It must be challenging for the Commissioner and Senior Counsel Assisting when critical witnesses at the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme either suffer from amnesia, compulsive lying, acquired memory loss, flippancy, no responsibility or even lousy hearing.
How on earth do they piece it all together? A better question is how all those involved live with the knowledge of the crime they committed and, worse still, the knowledge that it was illegal.
The symptoms seemed to worsen after taking an oath, to tell the truth. To state that it was the worst public policy disaster in Australian political history is to understate its death count.
Even on the evidence so far, it is enough to conclude that a crime of terrible proportion has been committed. It is not for me to pre-empt the Commission’s findings, but this goes beyond lawlessness and immorality.
With the next round of hearings just around the corner, let’s look at the key moments that have transpired to date.
* * * * *
What was going on in these depraved minds that would render them impotent in the face of perverse Christian leadership?
It was revealed that:
“More than 2030 people died after receiving a Centrelink debt notice, also known as robo-debt, according to new data released by the Department of Human Services.”
What the Commission was asked to consider
The Robodebt Royal Commission was established on 18 August 2022 and will conclude in June 2023. It was established to:
“… enquire into the establishment, design and implementation of the Robodebt scheme; the use of third-party debt collectors under the Robodebt scheme; concerns raised following the implementation of the Robodebt scheme; and the intended or actual outcomes of the Robodebt scheme.”
I urge the reader to view the complete list here. The Government left nothing out. The Terms of Reference are wide-ranging and straightforward.
What we know so far
“Everybody says it was really somebody else’s doing, and it’s a bit hard to get to the bottom of whose doing it was.”
So said the head of the Commission, Catherine Holmes, after hearing the evidence of former Attorney General Christian Porter.
The latest hearings concentrated on the period between 2016 and early 2017. It was the period in which the full horror of the robodebt scheme came before the eyes of the Australian Public.
When asked if he accepted any responsibility for the scheme, Christian Porter, the former social services minister, without hesitation, said:
“I do. I look back on this, and I see myself through the correspondence getting quite close at points to taking the next step of inquiry. I didn’t do that. I wish now that I had, but I also see the reasons that I didn’t.”
So, he had the distinction of becoming the first minister to accept any responsibility for what occurred.
Without exception, the witnesses so far were evasive: Morrison, Tudge, and Payne either handballed, had a memory lapse, or straight-out lied.
Porter told the Commission:
“… he didn’t ask more questions about the scheme’s legality. In his recollection that in early 2017 ‘someone’ assured him it was legal. He said he couldn’t recall who told him but said it was a public servant.”
This elicited from Holmes a hard stony look, and she responded with:
“You don’t seem to have approached any of this from a lawyer’s point of view … You don’t seem to have at any stage said, well, by what authority do we send the letters?”
Alan Tudge, in his extended stay in the witness chair, also had a problem with the “l” word (legal).
According to the Minister, he was never informed regarding legal doubts officials in his department had about the robodebt scheme. In his view, it must have been legal because it had gone through the cabinet and, therefore, would have had legal analysis.
Of Tudge, Luke Henriques-Gomes wrote in the Guardian that he:
“… rejected the suggestion that if those public servants had not sought to clarify the law on robodebt (they did not), he was responsible as the minister. But, crucially, under questioning, he conceded he never suggested it be stopped either.”
When asked about income averaging, Tudge said:
“I’d understood that (income averaging) had always been used for decades and so it had not crossed my mind that it could possibly be unlawful.”
Commissioner Holmes responded:
“It seems a fairly blithe approach for a minister, particularly in the light of controversy, to assume that because it’s happened before for a long time it must be fine.”
Questions were asked about two suicides linked to the scheme and his handling of them, which he found difficult to answer. In particular, why he had not sought a probe into the second case or didn’t stop the program pending an investigation.
It was difficult not to conclude that Mr Tudge wasn’t bending the truth beyond breaking point about his alleged involvement in decisions to proceed regardless. He must have been hard of hearing.
The public service
Annette Musolino was chief counsel at the Department of Human Services while the scheme operated and was unmercifully drilled by counsel assisting.
She told the Commission she had known that the administrative appeals tribunal had ruled against the scheme on several occasions. Although she was responsible for:
“… a team of lawyers handling these decisions, but she did not act to clarify the law.
Musolino suggested she believed the legality of the robodebt scheme had been “sorted out”. But she had seen that the department of social services had conflicting advice on the program – including a damning opinion from 2014.
Holmes said: “You had done nothing to get it sorted it out. Not even gotten advice.”
Musolino deflected blame, saying she believed the department of social services had determined the scheme was legal. Musolino will face the royal commission again later this month.”
I shouldn’t be shocked at the lying and deceit. This Royal Commission is soliciting from its witnesses, even if, as Commissioner Holmes says, it is often challenging to specify blame.
Thus far, it tells me that the Commission is doing a splendid job revealing their ostrich-like defence.
Showing up both politicians and public servants for the treacherous gutless charlatans without apathy they are. Whereas the Commissioners must attribute blame with fact, l have the luxury of being able to venture between the lines and listen to what a lifetime of experience tells me.
From what l can tell, the ABC and The Guardian are the only media outlet covering the subject. It’s a pity because this is one of the worst political scandals in Australia’s history. The AIM Network also has a keen interest in reporting these events.
Next time I will review how the Government tried to assassinate the character of its many victims. Plus, more witnesses, including Tudge (again) and the entertaining (if nothing else) Malcolm Turnbull.
[textblock style=”4″]
My thought for the day
My reason cannot understand my heart, but I know my conscience does.
[/textblock]
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
