Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on a matter that stands at the intersection of accountability, justice and the responsibility of government to its citizens, the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This bill is more than just a legislative response; it's a commitment to ensuring past mistakes that affected so many Australians are acknowledged and corrected and that we learn from these errors to prevent such a tragedy ever happening again.

Robodebt was a shameful episode in the administration of income support in this country. It was a shameful episode in public administration and in the governing of this country. To look now at how this was not only allowed to happen but encouraged, cheerleaded and pushed through any barriers or concerns and any warnings of legislative barriers is like watching a train crash in slow motion. But it's a train crash that had so many victims, some we know about but countless thousands we may never know of. It seems so obvious that what was happening should never have been allowed to happen, and yet deliberate decision after decision was taken to ensure that it did. They say hindsight is 20/20, but the advice was there at the time—the legal advice, the frontline public servants raising concerns and the AAT decisions that repeatedly ruled against it. They knew, and they knew the damage that was being done—and they didn't care.

Surely one of the main ethical underpinnings of government is to do right by the people you are serving? We here in this place and the other place are elected to serve the people of Australia, and the public servants are employed to be servants of the public. But, in this case, that was all put aside in favour of money, the illusory surplus that those opposite promised for nine long years and never achieved. Since they couldn't do it through effective budgeting, they instead tried to steal money from Australians through the concocting of fake debts. They chose a vulnerable section of the community—people on income support. They used language and false narratives to demonise them, dividing the community with the idea that these people had taken benefits they were not entitled to. They concocted fake debts with a mathematically nonsense concept that attempted to match fortnightly income declarations, as required under legislation for income support, with annual tax return income declarations by falsely apportioning them evenly across the fortnights of the entire declaration period.

Then there was the program that was increasingly impossible to understand let alone refute, letters with no phone number to respond to and no ability to seek clarification through Services Australia offices, a run-down Public Service with increasingly long waiting times to get through, a presumption of guilt and a presumption that you had accepted the debt if you didn't respond. There was no checking that you'd even received the letter. And there was a presumption that if you agreed that you had declared your tax return income correctly then you had agreed that you owed the debt that they had calculated. If, by some miracle, you did manage to get a complaint lodged within the narrow timeframe, you then had to provide documentary evidence to support your dispute—payslips and timesheets from years and years ago, even if they already had that evidence on Services Australia computers, even if your employers had long gone out of business and weren't able or willing to assist you.

Robodebt, this terrible scheme, came from a position of an arrogant, uncaring government, a government that lacked care for its most vulnerable citizens, where the idea of possibly clawing back money overrode any concerns for the vulnerable individuals being targeted, overrode any ethical or moral considerations, even overrode mathematics and logic, overrode the basic rights of people to be able to understand the debt that was being alleged against them and overrode their right to query a government decision.

The robodebt scheme, as we all know, was a deeply flawed policy that led to widespread suffering. It was designed to automate the detection of overpayments within the social welfare system, but robodebt mistakenly assumed that individuals were incorrectly reporting their income. The program's automation and reliance on annualised income averaging, rather than actual reported income, created situations where citizens were wrongfully accused of owing debts. In many cases—in most cases, in fact—these debts never existed. In many cases, the debts calculated by this method were much greater than actually existed. The error was identified in the initial testing. However, the error was ignored in the interests of being able to allegedly review or audit many, many more cases than could be done by humans reviewing the cases more accurately.

Of course, to generate many, many more debts than actually existed, countless Australians, especially vulnerable and marginalised individuals, were placed under immense financial and emotional stress. Some entered payment plans and paid back thousands of dollars from their meagre income support, going without food and risking homelessness to try to pay down debts that they never owed in the first place. Many struggled with psychological distress and, as we know, tragically, some took their own lives. For every individual who suffered, there were families and friends—their children and their mothers and fathers—who suffered and, in some cases, are still in pain.

This was a profound failure, not just a failure of policy but a failure of governance, oversight and ethics. The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme delivered an unequivocal verdict on this tragic and despicable episode in Australian government history. It did not mince words in describing robodebt as a catastrophe, one resulting from government negligence and systemic failures.

The commission's findings make it abundantly clear that accountability mechanisms were insufficient. The need for reform and stronger oversight has never been more evident, because Australians should be able to trust their government, the people they elect, to act in their interest, the interest of the electorate. But robodebt showed us very clearly that the previous government could not be trusted on this, and this is precisely where the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 comes in.

The bill is not just a response; it is a reform. It introduces comprehensive changes aimed at reinforcing the accountability and transparency of our institutions, especially in matters affecting the vulnerable. It seeks to rebuild trust in our system, particularly in how the government interacts with those who rely on social security. I'll turn to some of the bill's key provisions. Firstly, the bill aims to strengthen the oversight of decisions that could impact citizens' rights and welfare. It mandates that any future automated debt-recovery systems in the welfare sector will undergo rigorous scrutiny and independent assessments. Before such systems are implemented, there will be mandatory oversight from independent bodies and human review of high-risk cases. This reform not only protects against a repeat of robodebt but also acts as a safeguard for any future policies where automation intersects with human welfare.

The bill also establishes new reporting standards for government agencies. These agencies will be required to publicly disclose the methodologies and assumptions used in any automated processes. In the case of robodebt, income averaging based on annual ATO data was a root cause of incorrect debt assessments. By requiring transparency on methodologies, this bill aims to ensure that such opaque processes do not put individuals at risk of erroneous debt assessments again. Public reporting will create a form of accountability whereby policymakers and government agencies are required to justify and explain the rationale behind their systems.

Moreover, the bill proposes the creation of an ombudsman specifically tasked with the oversight of government debt-recovery processes. This ombudsman would be empowered to investigate complaints, review practices and make recommendations for reform. The establishment of the position will provide citizens with an avenue for recourse and support if they feel they have been wrongly targeted or mistreated by debt recovery processes. This ombudsman will act as a watchdog, protecting the rights of Australians and ensuring that government actions are fair and transparent.

The bill also includes measures for improved support for vulnerable Australians who interact with government services. It mandates that government agencies assess the social and financial impact on individuals before embarking on debt recovery, and there will be a greater emphasis on support, information access and compassionate handling for those in financially fragile situations. This bill introduces a human centred approach to debt recovery, a significant departure from the cold automated model used in robodebt.

Through the introduction of this bill, we acknowledge the mistakes made and the lessons learned. The robodebt tragedy underscored the risks of unchecked automation, the consequences of inadequate oversight and the human cost of prioritising efficiency over empathy. This bill puts safeguards in place to make sure that the mistakes of robodebt are not repeated. It is in many ways a legislative response to the fundamental principle that governance is about people, not about numbers on a spreadsheet. Legislation alone cannot heal the wounds or undo the harm experienced by those affected by robodebt, but it can demonstrate our commitment to change. It is our responsibility to acknowledge that the mistakes made were more than procedural. They were moral failings reflecting a lack of empathy, accountability and due process. In the wake of the robodebt scheme, we are compelled to put structures in place that better align with these values.

An important aspect of this bill is the emphasis on rebuilding trust. Trust is a currency that is hard earned and easily lost. The robodebt scheme's legacy is a crisis of confidence, and many Australians now feel wary of government systems and question whether institutions meant to serve them will instead turn against them. This bill seeks to restore that trust by embedding transparency, accountability and empathy into the core of government operations. The bill is not just about preventing the past from repeating; it is about building a better future. It represents a new approach to governance—one that views automation as a tool, not a substitute for human judgement and compassion. It seeks to balance innovation with responsibility, efficiency with empathy, and policy with principle.

As we look forward, we need to keep in mind the real people who were affected by robodebt: the families who lost loved ones, the individuals who struggled under the weight of false debt, the families and children who did without in order to repay debts that didn't exist and the communities who lost faith in their government. Let their stories remind us of the importance of getting this right.

This bill is more than a legislative response; it's a call to action, an acknowledgement of responsibility and a commitment to ensuring that the public's trust is not misplaced. Let us honour those affected by robodebt by committing to a system that is more transparent, accountable and compassionate. This bill shows that we are committed to valuing the dignity of every Australian and to ensuring that our government serves with integrity and fairness. The bill safeguards against the actions of a future rogue government because, as we saw with the previous Liberal-National government, it appears this is necessary. This bill is a promise to the Australian people that this government will work for them, not against them, and that we are committed to ensuring justice, fairness and compassion in all that we do.

See this speech in context