime Minister during the time in which the scheme operated. And as Prime Minister, he stated, he oversaw the closure of the scheme.

Mr Morrison said he notes evidence before the Commission that indicated the responsible Departments were still maintaining the scheme was lawful, after he left the social services portfolio.