Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the Australian Human Rights Commission's Human rights and technology final report, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I think this report is very timely—particularly as we had the outcome of the robodebt debacle last Friday, where the judge named the debacle a 'shameful chapter' in public administration, which has led to the Federal Court approving a settlement between the Commonwealth and victims of the robodebt scheme worth $1.8 billion. The judge also described it as a 'massive failure' and said that it should have been obvious to the government ministers and senior public servants that the debt-raising method central to the scheme was flawed. He said the evidence showed that it was unlawful. And of course we know that this scheme led to the government unlawfully raising $1.76 billion in debt against 443,000 people.

I raise that to highlight the importance of this report by the Australian Human Rights Commission. In their report they actually use the robodebt debacle as an example of why we need to make sure that we address human rights in the use of technology, the use of artificial intelligence and the digital world. In fact, there's a section on 'Automated government services'. First off, it talks about a Council of Europe study and says:

As a Council of Europe study observed, automation by government can reduce transparency and accountability—

bingo for robodebt!—

and increase the risk of arbitrary decisions—

bingo, robodebt! The report further says:

The use of AI, and especially automation, in delivering government services can engage human rights including the right to social security—

Bing! Robodebt!—

and an adequate standard of living, the right to nondiscrimination and equality, and the right to an effective remedy.

This is why this sort of report is so essential. It contains a number of recommendations which I urge the government to take on board.

One of the issues that I particularly want to raise here is the disadvantage people on low incomes and in poverty can face in trying to access a digital world, an online world, when more and more services are being delivered by government online. They are being increasingly isolated. In fact, people talk about digital poverty because when you're living in poverty, you cannot afford these services. In particular, in the very near future this place will be talking about the delivery of employment services online, sending more and more people online and on to digital platforms. Again, this will disadvantage the most vulnerable members of our community who cannot afford the internet or cannot access platforms on their phones—they run out of credit on their phones, for example, because it's pay as you go. The report talks about that extensively. It talks about the fact that the Red Cross said:

Pervasive service digitisation and dependence on technology in our private and public lives can further disadvantage vulnerable Australians. Improving digital inclusion is critical to ensure that everyone in our community is empowered to participate and contribute. Technology can empower people in so many ways—they can stay connected and involved with their social and community networks, access knowledge and services to help them stay well, or link to learning and job opportunities.

I couldn't agree more, but the central point here is that you have to be able to afford it. You have to look at people's human rights. That's why this report is so important. Not only are people being excluded from society because of the digital divide, their human rights are being violated under a number of conventions, including the right to social security, the right not to be discriminated against and the right to equality. This report is very important. I urge people to read it. I urge the government to take action to ensure people are not excluded because they're vulnerable and can't afford the technology. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also want to add my two cents worth in relation to this report. I note that Justice Murphy called it a 'shameful chapter' and talked about maladministration. It does disturb me that throughout this process we've had government ministers and government officials referring to the robodebt scheme as legally 'insufficient'. That's a word I'm going to have to try to use if I ever get dragged into a courtroom. Instead of saying it was unlawful, the government simply sought to invent a new word or put a new word into our lexicon: legally 'insufficient'.

What happened was wrong. I just want to add to Senator Siewert's remarks and say that there is still wrongdoing occurring. Robodebt 2.0 is still playing out in relation to payslip averaging, where Services Australia are, in fact, guessing by way of payslip averaging. I've helped a number of constituents whose cases have gone to the AAT. The AAT has basically said these debts are not properly proved; they're not the correct debt. It's like someone coming up to me and saying, 'Senator Patrick, you owe me 50 bucks.' I say: 'Well, how did that happen? Where did that come from?' They're not able to ground the claim. If it was my mate, I'd simply say, 'You're wrong; go away.' Unfortunately, in this instance, it's the federal government. Most people, when confronted by the federal government, don't really know what to do. Sometimes they're greeted by officials, by frontline staff, who are quite assertive, and this has caused all of the difficulties that Senator Siewert has talked about.

We do have an ongoing issue with payslip averaging. It may not be to the same magnitude as what has been dealt with in the court, but it does need to be looked at. Ministers can't stand by and simply state that they're unaware or they're not quite sure. I've invited Minister Ruston to perhaps put up a test case. So, instead of chewing up the AAT's time with differing opinions coming out, let's get it to either the Federal Circuit Court or the Federal Court, where the decision would be binding on the executive, and that would provide some clarity. This issue hasn't gone away, sadly, and the government does need to address it. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.