Hats off to Rachelle Miller, Alan Tudge’s former media adviser, who successfully hosed down attempts to reveal the Coalition government’s cruel robodebt scheme. Miller played the media for mugs, and guess what: the media played right along.
The top order issue at the robodebt royal commission is how vulnerable Australians were done over by a government that appeared to care little about the impact of its scheme — including leading to a number of reported suicides — as long as the message it sent of cracking down on welfare cheats played well in key seats.
But Miller’s evidence at the royal commission this week cast a glaring light on the critical enabling role of journalists and the government’s media machine in this cruel game of perception management. You could sense the cockroaches scuttling as the light was switched on.
Journalists should hang their heads in shame. Their mastheads and programs should apologise. Also, pigs might fly. There is never a day of reckoning for some in the media — despite this week’s de facto whistleblowing performance by Miller, who had occupied a place deep in the machine for several years.
The first thing to know about Miller (beyond the $650,000 she received in a settlement with the federal government following her claims of bullying and discrimination) is that she has never actually been a journalist. Traditionally this has mattered if you want to be a media adviser because working in the media at least gives you an understanding of what it is to work in the media, and the role it plays in holding government to account. (OK, no more jokes, I promise.)
After graduating from Sydney exclusive private school SCEGGS, Miller was off to Monash Uni and completed a BA in Graphic Design. She then plied her trade as a graphic designer for several years. From around 2009 she took up with the Victorian Liberals, beginning as a media adviser to then-member for Wannon David Hawker, before working with his successor Dan Tehan.
Then it was on to George Brandis during his stint as attorney-general in the Abbott government. (This turned out to be a slow gig because Brandis very rarely did media interviews.) Miller then moved to Senator Richard Colbeck’s ministerial office before landing as Tudge’s media adviser in 2016 when he was minister for human services.
Her rise from graphic designer to media adviser was typical of the Coalition government and a firm pointer to its low regard for the media. When journalists made inquiries they more often than not dealt with a party operative.
Miller’s evidence this week showed that for the Coalition the media was something to be manipulated for the government’s own ends. It also showed very clearly the transactional nature of its relationship with the Murdoch media in particular.
Miller gave chapter and verse on how this was done.
There were the exclusive “drops” to favoured media and journalists — a technique more effective than the general media release and one more likely to guarantee a favourable front-page story. An exclusive would then “set the media narrative”, she told the royal commission.
There was the “crisis media strategy” devised to “shut down” a proliferation of critical stories on robodebt.
This was done by placing stories with “the more friendly media”. This, of course, went to the nub of the government’s media strategy and its spinning of the counter-narrative.
The government divided the media world into left and right and didn’t give a toss what the lefties thought. Who needs social media and its silly algorithms to divide us when the government is engineering it all along?
The right, of course, was the Murdoch media plus tabloid television. The Australian‘s political editor Simon Benson gained a special seal of approval from Tudge because his stories always worked so well.
The rest — everything to the left of Genghis Khan — were not worth worrying about. This included the ABC, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This much we pretty well knew from close to a decade under the yoke of a Coalition government which despised accountability and fairness.
However, Miller revealed a couple of flourishes.
There was the terrific idea of calling an “independent” investigation into questions about robodebt, thus giving Tudge cover not to answer journalists’ questions. It was, Miller said, “a really good holding line for a minister”. In this case, inquiries were carried out by the fearless folk from consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has been a donor to the Coalition.
On Miller’s evidence, Tudge had been keen to see his name in the right newspapers and to see his face on the right news programs. He was known as a bit of a “media tart”, she told the royal commission.
And why the craving for publicity? Because it would bring the ambitious junior minister to the attention of his colleagues and increase his chances of gaining a cabinet position.
This is the twist few of us saw coming — a little like an uppercut after a flurry of blows to the body. Tudge was not just pushing a flawed government programme, he was using public money and the services of a taxpayer-funded media adviser to advance his personal political ambitions. He was also insisting the department ferret out stories he could present as “wins”.
In all this, of course, Miller was a more-than-willing collaborator. Trapped in the bubble of Liberal politics for a decade it barely penetrated her world that robodebt was unfair and dangerous.
When The Saturday Paper reported the scheme as much, Tudge’s lieutenant was onto it in a flash. The paper’s report was “one of the most disgraceful pieces of reporting I have ever seen”, she wailed in an email to her boss and the inner coterie. “Unfortunately The Saturday Paper has left me with this impression before.”
Miller’s evidence to the royal commission adds to the strange conundrum of her political journey. She was in it up to her eyeballs, not as some starry-eyed young student thrilled by the proximity to power but as a mature woman who was, by the time of her work with Tudge, some 15 years and more in the workforce.
At some point Miller did a 180, and when she did she turned to the leftie media she once disdained, telling the story of her allegedly toxic and abusive affair with Tudge to the ABC. (Tudge has denied all allegations of abuse, but has admitted to the consensual affair.)
She ended up with the well-connected Labor lawyer Peter Gordon to represent her claim against the government, alleging workplace bullying, harassment and discrimination during her time as a staffer.
The claim was lobbed just before the last election when the Morrison government was reeling from a series of allegations involving female Liberal staffers. Peter Gordon had earlier run a class action against the government on behalf of robodebt victims and secured a $1.8 billion settlement.
Whatever else happens, this week Miller shed some serious light on the full, ugly cynicism which underpinned the Coalition government’s media management.
News Corp can’t even really be called media anymore can it? Not when it’s a direct commercial arm of the Coalition
That’s what the coalition think it is. In fact the Coalition is the political arm of News Corp.
Until the coalition work this out, they will continue to circle the electoral plug hole.
Having had the quality of the Coalition’s “brains trust” exposed by this inquiry, they’re unlikely to be working anything out any time soon.
Lol, nailed it
If you thought Simon Benson couldn’t go any lower after being Scomo’s personal publicist, it turns out he was a purveyor of Tudge sludge as well.
And it seems he’s been Tudging Bid McKenzie on the side too.
I agree. The Courier-Mail in Brisbane is the Bowen Hills branch of the LNP.
If Tudge enjoys the spotlight he certainly had it focussed on him this week. Alas, his performance at the Royal Commission hearing revealed his ministerial ineptitude & general lack of smarts. It’s what happens when the medium of live television isn’t corrupted.
And not for the first time. He and Sukkar and Hunt almost lost their MP status through contempt of court statements alleging judicial leniency. Then there was the keeping of a refugee in detention when a court had ordered he be released. And I seem to recall an engagement in the history culture wars. and all those months before the May 2022 when he was “stood down” from his ministerial position but kept receiving the salary.
Inept seems a barely adequate description.
Indeed,I have been closely following him through all these connections. He is still the Shadow Minister for Education wanting to rewrite History. He just scraped home at the last election,I think he will lose the next one!
I certainly hope so. It is very difficult to find any Coalition MP with any honesty, decency or moral worth. Long may they languish in the political wilderness.
Looks more like a rabbit in the spotlight now. Thankfully all his burrows look unavailable now.
He shoulda worn a fez – and gone the full Tommy Cooper….”Now I’ll just pull a hare out of my arse ….”
“Just like that!”
The remaining question to be asked and answered is: why did the ATO stay silent for so long when it’s data was clearly being misused? A test run on this Robotdebt scam was done a couple of years earlier when the Family Tax Benefit reconciliation process was abused by Centrelink and friends. Women who had NOT received any fortnightly payment (because being cautious they preferred to wait until the end of a financial year to make the claim based on ‘actual family income’, including the family’s actual small business income for the year) were assumed to have received fortnightly payments (they hadn’t!!) and were then forced to repay thousands of dollars to Big Brother. When families tried to find out how/why they had a debt, stony silence was the result followed by threats of bankruptcy action. Does this tactic sound familiar? Accounting practices all over the country knew that Robotdebt was illegal (because of the use of averaging) and spent hours trying to assist our clients. I want long prison terms imposed on all involved in this appalling crime.
Yes the two big problems in Australia are 1. An appalling track records for most of the so called regulators who fail so consistently in their role it’s negligence on a criminal level. 2. Lack of consequences for all those people involved in the failings along the way; in this case these failings led to tragic consequences. Long prison terms would be a good start.
I agree. None of the Robodebt culprits should be allowed to stand for office again and the public servants who aided and abetted the implementation of that appalling illegal scheme should be sacked.
Let them all have a taste of living on the enormous bounty provided on unemployment “benefits”.
No.
They should be prosecuted.
Then sacked.
And seizing of assets (proceeds of crime).
OMFG, this.
+1 with bells on
Has a comment in a context like this ever spawned a grassroots campaign? If not, it’s about time.
Somebody with a lot of followers, screencap and share this far and wide.
“Accounting practices all over the country knew that Robotdebt was illegal (because of the use of averaging) and spent hours trying to assist our clients.”
Public accountants and tax agents were smelling these govt practices as HUGELY QUESTIONABLE because we were toooooo shocked to label it illegal. This Royal Commission illustrates our smell-instincts were spot on.
Anyone with an IQ over 70 realised that it was totally inappopriate to:
Agreed, but it was all too much for Tudge, Porter, Morrison, Payne, Hume, Teehan and Roberts to THINK that, especially when the “dole bludger” mentality had entrenched in the LNP since Fraser & Howard first embraced it in the 1970’s.
And a deliberate plan to balance their budget by extorting money from vulnerable people who couldn’t defend themselves – morally equivalent to a druggie mugging an old lady for her handbag.
I have a high regard for The Saturday Paper and its reporting on robodebt has been first class. It’s pleasing to me to see it said so plainly that such careful journalism is so despised and resented by LNP ministers and their “media advisers”.
That hatred of honest journalism by the LNP is ample reason for voters give them no more chances until they genuinely mend their ways, or hell freezes over, whichever occurs first.
IKR. But somehow a big chunk of the populace is inoculated against realising that.
Maybe it’s the authoritarian followers amongst us? That most pathetic category of human seems the best angle to take to isolate those who don’t realise the point of journalism…
Goddamn bootlickers: https://theauthoritarians.org/
Any media organ that doesn’t function as part of its cheer squad is dismissed as “left wing”.
Makes me quite proud to be labelled “left wing”. And, of course, the longer the LNP was in government and moving everything to the right, the lefter [sic] I appeared to be – just by maintaining my usual political stance and views.
Hence reality’s left wing bias
Such a good piece of writing on this issue. David Hardaker says exactly what many people have been thinking about the whole ‘Robodebt’ scandal, its tragic outcomes. The role of ‘media advisers’, and how ethically challenged they are. In the case of Ms. Miller, the complete lack of insight into what she was doing in regard to ‘Robodebt’ and the terrible damage being done to the innocent people being targeted. I found her demeanour giving evidence incredible shallow, and oddly detached. This could be a reaction to trauma, a now deeply etched cynicism about the whole system that she played in, got played by, and by the time it all came trashing down, yes, as is noted in this article, Ms. Miller knew where to turn.
Apologies for the couple of typos.
Yes, the detached demeanour is typical of sociopathic personality types when they recount their evil (eg holocaust enablers at the Nuremberg trials).
Yeah, MORE HARDAKER! This is what I pay a subscription for, not drivel spouted by Turdoch alumni.
Actually, now that I check out his page, He was on a break for a couple of months.
Great to have you back, David!
Apparently my keyboard takes you for a deity
I have just watched Miller’s testimony because of this comment so I’ve popped back on to respond.
I didn’t find her testimony shallow at all. She was very forthcoming about her part in things and what she saw going on. Her contempt for the Labor Party, certain news outlets and one particular journalist were on full display. She didn’t seem to hold back much in any aspect and the Commissioner didn’t need to ask her any scathing questions.
The Commissioner did seem surprised that Miller considered the SMH to be a left wing newspaper though. A bit of light relief that I appreciated enormously considering the nature of the testimony. The RC team must be very glad of the Commissioner’s honesty while they play the straight bat day in day out.
I didn’t find her detached or psychopathic as Peter Schultz’s comment describes.
Yes, the false debt raised against Chester’s staffer was the thing that really got Miller questioning the scheme because she thought if such a well educated political operative with complete records is struggling to respond to having a false debt raised against her, how would much more vulnerable people cope.
The thing that I found more significant was that people were ringing the minister’s office and liaison officers were helping people resolve the false debts raised against them. And, it was hearing those conversations that got Miller to go to the minister and he told her he knew what was going on.
As she started to ask questions, it sounds like she was told it was the policy advisor’s territory not the media advisor’s territory, so back in your box … and she complied just as most of us would despite our discomfort.
I’ve stood up against something very bad in the workplace and absolutely no-one else was prepared to join me even though they all thought it needed to stop, and some people condemned me for not letting it go. So from my experience, she responded as most people would.
For me, her testimony emphasised the need to keep the pressure on Labor to get that whistleblower legislation done. I’m not saying she would have used it, but this is another circumstance that makes clear there are very few options for anyone who is becoming concerned about goings on in a minister’s office.
Towards the end of her testimony she all but said the old ‘Labor did it first’ line was a “lie”. I think she probably would have but Greggery was very careful not to use the word and she seemed to hold back in response to his cautious language.
Unless I misheard, she also approached the Commission to give testimony as a result of hearing what victims of the scheme shared about their experience of it.
Yes, her description of her job showed it to be a very low and brutal way to make a living and I certainly would never be prepared to do it, but I can’t imagine that anyone would expect press secretaries in any political party to be any better.
I think that a privileged woman in a powerful position has learnt that she spent her days abusing her power and ordinary people have suffered enormously and some even died as a result. If a young person in my world ever expresses an interest in party politics, I’ll be recommending that they watch Miller’s testimony because at some point they may very well be reduced to similar behaviour.
Despite my disgust and anger, I’m grateful she came clean and I’m guessing that she has been spending an awful lot of time in a psychologist’s office. I hope her testimony prompts other people to search their consciences, though I expect most political players will be way too self-obsessed to even imagine that this applies to their work too.
Yes, an impressive and humane understanding / analysis. Miller appeared to me to be forthcoming and reasonably open. We have all have a greater understanding of the snakey inner workings of Tudge’s office and mindset.