As the government plans to roll out cashless welfare cards beyond the trial locations, and attempts to garner support for drug testing of welfare recipients, a Monash University report reveals that those on Newstart have significantly poorer health outcomes than the general population. Although the government proclaims its policy objectives are to get Australians off Newstart and into work, those who do move off Newstart and into work are relentlessly pursued under the government’s discredited robodebt policy.
Despite the Prime Minister’s invocation that those who ‘have a go will get a go’, robodebt shows no such idealism. The program, operating since mid-2016, matches Centrelink data with data from the Tax Office to reveal ‘inconsistencies’ between income declared to Centrelink with that declared for tax. However, Centrelink is paid fortnightly, and tax is declared as an annual sum. The program therefore averages annual taxable income to compare against Centrelink payments. The effect is that even if you earned nothing for six months while correctly collecting Newstart, the amount you earned in the next six months is averaged over the entire period to make it look as though you were collecting Newstart payments to which you were not entitled.
The department automatically generates letters demanding that the former social security recipient prove the calculation to be incorrect. As these calculations span back as far as nine years, it is usually all but impossible to prove the calculation wrong. A debt notice then issues, followed by pursuit of debt collectors, and ultimately tax returns are garnisheed putting alleged debtors in a position where they just cannot win.
Tragically, over 2030 deaths have been reported following the issue of debt notices to recipients who simply cannot cope with the often false accusation. The government affirms this dystopian program, claiming that it is ‘working as intended’.
Early in 2019, Madeleine Masterton, a robodebt recipient, brought an action against the government, challenging the validity of the program. That matter settled before going to trial when the government waived the debt. A second challenge has since been mounted by Deanna Amato. Miraculously, and just before the matter was due to be heard last Friday, the government discovered that the debt of $2,754 was incorrectly calculated. The correct calculation of debt was under $2.
You read that correctly — two dollars.
The government has agreed to refund the money it garnisheed from Amato’s tax return but has refused to pay interest. Further, and in contrast to the first action, the government has agreed that the matter can still be heard. This will therefore be the first time that robodebt will be tested in the courts.
"The misapplication of government power affects us all, whether we are personally in the firing line or not. Once government power advances unchecked, society itself becomes out of balance and government exists solely to uphold its own power."
It would be surprising that anyone would condone fraud against the government. However, the government’s staunch defence of the robodebt system is disproportionate in myriad ways.
There is little evidence that there is overpayment anywhere near the extent ‘uncovered’ by robodebt. The fundamental — and deliberate — flaw in its calculation makes it impossible to determine whether the program has uncovered overpayment or not.
Additionally, job seeker allowance amounts to only approximately 6 per cent of total government expenditure on welfare and social security — a relatively insignificant part of the Australian budget. It is somewhat puzzling that the government expend so much energy pursuing dubious ‘debts’ when it could be tackling far greater financial burdens.
Welfare fraud is also not the rampant problem it is made out to be, and social security fraud prosecutions have reduced in recent years. The robodebt system, however, operates outside the framework of fraud offences, by manufacturing a debt, using unconscionable, and likely unlawful, means to do so. Of particular concern are allegations of Centrelink employee daily targets that remove the notion of ‘human services’ from the work of this government department. The department head denies the whistleblower allegations.
The government’s persistent mantra of ‘have a go, get a go’ pitting ‘lifters’ against ‘leaners’ turns into a lie when government effectively punishes those who move from Newstart into employment. A policy genuinely in support of moving into employment would not seek to capitalise on the ambiguity of accounting in the year of transition from welfare to work — which is effectively what robodebt does.
And the government is misapplying its power in multiple ways. Instead of proving that a recipient owes a debt, it has reversed the onus of proof so that recipients need to prove that they were not entitled to payments — often many years down the track. In an attempt to defend itself, the Department of Human Services (DHS) released personal information about one recipient who publicly criticised the program. And it can hardly be said to be behaving as a model litigant in the two legal challenges: the first, in settling before trial and doing so again.
While all of these factors are examples of an erosion of government responsibilities to promote civil society and good governance, it is perhaps the last of these that causes most concern. The misapplication of government power affects us all, whether we are personally in the firing line or not. Once government power advances unchecked, society itself becomes out of balance and government exists solely to uphold its own power.
Yet the government is aware of its power grab, shown by recent revelations that robodebt could be used to target ‘pensioners and other sensitive groups’. It is obviously weighing up the political cost of going beyond the vulnerable and relatively powerless groups it has already targeted. If we do not stand up to this erosion of due process, it will eventually reclaim us all.
Kate Galloway is a legal academic with an interest in social justice.
Main image credit: Outside of a Centrelink office (Scott Barbour/Getty images)