The flaws exposed by Robodebt must be remedied in a co-design process involving service users to rebuild trust and transparency in our social security system, our representatives have told the royal commission.
‘Through our daily work, we saw the immeasurable harm this unlawful scheme caused for people and the failure of those in charge to listen to concerns held by many,’ says Rowan McRae, Executive Director, Legal Practice, Civil Justice, Access and Equity.
‘The royal commission is an opportunity for the community to understand the impact of a failed social security scheme on individuals and for their voices to remain an essential part of the conversation as we work to rebuild our social security system.’
‘People suffered enormous hardship. Even with our assistance, some people gave up the task of trying to counter those debts and that’s one of the most egregious aspects, that people were paying the government money they didn’t in fact owe.’
Rowan appeared before the royal commission alongside Miles Browne, Managing Lawyer, Economic and Social Rights, and former client Deanna Amato, whose Federal Court helped dismantle Robodebt for good.
Rowan outlined the strategic advocacy and litigation we undertook to question the lawfulness of the scheme.
‘We very quickly formed the view that the scheme was unlawful and we determined the best way to challenge unlawfulness would be through strategic litigation,’ she said.
‘We had raised concerns about the lawfulness very early on. We undertook extensive advocacy with government and through the media to raise awareness of our concerns.'
There were no changes to the scheme over that period that addressed the concerns we raised, Rowan said.
The royal is examining how Robodebt was established, how it handled concerns and criticism, the impacts on those affected and measures to prevent similar failures in public administration.
Our to the royal commission includes the stories of seven clients impacted by Robodebt, including Isabella (not their real name):
It felt like Centrelink was kicking me while I was down. I was grappling with homelessness, severe trauma and couldn’t work. Taking money out of my payment was the straw that broke the camel’s back. During that fortnight I was not able to live properly – I didn’t have enough money for food. I couldn’t even think about saving up for a bond for a rental, because I had to focus on surviving. This all happened at a time I needed support. I was trying to connect with housing and mental health services. Instead, I was treated like a criminal. It felt like no one in government wanted to help me and instead I had to fight them in circumstances where I had no power, no control and no ability to fight back. I felt like I had no options and thought I wasn’t going to live much longer. It breaks my heart that some people who experienced robodebt didn’t make it through. I could have been one of them.
Our submission also identifies four key areas of reform to ensure the mistakes of Robodebt are never repeated.
These recommendations are informed by our practice, our client experience and test case litigation, as well as our work with advocates and sector partners.
Embedding co-design into redesign
At its peak, Robodebt – an automated debt recovery program – was sending out 20,000 debt notices a week for debts calculated through a process of income averaging using ATO data.
When the scheme started, we saw a significant jump in need for our services, with a 500 per cent increase in visits to our Centrelink information webpage in January 2017 and more than 8,000 calls to our dedicated Robodebt phoneline over the life of the service.
Clients told us they felt dehumanised, humiliated and overwhelmed trying to disprove robodebts, having to collect old payslips and bank statements, and receiving little to no support from Centrelink when they questioned their claims.
Many felt pressured into entering into payment arrangements for debts they ultimately did not owe.
‘There were lots of people still receiving Centrelink who were powerless … Centrelink needs to show compassion and consideration for the very real impacts that their decisions have on people’s lives, and that includes how staff interact with customers. As a society, we are meant to live with an ethic of care for each other.’ – Brooke (not their real name)
We want to see security debt determination and recovery processes reviewed and redesigned through a co-design process that prioritises the input of people that use the system, as well as key stakeholders.
Robodebt showed us what can happen when service users and other stakeholders are absent in the design, development and delivery of government services and the impact and reach it can have.
Each year, millions of Australians depend on social security payments to meet their basic needs.
The system should be trauma-informed, accessible, inclusive, culturally safe and underpinned by the principle of self-determination for First Nations customers.
Knowing their rights
‘I am not a lawyer and don’t understand how the system works. If I had to keep dealing with it alone, without the process being explained to me, I would have gone mad. My robodebt was eventually wiped after the Federal Court case.’ – Angelica (not their real name)
We took a client survey in 2019, which showed that 78 per cent of people had had trouble engaging with Centrelink about their robodebt.
We saw cases where clients did not receive any communication about their robodebt, were denied basic information about how the debt was raised, and reviews and FOI requests being inexplicably denied.
Sometimes debts weren’t put on hold, despite being under review.
Everyone should have access to clear information about how decisions are made and their review rights.
We want to see improved dispute resolution and complaint processes so that people understand the decisions being made and have greater awareness of their rights.
Legal and non-legal services, including financial counsellors, community legal centres and legal aid commissions, should be properly funded to provide assistance, with Services Australia actively referring people when they need extra help.
A system that works
'I had not received Centrelink payments for some time and had to re-set up my myGov account before I could upload my paperwork. I had to provide sufficient points of identity. By this point, I was sick of jumping through hoops. Once myGov was up and running I had to scan and upload a lot of documents. The website was not user-friendly and did not feel logical. Again, I was relatively fortunate in dealing with this process – English is my first language and I don’t have any type of disability that might make it more challenging for me to understand Centrelink’s online system. I don’t know how other people managed this.' - Brett
Through the Masterton and Amato proceedings, we established that several features of the Robodebt scheme that were unlawful and inaccurate, including the raising of debts through income averaging and the reverse onus of proof placed on service users to disprove debts or correct miscalculations.
The Commonwealth Government should ensure Services Australia is properly resourced and has well-trained staff who can implement accurate systems, provide human oversight and deliver accessible and high-quality services that are responsive to an individual’s needs.
That includes debt collection that is not outsourced if a client has not been contacted directly, and if external agencies are engaged, that they operate within a strict compliance framework and effective complaint and review mechanisms.
Former VLA client and Federal Court test case litigant Madeline Masterton shared with the royal commission last year, on its first day, how she was pressured by a private debt collection agency to pay the entirety of her debt and enter into a payment arrangement.
Other unfair Robodebt features, like the garnishing of tax returns and application of penalty fees, must be applied in limited circumstances only.
Keeping the system in check
One of the most concerning aspects of Robodebt was the failure of decision-makers to acknowledge and rectify their mistakes.
Despite significant and sustained public criticism and several investigations, existing oversight mechanisms of government decision-making were unable to ensure the Robodebt scheme was fair, lawful or accurate.
Our three recommendations to improve oversight include:
- Requiring all social security programs to be assessed on compliance with legislative obligations, public law principles, best practice and human rights standards, as well as incorporating human-led oversight for any automated processes
- A review of government policies with regard to the treatment and monitoring of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions so that they are appropriately considered and taken into account
- Better support and resources for oversight institutions like the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and mechanisms that ensure any systemic concerns raised are addressed by government departments and agencies.
‘While key failings of the Robodebt scheme from the outset were its unlawfulness and inaccuracy, the absence of rigorous and well-resourced safeguards and protections contributed to the prolonged and significant harm that Robodebt caused,’ Rowan said.
‘To learn from those mistakes and prevent them happening again, it is essential that we have appropriate, properly resourced oversight mechanisms to ensure government transparency and accountability.’
‘Because people who rely on social security deserve a system that is fair, accurate and lawful.’
More information
Read our full to the royal commission
Watch the (our evidence begins from 3:31:30)
An in-depth look at our Robodebt test
Media enquiries
For media enquiries, please contact Crys Ja, Senior Communications Adviser, on 0457 483 780 or crys.ja@vla.vic.gov.au.
Reviewed 02 March 2023