Robodebt royal commissioner Catherine Holmes’ report is damning for the Coalition and former ministers, including Scott Morrison, Alan Tudge and Stuart Robert.
And it is disastrous for the public service – certain individuals within it and the entity as a whole; or what some might call the bureaucracy’s soul, if such a thing can exist.
But there is another target of Holmes’ 1,000-page opus that the commissioner hopes we focus on too. It hung like a dark cloud over months of hearings and its effect is now laid bare in Holmes’ report: cynical welfare politics.
Holmes makes clear that though there was individual and institutional wrongdoing (or, as she put it, “venality, incompetence and cowardice”), robodebt was built upon a broader cultural failing.
In the royal commission hearings, observers saw politicians take the stand to be finally challenged on a great Australian political tradition: demonising welfare recipients.
Now, in her report, Holmes finds such rhetoric was not just cheap politics: it had real-world consequences that stretched from political and public service offices in Canberra to the kitchen tables of ordinary people hit with unlawful welfare debts.
Holmes dedicates a section to the phrase “welfare cop”. She finds Morrison’s use of this phrase in several media interviews in 2015 – when robodebt was being designed – “encouraged the development of proposals” that “reflected the approach and tone of his powerful language”. That is, public servants – who were being warned and warning others this was a bad idea – heard his rhetoric and carried on, too weak or cynical to stand up to their boss.
Holmes is critical of ministers who, in media statements and so-called “drops” to friendly newspapers and other outlets, conflated “inadvertent non-compliance” with fraud to spruik the program – and later defend it.
“The evidence before the commission was that fraud in the welfare system was minuscule, but that is not the impression one would get from what ministers responsible for social security payments have said over the years,” Holmes wrote.
Tudge is criticised by Holmes for an “abuse of power” where his office released information about social security recipients to friendly outlets to defend robodebt. Holmes finds it is “reasonable to infer” this “mean-spirited” defence of the program led to the drop in robodebt media stories from the middle of 2017. That is, fewer victims were willing to speak – and the story faded from the national headlines.
One of the most important findings Holmes has made is about the effect the very idea of robodebt had on victims. Victims told the inquiry they would never access Centrelink payments again. Parents said they would tell their children to avoid social security, too. Holmes wrote that there was a “loss of trust in the social security system, and in government more broadly”.
Holmes makes sweeping recommendations about the public service, the watchdogs that are meant to – and failed to – hold politicians and bureaucrats to account, specific changes to Centrelink processes, automation in government decision-making, freedom of information laws, and more. And she has referred some individuals to other agencies for investigation as a means to hold them to account and to “reinforce the importance of public service officers’ acting with integrity”.
But she warns that the “effectiveness of any recommended change” is reliant on a broader cultural shift that cannot be effected by a policy change.
Holmes says “anti-welfare rhetoric” and attitudes have been set by politicians, who must now lead “a change in social attitudes to people receiving welfare payments”.
She wants politicians to “lead a change in social attitudes to people receiving welfare payments” and change the narrative of “taxpayer versus welfare recipient”.
With the assistance of advocates and brave victims, the commission hearings may have helped to change the narrative. Holmes, senior counsel assisting Justin Greggery KC and his team did significant work showing the public the the reality of life on welfare. It gave a voice to victims of the scheme, who spoke in painful detail about the effect this program had on their lives and the damaging stigma attached to their personal circumstances.
It will take some time for the government to respond to the 57 recommendations that Holmes says are needed to ensure there is no repeat.
But her overarching call for a new way to talk about welfare and those who rely on it can be heeded by politicians, the media and the broader public now.
With the rate of jobseeker payments and the broader welfare system occupying the national debate these days, we have already seen a return of some of the cynical rhetoric about “bludgers” and “cheats” that dominated the period in politics when robodebt was born. As Holmes’ report shows, it is both false and dangerous.
We will soon see whether her call has been heard.
