Where's the ministerial accountability over Robodebt?

Under the conventions of the Westminster system, in which the Australian Parliament and democracy function, ministerial responsibility stipulates that a Minister of the Crown must bear the responsibility for the actions of an agency under their control.

The fine print must say (somewhere), “except if those actions have anything to do with Robodebt”.

Australians can be assured that none of the ministers overseeing the creation and vigorous rollout of the illegal, automated debt recovery program known as Robodebt will ever be held to account over it.

None will accept responsibility for this awful tragedy, and no one will insist on forcing accountability on them.

For some of these now former ministers, it is not merely a case of out-of-control freewheeling agencies for which they should be taking responsibility.

Some ministers were neck deep in forcing the evil scheme on vulnerable Australians and enthusiastically pursuing it, even in the face of sound advice against the program – including that it was illegal.

Yet despite a thorough and deep-probing Royal Commission into the scheme, ministerial responsibility remains a fanciful concept.

Of the post-Royal Commission inquiries to date into those who were referred for potential prosecutions, the National Anti-Corruption Commission decided not to investigate, and the Australian Federal Police dismissed a perjury allegation.

That left it up to the Australian Public Service Commission to sanction a few public servants.

The NACC’s decision attracted more than 900 complaints about its feeble ‘nothing-to-see-here’ outcome and sparked an independent investigation into how such a gobsmackingly pathetic conclusion was reached.

The APSC did its job, but its remit was limited.

It could only investigate public servants, with legislative changes needed to allow it to look into the conduct of former public servants.

Some of the people investigated by the APSC weren’t even referred to it by the Royal Commission, though.

The Public Service Minister, the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and even the APSC itself added names to the list.

Fines, demotions and reprimands were as far as the APSC went in dishing out sanctions to those found to have breached the APS Code of Conduct – and only to currently employed public servants because, although the Commission got the go-ahead to investigate former employees, it can only sanction those still in its employ.

Still, it did name two former agency heads – Kathryn Campbell and Renée Leon – for having breached the code a cumulative 25 times while carrying out their duties during the Robodebt saga.

Ten others remain unnamed. In total, public servants had breached their code of conduct 97 times while administering Robodebt.

The two agency heads were identified by name, according to APS Commissioner Gordon de Brouwer, because of their roles of responsibility in leading a department.

This brings us back to that strange notion of responsibility and even stranger thought that it might embrace actual ministers.

While former ministers and prime ministers appeared before the Royal Commission, with some receiving damning rebukes from Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes, ‘ministerial responsibility’ remains a hollow term.

On the topic of Robodebt – the very scheme that wrongly and illegally rained down so much angst and distress on so many people – ministerial responsibility is not to be found.

While apologies have been made in the parliament and lip service to responsibility played out at times during the Royal Commission, no minister has been brought to account.

The current Federal Government won’t even allow it to be known if any of the former ministers are listed in the sealed section of the Royal Commission’s final report.

That’s the section referring people for criminal and civil prosecutions.

Talk is cheap, investigations come and go and the term ‘ministerial responsibility’ further cements itself as an oxymoron.