Placeholder Content Image

PM launches probe into "unlawful" robodebt scheme

<p>Anthony Albanese has shared the details of a royal commission into the Centrelink robodebt scheme, which he committed to during the election. </p> <p>Robodebt was rolled out by the Coalition government between 2015 and 2019, which was an automated debt recovery program that was fraught with errors. </p> <p>The scheme used an automated system to match data from Centrelink and the ATO to raise debts against welfare recipients for money the then-government claimed was overpaid. </p> <p>During the election campaign, the Prime Minister described the ordeal as a “human tragedy, wrought by (the Coalition) government."</p> <p>“Against all evidence, and all the outcry, the government insisted on using algorithms instead of people to pursue debt recovery against Australians who in many cases had no debt to pay,” Albanese said.</p> <p>The program, which was found to be unlawful in 2019, raised over $1billion in debts against 443,000 Australians. </p> <p>In total, $751million was wrongly collected from 381,000 people.</p> <p>A $1.8billion settlement between victims and the federal government was reached in 2020 after a class-action lawsuit.</p> <p>Despite Albanese's determination to dive into what went wrong during the scheme, the Coalition had argued there was no need for an inquiry given the settlement.</p> <p>Scott Morrison, who was social services minister when the unlawful scheme was conceived, has repeatedly denied he was personally responsible for the program.</p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p>

Money & Banking

Placeholder Content Image

Police caution against the use of Airtasker for unlawful jobs during lockdown

<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">A selection of unusual services have been requested on the outsourcing platform Airtasker during the NSW lockdown. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Dozens of questionable requests have been spotted, including transporting adopted cats, cleaning fish tanks and installing wine fridges.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Some of these requests have come out of the Sydney suburbs of Liverpool, which is one of the city’s high-risk Local Government Areas (LGA). </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Residents of high-risk LGAs are not allowed to travel </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">more than 5km from their home and can only leave their homes for a limited number of reasons including exercise and essential shopping.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">While most unusual requests were confined to the Sydney area, one person </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">requested two cats she was adopting in Bathurst be picked up and brought to Sydney for $250, with instructions that “the current owner of the cats has agreed to meet at Bathurst KFC and the cats will need to be dropped off (to Sydney).”</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">NSW Police Deputy Commissioner Mal Lanyon has warned users of the site that a lot of these tasks are in breach of NSW public health orders. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Deputy commissioner Lanyon urged the state’s residents to use “common sense” when requesting a job be performed through Airtasker.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“I‘m concerned … it’s really about making sure people who are bidding for (and posting) those jobs understand the public health orders,” he said on 2GB’s Ben Fordham show.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“I‘m sure there are tasks on there that fit the reasonable excuse but that type of act (transporting a fish tank) would not fit that reasonable excuse to be away from their homes.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“We’re asking people to apply common sense, this is not the time to do those jobs,” he said.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Tim Fung, co-founder and CEO of Airtasker said in a statement, “The safety of the Airtasker community is a top priority and we’re taking important measures to ensure all Taskers and customers are aware of their local restrictions before posting or accepting a task.“</span></p> <p><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Image credit: Airtasker</span></em></p>

Technology

Placeholder Content Image

Dramatic fallout follows release of War Crimes Report

<div class="post_body_wrapper"> <div class="post_body"> <div class="body_text redactor-styles redactor-in"> <p>An Afghanistan report into alleged Australian war crimes has found "deeply disturbing allegations of unlawful killings".</p> <p>The inquiry uncovered high numbers of instances of unlawful killings as well as inhumane treatment of detainees.</p> <p>The Chief of the Australian Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, spoke about Inspector General of the inquiry Justice Paul Brereton's findings.</p> <p>Since 2016, Brereton examined allegations of war crimes by Australian special forces in Afghanistan.</p> <p>Brereton interviewed more than 400 witnesses and examined tens of thousands of documents, where he alleges "possibly the most disgraceful episode in Australia's military history" occurred in 2012.</p> <p>However, the details of this episode have been redacted for legal reasons.</p> <p>“He [Brereton] found there to be credible information to substantiate 23 incidents of alleged unlawful killing of 39 people by 25 Australian Special Forces personnel, predominantly from the Special Air Service Regiment,” Campbell said.</p> <p>“He found none of the alleged unlawful killings were described as being in the heat of battle,” General Campbell said.</p> <p>“These findings allege the most serious breaches of military conduct and professional values.</p> <p>“The killing, the unlawful killing, of civilians and prisoners is never acceptable.</p> <p>“It is my duty, and that of my fellow Chiefs, to set things right.</p> <p>General Campbell released a redacted form of the inquiry report to "ensure the procedural fairness of potential future investigations and possible court proceedings". </p> <p>It has been heavily redacted for "security, privacy and legal reasons".</p> <p>General Campbell was asked about chapter 2.50 in the first part of the report.</p> <p>“What is described in this chapter is possibly the most disgraceful episode in Australia’s military history, and the commanders at troop, squadron and task group level bear moral command responsibility for what happened under their command, regardless of personal fault”, the report states.</p> <p>General Campbell said he couldn't speak on that particular aspect of the report.</p> <p>“But Justice Brereton does describe something that is utterly disgraceful,” he told reporters.</p> <p>“It is right that it needs legally to be redacted.</p> <p>“In time, in the time of history to be written, it is shameful.”</p> <p>He has also "sincerely and unreservedly" apologised to the people of Afghanistan for any wrongdoing by Australia soldiers.</p> <p>“Such alleged behaviour profoundly disrespected the trust placed in us by the Afghan people who had asked us to their country to help them,” he said.</p> <p>“It would have devastated the lives of Afghan families and communities, causing immeasurable pain and suffering.”</p> <p>“I can’t imagine the pain, the suffering and the uncertainty that that loss has caused, both at the time and that continued uncertainty of how this happened,” General Campbell said.</p> <p>“My sincere apologies to them and a desire to find a way to make recompense.”</p> <p>He also apologised to Australians for any wrongdoings by members of the Australian Defence Force.</p> <p>“I am sincerely sorry for any wrongdoing by members of the Australian Defence Force,” he said.</p> <p>“You’re right to expect that your Defence Force will defend your nation and its interest in a manner that accords with our values and laws.”</p> <p>Campbell has said that the conduct in the report is "greatly at odds" with the Australian Defence Force, as well as damaging to the moral authority of the ADF.</p> </div> </div> </div>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Commonwealth rules robo-debt unlawful

<p>Three years after legal experts laid out their reasons why robodebt was wrong in law and wrong in maths, the government has folded its tent, conceding all points just before trial of the test case conducted in the name of 33 year old local government employee <a href="https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/about-us/news/it-felt-like-guilty-until-proven-innocent-new-test-case-against-centrelinks-robo-debt-system">Deanne Amato</a>.</p> <p>Deanna Amato found out about her alleged robodebt in January when her full tax return was intercepted and taken from her, all $1709.87 of it. Centrelink said she owed a debt of $2,754 for Austudy support it said she was overpaid while studying in 2012.</p> <p>It had sent letters to her old address.</p> <p>A week before court orders were finalised on Wednesday, a Centrelink internal email dated November 19 advised that debts would no longer be asserted on the basis of overpayments suggested by data-matched estimates of averaged fortnightly earnings, but only by overpayments calculated on the basis of actual earnings in the relevant fortnights.</p> <p>All past debts would be “methodically” reviewed, starting with those where people had not previously made contact.</p> <p><strong>Why the government caved</strong></p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304178/original/file-20191128-176598-1wknjwi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304178/original/file-20191128-176598-1wknjwi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="" /></a> <span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><a href="https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/VID611/2019/3859485/event/30114114/document/1513665" class="source">Wednesday's court order</a></span></p> <p>Wednesday’s <a href="https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/VID611/2019/3859485/event/30114114/document/1513665">court order</a> makes clear why the government folded.</p> <p>It confirms that averages provide no evidence at all, and that Centrelink cannot “reverse the onus of proof” to require people to prove they do not have a debt. It must itself establish that there is a debt.</p> <p>There are no acceptable half measures on either point, so this should mean that robodebt has ended and all 300,000 or so alleged debts collected on this basis should be refunded with interest, and perhaps also an apology for distress caused by acting unlawfully.</p> <p>With as much as A$660 million of ill-gotten (if not all yet collected) revenue is at stake, there are indications that government is yet properly to understand what the law requires of it.</p> <p><strong>It is talking as if it hasn’t understood</strong></p> <p>Instead of accepting that Wednesday’s court ruling requires that any future or past debt be based on earnings in each and every fortnight, the minister, Stuart Robert, speaks only of needing “<a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/799/stuartrobert_nov_19_2019.pdf?1574903141">additional proof points</a>”, of there being “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/19/robodebt-government-abandons-key-part-of-debt-recovery-scheme-in-major-overhaul">no change</a>” to the construct of the onus of proof and of this being just another “<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/federal-court-judge-delivers-blow-to-robodebt-system/news-story/99923f5ab10e33f1b869e02c04939dbc">refinement</a>” which affects a “small cohort”.</p> <p>He has even talked about “continuing to use income averaging as part of a range of options to ask a welfare recipient to engage with the department of human services if there is a discrepancy”.</p> <p>The initial script issued to Centrelink call centre staff when fielding calls from people enquiring about past debts in light of the changes brought about by the Federal court test case are also worryingly similar to “business as usual”. They simply invite people to collect payslips and other documents to “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/20/robodebt-class-action-to-go-ahead-despite-overhaul-of-centrelink-debt-recovery">prepare for a reassessment</a>,” leaving the very clear impression that is is still up to the person to disprove the debt.</p> <p><strong>It acted without outside advice</strong></p> <p>It appears from press reports that the attorney general has confirmed that for over three years the government failed to obtain other than <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/20/robodebt-class-action-to-go-ahead-despite-overhaul-of-centrelink-debt-recovery">in-house legal advice</a> before belatedly obtaining the external advice that revealed that robodebt was the proverbial Emperor without (legal) clothes.</p> <p>It is to be hoped that it gets it now as it works out what is required to bring debt recovery into compliance with the law.</p> <p>There is an old legal saying that the lawyer who advises and represents themselves “has a fool for a client”.</p> <p>Unfortunately on this occasion robodebt has not only made the government look foolish – the kind of failures of program design, basic mathematical reasoning and legal research that would leave a failed third world state feeling embarrassed – but in the course of its life has imposed untold hardship on and trauma on some hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable members of Australia’s community.</p> <p>Less than six weeks ago the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights (the expat Australian Philip Alston), in a report to the UN General Assembly, warned of the risk of a “<a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/newyork/Pages/GA74thSession.aspx">digital welfare dystopia</a>,” citing robodebt as one of the leading examples of how much human and reputational damage can be caused by bad design.</p> <p>The <em>Amato</em> ruling exposes the flagrant breach of the rule of law at the heart of the welfare dystopia that robodebt created.</p> <p>Government must as a matter of urgency establish an open and fully representative oversight body to ensure justice is fully and quickly delivered to its past victims and that no future debts are asserted other than in proper compliance with Centrelink’s legal obligations, now so clearly laid out for all to see.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127984/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: http://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/terry-carney-660318">Terry Carney</a>, Emeritus Professor of Law, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a></em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/robodebt-failed-its-day-in-court-what-now-127984">original article</a>.</em></p>

Money & Banking

Our Partners