The Robodebt rogues gallery

July 10, 2023
Issue 
Robodebt rogues from left to right: Scott Morrison; Alan Tudge; Kathryn Campbell; and Peter Dutton. Image: 麻豆传媒

If ever there was an instance of hideous failing in government policy and its cowardly implementation by the public service, the cruel, inept and vicious Robodebt program would have to be one of them.

Robodebt was a scheme developed by the Department of Human Services (DHS) and submitted as a budget measure by Scott Morrison, a former Minister for Social Services, in 2015. Its express purpose was to recover claimed 鈥渙verpayments鈥 from welfare recipients, stretching back to the 2010鈥11 financial year.

The automated scheme used a deeply flawed 鈥渋ncome averaging鈥 method to assess income and benefit entitlements, yielding inaccurate results. The assumption was that recipients had stable income through the financial year. The scheme also failed to comply with the income calculation provisions of the Social Security Act 1991.

The results were disastrous for those in receipt of crude, harrying debt notices. The scheme led to various instances of suicide. It oversaw a concerted government assault on the poor and vulnerable.

A demonising campaign was waged by former human services minister Alan Tudge. Media outlets such as A Current Affair were more than happy to provide a platform. 鈥淲e will find you,鈥 Tudge the program, adding 鈥淲e will track you down, and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison鈥.

The policy eventually caught the ire of the courts, which ruled the scheme unlawful.

That, along with a change in government, eventually led to the setting up聽of a royal commission into the scheme, were released by Commissioner Catherine Holmes on July 7.

The 1000 pages make for grim reading.

Morrison was appointed Minister for Social Services in December 2014. Wishing to make an impression he, unusually, held direct meetings with Kathryn Campbell, secretary of the department, to tease out what would become the Robodebt proposal.

Concern from legal officers and senior staff within the Department of Social Services (DSS) about the legal compliance of the program were ignored or dismissed.

The Royal Commission rejected 鈥渁s untrue Mr Morrison鈥檚 evidence that he was told that income averaging as contemplated in the Executive Minute was an established practice and a 鈥榝oundational way鈥 in which DHS worked鈥.

The New Policy Proposal (NPP) that arose was at odds with the legal position of the DSS stating that legislative change was required to implement the new income averaging approach.

Morrison did not make any inquiries as to the reasons for that reversal. He 鈥渁llowed Cabinet to be misled because he did not make that obvious inquiry鈥, the commissioner noted.

The necessary information 鈥 that the scheme would require legislative and policy change to permit the use of income averaging 鈥 was not supplied. Morrison accordingly 鈥渇ailed to meet his ministerial responsibility 鈥 to ensure that [the scheme] was lawful鈥.

Tudge comes in for special mention for his 鈥渦se of information about social security recipients in the media鈥. This could only be regarded as an abuse of power.

After knowing that the scheme had claimed the lives of at least two people from suicide, Tudge also 鈥渇ailed to undertake a comprehensive review of the Scheme, including its fundamental features, or to consider whether its impacts were so harmful to vulnerable recipients that it should cease鈥.

The commissioner found that Christian Porter, a later Minister for Social Services, 鈥渃ould not rationally have been satisfied of the legality of the Scheme on the basis of his general knowledge of the NPP process, when he did not have actual knowledge of the content of the NPP, and had no idea whether it had said anything about the practice of income averaging鈥.

Stuart Robert, the minister in charge of Robodebt in its final days, also cuts a less than impressive figure.

The Commission found that Robert had not unequivocally instructed the secretary of human services in November 2019 鈥渢o cease income averaging as a sole or partial basis for debt raising鈥. It was 鈥渞easonable to suppose that Mr Robert still hoped to salvage the Robodebt Scheme in some respects鈥.

The Commissioner found that senior DSS and DHS officers failed to give Morrison 鈥渇rank and full advice before and after the development of the NPP鈥, the result of 鈥減ressure to deliver the budget expectations of the government and by Mr Morrison, as the Minister for Social Services, communicating the direction to develop the NPP through the Executive Minute鈥.

Kathryn Campbell, DHS Secretary, stood out. 鈥淗er response to staff concerns, including those about income averaging and debt accuracy, was not to seek external assurance, or even to make inquiries about the matter with her chief counsel or other departmental lawyers.鈥

Instead, she told staff on January 25, 2017 that there would be 鈥渘o change to how we assess income or calculate and recover debts鈥.

The DHS was also rebuked for its approach to the media鈥檚 coverage of the scheme鈥檚 defects. In 2017, when Robodebt came under withering scrutiny, the department responded 鈥渢o criticism by systematically repeating the same narrative, underpinned by a set of talking points and standard lines鈥.

The bureaucrats acted as 鈥済atekeepers鈥 keen on 鈥済etting it [the media criticism] shut down as quickly as possible鈥, the commissioner wrote.

The names of the Robodebt architects and apologists should be blazoned upon a monument of execration for time immemorial.

Even now its perpetrators are resorting to extravagant acts of hand washing. Campbell continues to receive a salary from her advisory role on AUKUS to the Defence Department.

For Opposition leader Peter Dutton, who can only concede that 鈥渕istakes鈥 had been made, the ideology of punishing welfare recipients remains central.

[Binoy Kampmark lectures at RMIT University.]

You need 麻豆传媒, and we need you!

麻豆传媒 is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.