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.