The Federal government has agreed to pay an additional $475 million in compensation to the victims of the Coalition government's Robodebt scandal, more than 450,000 Australians will benefit. The overall payout in compensation will exceed $548 million and with money owed to Coalition victims more than $2.4 billion in payouts. Robodebt was the result of the nasty vindictive mentality of Coalition politicians, including many in the governments of Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison. The Royal Commission into the scheme described Robodebt as a ‘crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal’. It found that ‘people were traumatised (some committing suicide) on the off chance they might owe money’ and that Robodebt was ‘a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms’. This kind of despicable action by politicians must never be allowed to occur again.

Even Franz Kafka could not have imagined the Robodebt fiasco.
The cruel smirk on Morrison's face says it all.

The robodebt royal commissioner, Catherine Holmes said Morrison had allowed cabinet to be “misled” into thinking no legislative change was required to enact robodebt. She rejected “as untrue” Morrison’s evidence he was told income averaging was an established practice.

Over $3.5 million was spent on legal expenses for eight former Coalition ministers to be represented at the royal commission.
Morrison's expenses were $461,445.

These Noalition fools were well known for wasting taxpayer money, $830 million paid to the French for their inept management of a submarine deal. Can we call paying off 70 million Frenchmen another Morrison inspired class action. It was classy, for the French that is. Australians have to be very careful, and not vote this Noalition mob back into power anytime soon! Like in the next 100 years.

Its all getting a bit crazy, this democracy thing.

In America Biden went after far right extremists
Trump pardons them and goes after the far left radicals
Rinse and repeat.

The Coalition did the robograb for cash, blew up in their face
But Also has gone the other way, wiping some $16 bln from student loans.

From one extreme to the other.
Will this system ever get us anywhere?

Why am I thinking of those rare people with one body and 2 heads
Which brain decides what the body does, or do they take turns?

Of course, any thorough reading of the Robodebt Royal Commission findings will show that the primary culprits for the failings of the scheme were the relevant public servants and the departments they oversaw. The politicians were completely misled by the various public servants involved and were culpable in that they failed to ask the right questions and meekly accepted what turned out to be hopelessly biased and inaccurate advice.

The whole saga is a signal as to how bad the Australian Public Service has become. I've been involved with various projects over the years where previously manual processes were computerised or digitalised. It requires a high degree of scepticism as to the outputs by the new processes until such times as its proven to be highly accurate.

To my way of thinking and certainly in regards to my previous experiences with all this, the very first step in checking this would be to pre-check the letters being sent out to the alleged debtors. The first 100 letters should have been thoroughly manually checked to ensure all the data was both accurate and verifiable. Its beyond belief and understanding that that wasn't done. Instead, the letters were held up as true because they came out of a computer without the slightest understanding of GIGO (Garbage in- Garbage out). It was only after the debtors disputed the numbers that it was checked and found to be unverifiable. A monumental failure by the public service.

The second failure was that no one was held accountable for the spectacular failure. Sure some careers were truncated and jobs lost. But if all this had happened in a private organisation or (gasp!!) a multinational, law suits and charges would have certainly flowed. Prison time would have been very much on the cards. But not so with the public service and that's one of the reasons it is so very ineffective at its job - there are no consequences for being ineffective.

mhaze,

This is a perfect example of something I once said when you tried to portray yourself as the neutral obeserver:

“If you want to critique both parties, don’t load one side [Labor] with venom and the other [the coalition] with tragic regret.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371184

Because that’s exactly what’s happening here.

You say both the public service and the Coalition were at fault - but let’s look at the tone and weight.

The public service is described as monumentally incompetent, hopelessly biased, and corrupt to the point of deserving prison. Your tone is seething, contemptuous, and absolute.

The Coalition ministers, on the other hand, were simply misled. Their failure was to “meekly accept” advice. They’re portrayed as hapless, passive, perhaps a little too trusting - but not dishonest, reckless, or cruel.

You’re offering tragedy on one side and venom on the other.

But here’s the problem: the Royal Commission explicitly rejected the idea that ministers were unaware or blameless. It found that warnings were ignored, legal doubts were buried, and the scheme was pursued despite knowing it was likely unlawful. That’s not meekness. That’s wilful disregard.

Robodebt wasn’t a bureaucratic fumble. It was political determination, backed by bureaucratic complicity.

If you're genuinely critiquing both, the weight of your criticism should reflect the power hierarchy - not reverse it.

The Trumpster a "NEUTRAL OBSERVER",after the election, and on seeing the result, The Trumpster claimed he voted LABOR, must want to be loved, and on the winning side. Hasn't voted for the Liberals since the days of the Mad Monk, according to him. Recently claimed he was a "conservative", how these far right radicals like to dress themselves up as "conservatives".

Australian bureaucracy at its finest !

"Robodebt wasn’t a bureaucratic fumble. It was political determination, backed by bureaucratic complicity."

We must have read different RC reports. Because the one I read found most of the problem was caused by public servants. But I read it with both eyes open.

_____________________________________________________-

"The Trumpster claimed he voted LABOR, must want to be loved, and on the winning side."

Also said it before the election. And before the election before that. And before the election before the election before that. And consistently since 2015. But that was more a few days ago and how can Paul possibly be expected to remember that.

Really, mhaze? All 1000+ pages?!

//...the one I read found most of the problem was caused by public servants.//

Yeah, right.

Just like the "dozens" of peer-reviewed papers you've supposedly read on climate change. Or the three copies of Mein Kampf you don't have.

To refresh your "open eyes":

- "One Minister, Mr Morrison, took the proposal to Cabinet, knowing that it involved income averaging and that his own Department had indicated that it would require legislative change, but on the basis of the contrary indication in the NPP checklist, proceeded without enquiring as to how the change had come about." (p. 429)

- "In 2017, however, it was a different picture; there were plenty of indications that income averaging without other evidence was not a legitimate way of calculating entitlement." (p. 430)

- "The report paints a picture of how the Robodebt Scheme … was put together on an ill-conceived, embryonic idea and rushed to Cabinet." (p. 640)

- "How did the Scheme make its way to Cabinet … which referred to the use of ATO income data but made no mention of the income averaging which would be required (and was used, despite its illegality)?" (p. 641)

- "ACOSS had informed Mr Tudge … that the operation of the Scheme was causing distress to those who were subject to it." (p. 719)

- "Mr Tudge … did nothing about the fundamental concerns: reversal of the onus and income averaging." (p. 721)

If that’s what you call "mostly the public service’s fault," then either you skimmed with both eyes closed or you’ve got the mother of all selective blind spots.

I look forward to your quotes showing that "most of the problem was caused by public servants."

The words of the fool who now wants to claim he voted Labor 3rd May 2025;

"The ALP's economic policies are woeful and will eventually come a cropper, especially if China unravels under pressure from Trump. The policy of screwing up and then generously 'fixing' if by throwing our grandkids money at the problem can only succeed for so long. They promised lower power prices in 2022 and only avoided being held accountable by throwing subsidies around like confetti. That can only work once."
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 6 May 2025 10:29:48 AM

Yeah, right, sure you voted LABOR.

At least I'm honest;

"As a person who supports progressive politics, I voted Greens one Labor two, the sitting LMP member on a 3.4% margin is a nice bloke, spoken to him many times, and probably doesn't deserve to lose his job, and I don't think he will." (Well he did lose his job, and the new ALP member, she has hit the ground running , keep it up doing well.)
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 2 May 2025 1:08:26 PM

Trumpster, I say that your claim you voted LABOR was made after the election, and simply a lie, so you can be "loved". When you're not posting one of those 7,500 inane comments of yours, you're reading 1,000 page Royal Commission reports, Mein Kampf and volumes on climate change! You're nearly as bad as the Kudos Kid who keeps quoting that infamous Greek Cafe' owner from Marrickville Arsethrottle, and spreading his crappy pixie dust to the like minded such as you. Mate, get this! John and I are not as thick as YOU!

p/s Are you also effluent in 47 different languages as well, I'm sure you will claim you are. ha, ha

Well, well, well. Look what I just found from our resident neutral observer:

“Rudd was warned that the private sector wasn’t equipped to install the batts at the rates he wanted. And he ignored that. And then he ignored the fact that a bunch of fly-by-night operations were popping up as he'd been warned would happen and that unskilled workers were being exposed to risks just to fulfil his economic fantasies. And then people died and Rudd... ran for cover.”

You concluded:

“That’s why there was a RC. When we see equivalent governmental disregard for their victims, and disregard for clear warnings, then you can make these utterly fatuous comparisons between the two.”
- mhaze, 18 Sept 2019

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8939#291302

Well… we saw it.

We saw a government implement a legally indefensible scheme, in the face of explicit legal warnings, that targeted vulnerable people and led to multiple suicides, as confirmed by the Robodebt Royal Commission. A scheme that used false pretences to extract money from hundreds of thousands of Australians, many of them already struggling - including people who owed nothing.

“Some families even received debt notices after their loved one had taken their own life.” - Commissioner Holmes, Final Report

“Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal. It made many people feel like criminals. It was a costly failure of public administration.” - Final Report, Vol 1, p.4

And yet, here you are, mhaze, denying ministerial responsibility. Dismissing the harm. Minimising the deaths. Calling it a bureaucratic accident.

Where’s the outrage?

Where’s the demand for accountability from the people at the top?

You had it for Rudd - a PM who actually fronted the Royal Commission, accepted ultimate responsibility, and gave an emotional apology. But when it comes to Morrison, Tudge, and Porter? Crickets.

Even after the RC laid responsibility at the feet of Coalition ministers.

These weren’t faceless public servants going rogue. Ministers wanted the scheme, were warned it was unlawful, and pushed ahead anyway.

That’s not “the government being the problem.” That’s elected officials causing harm, and then trying to hide it.

But John, not only is The Trumpster a NEUTRAL OBSERVER, he votes LABOR as well, Yeah, sure, Trumpster get a grip, pigs might fly!

Robodebt and the public service....

"The commission found that public servants demonstrated a "remarkable lack of interest" in ensuring the legality of the Robodebt scheme. The report highlighted that the scheme was implemented with little regard for its legal foundation,"

Public servants across the Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Department of Social Services (DSS) were repeatedly warned about the scheme’s legal issues but failed to act decisively to address them. The commission noted that opportunities to seek legal advice on the lawfulness of income averaging were ignored.

Public servants were found to have engaged in misleading conduct, including providing inaccurate information to cabinet and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. For example, Malisa Golightly, a former deputy secretary of DHS, was criticized for directing the inclusion of a misleading statement in a cabinet submission that Robodebt did not change how “income was assessed or overpayments calculated.”

Kathryn Campbell was singled out for doing “nothing of substance” when exposed to information about the illegality of income averaging and failing to act on opportunities to obtain legal advice.

The report described the scheme as a “costly failure of public administration” marked by “venality, incompetence, and cowardice.” Public servants were criticized for prioritizing ministerial directives and cost-saving objectives over ethical decision-making and the welfare of recipients.

If I thought you were the slightest bit interested I could go on for several more posts.

Paul,

While I'm flattered that you have decided to educate yourself by reading my past posts, and think it'll immeasurably improve your understanding of the world, you need to do so with some forethought.

There's no question that I've heavily criticised the current government for all sorts of reasons. But in the adult world elections come down to picking one of two sides. I've been saying for years that I've been voting ALP until such time as the Liberal Party becomes a liberal party.

"Things looked grim in 2022 and nothing has improved since. So I'll look to see what the independents in my electorate look like, vote for one or more of them and then give my preference to the ALP over the Liberal candidate in the continued hope that an extended stay in the wilderness will encourage the Liberal Party to become a liberal party."

Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 30 March 2025 12:29:30 PM

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10577#369510

If needs be, I could find any number of similar posts from the most recent election and the few before that, explaining why I preference ALP over Lib. Clearly that type of thinking is going over your head.

But I don't need to find such posts since you're furthering your education by reading all my previous posts. Enjoy.

Ah, mhaze, both eyes open again, but both thumbs stuck on Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V.

Yes, the Commission absolutely flayed the public service. It used words like "venality, incompetence, and cowardice" for a reason. But here’s the trick you’re trying to pull: pretending that because public servants were condemned, ministers were somehow exonerated. That’s not what the report says.

The very same document you’re quoting also found:

- "One Minister, Mr Morrison, took the proposal to Cabinet, knowing that it involved income averaging … and proceeded without enquiring as to how the change had come about." (p.429)

- "In 2017 … there were plenty of indications that income averaging without other evidence was not a legitimate way of calculating entitlement." (p.430)

- "Mr Tudge … did nothing about the fundamental concerns: reversal of the onus and income averaging." (p.721)

Commissioner Holmes herself put it beyond doubt: "Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal." (Vol 1, p.4).

So no, you don’t get to cherry-pick the parts about bureaucrats while pretending the ministers were wide-eyed innocents. The RC made it clear: Robodebt wasn’t a bureaucratic fumble accidentally dropped on ministers’ desks. It was a political project, pursued despite warnings, with public servants enabling it.

And remember, by your own 2019 standard, mhaze: "Once someone shows that the government were warned of impending suicides, then I’ll accept that an RC is required."

Well, the RC showed it. Ministers were warned, people died, and the RC happened.

You wrote the test, and Robodebt meets it.

"pretending that because public servants were condemned, ministers were somehow exonerated. That’s not what the report says."

Nor is it what I said. Therefore the rest of your post is mere bunkum.

Trumpster,

Your claim you voted LABOR was not true, in your words; "So I'll look to see what the independents in my electorate look like, vote for one or more of them", you say you were considering voting for an INDEPENDENT candidate, as for where you might or might not have placed the LABOR candidate is neither here nor there. I voted for the LNP candidate in 3rd position in a field of 8, does that mean I voted for the COALITION. I on the other hand posted on May 2nd saying I voted 1 GREEN 2 LABOR in fact I voted for all 8 candidates. Of course I preferred the LNP to those redneck parties you would preference above both LABOR or the COALITION.

Fine, mhaze.

Let me adjust that sentence so you can’t wriggle out on a technicality. You didn’t literally write “ministers were exonerated.” What you did write was this:

“The politicians were completely misled by the various public servants involved and were culpable in that they failed to ask the right questions and meekly accepted what turned out to be hopelessly biased and inaccurate advice.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10657#371977

That’s not exoneration in so many words, but it’s a minimisation - portraying ministers as passive dupes rather than active drivers of the scheme. That’s the imbalance I was calling out, and it’s exactly what the RC contradicted when it found:

- Morrison knowingly took income averaging to Cabinet (p.429).
- By 2017, ministers had “plenty of indications” it was unlawful (p.430).
- Tudge ignored repeated warnings, including suicides (p.721).

So no, the “rest of my post” isn’t bunkum at all. The RC made clear this wasn’t meek ministers led astray by wicked bureaucrats. It was political determination, with bureaucratic complicity.

And that goes straight back to your 2019 test: “Once someone shows that the government were warned of impending suicides, then I’ll accept that an RC is required.” The RC showed it. Ministers were warned. People died. The RC happened.

By your own standard, ministerial responsibility isn’t optional - it’s unavoidable.

"That’s not exoneration in so many words,"

Its not exoneration in any words.

"“Once someone shows that the government were warned of impending suicides, then I’ll accept that an RC is required.” The RC showed it. Ministers were warned. "

Where were ministers warned of impending suicides?

oops...looks like we're about to get a "not in so many words" retreat.

Two can play this. Why are you exonerating the public servants who were so savagely denounced by the RC?

Struth Paul, why is this so hard for you to fathom? Is it that the preference system bamboozles you?

In an election where the winner is going to be Lib or Lab, the only real issue is which you preference higher. As I've explained to you more times than I can remember.

I've consistently preference Lab over Lib for the past decade. I assume this will hopelessly confuse you.

Agreed, mhaze.

//Its not exoneration in any words.//

Now that we've gotten past your ellipsis-gate style deflection, let’s return to what actually matters: ministerial culpability, which you’ve persistently downplayed despite the Royal Commission stating the opposite in plain language.

You set the standard in 2019:
1. ministers had to be warned, and
2. people had to die.
That, according to you, was the threshold for a Royal Commission.

On 1: The RC is clear - ministers were warned.

Morrison took a proposal to Cabinet knowing DSS said legislation was required (p.429).

By 2017, ministers had “plenty of indications” that income averaging was illegitimate (p.430).

ACOSS wrote to Tudge in December 2016 and again in June 2017, detailing distress, inaccuracy, and unlawful debts (pp.719–721).

That’s not “hindsight bias” or “vague unease.” That’s explicit, repeated warning - about harm and legality.

On 2: The RC documented suicides linked to Robodebt.

Commissioner Holmes noted:

“Some families even received debt notices after their loved one had taken their own life.” (Vol 1, p.4)

So: ministers warned of illegality, warned of harm, and suicides followed. Your 2019 test is met. No “oops” retreat needed - unless you’re referring to your own position.

The RC was explicit: Robodebt was political determination, backed by bureaucratic complicity.

You want shared blame for the public service? Fine, you've got it. But shared blame doesn’t mean ministers were innocent bystanders.

They weren’t misled. They were driving.

Struth Trumpster,

"In an election where the winner is going to be Lib or Lab (get it right its Coalition)" There are 15 members in the lower house that are not Labor or Coalition. Didn't you know that, I suppose not. "I've consistently preference Lab over Lib for the past decade" If you say so, were you not singing the praises of the Crumpet party at one stage?

"Now that we've gotten past your ellipsis-gate style deflection"

I didn't get passed it. I'll keep it in mind in all my future interacts with you...someone prepared to doctor a quote to hide hypocrisy and then brazenly deny it.

When you show me someone warning the ministers that suicides would follow, then we'll have something to discuss. Until then, just go back and read how badly the public services handled this. It'd do you the world of good.

______________________________________________________________________

"There are 15 members in the lower house that are not Labor or Coalition. Didn't you know that, I suppose not. "

Did they form government? No? Then my point stands. Whatismore, unless you're in an electorate where a so-called independent might win the only issue is which of the majors to preference higher.

"If you say so, were you not singing the praises of the Crumpet party at one stage?"

Yes, I say so and having been saying so for a decade. But its too hard for you to follow. And yes, there was a time when I supported the Liberals, back when they were liberal. And I hope for a time when that will return.

That's not what I was referring to, mhaze.

//...someone prepared to doctor a quote to hide hypocrisy and then brazenly deny it.//

But since you've brought it up again, let's get two more impartial analyses:

--ChatGPT--

(Summary extract)
Verdict

John flagged the ellipsis. The omission changed nothing. The accusation is baseless.

mhaze’s claim is misleading.

He either didn’t read carefully or is deliberately trying to manufacture a gotcha where none exists. Either way, it’s a deflection tactic - not a good-faith response.

http://chatgpt.com/share/68bfab8e-6db8-8005-b68e-da74adb69ee3

--Gemini--

In the debate provided, mhaze's claim about the ellipsis is misleading.

John Daysh uses an ellipsis to quote mhaze's earlier statement: "True. But only if you utterly mangle the meaning of the word "subsidy".

Mhaze then accuses John Daysh of "mangl[ing] the definition" of a subsidy and "distracting from the fact that you have been caught lying". In the post a few minutes later, John Daysh quotes a more complete version of the original post, including a phrase directly before the ellipsis:

"For the EASILY DISTRACTED and those with comprehension issues...." John Daysh argues that this phrase was a literal flag for the shortened quote and the ellipsis.

Therefore, John Daysh did not add a misleading ellipsis; he used an ellipsis to shorten a quote and flagged the omission in the original post. It is mhaze who is misleading in his characterization of John Daysh's use of the ellipsis.

http://g.co/gemini/share/aebb80c7ae4c

Moving on...

Taken literally, your standard wasn't just a high bar, it was ludicrous. No policy gets warnings phrased as “deaths will follow.” Governments are warned of distress, harm, unlawfulness - and are expected to understand the implications.

Which is exactly what happened.

The RC confirmed multiple suicides were linked to Robodebt, including families receiving debt letters after their loved one had taken their own life.

So, even if your phrasing was “impending suicides,” the warnings about systemic harm were clear, loud, and repeated. Ministers pushed ahead anyway.

And the idea that such harm only matters if someone predicted specific deaths in advance? That’s not a neutral observer talking, that’s someone trying not to see it.

"Taken literally, your standard wasn't just a high bar, it was ludicrous."

Well you're the one who raised it. You thought you had a slam dunk and then reality smacked you behind the ear.

In the Pink Batts fiasco, ministers were warned that people would die...and they carried on regardless.

In the Robodebt fiasco, no one was warned people would die.

The end.

"In the Robodebt fiasco, no one was warned people would die."
- It's their job to consider the consequences of policies they support.
If they weren't warned, then they failed to do due diligence to find out what the consequences would be.

Either way, it's governmental incompetence.

Or better put: a nation run by idiots.

Actually, mhaze, that’s not "the end":

//In the Pink Batts fiasco, ministers were warned that people would die...and they carried on regardless. In the Robodebt fiasco, no one was warned people would die.//

It’s the start of a conversation about how power dodges responsibility using impossible standards.

You're demanding that someone had to literally warn that suicides would occur, or else ministers are blameless. But that bar is so absurdly specific it was never going to be met - not because no one foresaw harm, but because predicting suicide isn't like predicting electrocution or fire.

Mental health risk is probabilistic, not deterministic. It's shaped by stress, shame, debt, isolation, and individual psychology. It’s not physics, and those who work in the space don’t use terms like "someone will die by suicide", because they know they'll be accused of hyperbole or weaponising mental illness. They’ll be told they’re "emotional" or "alarmist."

That’s why most used phrases like "serious harm," "psychological distress," or "devastating impact" - and they absolutely did.

To take just one example, ACOSS warned Tudge in December 2016 and again in June 2017 that the scheme was causing harm, was distressing, inaccurate, and likely unlawful. But because the phrase "someone will die" wasn't written in black and white, you're claiming ministers are off the hook.

That’s not a standard. That’s a shield for plausible deniability.

If anything, this explains the scandal perfectly:

- Those in power banked on harm being hard to quantify.
- They relied on victims being voiceless, isolated, and dismissed.
- And when the worst happened? They could say, "Well no one warned us someone would die…"

That's how systemic cruelty operates. Not with mustache-twirling villains, but with goalpost shifting, implausible deniability, and pretending harm doesn't exist unless it's pre-labelled as death.

You set a bar so impossibly high that even if it was crossed, you'd say the language was "too emotional" to count.

If we applied that logic retroactively, no public health policy would ever be justified, no social policy ever reviewed, and no RC ever triggered - unless someone first predicted death in writing.

the start of a conversation about how power dodges responsibility using impossible standards.
John Daysh,
Power as in facilitated by incompetent Bureaucracy !

JD,

You're the one who set the test. You found me years ago talking about the pink batt deaths being predicted and then claimed that this was the same in the Robodebt situation. And now that I've shown your claims to be wrong you suddenly say its an unfair comparison even though it was your comparison.

Wouldn't it be easier (and a whole lot more honest) to just accept your error and move on?

Anyway, after all that, we end up with a monumental stuff up caused by an incompetent bureaucracy and facilitated by a ministry singularly incapable of managing that bureaucracy

mhaze,

Call it “backtracking” if you like. I’m not embarrassed to admit fault. In fact, I was giving you credit by interpreting what you had said as a clumsily-worded good-faith test rather than a purposefully impossible bad-faith one.

You wrote, years ago:

“Once someone shows that the government were warned of impending suicides, then I'll accept that an RC is required.”
- mhaze, 18 Sept 2019

Again, taken literally, that’s not just a high bar - it’s a ludicrous one.

Mental health doesn’t operate like workplace safety. Suicides can’t be predicted with precision. There’s no “testable” threshold like there is for, say, electrocution risk from foil insulation.

If someone had warned that suicides would follow, they’d have been accused of hyperbole. And yet, that’s what happened.

So, we'll agree that your test hasn't been met. But that shouldn't make you feel better.

//In the Pink Batts fiasco, ministers were warned that people would die... and they carried on regardless. In the Robodebt fiasco, no one was warned people would die.//

That’s technically correct. But it’s also deeply misleading for the reasons I said in my last post:

- The risks in Pink Batts were immediate, physical, and visible.
- The risks in Robodebt were cumulative, psychological, and plausibly deniable.
- That’s not exonerating, it’s how negligence in mental health policy always hides in plain sight.

If you demand a warning that suicides would occur before taking them seriously, you create a test that will never be passed; a loophole carved out for plausible deniability, and a shield held up to protect those with whom you are politically aligned.

And ironically, by treating your words more charitably than you’re treating mine, I’ve shown the very good faith you now accuse me of lacking.

It's worth adding, too, that your test makes a category error by treating harm and suicide like they're on two different ladders. They’re rungs on the same one.

In fact, there’s a reason people speak of “a fate worse than death.” Because sometimes, the suffering itself is the point of failure - even if a death doesn’t result.

JD,

You're taking my Pink Batts comments completely, and I mean completely, out of context. I wasn't proposing that this was the criteria for a RC, I was pointing out why the Pink Batt fiasco was different to the Robodebt fiasco.

mhaze,

I understood that you weren’t citing some official benchmark for when a Royal Commission is warranted - but you were doing more than simply highlighting a difference.

To be precise, you were stating what you personally believed needed to be shown for a Royal Commission into Robodebt to be justified. That’s not just identifying a difference, it’s articulating a threshold.

That said, I agree there’s a difference.

Pink Batts was reckless and poorly managed. It was a case of pushing through a well-intentioned policy without sufficient oversight or care. The consequences were awful, and a Royal Commission rightly investigated them. But I don’t think anyone believes the scheme was driven by animus. It wasn’t targeted at insulation workers, nor was it used to score political points.

Robodebt was different - not just because of the nature of the harm, but because of the nature of the intent. It was rolled out deliberately, against legal advice, and aimed squarely at a politically defenceless group.

There was no urgent financial imperative, no economic stimulus rationale, just a sense that "cracking down on dole bludgers" would resonate with voters.

These distinctions matter, because how harm happens is as important as that it happens.

Robodebt wasn’t the result of haste or poor implementation, it was broken from the outset. Its flaws were not unfortunate bugs but foreseeable consequences of a wilful ignorance that is stubbornly clung to when ideology resists reality.

Accepting that poverty is largely structural would require conceding that cherished beliefs about merit, responsibility, and self-reliance are at best incomplete, and at worst, myths. Clearly Robodebt's architects found sociology, political science, economics, psychology, criminology, urban studies, and geography all a bit too confronting - so they let their politics and feelings guide them instead, and others paid the price.

The harm wasn’t accidental, it was baked into the design. It was cloaked in deterrence logic, and rationalised as "tough love."

One scheme was negligent. The other was malicious.

Robodebt was sabotage !