We fact checked Mark Dreyfus on the Robodebt royal commission recommendations. Here’s what we found

CheckMate November 24, 2023

This week, CheckMate investigates whether the government can really claim to have accepted all the recommendations of the Robodebt royal commission.

We also offer a new analysis of the disinformation arising from the Voice to Parliament referendum.

Robodebt Royal Commission: Did Labor really accept “all” of its recommendations?

Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the Robodebt royal commission made 56 recommendations, instead of 57.(PAA: Mick Tsikas)

The federal government last week announced its response to the findings of the Robodebt royal commission, which denounced the project as “a costly failure of public administration, both in human and economic terms”.

Robodebt was a largely automated – and illegal – debt recovery scheme that sought to identify welfare overpayments by matching a recipient’s fortnightly income, as reported to Centrelink, with the annual income they declared to the tax office.

Labor has made the creation of a royal commission into the project a key part of its election platform. It was perhaps not surprising, therefore, that the government accepted all of the commission’s recommendations. Or did he?

Speaking at a press conference On November 13, Attorney General Mark Dreyfus told reporters that the government had “accepted or accepted in principle all 56” of the report’s recommendations.

This contrasted with the final report (page xiii) and the the commission’s websiteboth of which provide “a list of 57 recommendations of this Commission”.

Somewhat ambiguously, the title of the 57th point of this list does not contain the word “recommendation”, unlike the other 56 which are numbered (for example “Recommendation 23.1”).

Titled ‘Section 34 of the Cth FOI Act should be repealed’, the proposal is titled ‘Concluding Observation’ and suggests removing the general exemption from freedom of information laws which currently applies to documents prepared and submitted to the cabinet.

Asked about the recommended change, Dreyfus told reporters the government would not act on it.

“The commissioner made a final comment rather than a recommendation,” he said.

So when is a recommendation not a recommendation?

In his formal response According to the report, Labor rejected the FOI proposal on the grounds that cabinet confidentiality was essential to government decision-making, which it said required the provision of “frank and fearless advice” and the ability to express freely his opinions.

A spokesperson for Mr Dreyfus’ office told CheckMate that the proposal was “treated seriously and – like each of the Commission’s 56 recommendations – it was responded to thoughtfully”.

As for whether it’s an “observation” rather than a recommendation, he added: “That’s Commissioner (Catherine) Holmes’ terminology, not ours, and we’ve matched that with our response.”

According to the list of 57 points, the commission’s various recommendations have been “grouped and numbered according to the chapter in which they appear”.

The recommendations of the Robodebt royal commission are grouped by the chapter in which they appear.(Royal Commission into the Robodebt Program)

His FOI proposal is included in this list, although his chapter is titled “concluding observations.”

The Robodebt royal commission report contained what it called a recommendation regarding the Freedom of Information Act and Cabinet documents.(Royal Commission into the Robodebt Program)

Elsewhere in the report (p657), the presentation of the proposal mirrors that of other recommendations, surrounded by a thick border with the title above.

The “final comment” is worded and presented in the same way as the other “recommendations” on the royal commission’s list of 57 recommendations.(Royal Commission into the Robodebt Program)

The FOI change appears in the middle of the chapter. It is similar to some but not all recommendations, which may appear at the end of the relevant section.

Scott Prasser, a senior fellow at the Center for Independent Studies and a former member of the advisory panel for the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of the Royal Commission Act, told CheckMate by email that he believed the proposal to FAITH “must be taken as a firm conclusion.” which “should” be implemented and therefore constitutes a recommendation.”

“The language of the observation is categorical,” he said, describing the word “should” as both “a mandatory term” and “a guideline.”

“This is different from saying ‘could be considered’ or words to that effect where discretion is left to the government to decide whether action is even necessary.”

Dr Prasser added that the proposal “was not part of the general introduction or the letter to the government at the beginning of the report. It is… intended to be considered part of the recommendations.”

In addition, he added, the proposal is found “word for word” in the body of the report after discussion of the question, “it therefore reflects a conclusion of the commission”.

These comments are framed separately and “do not qualify as an ‘observation’.”

Lynelle Briggs, former royal commissioner of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, told CheckMate that “the way to count recommendations is to look at the list which is usually at the start of the final report, there where they are generally listed. .

“If it’s on the list of recommendations, it counts.”

However, she added, after reviewing the report, “the comments are not a recommendation, but simply something that (the commissioner) would have liked to see happen but did not order.”

And in an email, Michael Mintrom, professor of public policy at Monash University, said: “(I) am struck by the fact that the 57th point is really a recommendation and I fail to see the reason why it is not treated as such. “

Robodebt Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes declined to comment for this story.

Phone line reveals themes of misinformation

The Voice to Parliament referendum was a major event in terms of disinformation.(ABC News: Danielle Bonica)

Following the defeat of last month’s Voice to Parliament referendum, disinformation researchers from RMIT’s CrossCheck team looked at data gleaned from its public misinformation hotline.

The tip line was created to solicit information from the public about questionable allegations circulating in the community in the months leading up to the vote.

As the researchers explain in a recently published analysis: “(We) wanted a more comprehensive view of the type of narratives that bother voters, particularly those who are not accustomed to posting on social media.”

In response to public questions, suggestions and misunderstandings, the team conducted independent research, fact-checking or reporting, and directed people to media literacy materials.

According to CrossCheck, the tip line received around 110 tips during the four months of the project, with the largest share (30%) relating to the operation of Voice.

This category included, for example, claims about “secret” FOI documents (covered in detail in this bulletin), the expansion of Western Australia’s cultural heritage laws, the powers of the High Court and fears about treaties and reparations.

The second largest category of information was about land ownership (12%), including wild claims about the United Nations, the World Economic Forum or the abolition of private land ownership.

Other themes identified by researchers included indigenous history (9 percent), communist plots or depictions of activists as communists (6 percent), racist attacks on Yes activists (5 percent), and concerns about the voting process or the electoral system (5 percent).

The remainder was classified as “other”. These were mostly questions, complaints or requests to verify opinions, as well as a handful of assertions about polls or the constitution.

Notably, only a few public reports concerned claims made by Yes activists, of which only five resulted in potentially verifiable claims.

That is, 80 percent of indigenous people supported Voice; that the Uluru Declaration of the Heart was one page long; that indigenous peoples constituted “the oldest civilization in the world”; that the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, was not considered a citizen until the age of 10 (a claim she made Seven years ago); and that Aboriginal Australians were excluded from the war service house program.

Among the names most frequently appearing in public information were prominent political figures who argued for No, including Nationals Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, as well as the conservative pressure group Advance (to which both politicians are affiliated). ).

Perhaps surprisingly in the age of social media, CrossCheck reported that about 14 percent of people who contacted the tipline reported complaints that had been emailed to them.

Typically forwarded by friends, these emails came from politicians, campaign groups or other individuals and often touted alleged “secret agendas” linked to Voice.

As the researchers noted, some newsletters (or excerpts from them) “also found their way to non-subscribers via social media platforms,” ​​demonstrating that this medium still has a role to play in spread of disinformation.

Edited by David Campbell

Do you have a fact to verify? Tweet us @ABCFactCheck or email us at factcheck@rmit.edu.au