Danger, danger - Labor’s call for a 'Robodebt' royal commission
A couple of weeks ago the federal Labor Opposition renewed its 2020 call for a royal commission into the Morrison Government’s ‘Robodebt’ scheme and promised to appoint one if they win office on 21 May.
The Robodebt scheme was an initiative begun in 2016 to recover social security over-payments as identified by an automatic algorithmic calculation process. Consequently, thousands of social security recipients were asked to repay alleged overpayments. Data matching of this type is increasingly used because it is more efficient and cost effective than previous manual methods. While retrieving overpayments is the duty of any responsible government, this new process was flawed with many recipients being wrongly asked to refund monies.
Reports by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and two parliamentary inquiries identified numerous mistakes while a Federal Court decision ruled the program was illegal. A subsequent class action supported by the Labor Party, forced the Morrison Government to repay a billion dollars to some 400,000 social security recipients.
While some classified ‘Robodebt’ as a ‘policy fiasco’ caused by poor implementation and incompetence, others labelled it more an example of ‘policy malfeasance’ – a policy deliberately designed to bypass the legislation and to use a technology of questionable accuracy. Consequently, Labor argues that only a royal commission can “expose the truth of the Morrison Government’s illegal ‘Robodebt’ scheme” and “return integrity to the public service” so such a “disaster … never happens again”.
Perhaps.
The issue is whether Labor’s calls for a royal commission is needed given there have already been, as noted, several external reviews, repayments to those adversely affected, and as legal action has been involved surely that means seeking further justice for those affected can no longer be a valid objective.
Also, the motives of any incoming government appointing a royal commission to investigate the actions of its immediate predecessor must always be questioned.
Is Labor’s promise to appoint a royal commission in the middle of an election campaign just a political stunt to attack the Morrison Government and which might be conveniently forgotten once in office?
Or, if Labor wins and the royal commission proceeds, is this nothing more than political revenge on an already defeated opponent and a misuse of the royal commission instrument? Is it an appropriate act of a newly elected government that has sought during the election campaign to emphasise its commitment to end divisiveness?
And didn’t Labor decry the incoming Abbott Government’s appointment of the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Scheme and the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance, as being driven by political vindictiveness than a desire to achieve real reform?
Labor was also critical of the Howard Government’s 2004 royal commission into the Centenary House Lease given its links to the Labor Party and to also review an earlier Labor appointed royal commission into this same issue.
That none of these royal commissions produced findings of lasting worth, led to any wide ranging prosecutions or change, or even achieved their political purposes of embarrassing previous regimes, highlight their limitations. Indeed, if anything, they tend to inflict more damage on the appointing governments making them look revengeful, overtly political, and backward rather than forward looking.
Indeed, governments should be careful in appointing any royal commission. Given their coercive powers of investigation and independent chairs they often roam into unintended areas regardless of their terms of reference, and to produce findings detrimental to the appointing government. The Fraser Government’s Costigan royal commission into the painters’ and dockers’ union with the additional hope of causing collateral damage to the Labor Party, showed what can go wrong. That royal commission highlighted tax evasion schemes and maladministration that caused the Fraser Government and the Liberal Party acute embarrassment.
While Labor’s draft terms of reference for its ‘Robodebt’ royal commission is “to establish who was responsible”, the advice provided, processes followed and overall costs are all legitimate, this inquiry too has the potential to produce some unexpected and undesirable consequences.
For instance, by seeking to pinpoint who was involved, the advice offered and processes followed the royal commission would have to identify senior public servants and the quality of advice they offered. This might bring individual officers and the public service into disrepute. Such a focus could be construed as an attack on the public service and senior officials and undermine the service’s integrity – not an auspicious start for a new Labor government anxious to build rapport and trust with a public service they have not worked with for nearly a decade.
The role and powers of ministerial offices, now so intimately involved in decision making, would also have to come under scrutiny. Already under a cloud given concerns about their accountability, numbers, and costs, who knows what a royal commission might discover and later propose – a further review, staff reductions or their roles severely circumscribed? Hardly a desirable result for any incoming government anxious to staff its offices and implement its program.
Further, the draft terms of reference suggests the need “to investigate the harm to law-abiding Australians”. Does this mean further compensation is envisaged? Labor should clarify this.
Moreover, once in office, Labor will be inundated by many new issues. Running the country is hard work. ‘Robodebt’ is already yesterday’s issue about which few will remember by the time a royal commission reports in twelve months time.
All Labor may achieve by appointing this royal commission is to make it look revengeful in victory, to distract it from governing, to embarrass the public service and most importantly, to undermine the efficacy of the royal commission instrument in a society already losing trust in its institutions.
As with all royal commissions, be careful what you wish for.
Dr Scott Prasser is author of Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries in Australia (LexiNexis 2021). Order at here.