So incensed was I with the Leader of the Opposition’s response to the Royal Commissions report into the Robodebt Scheme that for a brief moment, I actually felt sorry for him.

However, in an equally brief deliberation, I realised that it was us, the people, that my sorrow was better directed. We deserved more than what Peter Dutton gave us. The Leader of the Opposition’s standing is fundamental to our democracy because he leads the alternative Government and therefore represents its philosophy and policies.

But alas, when responding to matters of importance, he attacks with all the ferocity of an angry Abbott or a lying Morrison. Let me explain his reaction to the Commission’s report in four instances.

1 “When the problems were brought to the government’s attention at the time, the program was stopped,” Mr Dutton told reporters.

FACT: The Commissioner identified the many times the scheme was found to be illegal and was never stopped. So that was a lie.

2 “I think the people of Fadden are much smarter than that – they’ve seen the personal smears against (Liberal candidate) Cameron Caldwell, they’ve seen the political advantage in the timing of the release of this report…

They’re not stupid. They can see that.”

FACT: The Government instigated the Commission, and its delivery date was decided before a bye-election became necessary. The Electoral Commission, not the Government, decided on that date, so any collusion was impossible. A lie.

3 “I caution the glee of the Prime Minister and Bill Shorten at the moment. They’ve sought to politicise this issue from day one.”

Glee means merriment, gaiety, joy, delight or cheer. Albanese and Shorten couldn’t be accused of being gleeful in all the media coverage I read or saw. Another one of your lies.

4 Dutton also accused the PM of trying to “unseal” the secret chapter of the report for political gain.

“Albanese has said he is seeking advice about whether the confidential, sealed chapter from the Commission’s report, which details these referrals, can eventually be released after further actions against named individuals and legal appeals are exhausted.”

Oops. Another lie.

Albanese can’t name anyone. He only went as far as the report would allow. Bill Shorten has also sought legal advice on revealing the names. There is no conspiracy to open any envelope.

The dilemma here is that, on the one hand, the public, after spending millions on a Royal Commission, deserves to know who was responsible for the gross mishandling of a scheme that oversaw many deaths.

On the other hand, those accused deserve the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

One cannot dispute (although Dutton doubtlessly will) that this Royal Commission was conducted with the highest ethics and integrity by Catherine Holmes, but at this point, it needs completeness. There has to be just transparency.

Heads of departments in the public service are empowered to take immediate action against public servants who are found to have acted unlawfully or incompetently, meaning that Kathryn Campbell and Renée Leon will lose their positions. So, might others. The Commissioner found adverse findings against 7 public servants.

Just who the politicians are is still unknown. Suppose there is no accountability or consequences, and the culprits remain unknown for what has transpired. If they remain unaccountable and unknown, the Commission will have achieved little other than telling our politicians they are free to continue their deception and corruption.

Of course, we have yet to determine how many names are in the sealed section of the report, but I imagine names like: Scott Morrison. Kathryn Campbell. Alan Tudge. Stuart Robert. Christian Porter. Annette Musolino. Serena Wilson. Jonathan Hutson. Mark Withnell. Paul McBride. Emma Kate McGuirk. Karen Harfield. Jason McNamara and Craig Storen would be shaking in their shoes right now.

There may be others, of course. All that can be said of these individuals other than the damming commentary in the report itself is that they are of a category of humanity that most of us are unfamiliar with.

Of the former Prime Minister, the Commission found that:

“It was Morrison’s pathological incuriosity that allowed cabinet to be deceived.

“Mr Morrison allowed Cabinet to be misled because he did not make that obvious inquiry,” Holmes’s report says. “He took the proposal to Cabinet without necessary information.”

Of Minister Alan Tudge:

“Tudge, Holmes found, was motivated by a desire to “save face” both personally and on behalf of the Government. He wanted to “minimise public embarrassment” after he had publicly trumpeted the new era of debt compliance when he became minister the year before.”

“As a minister, Mr Tudge was invested with a significant amount of public power,” the report says.

“Mr Tudge’s use of information about social security recipients in the media to distract from and discourage commentary about the scheme’s problems represented an abuse of that power.”

Of Minister Christian Porter:

“Mr Porter could not rationally have been satisfied of the legality of the Scheme on the basis of his general knowledge of the [new policy proposal] process, when he did not have actual knowledge of the content of the NPP, and had no idea whether it had said anything about the practice of income averaging,”

Minister Stuart Robert:

When Stuart Robert was appointed minister for Government Services, he was briefed on a Federal Court of Australia case concerning a Robodebt victim in which the Australian Government Solicitor had provided draft legal advice warning the scheme was almost certainly not lawful.

However, Robert:

“… denies being briefed on this advice in June 2019, but the Royal Commission does not believe him. This poses a significant problem for the former minister because it was another five months before the opinion of the solicitor-general was sought. This was the definitive, scheme-killing legal advice.”

Why was there such a long wait? Officials argue it was simply a long process:

“In the Commission’s view, none of this justifies the five-month delay in preparing and delivering the brief.”

Further, Commissioner Catherine Holmes said also that:

“… elements “appear to exist” of the little-known tort of misfeasance in public office, in detailed findings that targeted various former Coalition ministers over a scheme she described as wracked by collusion and dishonesty.”

The term misfeasance means that the victims could sue the Ministers directly.

There needs to be a form of obligation on the agencies receiving the referrals for potential civil action or criminal prosecution, the Australian federal police and the National Anti-Corruption Commission to take further action. As it stands, they need do nothing if they so desire. Therefore, I come down on the side of revealing the names of those ministers referred. They would still have the right to defend themselves.

I agree with Anthony Whealy, a former NSW Supreme Court judge and chair of The Centre for Public Integrity, who said:

“It’s better, I think, in the public interest that those people be named, and we know who they’re being referred to because I think that’s what the public is entitled to know.”

“Certainly, it’s a job unfinished … because the commission has the power to make referrals to various disciplinary or criminal agencies, and until we know exactly what it’s done in that regard, we don’t see the finished product, and therefore, I think, you know, there’s a certain air of dissatisfaction with that aspect of the outcome.”

Dutton’s response showed not the slightest concern for the victims of this corrupt and wicked scheme. He apologised to them, but it was an empty graceless apology that lacked empathy and emotion. 500 thousand Australians were affected, and 2000 committed suicide. By saying the things, he did, he put on display all the reasons why he would never make an Australian Prime Minister.

He is from the Abbott/Morrison mould that tried so hard to wreck our democracy.

Let me remind you of our immediate political past under conservative rule

Never in Australian politics did the Australian public so unintelligently elect a series of right-wing governments over a decade that were rotten, to the core, infected with hatred for the less well-off but happy with the burden they carried. So ignorant of its own incompetence. So willing to break laws and trash convention. So utterly corrupted with lying that they sometimes knew not when or why they were telling them.

So brutal toward those seeking a better life on the waves of empathy. So unsympathetic to those domestically in need of help. So full of ministers who didn’t care about the corruption that engulfed them. So unendowed with leadership were they that every decision passed through cabinet uncaringly and unquestioned.

That so many remnants of that era still exist in the ranks of conservatives must surely remind our citizens of how badly they governed. A sobering thought when the current Leader sees nothing wrong with their ideology.

PS: Commissioner Catherine Holmes said:

“It may be that the evidence in this royal Commission has gone some way to changing public perceptions. But largely, those attitudes are set by politicians, who need to abandon for good (in every sense) the narrative of taxpayer versus welfare recipient.”