Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The royal commission's findings on robodebt were damning, and rightly so. It was an intentionally unintelligible, unjust and illegal scheme that was shrouded in secrecy and targeted Australia's most vulnerable people. This so-called welfare cop initiative branded 866,000 Australians as noncompliant and deviant, inflicting deep financial and psychological wounds on people's lives, and it did so without accountability, with no clear processes to safeguard against errors or abuses of power. As the commission described it, robodebt was a 'crude and cruel' system, a mechanism that sent letters indiscriminately implying wrongdoing where there was none, forcing recipients to prove innocence under threat of debt recovery. The scale of harm, financial distress, mental health impact and even the tragic loss of life reflects a government failing in its duty of care to the people it served.

Women already facing financial instability were issued erroneous debt notices under robodebt, exacerbating their economic struggles and severely impacting their mental health. Single mothers reliant on support payments were disproportionately affected, with the stress of unjust debt claims undermining their ability to care for their children. For survivors of domestic violence, the situation was even more distressing, as some found themselves pursued for debts accrued during abusive relationships, retraumatising them and hindering their efforts to rebuild their lives independently.

This scandal revealed more than policy failure; it exposed something deeply broken within the heart of government: an erosion of accountability, transparency, integrity and, above all, care. It was a gross breach of public trust, a failure to uphold the duty of care that public administration promises to each and every Australian. We saw a government more invested in recovering debts and achieving financial targets than in safeguarding the dignity and welfare of its citizens.

The numbers themselves tell a story. The $1.8 billion debt recovery target ultimately cost taxpayers $1.7 billion. But robodebt is about more than statistics; it's about people. Behind every debt letter was a person or family left to navigate a complex, opaque, bureaucratic system that couldn't withstand legal scrutiny. The tragedy is not in the dollars wasted but in the individuals harmed and the trust in public institutions irreparably damaged.

People and organisations across a range of positions of authority failed profoundly in their duty to ensure accountability for robodebt. The Australian Public Service Commission offered weak justifications for inaction, more recently followed up by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which initially declined to investigate. The real tragedy of robodebt lies not just in its procedural failings but in a stark failure of humanity, and the failures in follow-up are part of that.

The NACC is now reconsidering its decision not to investigate robodebt after a scathing report from the independent NACC inspector into the referrals. Delayed accountability only deepens the wound for those who are affected, suggesting that even the highest oversight bodies lack the urgency to protect those most harmed by government failures. Australians expect a government that serves them, not one that scapegoats them for financial or political expediency. The NACC bar is high, with corruption defined as serious and systemic, but to assume it's not there without even investigating after such serious consequences goes against public expectations, and at the end of the day the NACC is there to serve. In Goldstein, during my last election campaign, the call for integrity in government was resounding. Increasing accountability was central to my decision to run, and it remains central to my work here.

In response to robodebt, the government has proposed the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The bill is positioned as a corrective measure to prevent further disasters like robodebt by enhancing accountability and expanding the oversight powers of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation.

This bill aligns well with the royal commission's recommendations: strengthened oversight, statutory duties for agency heads and expanded access to information. It clarifies obligations for public servants to fully cooperate with oversight mechanisms, which is an essential step forward in addressing the accountability failures exposed by robodebt. Locking in these requirements is a valuable move towards reinforcing a transparent, accountable Public Service, which was lacking in the robodebt process.

Former public service commissioner Professor Andrew Podger, who's written a discussion paper outlining reforms that balance efficiency with integrity, states it plainly: 'Getting the rewards and penalties more in line with frank and fearless advice is crucial for effective governance.' The issue during robodebt wasn't that the ombudsman lacked statutory power but rather that the departments themselves withheld cooperation and did not act in good faith. Real accountability is not legislated into existence by mandates or fear of noncompliance. It is borne from a culture within government agencies that prioritises transparency and is committed to serving the people.

The true lesson of robodebt is that we need a culture of transparency and ethical governance within our Public Service, one that empowers public servants to raise concerns about harmful policies and encourages fearless advice. Systems should encourage honesty and value the voices of those directly impacted by policies. The royal commission's recommendations go beyond oversight. They suggest a transformative approach to policymaking, one that places humanity at its core. As recommendation 10.1 suggests, policy design should centre on the people it serves. This includes using accessible language, fostering engagement and acting with sensitivity towards vulnerable Australians. When policy disregards the dignity of those it impacts, it risks becoming an instrument of harm.

Oversight, while essential, is not a substitute for culture, and robodebt was not merely a failure of process. It was a failure of humanity. It calls for more than just oversight; it calls for a reform of our Public Service culture to reflect empathy, ethical decision-making and a commitment to transparency. We need a cultural shift. Rick Morton from the Saturday Paper observed, 'Thousands of decisions are made every day in government, and ministers touch very few of them.' Public servants wield enormous power and must be held to the same standards of accountability and transparency as elected officials. They should not be shielded from scrutiny but must instead serve as models of ethical governance.

Trust in government institutions is alarmingly low, with only 30 per cent of Australians expressing confidence and a mere 12 per cent believing that government is run for all the people. If we're to restore this trust, we must tread carefully. The public needs to see a government that serves with transparency, compassion and respect, and that also applies to the Public Service and the advice that public servants provide.

Last year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended legislating a federal human rights act, after receiving hundreds of submissions advocating for stronger protections. The proposal has garnered resounding support from human rights organisations, legal experts and advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Law Centre and a coalition of over 100 civil society organisations. The robodebt scandal, I would argue, highlights the urgent need for a federal human rights act to embed respect, dignity and accountability in government processes, ensuring that no individual is subjected to systemic injustices like those inflicted under robodebt. It would provide clear, accessible standards for treating people with dignity, empowering those affected by unjust policies to seek justice. If robodebt taught us anything, it's that, without a structured legal framework prioritising human rights, policies can devolve into mechanisms of harm, eroding trust in our public institutions. Let us not repeat this mistake.

In closing, I will support this bill, but I urge the government to go further. Australians need reassurance that all the recommendations of the royal commission into robodebt will be enacted, including those it endorsed but did not include in its final report. This is not just about legislating enforcement; it's about building that culture that empowers our institutions to act ethically, transparently and with compassion. Robodebt stands as a chilling example of moral contempt. The path forward is one of careful reform, putting people and not paperwork at the centre of our public systems. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context