There have been many cults in 2020 but few as pervasive as the cult of the royal commission — its prestige soaring as never before, its resort now a mundane political tactic, its lure being the image of independence while its assumed healing powers constitute their own mythology.
Is your community suffering injustice? There is now an escalator to ride — hardly a week passes without a politician, lawyer, human rights advocate or crusading journalist calling for yet another royal commission, a cry whose popularity is assured even if the take-up is not.
In recent days the media has reported at least four such calls — Labor’s campaign for a royal commission to investigate the human and financial cost of the government’s Centrelink compliance program (Robodebt) with its $1.2bn settlement deal; Labor’s recent alignment with calls for a royal commission into veterans’ suicide; the Victorian Liberals’ ongoing support for a royal commission into the Andrews government blunders in the COVID crisis; and a new demand for a royal commission into the ultimate accountability of senior ranks following the four-year Brereton inquiry report into alleged Afghanistan war crimes.
No doubt there are other examples. Expectations vested in the idea of royal commissions have never been so high. The notion that royal commissions are a special event, potentially momentous, is now long gone. Royal commissions are not just a means to an end; their advocacy has become an end in itself; witness the political damage to the Turnbull government by its long denial of the royal commission into banking and financial misconduct.
Some such demands are justified and some are not. Royal commissions, in their finest form, are transformative and nation-changing events. But many such demands constitute a new phenomenon — disillusionment with the conventional methods of politics via the executive, parliament, parliamentary committees and government inquiry and the belief only an expensive retired judge-led royal commission will deliver justice. Often this is a delusion; but perhaps a delusion whose time has come.
The more royal commissions that are running, the more evidence suggests they can deliver a flawed response. Often they develop their own culture and motivation; some judges pander to celebrity and many royal commissions succumb to hubris, convinced they were created to make waves.
Why do activists love royal commissions? That’s easy — it is the guaranteed path to extract money from the Treasury. That’s now their main role. Addicted to criticising government, the media is equally addicted to praising royal commissions, their revelations and recommendations, no matter how flawed. The current cult exists against the backdrop of two royal commissions: into aged care and into violence, neglect and exploitation of people with disability.
The aged-care royal commission taps into serious neglect, policy failure and personal tragedy. Yet its performance raises serious doubts about its methods, policy nous and judgment given the 500-page submission from counsel assisting, Peter Rozen QC and Peter Gray QC, calling for a fundamental redesign of the system — recommending the $20bn annual system be outsourced to a new independent aged-care body, prompting a remarkable public clash between the two commissioners.
Commissioner and former senior public servant Lynelle Briggs called the idea “extraordinary”, and said: “I would expect that all governments would want clear oversight of over $20bn in outlays. I am yet to hear you present arguments, counsel, as to how the commission model will improve the quality and safety of care for older Australians, or how any such benefits would outweigh the very substantial costs and disruption involved in such a radical transformation.”
The other commissioner, Tony Pagone QC, signalled his sympathy with counsel’s recommendation. Briggs, by contrast, felt it was essential for ministers to be accountable with aged care closely connected to the health system and its knowledge resources. Last week Scott Morrison took aged-care policy into the cabinet as an extra responsibility for Health Minister Greg Hunt, who is already working on a four-point reform agenda. How the commissioners resolve their differences will await their final report.
The commission and its counsel have won startling headlines in their public remarks about shocking neglect and the need for significant increases in funding. Whether they possess the ability to recommend viable policy solutions in their final report that win the confidence of the government remains in serious doubt.
This highlights the central problem with royal commissions. They usually excel at exposing bad behaviour, personal abuse and public malfeasance where their coercive powers are pertinent. The Hayne royal commission brought into sunlight wide abuses within the nation’s major financial corporations.
Yet they are increasingly being called upon to recommend major social policy changes where lawyers and retired judges have no special expertise whatsoever and their commission process is not the best means to identify such policy. There are three high probabilities from asking royal commissions to report on social policy — demands for more regulation, more funding and often dubious policy design.
The current Coalition government, however, elected in 2013, has only intensified the cult of royal commissions. The Abbott government began with two — into Kevin Rudd’s much criticised home insulation scheme and into trade union governance and corruption; both highly political in their intent and prompting unusual public criticism by John Howard.
“I’m uneasy about the idea of having royal commissions or inquiries into essentially a political decision on which the public has already delivered a verdict,” he said. His critique was correct. Neither royal commission had a lasting impact in either policy or political terms. Yet former PMs, Rudd and Julia Gillard, along with Bill Shorten, were required to give evidence. Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus, hoped no future ALP government would repeat the tactics.
The Coalition has initiated seven royal commissions in seven years, some the result of political pressure. The line of attack is obvious: if governments refuse a royal commission, that shows either they don’t care about injustice and won’t concede their own mistakes. By contrast, the former Rudd-Gillard government initiated only one — into institutional child sexual abuse — a far better balance between royal commissions and government inquiries. An authority on royal commissions, Scott Prasser, said when handled properly they can remove issues from the immediate political arena and allow a more objective setting for policy recommendations. But the politics never die.
The worst recent example is Rudd’s demand for a royal commission into the media pointing the finger at News Corporation, a variation on social media gesture politics. There are enduring messages: put the recommendations of royal commissions under much tougher scrutiny, test their viability and don’t necessarily think one will be the answer to your ills.
The five most expensive cars ever sold (at auction)
How much would you pay for a used car if you really wanted it? To see if you qualify as a buyer of the world’s most expensive vehicles, first answer these five questions.
The Left is to blame for this rise in anti-Semitism
We need to talk about this treachery of the progressives, this betrayal of Jews by the self-styled anti-racists of the bourgeois left.