Two perspectives on how the ugly truths of Australia's journey to nationhood still shape our society, as well our individual and collective response to the proposal for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Voice to Parliament

 

For the reader's consideration......

******************************************

The Saturday Paper, 7 October 2023:

John Hewson

The enduring stain of the White Australia policy

The White Australia policy stands out as probably the most significant blemish on this country’s national character and unity, as well as its global reputation, with continuing consequences today.

It has been said that latent racism, carrying echoes of White Australia, persists across the country and all walks of life. We have seen it emerge at football games and other events. Politicians have been known “to play the race card” when they believe that appealing to prejudice will afford them some political advantage.

In light of Australia’s colonial history, it should come as no surprise that race would become a dominant undercurrent in the public discourse about the upcoming referendum, with the “No” case appealing to those who believe the White Australia-era Constitution should not be amended. How else can we make sense of many of the misrepresentations and claims of opponents of the Voice to Parliament? How are we to understand John Howard’s call for people “to maintain the rage”, if not for its racial connotation?

Our Constitution was drafted by protagonists of White Australia, strongly supported by zealots such as Alfred Deakin, who became our second prime minister.

First Australians were not recognised as it was assumed they were a “dying race”. Among the first pieces of legislation passed after Federation was the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, which was initiated just nine sitting days after the Duke of York officially opened the Australian parliament. The law’s aim was essentially to ensure a predominantly British population, by restricting non-white, and particularly Asian, immigration and enabling the deportation of undesirable migrants. It is difficult to understand by what standards their desirability would have been judged, given the British settlements were primarily penal colonies.

I would hazard a guess that Pearson’s address, unlike a couple of others on this theme of the referendum, will be studied in schools in the future. It was a speech for the ages. It mattered.

Aboriginal Australians were also targeted. A range of policies was directed at so-called protection and assimilation of Aboriginal people into white society, one of which was the removal of Aboriginal children from their families and culture. By 1912, the government was working to remove all people of mixed Indigenous and non-Indigenous descent from reservations across Australia, with the goal of forced assimilation into the white community. It is not too much of a stretch to claim that these policies were designed collectively to destroy Aboriginal society.

As Barry Jones has pointed out in this publication, at the time of the arrival of the First Fleet, Australia’s Indigenous communities had well-established traditions and practices, art and mythology, spoke roughly 500 languages and dialects, and made and traded tools, weapons and goods. So much of this was lost in the ensuing violence and generations of repression and neglect that followed. Non-Indigenous Australians still have so much to learn from First Australians about land and river and water management, among other things.

The initial focus of immigration on Britain was subsequently widened to southern and eastern Europe, to the Middle East and just a few Asian countries. After World War II there was an attempt to re-emphasise the “favoured” British immigrants, with the Assisted Passage Migration, or “ten-pound Pom”, scheme. This program invited Britons to come to work in Australia to help meet the country’s postwar industrial development and infrastructure needs.

The White Australia policy was unwound in a number of steps, starting with the Holt government’s migration review in 1966, which shifted the focus of the program to migrant skills and their capacity to contribute to the country’s priorities. In 1973, the Whitlam government formally renounced the policy and shifted the focus to multiculturalism.

However, a racial dimension to immigration policy was raised again by then opposition leader John Howard in the 1980s, when he called for a slowdown in Asian immigration, and again with the arrival of Pauline Hanson on the political scene, in her maiden speech to parliament in 1996 and subsequent statements about Muslims.

These attitudes are at odds with the fact Australia has become probably the most successful and tolerant multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious society in the world – the envy of many. It is a tragedy that our nation hasn’t come to terms with its history and built on a recognition of the world’s longest continuous civilisation, with 65,000 years of history. We cannot conceive of the vastness of the opportunity that is being lost through this myopic, frightened governance. If the referendum fails, the world will see we have missed this opportunity.

For many years I have travelled widely for both business and academia, and it has always troubled me greatly that I am so often questioned about whether this country still upholds the White Australia policy. This is still a common perception, and its persistence should bother us as a nation.

In 1967, when I was a student at Sydney University, there was no significant presence of Aboriginal people. Having been taught nothing about Indigenous history in high school, my only awareness of Aboriginal issues was some knowledge of the 1965 Freedom Ride that was designed to bring to the attention of the public the extent of racial discrimination in Australia. This publicity provided something of a basis for the 1967 referendum that finally led to the counting of Aboriginal people in the census.

I would like to imagine that in 2023 our university campuses are more engaged, and that the obvious need for First Australians to be properly recognised and heard is readily embraced and understood, without being swayed by the fear and hatred propagated by many in the “No” camp.

The most disturbing point in this campaign for me has been the vilification of people such as distinguished academic Marcia Langton, who had the courage and good sense to draw attention to the racial undercurrents of the “No” campaign. It was not racist of her to point this out. She was stating facts. Yet many who criticised her had been running a fear campaign claiming that the Voice would racially divide our nation. The treatment of her was abhorrent and emphasises why the country so badly needs to come to grips with its history and acknowledge the need for proper recognition.

The recent speech of leading “Yes” campaigner Noel Pearson to the National Press Club hit the mark. He spoke eloquently about his vision for the future, a better future. He laid out what sort of country we should aspire to be.

He rejected the argument from the opposing camp that the Voice could divide Australia by race: “We’re not a separate race – we’re humans,” he said. “It’s just that we are Indigenous. And you go to some parts of the world and indigenous people are blond and blue-eyed. This is not about race. This is about us being the original peoples in the country.”

His comments contrasted sharply with those of Nyunggai Warren Mundine in the same forum the previous day, in which the “No” campaign leader described the Uluru Statement from the Heart as a “declaration of war”.

“Only love can move us now,” Pearson said. “It’s the love of home. Our Australian home is the source of this love.”

I would hazard a guess that Pearson’s address, unlike a couple of others on this theme of the referendum, will be studied in schools in the future. It was a speech for the ages. It mattered.

In an important sense, the referendum provides an opportunity to clearly move beyond our White Australia past by responding positively to the wishes of First Australians – that is, their request as to how best to be recognised, as expressed in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Giving them an advisory Voice can also help our leadership do better than the failed attempts of the past to develop effective policies to deal with Indigenous disadvantage.

This is not about guilt but a positive expression of love and unity for our national future.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on October 7, 2023 as "The stain of White Australia".

******************************************

ABC News, 7 October 2023:

Laura Tingle

The bitter politics and hypocrisy of the Voice debate will mark it as yet another ugly chapter in Australia's history

A usual plaudit for a book is that a reader "couldn't put it down". But a plaudit for David Marr's new book, Killing for Country, which documents his family's history as professional killers of Aborigines in NSW and Queensland in the mid-1800s, is that it is one you have to keep putting down.

It's not just the brutality of the large-scale killings Marr documents that requires regular pauses, but the voices of white people discussing it — either in the most cold-blooded pragmatic terms, or in terms of horror.

The chilling fact is that, no matter what was actually known or protested about at the time, the killings didn't stop.

Marr's history documents events which were not just cases of rounding up Aboriginal people accused of crimes, or events that just happened in the early years of white settlement, but the systemic shooting and poisoning of people living on land they had been living on for thousands of years, or who may have adapted to living peaceably on stations, or even in working in towns.

It continued at least into the 1890s.

The immediate horror of the story clashes horrendously with our image of ourselves, and with the lofty ambitions of those who oversaw federation, and the writing of our Constitution, as the former chief justice of the High Court, Robert French, observed in a speech to the National Press Club this week.

Noting resonances with the current referendum debate, French quoted some of the opposition to federation and the constitution at the time, with one contributor observing that "the people aren't ready to federate; they don't know what it means; [and] their leaders and their newspapers are not brainy enough or honest enough to try to teach them what it means".

He quoted the then premier of Queensland, Samuel Griffith, observing that "there is no doubt that here, as everywhere, there will be timid men who are afraid of launching into something new; but when was ever a great thing achieved without risking something".

French observed: "The Australian spirit evoked by the 'don't know, vote no' slogan is a poor shadow of the spirit which drew up our Constitution. It invites us to a resentful, uninquiring passivity."

Linking the past with the future

The headlines from the former chief justice's speech focused on his affirmation that, in his view, the Voice posed no constitutional or legal risks.

But his speech also manages to link up, in a way which has often not successfully occurred, the past and the future embedded in the Voice debate.

"It does not require a black armband view of history to conclude that colonisation did not bring unalloyed benefits to our First Peoples," he said. "Nor does it require rocket science logic to conclude that we live today with the cross-generational effects of that collision."

Whatever your views on the idea of the Voice, it is not just the ugly racism exposed by the debate about it — which has seen Indigenous people on both sides of the debate subjected to abuse and death threats — it is the spectacular failure, hypocrisy and opportunism that has been on display on occasions among our politicians that has already marked it as another ugly chapter in our history.

The willingness of some sections of the media to perpetuate misinformation, and of other sections of the media to get lost in attempts at false balance, has made nigh on impossible a reasonably rational debate about what a permanent advisory body to the parliament and executive, whose actual remit would be defined and controlled by the parliament, might mean both symbolically and practically to Indigenous Australians.

Once again, it seems our leaders and newspapers "are not brainy enough or honest enough to try to teach Australians what it means".

And this is not because those leaders didn't know.

Conflict over how to help Indigenous people

French quotes John Howard — now a vocal campaigner against the Voice — from 2007, saying:

"I believe we must find room in our national life to formally recognise the special status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first peoples of our nation. We must recognise the distinctiveness of Indigenous identity and culture and the right of Indigenous people to preserve that heritage. The crisis of Indigenous social and cultural disintegration requires a stronger affirmation of Indigenous identity and culture as a source of dignity, self-esteem and pride."

Now, Howard says, people should vote no to "maintain the rage" against the Voice, which he says would create "a new cockpit of conflict about how to help Indigenous people".

Conflict over how to help people — if conflict was what the Voice produced — is apparently a worse outcome than possibly addressing "the crisis of Indigenous identity and culture".

Howard's self-described political love child, former prime minister Tony Abbott — who has always claimed a special interest in, and affinity for, Indigenous people — said this week that, rather than pursue the Voice, "we should end the separatism, which has bedevilled Indigenous policy for many decades now".

"Aboriginal people are fine Australians," he told ABC RN, "and they should be encouraged to integrate into the mainstream of our society."

What "integration" means is as unclear now as it was when Abbott advocated the "mainstreaming" of Indigenous services when he was prime minister.

And if there is any model that currently defines how Indigenous policy is executed at the federal level, it is the one imposed on us by Abbott as prime minister when he insisted on bringing Aboriginal affairs into the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet — a department with no experience in service delivery.

Blocking change, no matter what the truth is

No campaigners regularly now rage about some mysterious bureaucracy which allegedly worthlessly chews up billions of dollars in wasted funding to Indigenous people.

That would be the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the body set up by the Morrison government and which morphed out of the structure set up in PM&C by Abbott.

The Coalition also appointed an Indigenous Advisory Council "to provide advice to the Government on Indigenous affairs, [focusing] on practical changes to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people".

The inaugural, government-appointed chair of the council — which sounds like it had a job pretty much identical to that proposed for the Voice — was another prominent No campaigner, Warren Mundine.

That the policies that many of the prominent politicians leading the No campaign are actually campaigning against come from their own side of politics, or are based on their own previous statements, and their own policy legacy, is just one more depressing aspect of what has proved a very flawed debate.

Coalition figures from Howard to Peter Dutton insist their difficulty is not with constitutional recognition but with the specific proposal for the Voice.

Robert French on Friday reflected that the very act of recognition proposed by the referendum "is the creation of the Voice".

"I do agree with John Howard that recognition in the Constitution is a strong affirmation of Indigenous identity and culture," he said.

"A stronger and practical affirmation will give content to that recognition by the creation of the constitutional voice to Parliament and the Executive Government," he said

After many months of bitter debate, his words remind us that we are back at a point where it seems that, no matter what the truth may be, we will not let it lead to any change.

Laura Tingle is 7.30's chief political correspondent.

******************************************

Personally, I find a UK gaoler/overseer supplying convict labour for outdoor work in Australia has an uncomfortable historical resonance even when dressed up as ‘work experience’

 

Clarence Correctional Centre is a 1,700 bed maximum- and minimum-security correctional centre for male and female offenders, which includes 400 minimum security beds. The centre is located at Lavidia 12km south east of Grafton in the Clarence Valley.

This prison opened in July 2020 is managed on a twenty-year contract by Serco Asia Pacific on behalf of the NSW Government. This contract was initially worth UK £1.5 billion to the Serco Group.

The Serco Group Plc is a UK-based, publicly listed, multinational corporation which in the first half of 2023 had revenue of UK £2.4 billion and is expected to end the year with revenue of at least UK £4.8 billion (AUS $9.4 billion).

Apparently Serco appears to be anticipating that Clarence Valley Council will assist it in meeting this revenue target – presumably by way of a program grant from government directly to Serco.

Personally, I find a UK gaoler/overseer supplying convict labour for outdoor work in Australia has an uncomfortable historical resonance even when dressed up as ‘work experience’.

It should be noted that Serco has a long history of contract breaches when it comes to correctional and immigration detention facilities, for overcharging government for its services, poor security and human rights abuse.

The Daily Telegraph, 15 August 2023:

The United Services Union states Clarence Valley Council wants to use prison inmates for repair and maintenance work in parks and reserves such as Market Square in Grafton.

But the council has hit back in a statement accusing the union of embarking on a campaign “built on misinformation and scaremongering”.

Northern regional organiser John Hickson said the main issue which upset the union was the lack of communication from the council.

“The way we found out was a phone call from our delegate that two supervisors had been summoned to a meeting about areas where prisoners could work around Grafton,” he said.

“We were upset because we weren’t informed or consulted about it … we even sent a letter to the council asking them to respond to the issue, which they’ve failed to do.

“What’s happening is so wrong because it should be council work for council employees — not for prisoners.”

In response, Mr Hickson started a campaign on Tuesday – including flyers and a placard on a bus – to make Grafton aware of the council’s proposal.

“The community response so far has been absolute shock and outrage — they knew nothing about it too,” he said….

The council stated key outdoor staff have been asked to provide feedback on the pilot program, which, if it goes ahead, would provide work experience to inmates.

“The ideas floated at a meeting with Serco executives early in August include repair and maintenance of park and recreational spaces,” the council stated.

“The pilot program is at the inception end of development and no details have been finalised or agreed.

“Council management is disappointed in the response by the United Services Union, which is built on misinformation and scaremongering.”

The statement declared the program “is not intended to replace council staff”.

“(Council is even) preparing to increase its Open Space workforce by up to six employees to accommodate increased workloads due to recent upgrades and the influx of tourists to the area,” it read.

Later in the afternoon, council issued another statement, which welcomed a decision to discontinue a matter that was being heard in the Industrial Relations Commission today.

“(The ruling gives) council clear direction to progress discussions with staff and the union about partnering with Serco to establish a day release work program, noting any activities should not be those that are contained within current staff work program,” the statement read.

Clarence Valley Council has been contacted for further comment.

Ray White Yamba is to be congratulated for deciding to not use the Ailo app in its rental business model

 

Ailo app 1.0 was released in or about April 2020 and has had nine iterations up to 25 July 2023.

From the beginning this app appears to have had stability issues – eg., app crashing, failure to load (Loading Error, Server Timeout Error, Connection Reset Error, Connection Failed Error) – and raised some general concerns about security of personal information due to potential third-party data sharing, possibly including photographs of occupied rental interiors.

This post in a Reddit thread appears to encapsulates renter unhappiness:

I've had nothing but problems since being forced to use this god awful app. Incorrect due dates for rent, incorrect amounts being charged for rent, receiving repeated emails stating my rent is $5 overdue ( this one lasted for months). Not to mention the annoyance of trying to pay rent without being charged a fee.

While a Whirpool forum show tenants are fighting back:

I successfully complained to the Dept of Fair Trading NSW and Ailo have now offered a 'fee-waiver form' as a way to stop fees being charged for direct debit rent payments.

It does sound like you only avoid paying fees if you know about the fee-waver form.

In my view the wording of the current legislation is too open to abuse, which is what Ailo have done (see Residential Tenancies Act 2010, Sect 35.) Fair Trading and others are putting pressure on Ailo and it seems to be working; make your voice heard if this is affecting you.

Fair Trading recommended contacting policy @customerservice.nsw.gov.au, who review legislation reforms, and Tenants Advice or Advocacy Services (TAAS) at www.tenants.org.au

Hope this helps.

So Ray White Yamba is to be congratulated for deciding to not use the Ailo app in its rental business model.

Clarence Valley Independent, 16 August 2020

Increasing cost-of-living pressures have led Ray White Yamba to elect not to use the Ailo mobile app, introduced by the company across its network of agents as a property management system, for tenants to pay and landlords to collect rental payments.

Recently, some Ray White agents, along with other real estate brands, across Australia emailed tenants and landlords inviting them to use Ailo, a third-party property management app to pay their rent, which was founded by former Ray White Director Ben White.

Ray White Yamba Managing Director, Daniel Kelly said after piloting and testing the Ailo property management system they decided against implementing it for their clients.

“The Ailo technology is not exclusive to Ray White, there’s other brands around the country that are using it as well,” he said.

“Based on our experience in using it, we feel as though it is not the right fit for us.”

The Ailo app charges 0.25 per-cent for an automated direct debit from a bank account, 0.95 per-cent for debit card payments and 1.5 per-cent for credit card payments, while also offering a fee-free method of payment as required.

In NSW, a law was passed in 2011 that every real estate agent must offer a fee free means of paying rent.

Mr Kelly said convenience and increasing cost-of-living pressures were reasons why Ray White Yamba chose not to use the Ailo app.

“Predominantly one reason was convenience for our clients, tenants in particular, because it’s a system that largely would have been accepted, I believe by landlords, but, from a tenancy perspective the feedback that we have had is that it removed a level of convenience for them in paying the rent,” he said.

“The decision we came to was, obviously cost-of-living is a big issue at the moment, and we don’t want to be inflicting further pain on people, so it wasn’t the right fit for us.”

THE ROBODEBT SCHEME: a tale of rampant ambition, abuse of power, systemic cruelty, venality, incompetence and cowardice

In September 2013, the Liberal-National Coalition, led by the then Liberal MP for Warringah & Prime Minister Tony Abbott, won government on the back of an election campaign predominately focussed on removal of the so-called ‘carbon tax, fiscal responsibility and the size of the national budget deficit.

By 2014-15 the concept of a fully automated system of data-matched debt creation was posited to reduce the federal budget deficit - which at that time stood at est. an underlying cash deficit of $37.9 billion.

It was expected that this data matching program would come online sometime in the 2015-16 financial year and generate over $1.7 billion in recoverable debt over 5 years.

The sole target of this debt creation was to be those Australians who received or had ever received federal government cash transfers as pensions, benefits or allowances (with the exception of those receiving veteran or aged pensions) during a period extending back in theory as far as 2006.

In February 2015 the then Liberal MP for Cook & Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison, approved this new policy proposal and what was eventually to become colloquially known as the Robotdebt Scheme began its journey through various departmental and Cabinet processes towards a short pilot program followed by full implementation in December 2016 by a 3 month-old Turnbull Coalition Government.

On 5 December 2016, then Liberal MP for Aston & Minister for Human Services Alan Tudge appeared on national television to discuss Centrelink’s ‘welfare crackdown’. The Minister stated: “we’ll find you, we’ll track you down and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison”. [ACOSS, 27 March 2017]

In addition to that particular Ch 9 “A Current Affair” interview this ACA clip was released probably sometime in January 2017:

[Ch 9 “A Current Affair”, 2016]

For the next three and a half years Scott Morrison - first as Social Services Minister, then Treasurer and finally Prime Minister used the disastrous and illegal Robodebt Scheme as a vehicle to support & maintain his personal ideological and political war on the poor and vulnerable of this nation.

In this he was assisted to a significant degree by members of his own Cabinet and the Murdoch media empire.

Until the combined pressure of expert legal opinion, Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions, a class action before the Federal Court of Australia which the Commonwealth was obliged to settle, ongoing public calls for the scheme to end coming from activists and a significant number of voters in the national electorate, forced Morrison & his cronies to suspend automatic debt creation.

The Robodebt Scheme formally ended on 30 June 2020 and in 2022 the not quite 3 month-old Albanese Labor Government announced the creation of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, under Letters Patent dated 18 August 2022.

The Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme was released of 7 July 2023 and can be found at:

https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/report

The following are excerpts from that report under general headlines created by me for clarity with some media grabs for context:

COMMISSION HAS SERVED THE PURPOSE

The recommendations made are collected at the beginning of this report. I hope that they are of use.

At the least, I am confident that the Commission has served the purpose of bringing into the open an

extraordinary saga, illustrating a myriad of ways that things can go wrong through venality, incompetence

and cowardice. [Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, July 2023, pp.659-660]

ON NEED FOR CHANGE

But as to how effective any recommended change can be, I want to make two points. First, whether a public service can be developed with sufficient robustness to ensure that something of the like of the Robodebt scheme could not occur again will depend on the will of the government of the day, because culture is set from the top down.

Second, politicians need to lead a change in social attitudes to people receiving welfare payments. The evidence before the Commission was that fraud in the welfare system was miniscule, but that is not the impression one would get from what ministers responsible for social security payments have said over the years. Anti-welfare rhetoric is easy populism, useful for campaign purposes. It is not recent, nor is it confined to one side of politics, as some of the quoted material in this report demonstrates. 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.
[Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, July 2023, p. iii]

A BRIEF OUTLINE

Budget control and debt reduction had been second in the Coalition’s list of policy priorities in its election manifesto. Consistent with that policy, in July 2014 the Hon Kevin Andrews MP, the Minister responsible for the Department of Social Services (DSS), proposed the setting up of an interdepartmental committee to develop a whole-of-government strategy for recovery of debt owed by members of the public to the Australian Government. The terms of reference included examining data matching, using online and self-servicing options, using external debt collection agencies and applying a standardised interest charge to debts. And in relation to welfare services, in January 2015 the newly-appointed Minister for Social Services, Mr Morrison described himself in an interview as planning to be a “strong welfare cop on the beat;” because Australians were “not going to cop people who are going to rort [the social security] system." Approved by the latter, they made their way in the form of a New Policy Proposal (NPP) through Cabinet with remarkable speed. In May 2015, as part of its 201516 Budget, the government adopted a measure named Strengthening the Integrity of Welfare Payments. Described as a package for “enhancing ... fraud prevention and debt recovery and improving assessment processes” in relation to the payment of social security benefits, it was expected to save $1.7 billion over five years. Most of those savings were to come from the Employment Income Matching measure, the initiative which began Robodebt, which was proposed to recover overpayments resulting from incorrect declarations of income. Another measure in the package, titled “Taskforce Integrity”, involved the secondment of Australian Federal Police officers and was designed to crack down on welfare fraud. The two were often, and not coincidentally, mentioned in the same breath.

It was in this climate that the essential features of the Robodebt scheme were conceived by employees of the Department of Human Services (DHS), were put by way of an Executive Minute in February 2015 to the Minister for Human Services, Senator the Hon Marise Payne, and to Mr Morrison as Minister for Social Services. [Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, July 2023, p. xxiii]

SCOTT MORRISON

current Liberal MP for Cook, a former Minister for Social Services, former Treasurer, former Minister for the Public Service, former Coalition Prime Minister

The Commission rejects as untrue Mr Morrison’s evidence that he was told that income averaging as contemplated in the Executive Minute was an established practice and a “foundational way” in which DHS worked.…

Mr Morrison knew that the use of income averaging was the primary basis of the “new approach” described in the Executive Minute and that DSS had advised DHS that legislative change was required to implement the DHS proposal in that way. The NPP represented a complete reversal of the legal position without explanation. Mr Morrison was not entitled without further question to rely upon the contradictory content of the NPP on the question of the DSS legal position when he proposed the NPP to the ERC. The proper administration of his department required him to make inquiries about why, in the absence of any explanation, DSS appeared to have reversed its position on the need for legislative change. If he had asked Ms Wilson, she would have told him that it was because DHS had (ostensibly) reversed its position on using income averaging. He chose not to inquire.

Mr Morrison allowed Cabinet to be misled because he did not make that obvious inquiry. He took the proposal to Cabinet without necessary information as to what it actually entailed and without the caveat that it required legislative and policy change to permit the use of the ATO PAYG data in the way proposed

in circumstances where: he knew that the proposal still involved income averaging; only a few weeks previously he had been told of that caveat; nothing had changed in the proposal; and he had done nothing to ascertain why the caveat no longer no longer applied. He failed to meet his ministerial responsibility to ensure that Cabinet was properly informed about what the proposal actually entailed and to ensure that it was lawful. [Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, July 2023, pp. 102 & 106]

CHRISTIAN PORTER

former Liberal MP for Pearce, a former Minister for Social Services, former Attorney-General

On 2 March 2016, Mr Tudge, along with the Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, issued a joint media release signalling the government’s intention to introduce a Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill, in order to “ensure people pay back their welfare debts if they have received payments they are not entitled to.”

Mr Porter was quoted in the media release as saying that, under the Bill, “the government will impose an interest charge on debts, remove the six year limit on debt recovery and prevent social security debtors from leaving the country.”….

On 3 January 2017, Mr Porter was interviewed on ABC Radio National in relation to the OCI program. His responses were largely based on the talking points that had been provided by DHS.

He told the interviewer that the debt recovery scheme was “working exceptionally well.” He also made the following statements:

- I think this [the Scheme] is about as reasonable a process as you could possibly derive…

- Ultimately, if a real discrepancy does exist then eventually we raise a debt, and that happens much later than this initial letter, and even then, there are many ways in which you can dispute that debt, if you think that a mistake has been made…

- It really is an incredibly reasonable process…

- Only in 2.2 per cent of instances [do people need to provide things like payslips]…

- 169,000 letters and the complaint rate is running at 0.16 per cent. So that’s only 276 complaints from those 169,000 letters. That process has raised $300 million back to the taxpayer.

Mr Porter was also asked, “How important is this debt recovery to the budget bottom line?” and replied:

It’s very significant. Four billion dollars over four years is evidently a very significant amount of money. That is helping us get back into surplus.

The Commission accepts that Mr Porter was simply repeating information from the talking points given to him by DHS staff. As it transpired, that information was wrong. The rate of complaint was most certainly not as low as 0.16 per cent of reviews. The Commission heard evidence that, in fact, the information with which Mr Porter was provided did not include complaints specifically relating to OCI that were held in DHS’s central complaints repository,11 and that even if it had, there were systemic problems with the recording of OCI complaints in that repository in any event.

Mr Porter’s comments, based on the talking points provided to him, suggested a high degree of confidence in the program generally and in particular the reasonableness of it, which was reiterated. They also gave the impression that recipients seldom had to provide information, and that the rate of complaint and internal review of debts generated under the Scheme was very low, suggesting that such debts were unobjectionable and, in turn, accurate.

On 9 January 2017, Mr Porter said on ABC Radio that “debts raised under the automated system were ‘fairly and legitimately calculated’.” He also noted that, in circumstances where a person did not respond to the initial letter, “it will be the case that the ATO estimate will be the preferred reporting and there will be an averaging out process.”

By the time Mr Porter made the statement about debts being “fairly and legitimately calculated,” it is likely that he was starting to appreciate that this position lacked credibility; that income averaging was liable to produce inaccurate results as to the existence and quantum of debts….

The statements Mr Porter made in media interviews about the fairness of the process, and the statistics he cited, were wrong. One has to recognise, however, that he had been plunged in a maelstrom of media enquiries and public complaint about the Scheme, and there was not much he could do but rely on what DHS staff told him about the program. His performance in the short period he was Acting Minister for Human Services cannot fairly be criticised.

That is not true, however, of Mr Porter’s response in his role as Minister for Social Services. He was responsible under the AAO for the lawful administration of the Social Security Act and the Administration Act. The responsibility for ensuring that DHS officers lawfully exercised their DSS-delegated powers of overpayment identification and debt recovery under the legislation lay with him.

On 28 December 2016, the first day of Mr Porter’s acting position as Minister for Human Services, his office requested “talking points” on the OCI program and, later in the day, a briefing from DHS about the program. The request for the briefing said that the Minister wanted it to cover “averaging out of income provided to ATO by CLK [Centrelink] impacting on people who only earned income seasonally (e.g. students) – it appears CLK is averaging income over 26 fortnights and then raising debts.”

This was an obvious question to ask, as was accepted by Mr Porter in his evidence before the Commission. Inaccurate results produced by income averaging, with respect to both the existence and quantum of debts being raised by the OCI program, had been squarely raised as an issue in the media at the time. Mr Porter was trying to “get an understanding of some of the basic fundamental mechanics of the program.”

On 9 January 2017, Mr Porter asked, during a meeting with Mr Britton, a question to the effect of whether Centrelink could be given more frequent data on a person’s income. He evidently appreciated that the use of yearly data to calculate a person’s income was likely to give rise to inaccuracies, and that the provision of more frequent data would produce more accurate results. His office had already raised the query with DHS about its effect where the income of seasonal workers was concerned.

Mr Porter may not completely have understood what the OCI process was, but he did know it involved income averaging. It did not take a genius to see that averaging a person’s annual income to arrive at a fortnightly figure was likely to produce inaccurate results unless the person was on a consistent income.

Mr Porter, from his inquiries, clearly appreciated that. It was not a big step from there to ask whether the Social Security Act allowed this. Mr Porter, as Minister for Social Services, should have made that inquiry.

In an ABC interview of 31 May 2020, Mr Porter said in respect of the Scheme: “We received advice at the time that the program was put together that it was lawful. Many governments have used ATO averaging….” That suggested that at the inception of the Scheme, the government had obtained legal advice that the use of averaging in the way proposed was lawful; which it had not. [Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, July 2023, pp. 137, 156, 157]

ALAN TUDGE

former MP for Aston, a former Assistant Minister for Social Services, former Minister for Human Services

On the same day, 5 December 2016, Mr Tudge was interviewed on radio station 2GB by Chris Smith. Mr Smith observed that, from the media coverage he had seen, he had not been able to get an understanding of what percentage of overpayments were a result of deliberate fraud. Mr Tudge replied that “It’s very hard to assess.”

However, it did not appear that it was too difficult to assess, particularly if the question had been asked.

The very next day, on 6 December 2016, Mr Tudge’s advisor was provided with a copy of a brief to the Minister for Social Services, Mr Porter, which contained data that was current as at 30 June 2016.

The brief contained detailed information about social security debt, sourced from Mr Tudge’s own department’s systems. That information revealed that fraud accounted for 0.1 per cent of the debt raised in the 2015-16 financial year, and just 1.2 per cent of the outstanding debt base as at 30 June 2016. Mr Tudge’s advisor indicated to departmental officers that he was going to show the brief to Mr Tudge “over the next day or so.”

Mr Tudge did not have a specific recollection of the brief. However, in circumstances where the brief was copied to Mr Tudge “for his information,” the data was sourced from his own department, and where his advisor had indicated that he was going to show Mr Tudge the brief “over the next day or so,” it can be inferred that Mr Tudge had knowledge of the contents of that brief…..

The opinion piece related to that person’s experience with Centrelink concerning a debt that was not raised under the Scheme. However, its relevance to the Commission’s investigations was that it occurred in the context of a media strategy to discourage public criticism of the Scheme. It was a response, from both DHS and the minister’s office, to a person who had described their negative experience with a Centrelink debt. The information released related to a particular named individual, rather than being an anonymised case study or part of an aggregate of data about a number of case studies and it was released by both the minister’s office and DHS.

Mr Tudge said that, in hindsight, he considered that the information should have come from the department to “correct the record,” and not from his office.

This particular release had an observable impact on the willingness of people to publicly speak out about their experiences in the media. Ms Miller commented that, as a result of the release of this personal information, “there were less people speaking out in the media, which was the intention.” It had the effect of shutting down most of the personal stories appearing in the media which were critical of the Scheme. Ms Crowe, from ACOSS, described the release of the information as “a shocking abuse of the government’s power at the time.” She was worried that it would “silence people who were affected by Robodebt” and agreed with the proposition that the release of the information in fact had “a chilling effect” on people who wanted to complain about DHS.

There may well have been other reasons for the drop in Robodebt stories at the time, but it is reasonable to infer, particularly given the observations of Ms Miller, a media professional, and Ms Crowe, who dealt regularly with recipients subject to the Scheme, that it was largely due to the release of information by the minister’s office in response to complaints.

It can be accepted that a minister may often be called upon to defend government policy in the media, including unpopular policy. However, this strategy went further than that. Mr Tudge submitted that the use of case studies, and the release of information relating to a particular person, was intended to “correct the record” in the media. Correcting errors in reporting may be a legitimate exercise. But this was not done openly. Instead, the minister’s office fed information to the press, and in the case of the 26 January article in The Australian, Mr Tudge the same day exclaimed over the “significant story” on radio without disclosing that his office had been the source of it.

If “correcting the record” were the only purpose for the collation and release of this information, then it would have been equally important for the minister’s office to do the same in respect of at least some of the cases where DHS or the system had made mistakes. Instead, in instances where debts had been discovered to be incorrect, recipients were dealt with by contact with DHS. The effect of the strategy employed by the minister and his office, of publicly correcting the record by emphasising “legitimate debts,” “preferably large debts” and “top 20 $ value potential overpayments” without doing the same with respect to instances where mistakes were also occurring, and debts were either inaccurate or non-existent, was that it was apt to create a general perception that debts under the Scheme were owed and the system was working.

Mr Tudge’s engagement in this media strategy, and use of the media in this way, had the effect of discouraging criticism of the Scheme, and inhibiting open dialogue and analysis of the flaws of the Scheme.

It also had the effect of undermining the credibility of complaints and concerns about flaws in the Scheme.

As a minister, Mr Tudge was invested with a significant amount of public power. 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. It was all the more reprehensible in view of the power imbalance between the minister and the cohort of people upon whom it would reasonably be expected to have the most impact, many of whom were vulnerable and dependent on the department, and its minister, for their livelihood. [Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, July 2023, p.140, 315]

STUART ROBERT

former Liberal National Party MP for Fadden, a former Minister for Human Services, former Assistant Treasurer, former Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, former Minister for Government Services

On 11 June 2019, the Hon Stuart Robert MP, Minister for Human Services, was given a brief on the Masterton case. It indicated that if the litigation were to result in an adverse decision concerning the lawfulness of the debt, consideration would have to be given to “legislative or revised administrative arrangements” for the Scheme. Ms Leon had reviewed a draft of the brief some days earlier. She had noted on the draft that the minister would “also need to be briefed orally.”

Mr Robert read and signed the brief on 22 June 2019, adding a comment that the deputy secretary, Integrity, (Ms Annette Musolino) was to brief him in the first week of July. That briefing duly took place on 4 July 2019. There is controversy as to what occurred at it…..

What was the subject of dispute was whether Mr Robert was nevertheless briefed orally about the Draft AGS Advice. Ms Leon had made a notation on a brief delivered to her that the minister was to be briefed orally, in order to keep distribution of the advice itself to a more limited group than would receive a written ministerial briefing. Mr Ffrench said that in accordance with Ms Leon’s instruction, he attended the 4 July meeting, with Ms Musolino and others, to brief the minister. His evidence was that he took a copy of the Draft AGS Advice with him and explained to Mr Robert the difficulties raised by the Advice in relation to aspects of the Scheme. He informed Mr Robert that, as a result of the Draft AGS Advice, steps had been taken to obtain an opinion from the Solicitor-General.

According to Mr Ffrench, Mr Robert did not ask whether there was any existing legal advice on the issue of averaged PAYG data and did not say anything about obtaining external legal advice on the question. He believed that it might have been in this meeting that the minister made a statement to the effect that a  legal advice was merely an opinion until a Court declared the law. Unfortunately, however, Mr Ffrench did not document the meeting in any way….

Despite what Mr Robert said was his “strong personal view” that income averaging led to incorrect calculations of debt, he was prepared to advocate for its use. In particular he claimed publicly that in 99.2 per cent of cases where a debt was raised, the debt was correct. He explained this figure in different ways.

In an interview on 31 July 2019, Mr Robert asserted that in 99.2 per cent of the 80 per cent of cases where recipients could not explain their income, Services Australia had conducted a review which showed that the recipient in fact had the debt. In a later doorstop interview, on 17 September 2019, he said it was based on a calculation that of the 80 per cent of cases where the recipient had not explained their earnings satisfactorily, only 0.8 per cent had been overturned on appeal, which meant a 99.2 per cent effectiveness rate. (A media release authorised by Mr Robert on the same day made a similar claim).

In evidence, Mr Robert suggested that the 0.8 per cent might consist of cases which succeeded on application to the AAT or, more generally, cases where error by Services Australia or the ATO had been identified.

The Commission has tried to establish how a figure of 0.8 per cent could have been arrived at as representing the percentage of inaccurate debts in those cases where a debt was raised. To begin with, the claim that debts were raised in 80 per cent of cases is flawed. According to figures provided to the Commission by Services Australia, across the life of the Robodebt Scheme, debts were actually raised in about 55 per cent of cases where recipients were required to respond to a discrepancy between declared income and PAYG data.

Turning to the figures for debts raised, a percentage as low as 0.8 per cent could only be arrived at confining consideration to debts revised after review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is to ignore debts revised internally after reassessment by Services Australia officers, after Subject Matter Expert (SME) review and after Authorised Review Officer (ARO) review, which, on the figures provided by Services Australia, accounted for about 16 per cent of cases where debts were raised. And, of course, it was based upon the unsafe assumption that if a recipient did not have the capacity to seek review, the debt raised against them must have been accurate.

The statement made in the 31 July 2019 interview was untrue (Services Australia had not reviewed 99.2 per cent of the cases where the income discrepancy had not been explained, let alone found the debt to be correctly raised). The statement made in the 17 September 2019 interview was, at best, misleading; it suggested that only a fraction of debts had been challenged and that the balance of 99.2 per cent was therefore correct….

The Commission’s view is that the weight of the evidence is strongly against Mr Robert’s having given any instruction to Ms Leon on 7 or 8 November 2019 to cease income averaging as a sole or partial basis for debt raising. What seems to have happened at the meeting on 8 November 2019 was a canvassing of options. It is reasonable to suppose that Mr Robert still hoped to salvage the Robodebt Scheme in some respects.

The lack of a clear instruction to Ms Leon to cease income averaging is not surprising in light of the Government’s intention to publicly announce, through the minister, the end of income averaging in the most palatable terms it could find. Plainly, if a direction were given to departmental staff to end the process there was a strong risk that the announcement would be pre-empted by the media’s being informed of it.

Consequently, the Commission rejects Mr Robert’s claim to have acted to end the Robodebt Scheme quite as promptly as he professes. Ms Leon was in fact the first to take steps for that purpose. [Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, July 2023, pp.299, 301, 315]

KATHRYN CAMPBELL

current senior AKUS advisor to government, a former Secretary of the Department of Social Security, former Secretary of the Department of Human Services, former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

As will appear, after the meeting between DHS and DSS on 27 October 2014, DSS obtained legal advice to the effect that the use of income averaging in the way that had been proposed by DHS was unlawful.

However, DSS was not informed of the further work that DHS was undertaking on the proposal until early

2015, after a meeting between DHS secretary, Kathryn Campbell, and Scott Morrison, Minister for Social

Services, on 30 December 2014….

Ms Campbell recalled that, at the time of the meeting with Mr Morrison, significant media attention was focused on “the integrity of welfare outlays” a phrase which she said meant “payments to [sic] which the recipient may not be eligible”. It is likely Ms Campbell had some knowledge of the DHS PAYG proposal, a deputy secretary of DHS having sought information about it on her behalf in November 2014….

Kathryn Campbell, former secretary of DHS, observed in her evidence that “suicide was something that we [at DHS] dealt with frequently.” That is no doubt due to the fact that many social security recipients live in situations of disadvantage or vulnerability. Any debt-raising exercise in that context is likely to increase numbers of suicide and self-harm.

That DHS was aware of this likelihood – that it dealt with suicides frequently – makes the implementation of the Scheme all the more egregious, particularly when there was evidence that they were raising inaccurate debts. DHS had a responsibility to deal sensitively with those people relying on its services, and to provide support rather than inflicting distress….

On 16 August 2017, ACOSS met with Mr Tudge and Kathryn Campbell, the Secretary of DSS. Ms Crowe told the Commission that there were no notes from the meeting, but to her recollection it was a “tense meeting” where they discussed the Scheme and “the use of the AFP logo on taskforce integrity letters.”

ACOSS’s concerns were not resolved in the meeting, and it ended abruptly.

ACOSS told the Commission that historically, when there were social security measures announced, the DSS would convene a meeting with stakeholders to discuss Budget measures in their portfolio, at which meetings ACOSS would provide input. In relation to the Scheme, there was no such consultation….

The CPSU wrote to Kathryn Campbell (secretary, DHS) on 19 January 2017, relaying concerns raised by employees that “debts are being issued where there is no proof that a debt exists.” Neither the Commission nor the CPSU have evidence of any response….

The Commission heard evidence from a number of SES officers who held leadership and other senior positions. The role of SES officers within each department is to provide APS-wide leadership of the highest quality that contributes to an effective and cohesive APS. The most prominent SES officers within each department are the secretaries and deputy secretaries, who were integral to the making of key decisions, communications with ministers, and in directing other APS employees within their departments in relation to the Scheme.

The secretary of a department holds a distinct role as an “agency head”, and is bound by the Code of Conduct in the same way as APS employees. However, as an agency head, the secretary of a department also has a separate statutory obligation to uphold and promote the APS Values and the APS Employment Principles.

The APS Value of ‘Impartial’ requires the public service to be apolitical, and provide the government with advice that is frank, honest, timely, and based on the best available evidence. The Commission heard evidence about APS leaders (both Secretaries and SES leaders) being excessively responsive to government, undermining concept of impartiality and frank and fearless advice. For example, when the Scheme was developed in 2015, the New Policy Proposal was apt to mislead the Expenditure Review Committee and Kathryn Campbell (Secretary, DHS) did not take any steps to correct that misleading effect…. [Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, July 2023, pp. 40, 49, 337, 366, 393, 643]

Kathryn Campbell: From her own mouth: please watch this revealing/distressing video compilation contrasting 2018 Institute of Public Administration speech and her examination at Robodebt royal commission. 👇👇 https://t.co/SGpgLirZEn

— Quentin Dempster (@QuentinDempster) July 12, 2023

LEGAL REMEDIES

“People may have individual or collective remedies. On the evidence before the Commission, elements of the tort of misfeasance in public office appear to exist. Where litigation is not available, the Commonwealth does have a “Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration” (which would be a very euphemistic way of describing what happened in the Robodebt Scheme) where a person has suffered from defective administration and there is no legal requirement to make a payment. It is not appropriate to say any more on that front.” [Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, July 2023, p.659]

A perspective on the political & social background of the years 2009 to 2022

The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 May 2022:

As the results rolled in it was difficult to grasp: the Liberals of the 2020s, eerily like the Soviet Communists of the 1980s, were suddenly an anachronism. Like the Politburo, they too had become entrapped within their fervent ideologies and grown so distant from reality they lost the moral legitimacy to govern. Power was now haemorrhaging away in a death agony of lost seats.

Morrison was widely credited as the architect of this annihilation. But perhaps he was no more than the sinister final act of a larger story that began decades earlier when John Howard was elected prime minister in 1996. Of all Australian prime ministers, it is Howard who can rightly claim to be the most transformative, reshaping the nation so completely that, other than a Labor interregnum of six years, it has been conservative governments largely in his image ever since. Every issue that defined Morrison's downfall had deep roots in Howard's prime ministership.

It was Howard, after all, who from 1996 on campaigned internationally against binding global carbon emission reduction targets. His reasoning for doing so, he told cabinet in 1997, was that Australia was "a major exporter of energy". His advocacy to key world leaders, cabinet papers reveal, proved "influential". And so we led the world backwards.

He similarly turned back a historic tide of national progress on everything from the republic to reconciliation, refused to even use the word multiculturalism in his early years of prime ministership, and set the dogs of xenophobia onto Australian politics, transforming refugees into a threatening invasion force. He revelled in fomenting culture wars while gutting institutions and corroding civil society, attacking it whenever it stood up for the environment, the rights of citizens, workers, or of the weakest. He purged the Liberal Party of what were then called wets, the moderates of the day, paving the way for the far-right fundamentalist clique it has become.

His success lay in speaking to what was smallest and worst in Australia's breast: fear, greed, apathy, racism. It was a template for all that followed.

Howardism was to be taken up with a new aggression and misogyny by his self-declared love child, Tony Abbott; continued, despite his post-partum revisions, by Malcolm Turnbull; until there came its final decadent phase: the Morrison government, a rabble characterised by sleaze, scandal and self-interest. By then, Howardism resembled a degenerative disease. What once had been merely cynical gestures to win votes or wedge opponents had transformed into a terminal cancer of mystical doctrine. They had come to believe their own baseless babble, and they did not get that harassment in the workplace was not part of the culture wars but lived experience. So too human-induced fires, floods and cyclones. They never realised that their ideology did not stand the test of reality: whether it be rain or flame or allegedly being raped metres away from the prime minister's office.

It was widely noted that they didn't get women, though, as Samantha Maiden noted, it was women who finally got them. At root, the problem was that they didn't get people: not the old, who were left to die unnecessary, wretched deaths while they went to the cricket. Not anyone under 40 who would never own a home, nor the trans kids they damaged or the poor they may have driven to suicide with the illegal and evil "robo-debt", wasting nearly $2 billion of our money in the service of persecution.

They didn't get kindness or decency, that the suffering in the theatres of cruelty they called border defence not only distressed but shamed many Australians. They didn't get that their ceaseless rorting and corruption offended people who built lives around trust and honesty.

While our artists were loathed, our scientists belittled, and our journalists pursued by a politicised federal police for exposing alleged war crimes, party hacks and corporate drones were rewarded with sinecures and board seats and the bling of yet another Order of Australia, a currency now more debased than the Iranian rial…..

Australia was an increasingly illiberal democracy in which we were ever more unsafe and more unequal. We were both inured to and haunted by the idea that politics without a moral basis was the only politics possible. On Saturday that nightmare abruptly ended. It turned out politicians couldn't make up their own morality to explain away their crimes without consequence. The historic significance of the election is that it was the people who put an end to not only the Morrison government but also the Howard ascendancy and with it, the two-party system.

Many weren't voting for a party or a program. Many had lived the Armageddon of climate change as flood and fire and drought. They were not afraid of change for the better. Trusting in each other, in the idea that politicians should answer to them, they held to the principle that they no longer would be told who their member would be and what that member would stand for. They were standing up for a future they were brave enough to believe we should, and we can, address. They dared to hope…..