Robodebt scheme
[1] Amid enormous public pressure, Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated during Question Time that "I would apologise for any hurt or harm in the way that the Government has dealt with that issue and to anyone else who has found themselves in those situations.
[18] The commission handed down its report in July 2023, which called the scheme a "costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms", and referred several individuals to law enforcement agencies for prosecution.
[20] In August 2023, the Albanese government passed a formal motion of apology in the House of Representatives, apologising for the scheme on behalf of the Parliament.
[24] In April 2015, measures to create budgetary savings by increasing the pursuit of outstanding debts and investigation of cases of fraud in the Australian welfare system were first flagged by the Minister for Social Services Scott Morrison and the Minister for Human Services Marise Payne,[26] and formally announced by the Abbott government in the 2015 Australian federal budget.
[28] In 2015, the Department of Human Services conducted a two-stage pilot of the Robodebt scheme, targeting debts of selected welfare recipients that were accrued between 2011–2013.
[29] In July 2016, the manual system began to be replaced with the Online Compliance Intervention, an automated data-matching technique with less human oversight, capable of identifying and issuing computer-generated debt notices to welfare recipients who had potentially been overpaid.
[30] The 2018 Australian federal budget indicated that the Robodebt data matching scheme would be extended into 2021 with the aim of recovering an additional A$373 million from welfare recipients.
[31] Particular criticism focused on the burden of proof being moved from Centrelink needing to verify the information, to being on the individual to prove they did not owe the funds, with human interaction being very limited in the dispatch of the debt letters.
[13][30][37][38][33] The scheme was also criticized by advocacy groups for people affected by poverty, disadvantage, and inequality, including the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) and the Saint Vincent de Paul Society.
[15][45] On 16 November 2020, the day before the trial was due to begin, the Australian government announced that it had struck a deal with Gordon Legal, to settle out-of-court.
[46] On 31 May 2020, Attorney-General Christian Porter, who was Minister for Social Services when the Robodebt system was first implemented, and who had previously defended the scheme,[34] conceded that the use of averaged income data to calculate welfare overpayments was unlawful, stating that there was "no lawful basis for it".
[17][50] The Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said the government accepted the settlement, but distanced himself from the suicides and mental health issues surrounding the administration of the scheme.
[57] In May 2022, the sixth and final report from the second Senate inquiry into the scheme recommended a Royal Commission, "to completely understand how the failures of the Income Compliance Program came to pass, and why they were allowed to continue for so long despite the dire impacts on people issued with debts".
[59] ACOSS chief executive Cassandra Goldie welcomed this saying "The Robodebt affair was not just a maladministration scandal, it was a human tragedy that resulted in people taking their lives".
[60] Following Labor’s election win,[61] Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, with Letters Patent issued on 25 August 2022.
[69] A former NSW Supreme Court judge, Anthony Whealy, stated that the NACC's refusal to investigate the individuals meant that it had "betrayed its core obligation and failed to carry out its primary statutory duty".
[73] The Inspector found that Commissioner Paul Brereton had a perceived conflict on interest due to a "close association" with one of the individuals involved, and should have recused himself from the decision.
[75] Following the findings of public service misconduct, lawyers representing the class action announced they would appeal their previous $1.8B settlement, seeking compensation for the further breaches uncovered.
