Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Between 2016 and 2019, over 443,000 Australians received notices of debt from Services Australia—443,000. The bare facts of this debt collection process, which became known as robodebt, were the following. Firstly, these notices were false. Secondly, they were generated by a process called income averaging, which failed to produce an accurate debt figure. Finally, the process did not comply with the Social Security Act 1991 or the law. Put simply, this means these Turnbull-Morrison debt notices were unlawful. Those are the facts.

However, what these empirical facts fail to illustrate is the damaging impact these notices of debt had on hundreds of thousands of Australians. The personal toll was significant and traumatising. As I'm sure you well know, people died because of these Turnbull-Morrison debt notices. People died. Many people felt ashamed and stigmatised—the opposite of how Australian welfare recipients should be treated. In many cases, victims were made to feel like criminals as they were relentlessly pursued by outsourced debt collectors. In some tragic circumstances, the receipt of a Turnbull-Morrison debt notice played a role in those subsequent suicides.

The very well respected royal commissioner Catherine Holmes provided the following summary in her detailed report:

Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms.

The implementation of the scheme by the coalition governments is a lasting and shameful stain on their political records, but they should not be held accountable just for the initial implementation. The scheme lasted for four long years, and as it progressed there was both increasing public distress and well-publicised criticism. As Prime Minister Albanese said when the royal commission handed down its report:

For more than four years, Liberal Ministers dismissed or ignored the significant concerns that were raised over and over again, including in the Parliament, but also by victims, by public servants, by community organisations and of course, by legal experts.

I particularly praise the public servants that had the courage to call out what was a travesty of justice. Some public servants—I won't name them; I'm not one for using parliamentary privilege—I condemn them for their cowardice.

The final royal commission report was damning, and it stated:

The beginning of 2017 was the point at which Robodebt's unfairness, probable illegality and cruelty became apparent. It should then have been abandoned or revised drastically, and an enormous amount of hardship and misery (as well as the expense the government was so anxious to minimise) would have been averted. Instead the path taken was to double down, to go on the attack in the media against those who complained and to maintain the falsehood that in fact the system had not changed at all. The government was, the DHS and DSS ministers maintained, acting righteously to recoup taxpayers' money from the undeserving.

Despite the growing body of evidence, it took a ruling by the Federal Court for the former coalition government to finally end the scheme in 2020. What a disgraceful, cruel and contemptuous way to treat the Australian public, especially some of our most vulnerable Australians.

The Morrison government eventually refunded the unlawful debt repayments at a cost of over $720 million. The refunds came with some sort of grudging apology—it completely lacked grace and contrition and was forced out of the former Prime Minister in question time in parliament. A formal apology, I note, was never made, nor has any member of that coalition government ever personally apologised for the deaths and damage that they are responsible for. Obviously, the Liberal Party is a party of free choice; it's not a collectivist party. They're able to make free choices, and I look forward to them—the members of those two parliaments—making that decision in terms of being able to live with themselves.

The establishment of a royal commission into the robodebt scheme was an election commitment of the Albanese Labor government, and I thank the Hon. Bill Shorten for being the driver of that process. It began in August 2022 and held 46 days of hearings, with over 100 witnesses. The witnesses included victims as well as the Services Australia staff who had been required to implement the scheme, from July 2016 to when it was eventually scrapped in May 2020. The royal commission received 1,099 submissions. Reading the submissions is a sobering experience. It's unthinkable that so many ordinary Australian citizens suffered so much. It is also unthinkable that it was perpetrated by government departments, by public servants, by the federal government—institutions that the Australian public should have been able to trust.

The Albanese Labor government took swift action when the report was handed down. In November 2023 we confirmed acceptance and in-principle acceptance of all 56 of the royal commission recommendations, and today I stand in support of the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill. This is the bill that implements our response to recommendations 21.1 and 21.2 of the royal commission's report. It focuses on bolstering the oversight capabilities of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman.

Australians have the right to be able to believe that the Commonwealth agencies are fulfilling their roles impartially and with integrity. The public deserves to be able to trust that these institutions are operating lawfully and transparently. That is where the role of the Ombudsman comes into play. The bill will amend the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the Inspector-General of Taxation Act 2003, boosting the powers of the ombudsmen and strengthening the foundations of their independent and robust oversight role. This addresses the finding of the royal commission that the checks and balances that should have stopped robodebt were ineffective.

The royal commission found evidence that documentation was withheld from the Ombudsman. This was crucial evidence that called the legality of the scheme into question. The report also detailed occasions when the Ombudsman was 'fobbed off with explanations' and described a situation where the Department of Human Services dissuaded the Ombudsman from mentioning the legality issue at all. Ultimately, the report made it clear that the role of the Ombudsman required bolstering. As a consequence, the bill confers a statutory duty on secretaries and agency heads, and officers of their department or agency, to assist the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman in the event of an investigation. This is a recommendation of the royal commission, and we're extending it by imposing a requirement that these personnel assist the ombudsmen in discharging all their duties.

The ombudsmen will also be granted the power to access agency records fully and directly in the event of an investigation, and the bill makes it a criminal offence to withhold this access and any required assistance. The capability to undertake impartial and transparent investigations will enhance trust in government agencies as well as the offices of the ombudsmen. The bill contains additional amendments to assist in the efficiency of these oversight duties, including the ability to access documents remotely for an investigation. It also extends the duties and power to apply to other roles under the Ombudsman Act, such as the Defence Force Ombudsman and the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman. It amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 to ensure that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security can access assistance when making inquiries about the head of an intelligence agency.

The amendments in this bill are part of a larger suite of reforms that the Albanese Labor government has committed to in response to the damning royal commission report. One of these is the amendment of cabinet procedures to ensure that there is full understanding of legal issues concerning new policy proposals. Yes, it's a radical idea that the laws we implement should be legal, I know, but it's 2024. We're also re-establishing the Administrative Review Council, after its short-sighted abolition under the 2015 Liberal government. The Administrative Review Council is an independent policy advisory body which will inquire into administrative law and monitor the performance of the administrative review system—all important oversight functions.

Labor is prioritising funding for measures to implement the royal commission's recommendations. We're directing $2.3 million over four years from 2023-24 and $700,000 per year thereafter to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to boost its oversight over government agencies. A total of $5.4 million over four years, with $1.7 million ongoing funding thereafter, will enable the establishment of the Administrative Review Council. The Office of Legal Services Coordination will receive substantial funding to focus on the identification and management of legal risk, and this will be supported by additional funding for the Office of Constitutional Law to improve how this risk is identified for cabinet consideration. Crucially, there is $5.6 million over four years, with $400,000 ongoing, in new funding for the Attorney-General's Department to develop a legal framework for the use of automated decision-making in government services. Labor has also rejuvenated Services Australia's personnel numbers. The former coalition government reduced staff by 3,800. We've restored funding, staff and efficiency. Human oversight is obviously a necessary part of the system that will ensure that robodebt is never resurrected.

The royal commission was established to apportion responsibility for the design and implementation of robodebt, to work out just how a succession of former coalition governments could impose an unlawful and damaging scheme on the Australian public, especially some of our most vulnerable people. Its other aim was to ensure that something like robodebt can never happen again. This bill strengthens the powers of the oversight function in our democracy.

I will finish by quoting the Attorney-General: 'Oversight keeps government agencies accountable to the people they serve.' This is a baseline standard that should be in place, and this bill is an important part of the Albanese government's wholehearted and committed response to the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. I commend the bill to the House.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024. On 18 August 2022, letters patent were issued to establish the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. Subsequently, on 7 July 2023, Commissioner Holmes delivered her report to the Governor-General. A total of 1,099 submissions were received by the royal commission and, coupled with public hearings, contributed to a subsequent 1,052 page report. That report listed 57 recommendations that the bill before us seeks to implement.

The preface to the Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme states, in part:

It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings. Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the Scheme's lack of legal foundation coming to light. Equally disheartening was the ineffectiveness of what one might consider institutional checks and balances—the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office, the Office of Legal Services Coordination, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—in presenting any hindrance to the Scheme's continuance.

The robodebt scheme will surely go down in the history of the country as one of the most shameful chapters of mal- and misadministration. At the time of the release of the commissioner's report, the minister for the NDIS and Services Australia said these eloquent and heartfelt words:

To those who took their own lives because of Robodebt and their families, we pay our respects. The horrible pain inflicted upon you should never have happened.

To the activists, advocates, whistleblowers, journalists, members of Labor and the cross bench, and, of course, the victims themselves who fought tirelessly for accountability and justice, today is because of you.

Never again should people receiving government supports be demonised as second-class citizens.

We owe it as a parliament and a nation to ensure that the victims of robodebt are never forgotten, and we also owe it to them to ensure such an evil scheme never happens again. To this end, robust and effective oversight of Commonwealth agencies is essential to ensure that such agencies act with integrity and in a manner that is lawful, fair, transparent and meets the needs of the communities they serve.

Having exposed the failures of robodebt, the Albanese government is committed to implementing the recommendations from Commissioner Holmes's report. In doing so, the government is committed to improve public trust that government agencies are acting with accountability and integrity. The bill implements the government's response to recommendation 21.2 of the royal commission's report. It does this by amending the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the Inspector-General of Taxation Act 2003. In effect, the bill will bolster the powers and capabilities of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation and the Taxation Ombudsman. Both the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General play crucial and important roles in ensuring that government agencies act with integrity and fairness and in influencing systemic improvement in government administration. Likewise, the Inspector-General of Taxation and the Taxation Ombudsman has an extremely important role in providing assurance to the community that taxation laws are being administered with integrity.

Specifically, in relation to recommendation 21.1, this bill imposes a statutory duty on secretaries and agency heads and officers of departments or agencies to assist the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman in the performance of their functions.

In relation to recommendation 21.2, the bill strengthens the power of the Ombudsman and Inspector-General of Taxation and the Taxation Ombudsman to obtain full, free and direct access to agency records as part of an investigation by requiring officials be provided with all reasonable facilities and assistance to exercise these powers. Further, it will be a criminal offence to withhold such facilities or assistance. Importantly, by providing full, free and direct access to agency records as part of an investigation, the bill will ensure the Ombudsman and the inspector-general can undertake full, independent and transparent investigations.

I commenced these remarks by referencing some of Commissioner Holmes's comments in the preface to the report. Her observation about the disheartening ineffectiveness of institutional checks and balances is a wake-up call and a lightning rod for a call to change. It is a call this government will not ignore. We owe it to the nation and to the thousands of victims of robodebt to ensure our institutional checks and balances are so strong, so robust and so effective that another tragedy such as robodebt will be prevented. That robodebt was ever allowed to occur in the first instance was a tragedy and a national disgrace. It's also damning of the institutions and checks and balances we rely on to prevent such things occurring.

I hope the passage of this bill reassures the Australian public that this government is committed to the highest level of administration and world's best practice of openness and accountability.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak to the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 today, to see implementation of two very important recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. In 2022, a royal commission was established to inquire into the government scheme now known as robodebt. Robodebt used income averaging to pursue alleged welfare debts that in many cases did not exist, and $1.7 billion in debts was unlawfully raised against more than 500,000 social security recipients. A number of those individuals subsequently took their lives as a result of the trauma inflicted by the scheme.

Federal Court judge Bernard Murphy has described robodebt as 'a shameful chapter' which represented 'a massive failure of public administration' and caused 'a huge waste of public money'. The royal commission into robodebt was damning of the ministers and the public servants involved in the scheme. It found:

Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people—

innocent people—

feel like criminals.

The report identified governance issues at the heart of the scheme's failures. It found that the institutional checks and balances that should have raised serious concerns about the robodebt scheme were deliberately blocked by the Morrison government. A subsequent review instigated by the Public Service Commissioner found that 12 public servants failed to act with due care and diligence and to uphold the Australian Public Service's values in their actions with respect to the robodebt scheme. Those breaches included misrepresentations to the Ombudsman. The royal commission found that stronger scrutiny might well have prevented the scheme's continuance and determined that the Ombudsman should not have to depend upon government agencies to undertake searches or to provide documents and information in the course of his or her investigations.

The royal commission made two recommendations of legislative change to the Ombudsman Act. The first was that a statutory duty be imposed on departmental secretaries and agency heads to ensure that their department or agency use its best endeavours to assist the Ombudsman in an investigation. The second was that a corresponding duty should be imposed on the part of Commonwealth public servants and that they must provide all reasonable facilities and assistance to the Ombudsman when the Ombudsman exercises its power to access an agency's records.

The amendments in this bill deliver on those recommendations. The amendments improve the powers and capability of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation and the Taxation Ombudsman to investigate complaints concerning administrative actions of government officials and agencies and taxation administration decisions and systems. The agencies will be required to assist the Ombudsman, whether she or he is making preliminary inquiries, conducting an investigation or following up on the implementation of recommendations.

The responsibility to assist the Ombudsman is individually borne by all members of the Public Service. The bill ensures that the Ombudsman has strong powers to obtain full, free and direct access to agency records. The Ombudsman will not need to depend on government agencies to undertake searches and provide documents and information during an investigation.

The new and enhanced duties and powers in this bill will apply to all statutory officers of the Ombudsman under the act. That includes the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, the Postal Industry Ombudsman and the Overseas Students Ombudsman. The bill further recognises the importance of the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman in providing assurance to the community that taxation laws are being administered with integrity. It introduces equivalent amendments for the inspector-general as for the ombudsman.

While most government agencies engage in good faith with the Ombudsman, the findings of the robodebt royal commission demonstrated that the Ombudsman should not have to be reliant on that assumption. Impartial, independent and robust transparency measures are vital to restoring public trust in government. As the Public Service Commissioner has said, robodebt offers important lessons for public servants about ethical decision-making, leadership and accountability.

After the findings of the robodebt royal commission were published, including the referral of six individuals to the National Anti-Corruption Commission for investigation, the public rightfully expected that the conduct of key decision-makers responsible for robodebt would be examined by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The NACC's decision to not even commence an investigation failed to meet public expectations. It risked undermining public trust in a newly established institution of great value and of great significance to the Australian public. In my view, the NACC's position that an investigation would not be of public value was a misunderstanding of the role of the commission to scrutinise government bodies in the public interest. Whatever the findings, the public has a right to understand the conduct of those who oversaw one of the most egregious abuses of vulnerable individuals in the recent history of the Australian Public Service.

A robust, active and vigorous National Anti-Corruption Commission will add further value by creating a culture in government of transparent decision-making, scrupulous record-keeping and public accountability. I acknowledge that the relevant checks and balances do seem to be working and that the NACC's decision was reviewed by the inspector and will now be independently reassessed. An independent 'eminent person' will now decide whether or not the commission should in fact investigate the matter. This is an important opportunity for the NACC to do exactly what the public expects and wants it to do—act decisively to protect public trust in our government and our Public Service. The country looks to see that our premier integrity body has the ability and the desire to seek out and root out corruption in our government. I commend this bill to the House, and I trust that the amendments herein will improve the capacity of the Ombudsman to do the same.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Mary Doyle (Aston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Robodebt should never have happened. It was quite simply a heartless plan that went on for far too long. If there have been much stronger scrutiny of this plan and more effective checks and balances, perhaps this could have been prevented. The hurt, pain and devastating loss suffered by many due to robodebt can never truly be accounted for, but we can take steps to help ensure that it can never happen again. Oversight makes our institutions stronger and our democracy better, and, most importantly, oversight ensures that government agencies are accountable to the people they are there to serve.

The report of the robodebt royal commission made it abundantly clear: strong and effective oversight mechanisms are fundamental to safeguard the community in their dealings with government. Trust in government depends on this very thing. This bill, the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024, helps address two recommendations from the robodebt royal commission and looks to expand the statutory duty to assist the functioning of the Ombudsman. In directly addressing recommendations 21.1 and 21.2 of the final report, this legislation seeks to improve public trust in government. It recognises the importance of ensuring the Ombudsman has the necessary legislative powers to undertake full, independent and transparent investigations. The bill implements this recommendation in full, but it goes further than this. The bill extends its statutory duty to assist the Ombudsman to all of the Ombudsman's functions. This means that agencies will be required to assist regardless of whether the Ombudsman is making preliminary inquiries, conducting an investigation or following up on implementation of its recommendations.

This is about good governance, about having the arms of government be accountable and about the ethics that form how policy is implemented. This is also about providing a measure of justice for the 430,000 people who had unlawful debt notices raised against them. Demonising and victimising welfare recipients is not something that anyone should do, let alone a government. The word 'welfare', as I spoke about in my first speech to parliament in 2023, is not a dirty word. It's for the welfare of people in society who, for whatever reason, need a helping hand. It's for people who are at their most vulnerable. The thing they need least at this time is a fake debt letter generated by a robo-scheme demanding thousands of dollars be repaid.

We are only here because public servants, like the heroic Colleen Taylor, showed incredible courage in speaking up, showing the integrity and empathy that so many of the public servants I have met also strive to show.

I was elected in April 2023 and became the new member for Aston, the second Labor MP for this electorate and its first woman MP in its 39-year history at the time. The preceding member for Aston, Alan Tudge—Liberal MP and former minister in the coalition government—oversaw the Department of Human Services at the time of robodebt. This minister helped wage a campaign of hate and division against the most vulnerable people in society. The widely reported way in which this former minister for human services conducted himself and his office is a reflection on the values that led to schemes like robodebt. The royal commission heard evidence that this former minister, Alan Tudge, sought information from the private Centrelink files of those people who spoke out about robodebt in the media, so he could shut them down. Then, he provided that private Centrelink information to journalists for publication. Who does that to Australian citizens? Who does that to the disabled, to pensioners, to single parents, to people trying to find a job? It's unfathomable. The legacy that Alan Tudge left is one that we will all remember for all the wrong reasons and the pain that has been endured, not just in members in my community, whose stories I've heard, but from all across the country and in evidence to the royal commission.

It's an enduring legacy that cannot and should not be forgotten. The victims hurt by robodebt were fleeing domestic violence. They were homeless; they were sick or frail and those most vulnerable in society. These are the people for whom the term 'social security' is supposed to mean something, as I spoke about in my first speech to parliament. The report may have been released, its findings published, but for those whose lives have been forever changed or, indeed, for those who lost their lives and for their devastated loved ones left behind because of this scheme, the battle goes on. The scars remain.

There are still unanswered questions, and for many victims, no answer will ever be enough. This should never have happened. Lives should never have been lost. The swift establishment of the robodebt royal commission when the Albanese government came into power speaks to how outraged we, like many Australians, felt about this dark stain on our history. There was clear legislation, but successive ministers directed that this legislation not be followed. We only know about this because of the royal commission. We must find a way to move forward, but remember the lessons here.

The reforms recommended by the royal commission are a line in the sand. These changes are part of our larger plan for reform. It's reform that the Albanese government is delivering, because we know that making these changes now means that people who rely on the government for assistance can have trust in the ethics and morals of those in government providing that service.

By providing additional funding for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to boost its oversight of government agencies and new funding to reinstate the Administrative Review Council, to support better decision-making across government, the Albanese government is committed to ensuring that the integrity of government is never compromised again. We can never fully undo that harm, but we can at least promise this to those who had to go through it and to everyone else: never again.

By further investing in better decision-making, through implementing these two recommendations from the royal commission's report, we improve public trust in how governments implement policy and prove that strong institutions are fundamental to government. We must always aim to meet and exceed the needs and expectations of the community. The only way to do this is through consistently proving ourselves to the public as having integrity, accountability, acting lawfully, being fair and transparent. This bill will bolster the powers and capability of oversight bodies so that we can ensure this. I commend this bill to the House.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 protects the community against any repeat of the robodebt scheme by ensuring Commonwealth agencies are subject to stronger and more rigorous oversight. By bolstering the capabilities of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to provide impartial, independent and robust oversight, the bill delivers on two key recommendations of the robodebt royal commission.

Firstly, the bill will impose a statutory duty on agency heads and their staff to use their best endeavours to assist the Ombudsman in the exercise of the Ombudsman's functions. This will make it clear that the responsibility to assist the Ombudsman rests with every member of the public service. Secondly, the bill enhance the Ombudsman's investigatory powers by introducing amendments to ensure the Ombudsman has full and free access to agency records, including by remote means. Agencies will be required to provide reasonable facilities and assistance when the Ombudsman exercises these information-gathering powers. Equivalent amendments will also be made to support the work of the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman.

The robodebt scheme that was established by the former Liberal government and the devastating harm that it caused cannot be allowed to be repeated. The public deserve to have the confidence that agencies are acting lawfully and with integrity and remain accountable for their actions. This bill ensures that government agencies are subject to stronger and more rigorous oversight. In doing so, it demonstrates the Albanese government's commitment to restoring public trust in our institutions and ensuring that people remain at the centre of policy development and government service delivery.

I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:2 2