So you think a minority government is the answer?

 

In May 2022 the first-time Albanese Labor Government secured seventy-seven seats in a House of Representatives having 151 members.

With a floor majority of two that subsequently rose to four majority after the April 2023 Aston by-election win.

After boundary adjustments by the Australian Electoral Commission this year redistribution will reduce House numbers from 151 to 150, so seventy-six will remain the magic number for an absolute majority at the 2025 federal general election.

For the last twelve months I have noticed quite a bit of chatter discussing the supposed benefits of voting to reduce the Albanese Government to a minority federal government at the next general election.

For some reason there appears to be a view forming that a minority government would inevitably deliver positive and lasting environmental, social & economic policy change with the aid of The Greens & Independents.

Nothing is set in stone and, given how volatile the global climate and international politics are in 2024 and predicted to be going forward, perhaps it's time for a gentle reminder of what happens to duly elected governments during periods of widespread uncertainty.

One punter's view of Australia by way of example.....

There have been 47 Australian Parliaments since 1901.

From 1901 to 1910 federal elections had resulted in what were essentially minority governments and the prime ministership changed hands six times across those first three Australian Parliaments.

The Cook Free Trade and Liberal Association Government, with a one seat majority, was first federal government in Australia that did not even last one full term. It went for 1 year & 55 days from July 1913 to September 1914 when it lost a double dissolution election. Britain and her dominions declared war on Germany & her allies on 4 August 2014.

The Scullin Labor Government was the second and last federal government that did not last one full term. It went for 2 years & 79 days from October 1929 to January 1932 after failing to win a second term. The Wall Street Crash which triggered the decade long Great Depression occurred on 28 October 1929 at the very beginning of this Labor Government's term.

During the terms in office of five consecutive Coalition prime ministers over 23 straight years from December 1949 to December 1972 there was one major issue which increasingly exercised Australian society between 1962 to 1972—the Viet Nam War and Australia's active participation in progressing that war.

Opposition to that war was a significant factor in the Whitlam Labor Government winning the 1972 federal election by 67 seats (with a positive two-party-preferred swing of 2.50%) to the Coalition's 58 seats (with an adverse two-party-preferred swing of 2.50%). The new government inherited a Senate where both Labor and the Coalition held 26 seats each, the Democratic Labor Party 5 seats & an Independent 1 seat.

In May 1974 the first-term Whitlam Government called a double dissolution federal election on the basis that a hostile Senate had unreasonably obstructed the first term government by returned 6 Bills to the House, in addition to the matter of another 21 bills covering government promises taken to the 1972 general election which been rejected, stood aside or deferred by the Senate.

After which the Labor Party remained in government in the House of Representatives with 66 seats and a positive two-party-preferred swing of 1.00%, to the Coalition's 61 seats and an adverse two-party-preferred swing of 1.00%.

In the Senate both Labor and the Coalition held 29 seats with the balance of power held by one Independent & one Liberal Movement senator who on past history would vote with the Coalition.

After the election, the six Bills that had formed the basis of the double dissolution – the Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1973, the Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill 1973, the Representation Bill 1973, the Health Insurance Commission Bill 1973, the Health Insurance Bill 1973, and the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973 – were passed at a historic joint sitting of both houses of parliament.

In what can only be described as a silent coup encouraged by the Liberal & Nationals political parties, big business and Buckingham Palace, in October 1975 the Coalition Opposition deferred voting on supply bills in the Senate in an attempt to force Whitlam to call yet another election for both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In response, Mr Whitlam decided to ask the Governor-General to call a half-Senate election to resolve the situation. Instead the Whitlam Government was pre-emptively dismissed by the Governor-General on 11 November 1975 after two years & 341 days.

Malcolm Fraser was invited to form government and the Coalition won the subsequent 1975 federal election 91 House of  Representative seats to Labor's 36 seats. This appears to be the highest majority ever held by an Australian federal government.

The Australian Labor Party did not form federal government again for almost another eight years when it again held government for thirteen years before the Coalition regained government in 1996 and with John Howard as prime minister held it for 11 years & 269 days until December 2007.

According to political pundits almost every first-term government since the World War Two has suffered an adverse two-party-preferred swing at the next election.

In the case of the federal Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor Government which began life on 24 November 2007 by winning 83 of the 150 seats with a two-party-preferred positive swing of 5.4 % it all looked like smooth sailing. The Liberal Party having only won 55 seats, the National Party 10, and Independents 2.

However by June 2010 the accepted story is that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had lost the confidence of the national electorate after the federal government appeared to lose its way on a number of issues (including Senate rejection of its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in November 2009) and walked away from a strong policy push for climate change mitigation measures following the collapse of UN COP climate summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. The Labor parliamentary party replaced him with the Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard in June 2010.

Following the 21 August 2010 federal election, the Australian Labor Party (with an adverse two-party-preferred swing of 2.58%) won 72 seats, the Coalition 72, Independent Nationals 1, Greens 1 & Independents 4.

With the support of the Greens member (Bandt) and three of the Independents (Wilkie, Windsor and Oakeshott), Prime Minister Julia Gillard was able to form a minority government which could muster 76 votes to 74 in the House of Representatives.

Under relentless disruptive attack from the Abbott-led Coalition Opposition that number fluctuated over the course of the next 3 years & 16 days (going as low as 75 to 73), when a last minute change of party leadership meant that Kevin Rudd had the dubious honour of leading that Labor federal government to defeat in September 2013 winning only 55 of the 150 House of Representative seats (its lowest primary vote in 100 years) with an adverse two party preferred swing of 3.61% and, the Coalition winning government with 90 seats.

From 2010 to 2013 the Gillard Labor Government had passed a range of bills including the:

> two National Broadband Network acts in 2011 (significantly & adversely altered by subsequent Coalition governments);

> Clean Energy Act 2011 (a carbon emissions trading scheme repealed by Abbott Coalition Government);

> Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011;

> Mineral Resources Rent Tax 2012 (repealed by Abbott Coalition Government);

> National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (rolled out by successive Coalition governments); and

> The National School Reform Agreement (passed by Senate on Gillard's last day as prime minister. Under successive Coalition Governments & current Labor Government has never lived up to expectations).

Results of the 2024 Clarence Valley Council local government election declared on Wednesday 2nd October

 

In the case of the Clarence Valley Local Government Area 35,061 eligible residents, out of a possible 41,897 residential and non-residential electors enrolled in this area on 5 August 2024, cast their ballots for the nine vacated councillor positions. A total of 9.20% of all ballots cast were deemed Informal and excluded from the count.

Listed in the order in which they reached the required quota or otherwise became eligible, the following nine candidates were declared elected on 2 October 2024:

Cristie YAGER (IND) - elected at the first count

Peter JOHNSTONE (IND) - elected at the first count. Served on the previous council

Greg CLANCY (GRN) - elected at the second count. Served on the previous council

Ray SMITH (IND) - elected at the ninth count

Allison WHAITES (IND) - elected at the eleventh count. Served on the previous council

Shane CAUSLEY - elected at the eleventh count

Lynne CAIRNS (IND) - elected at the fourteenth count

Debrah NOVAK (IND) - elected at the fourteenth count. Served on the previous council

Karen TOMS (IND) - elected at the sixteenth count. Served on the previous council.

The gender breakdown of the new council is five females to four males and the returning councillor breakdown is five to four.

The newly elected Clarence Valley councillors are expected to begin a training bloc re Council’s policies and procedures, Code of Conduct and Code of Meeting Practice for three days between 4 and 9 October.

Councillors will vote to install a mayor for the next two years at the 17 October first council meeting of this new term.

 

Hopefully Ray Smith will resist the urge to put his name forward for mayor. Being a former general manager of Grafton City Council is rather a poor recommendation in my opinion.

STATE OF PLAY AUSTRALIA 2024: the numbers tell us households around the country are wealthier than they were a year ago so why doesn't it feel that way for so many people?

  

According to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data released 26 September 2024:

> Australian household wealth rose for the seventh consecutive quarter (up 1.5 per cent or $250 billion) in June 2024;

> Total household wealth in that quarter was $16.5 trillion which was 9.3 per cent ($1.4 trillion) higher than a year ago;

> This growth in household wealth was also supported by superannuation assets, which rose moderately by 0.3 per cent ($13.7 billion);

> Households' investment increased by $3.8b to $53.3b, driven by an increase in gross fixed capital formation in June quarter 2024 and non-financial assets owned by households increased by 2.2% ($258.5b), driven by a $216.0b rise in residential land and dwellings; 

>While on the downside household liabilities increased by 1.9% ($58.3b), with a $35.6b rise in housing loans and a $0.5b fall in short term loans.

When it came to cost of living there was some welcome news from the ABS head of “Annual inflation was 2.7 per cent in August, down from 3.5 per cent in July, and is the lowest reading since August 2021.”

ABS All groups monthly CPI indicator, annual movement (%)

ABS Grocery products, annual movement (%)

While the Cost Price Index showed a continued downward trend, petrol along with fruit & veg remained volatile and manufactured foods like tea, coffee, frozen prepared meals & health supplements remained stubbornly resistant to lowered prices. Although while the price of a bag of groceries may fluctuate, rental costs rose 6 per cent in the year to August.

Offsetting this was the ABS announcement in its media release of 25 September 2024 that:

Electricity fell 17.9 per cent in the 12 months to August, which is the largest annual fall since the electricity series started in the early 1980s.

“Commonwealth Government and State Government rebates led to a 14.6 per cent fall in electricity prices in the month of August, which followed a 6.4 per cent fall in July. Excluding the rebates, electricity prices would have risen 0.1 per cent in August and 0.9 per cent in July,” Ms Marquardt said.

ABS Electricity, Australia, monthly and annual movement (%)

Countering the residential electricity rebates has been the rollout of Term of Use Tariffs in Qld, NSW & SA by the retail energy supply industry - involving three different residential tariff rates over each 24 hour cycle for general use electricity in addition to a fixed price tariff for heating water.

ABC News, 1 October 2024

Industry lobby group, the Australian Energy Council has called for a halt to the roll out of Time Of Use and Demand Use residential power tariffs.

 After employing what has to be biggest industry-wide suite of deceptive practices to arbitrarily impose punitive price increases, it seems energy retailers are now in a deep public relations hole.

Faced with the consumer backlash as the reality of 'power bill shock' hits households, energy retailers have tried to distance themselves from the reforms, instead blaming regulators and poles-and-wires companies. In their turn the equally deceptive poles-and-wires companies are pointing the finger of blame at the energy retailers for not directly informing their customers about changes to how residential electricity costs are calculated.

What all those numbers do not say....

The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research has updated the poverty line for Australia to the March quarter 2024. Inclusive of housing costs, the poverty line [a relative measure of poverty] is $1145.61 per week for a family comprising two adults, one of whom is working, and two dependent children. This is an increase of $4.78 from the poverty line for the previous quarter (Dec 2023).

Based on a 2024 Bank West Curtin Economics Institute assessment of child poverty in Australia it is possible that at least one in six couple with children households would meet that degree of comparative poverty, with another one in twenty living in significant poverty and one in forty in extreme poverty.

An est. 13.4% of the Australian population lived below the poverty line in 2019-2020. There is no indication that the situation has markedly improved in 2024. 

ROBODEBT STATE OF PLAY IN SEPT 2024: Class Action Settlement Appeal lodged in Federal Court makes new claims of misfeasance in public office against officials who knew Robodebt Scheme was unlawful

Gordon Legal announcement of 24 September 2024:

Appeal of the Robodebt Class Action settlement – further compensationsought for Robodebt victims

The class action settlement commenced June 2021.

The Robodebt Royal Commission delivered its report in July 2023.

The Royal Commission uncovered new evidence that some of the senior public servants who ran Robodebt knew it was unlawful, but they went ahead anyway.

That evidence was not made available during the class action. The applicants in the class action did not know about this evidence prior to the class action being settled.

The Commonwealth did not hand over that information. In many cases, the Commonwealth claimed that the information was ‘privileged’. However, the Commonwealth could not rely on privilege claims when responding to the Royal Commission. This is how the new evidence came out.

The appeal will try to bring the new evidence before the Court, to make claims for further compensation.

The group members are trying to have the original settlement set aside, so that new claims can be brought. Those new claims include that the senior public servants who administered Robodebt engaged in ‘misfeasance in public office’.

These are serious allegations to make, but we strongly believe these claims should be made, based on the new evidence.

There are several complicated legal steps that will need be completed before that new evidence can be put before the Court.

If the Court allows the appeal, the class action will be reopened to hear these new claims.

It may take several months before there is an outcome. We will provide updates on our website as the appeal progresses.

If you are a group member in the class action, you don’t need to do anything further at this stage.

You can read more about the original settlement of the Robodebt Class Action below.

https://gordonlegal.com.au/robodebt-class-action/

Timeline

> 16 November 2020

The Commonwealth settles the Robodebt class action.

|

> 11 June 2021

The settlement is approved by the Federal Court. The Court finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable, based on the available evidence.

|

> 30 September 2022

Settlement payments are sent to eligible group members.

|

> 7 July 2023

The Royal Commission releases its final report. The report is highly critical of Robodebt, including the conduct of several senior officials. The Royal Commission uncovers new evidence that was not handed over during the class action. These documents show that senior officials knew the Robodebt was unlawful.

|

> 24 September 2024

The class action settlement is appealed, to make new claims of misfeasance in public office against the officials who knew that Robodebt was unlawful, but went ahead with it anyway. [my yellow highlighting]

Register for updates in Robodebt Class Action Appeal by going to

https://gordonlegal.com.au/services/class-actions/robodebt-class-action-appeal/

and scrolling to bottom of the webpage to submit a request. 

NORTH COAST VOICES 23 SEPT 2024: Notice to our readers

North Coast Voices will not be posting from 23 September to 1 October 2024 due to ill health.

Apologies to regular readers & those who drop by from time to time.

There is little satisfaction remaining from the findings of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme - instead there is growing anger and resentment

 

In the aftermath of the release of the Final Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme there is little satisfaction remaining from the findings which found that the Scheme was an unlawful creation and pursuit of, for the most part entirely fictional or over stated, welfare debt.

By the time Robodebt was brought to a halt it is thought that around 443,000 welfare recipients across the country had received false debt notices.

This scheme was seemingly built on the basis of the then federal Coalition Government's false assumption that as a class of persons welfare recipients had a tendency to commit fraud and, that recovery of this 'overpayment' money mountain thought to be worth $4 billion would go some way to easing the public perception of its budgetary woes.

Instead of heads rolling for the level of illegality involved, the Cabinet Ministers, Ministers with portfolio, Departmental Secretaries and other key public servants & legal advisors appear to have - after the first shock of public exposure - moved on to lives where little or no consequences followed them as a result of the Royal Commission findings and referrals.

There was public anger expressed when on 6 July 2024 the newly created National Anti-Corruption Commission declined to investigated the referrals received from the Royal Commissioner eleven months before and that anger has been joined by resentment on occasion.

Evidence of this anger and resentment can be found on social media platforms and expressions of concern are found in news and media releases by relevant unions.

CPSU Community & Public Sector Union, News online, undated September 2024:

Union calls for Kathryn Campbell to lose APS honour

The main public sector union has called for Kathryn Campbell to have her membership of the Order of Australia revoked, after findings that she breached her obligations as a senior public servant throughout the robodebt scheme.

The Public Service Commission on Friday revealed Ms Campbell had breached the APS Code of Conduct a dozen times while she oversaw the unlawful scheme as Human Services secretary.

Findings included that she had failed to investigate legal concerns about the scheme, seek legal advice and keep her minister informed of criticisms about the program.

She was also found to have created a culture which prevented the consideration of concerns about the scheme, and to have caused its resumption in 2017, when she knew or ought to have known about inaccuracies in debts raised.

Ms Campbell has rejected all of the Public Service Commission's findings, telling The Australian she had relied on advice from the Department of Social Services over the course of the scheme, and that she felt she had been scapegoated.

But the Community and Public Sector Union has condemned Ms Campbell for her role in the scheme, calling for her honour to be stripped.

Ms Campbell was appointed an officer of the Order of Australia in 2019 by the Governor-General, in recognition of "distinguished service to public administration through senior roles with government departments, and to the Australian Army Reserve".

The commission's findings, which represent the final chapter of the government's formal robodebt response, have raised questions about whether she will be allowed to keep this honour......

First published: The Canberra Times, September 19 2024, by Miriam Webber.

Read the full Statement at

https://www.cpsu.org.au/CPSU/Content/News/Union_calls_for_Kathryn_Campbell_to_lose_APS_honour.aspx

National Tertiary Education Union, media release:

Charles Sturt University vice-chancellor must resign over robo-debt findings

16 September 2024

The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) has called for Charles Sturt University Vice-Chancellor Renee Leon to resign after she was found to have breached public service rules as part of her role in the robo-debt disaster.

Ms Leon, who was the secretary of the Department of Human Services between 2017 and 2020, has been in charge of CSU since 2021.

In a damning report, Public Service Commissioner Gordon de Brouwer found Ms Leon breached public service rules 13 times.

The breaches included misrepresentations of the department's legal position on income averaging, failures to correct or qualify that position and failures to "expeditiously" inform the responsible minister of advice on the lawfulness of the robo-debt scheme.

NTEU General Secretary Dr Damien Cahill said:

“Renee Leon must resign immediately. Her role as vice-chancellor at CSU is untenable after these damning findings.

“The chancellor’s claim that Ms Leon has the full backing of the university completely ignores the fact staff want the vice-chancellor to resign.”.....

Read the full Media Release at

https://www.nteu.au/News_Articles/Media_Releases/CSU_VC_must_resign.aspx

Statement by the Australian Public Service Commissioner on the Robodebt Centralised Code of Conduct Inquiry

Published 13 September 2024

The Robodebt Scheme was a failure of government in both policy design and implementation. The Australian Public Service acknowledges its role and takes responsibility for its actions, and is intent on learning from these failures to serve the Government, Parliament and Australian public better.

I apologise as Public Service Commissioner to those affected by the Scheme and to the Australian public for the part played by public servants in this failure.

Following the Royal Commission, the Secretaries of Australian Government Departments agreed a centralised process to investigate possible breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct to ensure consistency across the public service. The Australian Public Service Commission established a Robodebt Code of Conduct Taskforce and appointed expert independent reviewers to conduct inquiries into the actions of public servants associated with the Robodebt Scheme. Sixteen people were referred to the Taskforce, comprising current public servants referred by the Royal Commission, current and former public servants referred by their Agency Head, and former APS Agency Heads initially referred by the Minister for the Public Service, Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher. The Taskforce’s public report is published alongside this Statement.

In summary, 12 people have been found to have breached the Code of Conduct on 97 occasions....

Two former Secretaries, Ms Kathryn Campbell and Ms Renée Leon, have been found to have breached the Code of Conduct during their tenure at the Department of Human Services.

Ms Campbell breached the Code in respect of 6 overarching allegations, each comprising two breaches of the Code and amounting to a total of 12 breaches of the Code.

The 6 findings or substantiated allegations are that Ms Campbell:

1. failed in 2017 to ensure that internal and external legal advices about the Scheme were sought,

2. failed to sufficiently respond to public criticism and some whistle-blower complaints received by her in early 2017 about the Scheme,

3. failed in 2017 to investigate legal issues raised in a public forum, namely the annual meeting of the Australian Institute of Administrative Law, about the Scheme,

4. failed in 2017 to ensure that her Minister was fully informed of academic and legal criticisms raised in that public forum in respect of the Scheme,

5. created and allowed a culture that prevented issues about the Scheme from being properly considered within the Department of Human Services, including aggressive and abusive behaviour by a Deputy Secretary, and

6. caused the resumption of income averaging under the Scheme in August 2017 when she knew, or ought to have known, that debts raised pursuant to that process were potentially inaccurate.

A substantiated allegation can breach different elements of the Code of Conduct. The breaches by Ms Campbell of the Code relate to failure to act with due care and diligence (s 13(2) of the Public Service Act) and not upholding the APS Values (s 13(11) of the Public Service Act) in each of these 6 findings.

The following allegations against Ms Campbell were not substantiated: that she misled Cabinet, that she directed that preparation of legal advice cease, and that she failed to discharge her legal obligations with respect to the PWC engagement.

Ms Leon breached the Code in respect of 4 overarching allegations, each comprising multiple breaches of the Code and amounting to 13 breaches of the Code.

The 4 findings or substantiated allegations are that Ms Leon:

1. misrepresented to the Ombudsman in March 2019 that the Department’s legal position regarding the use of income averaging under the Scheme was ‘not uncertain’,

2. failed in March 2019 to correct or qualify representations made to the Ombudsman of the Department’s legal position on the use of income averaging under the Scheme after receiving further legal advice,

3. failed in mid 2019 to ensure that the Solicitor-General was expeditiously briefed and advice sought regarding the lawfulness of the Scheme, and

4. failed to expeditiously inform her Minister and relevant Secretary colleague of the Solicitor-General’s advice on the lawfulness of the Scheme and cease the practice of income averaging under the Scheme.

The first and second substantiated allegations involved breaches of the requirement to act honestly and with integrity (s 13(1)), to act with care and diligence (s 13(2)), to not provide false or misleading information (s 13(9), and to uphold the APS Values (s 13(11)). The third substantiated allegation breached the requirement to act with care and diligence (s 13(2)) and to uphold the APS Values (s 13(11)). The fourth substantiated allegation breached the requirement to act honestly and with integrity (s 13(1)), to act with care and diligence (s 13(2)), and to uphold the APS Values (s 13(11)).

Because they are former Agency Heads, no sanction can be applied. However, if they seek employment or engagement as a consultant or contractor with the Australian Public Service in the next 5 years they are required to disclose when asked that they have been found to have breached the APS Code of Conduct....

The full Statement can be found at

https://www.apsc.gov.au/working-aps/integrity/robodebt-code-conduct-process/statement-commissioner-centralised-code-conduct-inquiry-final-report

Rick Morton writing in The Saturday Paper, 21 September 2024, excerpts:

The Albanese government is considering whether it will, or even can, release the confidential sealed chapter of the robodebt royal commission report, after all of the major public inquiries triggered by it have fizzled out, been halted or made their own findings.

When the confidential chapter recommending referrals for civil and criminal prosecutions was given to the Albanese government, it was provided in hard copy, in sealed envelopes marked for just a handful of people. In all, only five people have officially received the sealed section. It is understood it makes recommendations for referrals against both politicians and senior public servants.

The governor-general received the whole report, as did the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Australian Public Service commissioner. Officials in the Attorney-General’s Department’s royal commissions branch received two envelopes they were forbidden from opening. One was given to their secretary and one was reserved for the attorney-general himself, Mark Dreyfus. He is the only politician to have received it. The prime minister was not given a copy and nor was the minister for government services, Bill Shorten......

There is the small matter of the law, however. When the commissioner, Catherine Holmes, provided the complete confidential section to just five people in July last year, she issued a simultaneous non-publication order preventing its disclosure to any person other than official investigating agencies. Only the people referred for possible prosecution can disclose, if they choose, what has been said about them in the section.

“Any person who makes any publication in contravention of any direction for non-publication commits a punishable offence,” Holmes’s order states.

“The penalty for this offence is, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding 20 penalty units or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months.”

A March 2022 review into confidentiality provisions in the Royal Commissions Act recommended the Australian government look at ways to make such “non-publication orders” more “effectively” managed after an inquiry had finished because they otherwise had no expiry date.

“Another drawback is that non-publication directions operate in perpetuity, and the Royal Commissions Act does not provide a clear mechanism for removing or amending the scope or application of a direction once a Royal Commission has concluded,” the review says.

“Robodebt happened because of a political and media culture that punches down on income support recipients. This is a culture that dehumanises people on income support on the one hand, whilst humanising people like Kathryn Campbell on the other.”

“In the time following the conclusion of a Royal Commission’s inquiry, there may be circumstances where there are legitimate reasons in the interests of public transparency for a non-publication direction to be removed or adjusted.

“For example, information that was confidential at the time of an inquiry may subsequently come into the public domain or may become less sensitive over time (for example information about criminal investigations). As such, there may be merit in exploring options for the Royal Commissions Act to prescribe methods of lifting a direction after a Royal Commission has concluded.”

A spokesperson for the attorney-general said the government was now considering what was possible.

“The Robodebt Scheme, run by the former Liberal Government, was illegal and one of the worst failures of public administration in history,” the spokesperson told The Saturday Paper in a statement.

“The Government is now giving consideration to questions relating to the release of the confidential chapter.”

A spokesperson for the Attoney-General’s Department suggested any potential changes to legislation to achieve this were not on the government’s radar, however.

“Any reforms to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 will be considered in the context of the Government’s broader reform agenda, noting there is currently no royal commission on foot,” they said in a statement.

Publicly, the commissioner noted she had referred individuals to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC), the Australian Federal Police and the Law Society of the ACT. The NACC controversially elected “not to commence a corruption investigation” in relation to six individuals referred to it because the APSC was already investigating five of them.

One, however, was a politician who is not subject to the APSC.

The corruption body is headed by Paul Brereton, who delegated the decision to a deputy commissioner “to avoid any possible perception of a conflict of interest” – although the nature of that possible conflict was not disclosed.

That NACC decision is now the subject of its own conduct investigation by the NACC inspector, Gail Furness, after more than 900 complaints were received following the announcement in June.

The Australian Federal Police received a referral for an individual who the royal commissioner suggested had deliberately misled her inquiry, but the AFP declined to charge anybody because, it said, it lacked admissible evidence that the “alleged offender intended to mislead the royal commission”.

Finally, the Law Society of the ACT will not say whether it has even received a referral from the robodebt royal commission, as it neither confirms nor denies such things, but in some circumstances disciplinary action taken against its enrolled legal practitioners will be published in an online register.....

Despite its recommendations and findings, notably that Scott Morrison allowed cabinet to be misled about the illegal robodebt scheme and that vast swaths of Stuart Robert’s evidence were rejected as untrue, no minister involved in the scandal has featured in any other public accountability forum.....

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on September 21, 2024 as "Inside the fight to open the robodebt sealed section".

Cartoons of the Week

 

Cathy Wilcox

David Pope

Matt Golding