Here’s a short, non-exclusive list of people who should be witnesses at the robodebt royal commission:
- Former social services ministers Scott Morrison, Christian Porter, Dan Tehan, Paul Fletcher and Anne Ruston
- Former human services ministers Stuart Robert, Alan Tudge and Michael Keenan
- Tudge’s chief of staff Andrew Asten, along with every chief of staff of every former minister in the two portfolios
- Former Human Services secretary Kathryn Campbell. And an extensive list of the bureaucrats who worked under her in the implementation of the robodebt scheme and the Coalition’s attempts to defend it: Jonathan Hutson, Annette Musolino, Hank Jongen, Anthony Seebach, Jason McNamara — and that’s just the beginning.
They’ll find giving evidence at a royal commission a little different from ducking and weaving at an estimates hearing or Senate committee inquiry. They’ll find “I’ll take that on notice” won’t fly. They’ll find counsel assisting will keep at them without a minister or government senators being able to run interference. They’ll find the royal commission has a mountain of documents to scrutinise everything they say.
As for the former ministers, they’ll find it’s very different from question time or a media conference. And their former staffers will be forced to face something they’ve never experienced: public accountability.
It’s particularly crucial that the royal commission goes deep into the bureaucracy, down to the Band 1 and EL2 level, to trace how robodebt was devised and implemented by bureaucrats — despite clear evidence that automated debt raising was legally problematic at best and something that Human Services officially believed should be used “selectively“.
Many of these bureaucrats have moved on to other roles in the public service. But that’s the beauty of a royal commission over another Senate inquiry: for the latter, only the bureaucrats occupying the relevant roles can be required to give evidence. A royal commission can get those who did it, no matter where they now are.
The hundreds of thousands of victims of this illegal scheme, and particularly the families who lost loved ones as a result of its pitiless application, deserve nothing less than seeing the bureaucrats who from the comfort of their Canberra offices directed this process explain themselves. They deserve to see the ministers who crowed about the scheme, used private information to attack critics through the media, and who were indifferent to the massive suffering they caused, face aggressive questioning.
But the royal commission won’t be anything more than a cathartic exercise unless it properly explores how a major government department, and the ministers in charge of it, delivered such a shocking outcome — a failed scheme costing at least $1.2 billion, found to be illegal for exactly the reasons that critics claimed it was illegal for. That’s why a deep dive into the bureaucracy is crucial to understand how a departmental system delivered such a bad outcome. What systemic failures led to such an outrage? Why did no one speak up, or if they did, why were they not listened to?
The royal commission has to look not just at the immediate circumstances of robodebt and the actions of ministers, staffers and bureaucrats; it must also explore the politicisation of the public service, the overly close and overly responsive relationship between senior executives and political staffers, the extent of groupthink within the bureaucracy and its detachment from the human consequences of its actions.
Without that kind of examination of how a bureaucratic system delivered this horror, the foundations remain in place for a similar scandal in the future — under this or a future government.
Do you think the royal commission will be effective in getting the dirt on robodebt? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
At the very bottom of this enormity lies the ancient and toxic concept of the deserving, and undeserving poor – weapon, wielded for generations by the ruling class to intimidate and divide the masses – and most recently with great success by that icon Howard. Robodebt did what it was intended to; think of all those years of falling wages.
Robodebt is the bastard grandchild of the workhouse
Exactly, Griselda, just as the rental crisis that’s been allowed, indeed, encouraged, to happen is returning us to Dicken’s slums.
Agree entirely – the bastardry was not a bug but feature, it was designed to be so.
Also, extra points for the correct use “enormity” – one of those many words now fulsomely abused by sub-literate writers.
Fulsomely=flatteringly. I’m not sure that’s what you meant!
That is the ‘current abusage‘ – should I add whoooosh?
It is not the original meaning which Ms Lamington, G would certainly know was intended.
“…the foundations remain in place for a similar scandal in the future — under this or a future government.”
Yes, agree completely, this is the essence of why this inquiry is so important and should be thorough. Let’s acknowledge that a “similar scandal in the future” is not hypothetical. We already know of several other scandals where the senior members of the government have acted very badly with little or no sign of any resistance from colleagues, advisors, officials or public servants. It is vitally important to identify why.
The opposition is already bleating about a witch hunt. This is disturbing but not surprising. The Coalition has learnt nothing from its time in government except perhaps the need for better cover-ups and more secrecy. It will resist learning anything as long as it can, and it is still committed to undermining integrity and trashing all the conventions required for accountability in public office so that it can exploit political power for itself and its mates without consequences.
If there was a proper piece of policy advice developed for the Mnister who initiated this (I believe it is suggested to be Morrison) then there should have been a risk analysis done. I would bet that that analysis (if done) never reached the Minister. Somewhere along the way a politically attuned bureaucrat would have decided that the Minister did not want to hear about such things and would get annoyed if it was given to him. If such a person can be found their reasoning and who leant on them would be very informative.
If an honest and accurate risk analysis did reach the Minister, then we would know exactly where the buck stops.
The LNP government consistently refused to release the legal advice they were given. I wonder why.
Presumably HH Virginia Bell will require that it be made available, if only for her perusal.
As a document in open court it would require a very unusual ruling that it not then be made public.
‘Such people’ abound in the APS, Peter.
“the families who lost loved ones” – this must be remembered and emphasised: people died
let’s hear the same uproar as the “Pink Batts scandal”, when shonky private operators took Federal money and then didn’t protect their workers due to lax State laws
So true- Liberals with selective memories!
Read what Possum comitas said about this ( as also did the CSIRO) . Actual deaths were similar before and during the” pink batts” project while the actual installation increased tenfold.
The Libs are pretending to be upset at an inquiry about “ancient history”, but if they had come clean and taken responsibility at the time it would not be necessary now.
Not only that, but all of their Royal Commissions were based on much less evidence, and were HYPER political in nature. Their protests are completely irrelevant, and if I was Labor I would treat them with utter contempt, and use every power I had to expose them.
After all, truly good government starts with making sure the LNP is in opposition for as long as possible, after that other goals can be looked at (climate change, health, education, etc).
And those that suffered needlessly under the duress of a government that sought money with menaces (to fund the 2016 Cormann-Morrison election budget) deserve no less than a root and branch rooting out to find who was at the base of their needless suffering and vilification for political purposes – not to mention for the memories of those for whom such institutionalised, stand-over b-u-l-l-y-i-n-g proved was too much.
More than that – extortion is a criminal offence, this was an ‘illegal’ (= criminal) scheme, so someone needs to be charged and jailed, just like I would be if I’d extorted $1,000 from someone.
Bugger “extortion”………….
…….Morrison and chums should be facing (at the very least) Involuntary Manslaughter charges.
If I was a relative of someone who committed suicide over this illegal scheme, I would be demanding it.
Frankly, it would be a lay-down mizere.