Christopher Kyriacou writes: Robodebt royal commissioner Catherine Holmes’ experience as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland should earn her our respect when making judgments regarding her reasons to seal the section of her report that referred a number of unnamed individuals for civil and criminal prosecutions (“How the sealed robodebt report chapter unwittingly assists the Coalition”).
I note she did seek and was granted approval to delay the tabling of her comprehensive report until the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) came into existence on July 1. It is entirely possible this was not to prejudice the ability of NACC to accept referrals that do not satisfy the confidentiality requirements set out if names were released.
It seems the confidentiality of referrals to NACC and decisions about public hearings were areas where compromises were made to achieve bipartisan agreement establishing it. However, it must be particularly galling to the families of robodebt victims, many of whom were not afforded the same privacy when their personal circumstances were released by then-human services minister Alan Tudge.
This malevolence was facilitated by a supplicant media with a fig leaf legal justification suggesting it was necessary to protect the “integrity of the social security system”. This illustrates why robodebt occurred only because the Australian Public Service was no longer an apolitical organisation but had become the plaything of ministers displaying what could be only described as sadistic behaviours.
I don’t believe the decision to seal these referrals for the time being will protect those I think Holmes believes are responsible for this greatest failure of public administration in Australian history. The mothers of the victims who have paid the ultimate price would never let that happen.
Judith O’Byrne writes: The referrals should be unsealed. Imagine if the alleged offenders were union officials, poor people, unemployed people, Labor politicians, climate protesters, etc.
These people are potential criminals who destroyed people’s lives and drove some of them to death. Yet they are treated like delicate petals who need to be protected. They should be exposed, and then have their day in court.
Dennis White writes: Why do politicians enjoy parliamentary privilege which allows them to do and say things for which the man in the street would be sued, jailed or both? So to observe that those guilty of actively promoting and participating in that criminally obscene robodebt scandal will be shielded from public scrutiny by means of the sealed section of the report is scandalous. People who may have been our neighbour, students, the elderly, pensioners, the vulnerable and those driven to suicide by this insidious program have no such luxury.
Once again we see power and influence protect these architects and facilitators of this abominable scheme hiding behind bureaucratic safety barriers.
John Peel writes: The thought of former prime minister Scott Morrison and his fellow ministerial robodebt urgers getting away without full public censure does make the blood boil — or run cold.
However, it would be unfair to release a list of those referred for civil or criminal proceedings unless all the villains are named and shamed. That list would of course begin with Morrison, and nothing less than grovelling apologies would begin to suffice.
James Wiechman writes: The telling point will be what the Labor government does about it. There is no legal impediment to releasing the names along with a caveat that no finding of guilt had been arrived at, so unless Labor does so it will be beyond any doubt and for all time confirm that the “boys’ club” is alive and well in Canberra.
The fact is there is a sealed section at all is a very strong hint it is. The irony is raw. People being criticised for not doing the right thing by someone who hasn’t done the right thing.
No doubt both sides of the house will always agree on one thing: self-interest. Will Labor cave to the notion that if we do it to them they will do it to us if they get the chance? My fear is it will. At its core this issue is about trust in “the system”. We clearly can’t trust public servants or politicians (did we ever?) and if “the system” is nobbled so as to prevent bringing the people responsible for this absolute betrayal of the Australian public to account then all hell should rain down on Albanese and his lot.
If we can’t trust “the system” to deal with this affair appropriately then that makes Albanese worse than Morrison in my book (and that’s saying something) and there is the very real prospect this country will slip back into the primordial slime. You have to ask: what is Albanese waiting for? If it’s to gauge public sentiment, then he should not be left in any doubt. Stand up and deal with this or get on ya bike.
At 67 I have seen a lot of politics. Robodebt is the single most disgraceful thing I have seen done in my country — by a street.
Judy Hardy-Holden writes: Morrison is like the cherry on top of the cake. He may not be the whole debacle, but merely the public expression of a ruling class that truly believes it is above plebeian scrutiny; that the market is home territory; that jobs, money, support is the natural connection between politics and business.
How do we get beyond this mindset? Maybe politicians have to learn that governments govern — God help us — that government is for the safety and betterment of the nation, not the section of society that pays for politicians’ personal benefits; that a good government runs a good public service that has a strong handle on what its department is responsible for and has the guts to stand up to ministers who believe they head a fiefdom of serfs.
If we could just stop Morrison’s spinning, maybe we could halt this spinning into catastrophe. Maybe.
