Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Today the findings of the investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission into the robodebt referrals were released. It found that two public officials engaged in serious corrupt conduct, while four others, including former prime minister Scott Morrison, were cleared. But today's findings leave major unfinished business.

The robodebt scheme was not a minor policy mistake. It was an illegal automated debt collection system that wrongly pursued hundreds of thousands of Australians for debts they did not owe. More than 443,000 people received false debt notices, often demanding thousands of dollars. For many, the consequences were devastating: financial hardship, fear, mental distress and, in some tragic cases, suicides. This program destroyed lives. The system treated people not as citizens and people deserving fairness and dignity but as data in a cruel, automated process.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission may have handed down its findings, but, for many Australians, serious questions remain. How did a scheme that was known to be legally flawed continue for so long? How did warnings go unheeded? And why, after the royal commission referred multiple individuals for investigation, have Australians been left in the dark about how those referrals were assessed?

When the final report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme was published in July 2023, one part was sealed. It contains the names of people the commissioner believed may have engaged in wrongdoing, and evidence supporting those referrals. The public deserves to know what was in that sealed section.

The NACC investigated several referrals, and today we learnt the outcome: very little. But much of the investigation has taken place behind closed doors, with only limited public explanation about how the findings were reached, and still the original referral matter remains confidential. That means we don't know, for example, whether any members of the previous coalition government, aside from Scott Morrison, were referred for assessment. There is no reason why those details continue to be kept secret.

The Albanese government, with the NACC that it created, which fails the pub test in terms of providing public scrutiny, has—this process has failed the Australian people. Transparency matters in cases like this, not only for public confidence but for the victims of robodebt, who deserve clarity about what happened, why and who was responsible. It raises two important issues: first, reforming the NACC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, to ensure public accountability by defaulting to public hearings rather than closed-door hearings—the public deserves to know what accountability is being required—and, second, the danger of continuing to roll out automated assessment tools.

Robodebt exposed more than just policy failure; it exposed failures in accountability, culture and government oversight. Public servants must feel empowered to speak up when something is unlawful or unethical, ministers must ask hard questions about the advice they receive, and, importantly, whistleblowers must be protected, and our institutions must ensure that Australians are never again subjected to automated systems that disregard basic principles of fairness or legality.

Worryingly, my office has recently received reports of automated systems now being used under the Albanese government to determine what aged-care services are provided to elderly people. It means vital decisions affecting highly vulnerable individuals are being made by a rigid algorithm with limited human oversight. And we know that some types of automation are still being used when it comes to the welfare system, as well as the ATO. Given the robodebt disasters, Australians have every right to ask: what has actually changed since then?

Robodebt was one of the darkest chapters in Australian public administration. The real test now for the Albanese government is whether we are going to close those transparency gaps, put meaningful safeguards in place—when automation is used, make sure there is oversight by people to make sure these challenges or automated decisions can be overruled—and make absolutely certain that nothing like robodebt can ever happen again. I know there are many people in my community and other communities around the country who are seriously concerned around the use of automation when it comes to the aged-care system.

See this speech in context