No, this has occurred many times over many governments and many changes of name over a period of decades before robodebt. There is ample precedent of courts and tribunals upholding the standard interpretation over the years. If that does not imply that any quite contrary interpretation, as implemented by robodebt, was wrong then we have nothing more to say as agreement on the meaning of words (such as the meaning of ‘corruption’) will not be found.
1 Like
And I feel well and truly ‘served’.
And this raises an issue. If the government of the day, and the public service, are not required under some penalty to apply the laws that they administer correctly, then there is no incentive to do so. If the decision-maker in the Robodebt case was aware that they could face criminal sanction for not complying with the law, then I suspect the program would never have started - let alone affecting the mental wellbeing and lives of thousands of Australians.
3 Likes
18th April 2023 we may be able to avoid suspicions and consider the findings. I suspect not all will be satisfied with the findings, factual or inferred.
Like all decisions made by governments, they are only truely valued once every 3 or 4 years. In the instance of RoboDebt we have the added benefit of the inner workings laid bare.
1 Like
As long as we the people are happy to live under the same threat …
or, as I wrote above,
the only thing the former government did wrong was not amend the laws to specify that this is one of the valid methods for assessing a welfare recipient’s income.
That’s the advantage that the government has. There need never be any such thing as “unlawful”.
The latest on this inquiry. And a very good read on the history.
2 Likes
It could be argued that taking money from people without a legislative framework was theft. The definition of theft is " A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it ." I think the case of Robodebt fits neatly in that definition, as they were permanently deriving people of money dishonestly, as they knew that it was not supported by legislation.
I know it is not commonly viewed this way, but this Robodebt process could be tested in court as a criminal act.
I feel for the Public Servants and should add two things:
- When I was in the Public Service, if the in-house legal area had any quibbles about a proposal it did NOT proceed until the legal area cleared it. In this case the Department WILLFULLY ignored the advise (probably after high level consultations with the Minister) and proceeded despite knowning that they were likely outside the legal framework.
- There were many occassions when members of the Senior Executive gave verbal directions (nothing on paper) to change things that they didn’t like, even if the change would not be an accurate and unbiased representation of facts. Sometimes they just wanted one particular answer, and you had to provide it if you wanted to keep your job. On the occassions you happen to provide advise that didn’t suit, the advise would be filed in the bottom of the bottom drawer never to be seen again, and they would merrily do what they were going to do anyway.
3 Likes
I love the bit in that article that says “if we don’t like the legal advice, we leave it as draft”. And the link to an article that implies the Robodebt fiasco was indeed illegal! Which makes sense - what would happen to a business that issued invoices that were miscalculated? Let me rephrase that - what would happen to a small business that lacked political clout in such a circumstance?
4 Likes
Shades of that wonderful Brit show ‘yes minister’.
2 Likes
Bottom line: If anyone seriously believes that a crime has been committed then the government of the day needs to get the frack out of it and stop interfering in the justice system. That interference could get the government of the day itself in hot water! We have multiple branches in the system of government and there is a separation of powers for a reason.
However I don’t believe that a crime has been committed. So … as you were. Shades of that wonderful Brit movie “Carry On Political Point Scoring”. 
And of course unless there is a crime committed our fearless leaders need not fear any accounting.
2 Likes
… well, it’s a cliche, but apart from accountability at the ballot box.
But the choice is between unethical Tweedle Dum and unscrupulous Tweedle Dee.
Our Glad (Berijiklian) told NSW that pork barrelling was OK because everybody does it. I must be a radical 'cause I thought that public money should be spent on benefiting society as a whole not on the party in power. Pork is not the only attitude that needs to change just a very obvious example.
What we need is to change the behaviour of the whole class of pollies. How will the content of the ballot box do that if the attitude of all candidates is the same?
3 Likes
As long as voters believe that, you are right. It isn’t factually correct though and, while I’m no fan of the Teal Party, they proved it.
There is no Teal Party and the individuals have yet to be in power for long enough to show their true colours.
One significant difference is the teals are all successful outside in real world jobs where the big parties have party machines that too often draw recruits from career pollies who start as officers or staff within the party and later metamorphose from their cocoons into candidates having had years to soak up the prevailing values.
But we are drifting …
2 Likes
Could be so - but they are at least not Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee.
Could they be Humpty Dumpty then?
We are, but then the Royal Commission is a rare opportunity for a window into the workings of the government. Without it how less well informed might we all be? It may or may not change which facsimile of local representation is preferred. Better to know all of the warts concerning how RoboDebt came into being. All the better to also judge how well todays government responds to the findings and any recommendations.
1 Like
Forget the Tweedle twins.
What we had was political party(s) acting in a manner that ignored two basic principles of the Westminster system.
Accountability and responsibility to Parliament and the people.
Never was there legislation brought before parliament to make the Robodebt scheme lawful.
A change to a different political party has, so far, seen a restoration of the above basic principles.
4 Likes
That is evident excepting an aspect of our laws that should be mentioned is that IF the mob that overstepped was returned to government and caught out, they could (in theory) have passed legislation that retroactively/retrospectively made anything questionable that they did that was found to be illegal, legal. Nothing will ever be off limits unless government loses the power to enact retroactive/retrospective laws, be they criminal, civil, or taxes.
2 Likes
Agree. There is a gap in our Government systems that allow retrospective legislation.
2 Likes
Of course there isn’t. Ethical considerations mean that legislation should not be retrospective/retroactive.
/sarcasm
Thought for the day: should an Integrity Commission be permitted to investigate acts that would otherwise be in its scope but that were committed before its establishing legislation was tabled?
I would argue that legislative instruments establishing investigative bodies in some instances has to be retrospective - you would never have a Royal Commission otherwise. That said, you should not establish the investigative body and introduce a new crime that it can make findings about retrospectively.
Then we have messy situations involving political decisions made several decades ago. Things like the Catholic Church not actually having a responsible entity in Australia; this wasn’t a problem until people started suing the Church for the crimes of its ‘employees’.
Shouldn’t the Church be safe in its belief that its assets are… sacrosanct and safe from legal action based upon past events? (That is a rhetorical question, by the way.)
Largely, though, retrospective legislation is bad legislation.
1 Like
