The recommendations of the robodebt royal commission, by commissioner Catherine Holmes AC SC provide a substantial program of reform within the Australian Public Service (APS). But even if fully implemented, they would do nothing to stop a repeat of what unfolded between late 2014 and 2019.
Robodebt was the result of bureaucrats eager to be “responsive” to a new minister, one who saw getting legislation to make an illegal scheme legal as just too damn hard. They worked with him to mislead cabinet and other agencies. According to the Holmes report, Scott Morrison, former head of the human and social services departments Kathryn Campbell, her deputy secretary the late Malisa Golightly, and Human Services SES officer Mark Withnell were all party to this deception. Other officers also either failed to do their jobs properly or deluded themselves about the legality of the scheme.
The result: a policy disaster, multiple deaths, the infliction of misery on hundreds of thousands, and years-long efforts by the Department of Human Services to cover it all up, which included senior public servants and subsequent ministers abusing their powers.
To this day, perpetrators of our role in the Iraq debacle insist they weren’t lying about Saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, just mistaken. Here, there isn’t even that fig leaf. There is clear evidence the perpetrators of robodebt knew the scheme was illegal, misled colleagues and cabinet about it, and tried to cover it up afterwards. It’s the blackest episode for the public service in decades.
Holmes’ recommendations cover better policy design and greater internal and external consultation within what is now Services Australia, tightening management of legal issues within the budget process (including fixing a common misapprehension that the question “Is legislation required?” in new policy proposals doesn’t mean is legislation required to implement the policy), reviewing data exchange between the Australian Tax Office and Services Australia, addressing problems in automated decision-making and improving debt recovery processes, significantly lifting standards and training for in-house lawyers within the social services agencies (and ending the practice of line areas asking for legal advice, not liking the draft advice they are offered and telling their lawyers not to finalise it in case it becomes embarrassing), and improving APS standards.
In turn, Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) head Glyn Davis and public service commissioner Gordon de Brouwer have told public servants they’re establishing a taskforce of PM&C, Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) “to support ministers in preparing the government’s response”. The APSC has also asked former commissioner Stephen Sedgwick to look at whether public servants named in the report have breached the APS code of conduct.
So far, so good. But the central problem behind robodebt remains unaddressed.
For decades — with the exception of Malcolm Turnbull, who not merely didn’t feel threatened by competent public servants but valued them — the Coalition has politicised, disempowered and degraded the public service. But robodebt required more than cowed bureaucrats eager to please a minister at any cost. It required a particularly malignant political personality.
That Morrison lied to voters and deceived his colleagues as prime minister is already well established. But his willingness to deceive colleagues, it appears, went back much further, to taking a proposal to the Expenditure Review Committee in 2015 that was misleading on a crucial point — whether it was even legal or not.
The Holmes recommendations don’t particularly address the politicisation of the APS. And they certainly don’t address the toxic potential of a minister willing to mislead cabinet combining with public servants happy to enable him to do so.
That is, the APS-minister relationship remains a system that relies on people of good faith operating within it. It is not a system that is resistant to people acting in bad faith.
Holmes’ report has a section called “Why was Mr Morrison not given the legal and policy advices?” It begins with Morrison in the commission hearings being “invited to consider possible contributing factors for the failure to clearly advise him of the legal position during the development of the NPP [new policy proposal]”.
Morrison professes ignorance as to why public servants would do such a thing, and laments that it is “distressing”. Holmes then goes on to explain in detail how the “contributing factor” was Morrison making it clear to public servants he wanted savings, and he didn’t want to have to do it with legislative change.
The advice provided by DSS to DHS in the development of the executive minute did comply with the duty to give full and frank advice about the need for legislative change.
The candour of that advice stopped, at least on the part of DHS, after Mr Morrison instructed DHS to develop the NPP by signing the executive minute which specifically advised of the need for legislative change.
Mr Morrison made clear to DSS that he wanted the DHS proposal progressed by way of NPP for the upcoming DSS portfolio budget submission without legislative change.
It’s easy for public servants to talk about the need for “frank and fearless advice” (though it’s hilarious that former department head Jane Halton, of “kids overboard” fame, has the chutzpah to complain about public servants not giving it, and blames freedom of information for “chilling” it). But after decades of politicisation, the power dynamic between ministers — and their extensive taxpayer-funded, unaccountable private staff — and bureaucrats directly curbs such advice.
Until that power dynamic is altered, the system will remain open to abuse by toxic, deceitful politicians and the bureaucrats who want to appease and enable them.
Does anyone really think we won’t see such politicians in future?
One critical first step is to boot the Murdoch press out of the country.
Mendacious and toxic characters like Howard, Abbott, Morrison and Dutton could never achieve power without an equally mendacious and toxic media landscape.
Agreed. But if I remember correctly, Morrison in a speech stated that the public service was there to do as he told them, not work as a public service. Given that the lnp had been slashing and eliminating public servants at their whim, I have some sympathy for their complicity as they had the threat of losing their job hanging over their heads.
Which job? Public servants are rarely sacked. They are just sidelined to a role that is humiliating and less than the six figure sum they are accustomed to claiming. (As a reward for ‘good behavior’ it would now seem).
That’s true, however, if you’re on a Fixed Term Contract, as many SES level public servants are, they have every cause to be very worried.
You know what will go a long way to stopping this sort of failure in public policy from happening in the future? Jail time for those responsible.
not if there is a payoff.
That’s why it needs to be gaol time. Fines and loss of benefits become irrelevant with big enough payoffs, but you can’t get back time behind bars.
Yes!
Accountability goes a long way to making ppl think twice about doing the dodge
And none of this “open prison” stuff, either. Proper in a cell incarceration for hours every day, limited visits, frisking of any visitors, mixing it with other prisoners who have reason to hate you ….. the full prison experience.
The very notion that Jane Halton is disappointed in the behaviour of senior public servants concerning robodebt and that her time set a shining example of ethical service and frank and fearless advice is laughable. She’s notorious for being both an unrelenting bully and a “good soldier” who would do anything to please her political masters. She was ever a favourite of the LNP.
As your colleague, Michael Bradley, notes in his piece today, it is a long road yet to criminal prosecutions, civil cases, and even more mundane code of conduct processes. While the evidence from the hearings of the Commission is voluminous, rigorous and detailed steps need to be taken to ensure that any actions taken have a reasonable chance of success and pass any evidentiary thresholds required (no matter that many folk would like to see heads on pikes now).
Poor Jane Halton though, hamstrung by Freedom of Information requests. If only there was o scrutiny, she could do a much better job!
Even the talking heads who seem to think they’re going hard when commenting on this atrocity fall well short of stating the actual nature of this crime.
It seems as plain as day to me, that institutionalised bastardry against those with the temerity to claim their entitlements was precisely the whole point; I’m absolutely sure that the bulk of any intended long term savings were to be a result of simply scaring people away from Centrelink.
That was the intent of the policy; kicking the poor in the teeth and being seen to mean it. Bullying the weakest is a well-known LNP selling point, and this was all about that without a shred of doubt.
Scummo’s eyes were wide open. That vile filth knew full well what he was inflicting.
Agree, but it’s not as simple as bullying, 18-19thC conservative Christianity and economics, but repackaged with a US deep south or ‘planter’ inspiration.
It’s imported right wing political strategy for the <1% by <1% to allow ‘free market’ or ‘libertarian’ economics to prevail while kicking down on those who cannot answer back e.g. those with disability issues and other minorities, e.g. in a parallel universe, refugees, immigrants and international students (also a warning to all citizens).
What does it represent? Corrupt nativist/classist authoritarianism which simply reflects old WASP colonial views i.e. eugenics; enforce 18-19thC social or pecking order for 99% then freedom from taxes, regulation, government and poor people for the 1%.
The interesting phenomenon is how many of the 99% are prepared to (or scared into?) do the bidding of the 1%, while pretending to be empowered?
What does it represent? Corrupt nativist/classist authoritarianism which simply reflects old WASP colonial views i.e. eugenics; enforce 18-19thC social or pecking order for 99% then freedom from taxes, regulation, government and poor people for the 1%.
The interesting phenomenon is how many of the 99% are prepared to (or scared into?) do the bidding of the 1%, while pretending to be empowered?
It’s imported right wing political strategy for the <1% by <1% to allow ‘free market’ or ‘libertarian’ economics to prevail while kicking down on those who cannot answer back e.g. those with disability issues and other minorities, in a parallel universe, refugees, migrants and international students; also a warning to all citizens to be ‘quiet Australians’.
Well the worst thing about Robdebt is that it’s exactly equivalent to the way our indigenous people have been treated for generations.