Download PDF

May 2022

The Senate

Community Affairs References Committee

Accountability and justice: Why we need a Royal Commission into Robodebt

© Commonwealth of Australia 2022

ISBN 978-1-76093-410-1

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License.

The details of this licence are available on the Creative Commons website: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Printed by the Senate Printing Centre, Parliament House

iii

Committee Members

Chair Senator Janet Rice AG, VIC

(from 7 September 2021)

Deputy Chair Senator Wendy Askew LP, TAS

Members Senator Catryna Bilyk ALP, TAS

(until 12 August 2021) Senator Nita Green ALP, QLD

(from 16 March 2021) Senator Hollie Hughes LP, NSW

Senator Anne Urquhart ALP, TAS

Substitute Members Senator Matt O'Sullivan LP, WA

(for Senator Askew on 3 October 2019) Senator Deborah O'Neill ALP, NSW

(for Senator Ciccone on 16 December 2019; for Senator Urquhart on 17 August 2020; for Senator Bilyk on 31 August 2020 and 9 August 2021; for Senator Bilyk from 12 August 2021) Senator Carol Brown ALP, TAS

(for Senator Urquhart on 11 February 2020) Senator Andrew McLachlan CSC LP, SA

(for Senator Hughes on 31 July 2020) Senator Murray Watt ALP, QLD

(for Senator McCarthy on 17 August 2020) Senator Marielle Smith ALP, SA

(for Senator Urquhart on 9 August 2021) Senator Tim Ayres ALP, NSW

(for Senator Green 1 September 2021) Senator Sue Lines ALP, WA

(for Senator Urquhart on 13 November 2019 and for Senator McCarthy on 3 February 2021) Senator Kimberley Kitching ALP, VIC

(for Senator Bilyk on 3 February 2021) Senator Karen Grogan ALP, SA

(for Senator Green on 29 March 2022 and 1 April 2022)

iv

Participating Members Senator Kimberley Kitching ALP, VIC

Senator Rex Patrick IND, SA

Senator Helen Polley ALP, TAS

Senator the Hon Amanda Stoker LP, QLD

Former Members Senator Raff Ciccone ALP, VIC

(from 5 December 2019 to 5 February 2020) Senator Malarndirri McCarthy ALP, NT

(until 16 March 2021) Senator Deborah O'Neill ALP, NSW

(until 5 December 2019) Senator Rachel Siewert AG, WA

(Chair until 6 September 2021)

Secretariat Jeanette Radcliffe, Committee Secretary Apolline Kohen, Acting Committee Secretary Pothida Youhorn, Committee Secretary Anna Hough, Principal Research Officer Sarah McFadden, Principal Research Officer Sina Hutton, Principal Research Officer Sarah Batts, Senior Research Officer Andrew Back, Senior Research Officer Kathleen McGarry, Senior Research Officer Lisa Butson, Senior Research Officer Christopher Dyer, Senior Research Officer Carol Stewart, Administrative Officer Claire Holden, Administrative Officer

PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Phone: 02 6277 3515 Fax: 02 6277 5829 E-mail: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au Internet: www.aph.gov.au/senate_ca

v

Contents

Committee Members ........................................................................................................................ iii

Terms of Reference .......................................................................................................................... vii

Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................... ix

List of Recommendations ................................................................................................................. xi

Chapter 1—Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

The Income Compliance Program ..................................................................................................... 3

Conduct of the inquiry ........................................................................................................................ 7

Report structure ................................................................................................................................... 8

Notes on terminology ............................................................................................................... 8

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 8

Chapter 2—A massive failure of public administration ............................................................. 9

The role of automation ....................................................................................................................... 9

Use of averaged income data to assert the existence of a debt .................................................... 10

Interactions with Services Australia ................................................................................................ 11

The impact on current and past income support recipients ........................................................ 13

Changes in Services Australia’s approach...................................................................................... 14

Debts will no longer be calculated solely using averaged income data ......................... 15

Move to near real-time compliance ..................................................................................... 15

Efforts to improve communication and transparency ....................................................... 16

The deliberate withholding of information .................................................................................... 17

Calls for a Royal Commission ............................................................................................... 18

Committee view ................................................................................................................................. 19

Government Senators' Dissenting Report.................................................................................... 21

Appendix 1—Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................ 23

Appendix 2—Submissions and Additional Information .......................................................... 35

Appendix 3—Public Hearings ........................................................................................................ 43

vii

Terms of Reference

Centrelink’s compliance program, with specific reference to:

(a) the ongoing impact of the Federal Government’s automated debt collection processes upon current and past income support recipients;

(b) data-matching techniques used by Centrelink, including limitations and uncertainties of data-matching techniques and error-handling processes;

(c) the handling of under-payment errors, including the number of payments identified and made through data-matching following an under-payment error;

(d) the use of real-time wages data and other techniques to prevent overpayment;

(e) the capacity and adequacy of Centrelink and the Department of Human Services to deliver the program, including the use of contract staff and the impact of staff performance targets on the program;

(f) the error rates in the issuing of initial letters and debt notices, the causes of these errors and what steps are routinely taken when errors are identified;

(g) the procedures that have been put in place to prevent future errors;

(h) the number of initial letters and debt notices sent out and the number of debts that have been recovered;

(i) the review process and appeals process for debt notices, including the number of reviews and appeals undertaken;

(j) the use and legality of the debt collection processes used by Centrelink and the Department of Human Services;

(k) the use of debt collectors in the compliance program; and

(l) the cost of the compliance program to date, including the projected and actual amount raised from the program.

ix

Abbreviations

ACOSS The Australian Council of Social Service AHRC Australian Human Rights Commission ATO Australian Taxation Office

FOI Freedom of Information

Ombudsman The Commonwealth Ombudsman PII Public Interest Immunity

STP Single Touch Payroll

xi

List of Recommendations

Recommendation 1

2.53 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government establishes a Royal Commission into the Income Compliance Program.

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

I was literally crushed. I was in shock. I walked around my house trying to deny the reality of what had happened. I was confused as to how I owed this amount of money. Within weeks I began receiving calls, texts and letters from a debt collection agency. I was told that Centrelink had the power to garnish my wages and keep my tax return. I was so ashamed at the time that I didn't know who to talk to about this.1

1.1 The Income Compliance Program impacted hundreds of thousands of people and, for many, resulted in devastating emotional and psychological harm. It has undermined many people's financial security as well as their willingness to engage with and trust government services.2

1.2 In total, an estimated $1.73 billion in illegitimate debts were raised against approximately 433 000 Australians. Within this group, approximately 381 000 individuals were pursued, often through private debt collection agencies, to repay almost $752 million to the Commonwealth.3

1.3 The savings intended to be achieved by the program have not been realised. Government budget papers projected savings of approximately $2 billion from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2019.4 During this period, Services Australia spent $606 million to implement the program.5

1.4 The Government has committed to repaying $752 million in ‘debts raised wholly or partially using income averaging’ and to pay a further $112 million in restitutionary damages and legal costs.6 It has also agreed not to further

1 Name withheld, Submission 50, [p. 1-2].

2 Uniting Vic.Tas, Submission 22, p. 6; Brotherhood of St Lawrence, Submission 34, p. 1.

3 Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2021] FCA 634 (VID1252/2019), p. 2; Mr Chris Birrer,

Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Payments and Integrity, Services Australia, Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Hansard, 28 October 2021, p. 78.

4 Commonwealth of Australia, Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2015-16, December 2015,

pp. 210-211; Commonwealth of Australia, Budget Measures: Budget Paper No. 2 2015-16, p. 116.

5 Services Australia, Submission 20, p. 22.

6 The Hon Stuart Robert MP, Minister for National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for

Government Services, ‘Changes to the Income Compliance Program’, Media Release, 29 May 2020; Mr Birrer, Services Australia, Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Hansard, 28 October 2021, p. 78; Order of Justice Murphy in Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (Federal Court of Australia, VID1252/2019, 11 June 2021); Deed of settlement in relation to Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia, https://gordonlegal.com.au/media/1316/201119-prygodicz-final-settlement-deed.pdf ( accessed 17 March 2022).

2

demand, raise or recover debts based solely on income averaging.7

1.5 In addition, significant heads of expense remain unknown. The cost of the Income Compliance Program for the period 2019-20 to 2023-24 is ‘not for publication due to ongoing legal proceedings.’8 The Government has also refused to provide details of its legal costs related to the

Income Compliance Program.9

1.6 A troubling feature of the program has been the Government’s resistance to changing its approach in the face of unequivocal evidence that systemic issues were undermining the program and causing harm to people, during and after the end of the program.

1.7 Signs of systemic failures became apparent soon after the transition to online systems in July 2016. A large number of complaints caused the

Commonwealth Ombudsman (Ombudsman) to establish an own motion investigation on 10 January 2017.10 Growing public evidence of the disruption and impact to individual’s lives led the Senate to establish its first inquiry into the Income Compliance Program on 8 February 2017.11

1.8 In August 2019, Services Australia told the committee that $2 billion in overpayments were ‘owed to the taxpayer’ and that the department was ‘actively seeking to recover’ these supposed debts.12 Only three months later, the Federal Court of Australia confirmed that the Government had no legal basis for pursuing these debts.13 Although the Government ‘paused’ the collection of debts on 19 November 2019, debts based on income averaging were not cancelled until 29 May 2020.14

7 Order of Justice Murphy in Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (Federal Court of Australia,

VID1252/2019, 11 June 2021); Deed of settlement in relation to Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia, https://gordonlegal.com.au/media/1316/201119-prygodicz-final-settlement-deed.pdf (accessed 17 March 2022).

8 Commonwealth of Australia, Budget Measures Budget Paper No. 2 2020-21, 6 October 2020, p. 269.

9 See Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Centrelink’s compliance program:

Fifth interim report, November 2021, (fifth interim report) pp. 13-16.

10 Commonwealth Ombudsman, ‘10 January 2017: Centrelink complaints’, Media release,

10 January 2017; Commonwealth Ombudsman, Centrelink’s automated debt raising and recovery system, April 2017 (Ombudsman Report 2017), pp. 4-5.

11 Journals of the Senate, No. 25, 8 February 2017, pp. 853-854.

12 Services Australia, Submission 20, p. 4.

13 Order of Justice Davies in Deanna Amato v The Commonwealth of Australia, Federal Court of

Australia, VID611/2019, 27 November 2019.

14 The Hon Stuart Robert MP, Minister for National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for

Government Services, ‘Changes to the Income Compliance Program’, Media Release, 29 May 2020.

3

1.9 This inquiry has sought to understand how and why hundreds of thousands of Australians were wrongly pursued for debts over a three-year period, as well as the Government’s knowledge of the legality of the

Income Compliance Program. Questions remain about why the Government continued to rely on income averaging despite it being inadequate as a method for determining the existence of a debt; why this practice only ended after the intervention of the courts; when did the Government become aware that the program was not legally sound; and why did the Government persist with the program despite mounting evidence it was causing real and significant harm.

1.10 Answers to these, and many other, questions are crucial so that current, past and future recipients of income support can have confidence that the errors of the Income Compliance Program will not be repeated.

The Income Compliance Program 1.11 Income compliance is a process in which discrepancies are identified between the amount of income support paid to a person and the amount they are eligible to receive. If an income support recipient receives more money than

they are eligible for, Services Australia may recover these overpayments, which are treated as debts owed to the Commonwealth.15

1.12 The Income Compliance Program was established as an expense measure in the 2015-16 Budget. The program was announced by the former Social Services Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, on 12 May 2015.16 Several ministers have had responsibility for relevant portfolios during the life of the program.

1.13 Under the Income Compliance Program, Services Australia used automated processes to recover debts from income support recipients who were erroneously asserted to have received more money than they were entitled to. The program was flawed because it was based on an assumption that averaged income data from the Australian Tax Office was sufficient to determine the existence of a debt where other information was not available, or people did not provide information to demonstrate the non-existence of a debt.17 This reverse onus of proof on Australian citizens was a significant change of policy under the direction of Social Services ministers.18

15 Social Security Act 1991, s. 1222A.

16 The Hon Scott Morrison MP, Minister for Social Services, ‘Welfare Integrity, Fairness and

Sustainability for all Australians’, Media Release, 12 May 2015.

17 Ms Kathryn Campbell AO CSC, Secretary, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard,

31 July 2020, p. 2.

18 Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Centrelink’s compliance program:

Second interim report, September 2020, (second interim report), pp. 41-42.

4

1.14 Prior to the establishment of the Income Compliance Program, income averaging would only be used after ‘every possible means of obtaining the actual income information’ had been attempted and failed.19 The department would use its authority to gather information from employers to inform a careful assessment of potential debt. Where information was not available, a compliance officer would manually calculate debts using averaged income data.20

1.15 In July 2016, automated processes replaced manual assessment and verification of debts and were subsequently dubbed ‘Robodebt’.21 The move to automated systems enabled Services Australia to process around 20 000 compliance interventions per week, where this would previously have taken an entire year.22

1.16 Rather than researching the potential debt themselves, the department simply raised the debt, sent the notices and required citizens to prove their innocence, sometimes requiring them to go back seven to ten years and obtain copies of records of payments. This was made especially difficult if the person had changed employers, if their former employer had closed their business or if they were no longer a customer of the same bank.23 Many witnesses just gave up and paid debts they did not owe rather than face the challenge of reconstructing a detailed record of payments from more than a decade before.24

1.17 The following table provides an overview of key events related to the Income Compliance Program:

19 Ombudsman Report 2017, pp. 31-32, 42; Ms Campbell, Department of Social Services,

Proof Committee Hansard, 31 July 2020, p. 19; second interim report, pp. 5-6.

20 Ombudsman Report 2017, p. 33; second interim report, p. 5-6.

21 Services Australia, Submission 20, p. 4; second interim report, pp. 6, 8-10, Henry Belot, ‘Centrelink

debt recovery: Government knew of potential problems with automated program’, ABC News, 12 January 2017, www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-12/government-knew-of-potential-problems-with-centrelink-system/8177988 ( accessed 27 April 2022). Dr Darren O’Donovan, Document defending the use of the term "robodebt" (tabled 9 October 2019).

22 Second interim report, p. 6.

23 Second interim report, pp. 20-21.

24 Second interim report, p. 17.

5

Table 1.1 Key events related to the Income Compliance Program

Date Event

20 December 1992 Introduction of data matching and income averaging processes to help identify potential social security overpayments.25

1 July 2015 Establishment of the Income Compliance Program.26

July 2016 Delivery of the Income Compliance Program ‘through online systems’ commences with the ‘Online Compliance Intervention’.27

7 April 2017 Report by the Ombudsman on Centrelink’s automated debt raising and recovery system makes eight recommendations to address problems identified with the Income Compliance Program.28

21 June 2017 The Senate Community Affairs References Committee (the committee) recommends that the Income Compliance Program is put on hold.29

3 April 2019 Implementation report by the Ombudsman notes that all but one of the recommendations of its 2017 report have been implemented and makes a further four recommendations.30

20 September 2019 Services Australia confirms that from 1 July 2015, it had completed 1 million reviews of discrepancies, finding 734 000 overpayments with a total value of around $2 billion.31

25 Services Australia, Submission 20, p. 5; Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990.

26 Commonwealth of Australia, Budget Measures: Budget Paper No. 2 2015-16, p. 116;

Liberal Party of Australia and The Nationals, The Coalition’s Policy for Better Management of the Social Welfare System, June 2016, available at

https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/1051/turn2.pdf?1590734145 (accessed 17 March 2022).

27 Services Australia, Submission 20, p. 4; second interim report, pp. 6, 8-10.

28 Ombudsman Report 2017, pp. 26-30.

29 Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts

awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative, June 2017.

30 Commonwealth Ombudsman, Centrelink’s automated debt raising and recovery system:

implementation report, April 2019, pp. 1-3.

31 Services Australia, Submission 20, p. 4.

6

Date Event

19 November 2019 The Government announces that it will no longer rely solely on averaged income data to raise debts and that recovery of debts calculated on this basis would be paused.32

Gordon Legal initiates a class action against the government in relation to the Income Compliance Program.33

27 November 2019 The court in Deanna Amato v The Commonwealth of Australia declares by consent that averaged income data is insufficient to establish the existence of a debt.34

29 May 2020 The Government announces that over 470 000 debts made under the scheme were ‘insufficient under law’ and that these debts would be repaid or reduced to zero.35

16 November 2020 The Government agrees to settle the class action.36

11 June 2021 The Federal Court of Australia approves the class action settlement agreement, including the Settlement Distribution Scheme Implementation Plan.37

32 The Hon Stuart Robert MP, Minister for National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for

Government Services, Interview Transcript, 19 November 2019; Services Australia, ‘Online Income Compliance Programme Update’, Media Release, 19 November 2019.

33 Gordon Legal, Robodebt Class Action, https://gordonlegal.com.au/robodebt-class-action/

(accessed 17 March 2022).

34 Order of Justice Davies in Deanna Amato v The Commonwealth of Australia,

Federal Court of Australia, VID611/2019, 27 November 2019.

35 The Hon Stuart Robert MP, Minister for National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for

Government Services, ‘Changes to the Income Compliance Program’, Media Release, 29 May 2020.

36 Gordon Legal, Robodebt Class Action, https://gordonlegal.com.au/robodebt-class-action/

(accessed 17 March 2022); Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2021] FCA 634 (VID1252/2019), pp. 3, 65-71 and 98.

37 Order of Justice Murphy in Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (Federal Court of Australia,

VID1252/2019, 11 June 2021); Services Australia, Implementation Plan for Settlement Distribution Scheme, p. 1.

7

Conduct of the inquiry 1.18 On 31 July 2019, the Senate referred this inquiry to the committee for reporting by 4 December 2019.38 The committee has been granted several extensions of time to report.39 On 23 November 2021, the Senate granted a further extension

of time for reporting until the last sitting day in May 2022.40

1.19 The inquiry was advertised on the committee’s website and the committee wrote to stakeholders inviting them to make submissions, to be lodged by 17 September 2020. Submissions continued to be accepted after this date. The committee received 78 submissions which are listed at Appendix 2.

1.20 The committee held 10 public hearings:

 3 October 2019, Canberra, ACT  4 October 2019, Mandurah, WA  9 October 2019, Melbourne, VIC  8 November 2019, Launceston, TAS  16 December 2019, Canberra, ACT  31 July 2020, Canberra, ACT  17 August 2020, Canberra, ACT  29 March 2021, Canberra, ACT  19 August 2021, Canberra, ACT  27 August 2021, Canberra, ACT

1.21 The committee has tabled five interim reports during the course of the inquiry:

 The second interim report (September 2020) is a substantive report about the operation of the Income Compliance Program and its impacts.  The first (February 2020), third (September 2020) and fourth (August 2021) interim reports consider claims by the Government to withhold information

on the basis that release of the information and documents could result in harm to the public interest (referred to as public interest immunity claims or PII claims).  The fifth interim report (November 2021) examines the effect of the PII claims on committee processes and related issues of transparency and public trust in government services.

1.22 A summary of the committee’s previous recommendations in this inquiry is provided at Appendix 1.

38 Journals of the Senate, No. 10, 31 July 2019, p. 314.

39 Journals of the Senate, No. 18, 18 September 2019, p. 535; Journals of the Senate, No. 42,

13 February 2020, p. 1268; Journals of the Senate, No. 55, 15 June 2020, p. 1799;

Journals of the Senate, No. 74, 30 November 2020, p. 2621; Journals of the Senate, No. 85, 15 February 2021, p. 3032.

40 Journals of the Senate, No. 127, 23 November 2021, p. 4276.

8

Report structure 1.23 This is the committee’s final report for this inquiry.

1.24 This introductory chapter provides an overview of the Income Compliance Program and a summary of key events. The report consists of one further chapter which outlines the significant impact of the Income Compliance Program on current and past income support recipients, and the current position of claims made by the Government in support of withholding information from this inquiry.

Notes on terminology 1.25 References in this report to Centrelink should be taken to include Services Australia (formerly the Department of Human Services) as the agency responsible for administering Centrelink services.41

1.26 Consistent with previous reports, the committee has chosen to use the term ‘Income Compliance Program’ as this is the formal name of Centrelink’s compliance program.42 The committee acknowledges that the program is often referred to as ‘Robodebt’ by those impacted by the program, members of the public, the media, and in court documents and academic discourse.43

Acknowledgements 1.27 The committee thanks all those who provided submissions and gave evidence to this inquiry. The committee especially wishes to acknowledge the bravery of those who told the committee about their own experiences of the program, and

the distress they may have experienced in doing so.

1.28 The committee was deeply moved by these personal stories and the strong desire of those who experienced hardships due to the

Income Compliance Program to ensure that their stories were heard and that a program like this should not be implemented ever again.

41 Administrative Arrangements Order (Cth), as amended by Orders in Council dated 2 July 2021.

42 Second interim report, pp. 13-14.

43 Dr Darren O’Donovan, Document defending the use of the term "robodebt" (tabled 9 October 2019).

9

Chapter 2

A massive failure of public administration

I really lost my trust in the government. This is you, as an individual, fighting the Commonwealth of Australia. This is your government saying something that's just not true. When they're saying to me on the phone, 'Your circumstances have changed,' my circumstances haven't changed. How do you fight that? How do you trust a system that treats you like that?1

2.1 The Income Compliance Program has been described, credibly, as a ‘massive failure of public administration’.2 The committee’s second interim report outlines the significant failures of the program and the human cost of compliance.3

2.2 This chapter summarises some of the most significant errors in the Income Compliance Program, changes that have been brought about through appropriate scrutiny of the Government’s actions and discusses the Government’s repeated failure to provide key information and documents to the committee and the Senate.

The role of automation 2.3 Much of the initial criticism of the Income Compliance Program stemmed from automated processes and the operation of online systems in the assessment of a discrepancy, as well as on the steps taken to advise a person of the

assessment and the requirements to verify or update their income.4 Although there have been improvements to these online systems, concerns about the reliance on automation in administrative decision-making have persisted.5

2.4 Submitters and witnesses noted that automated data-matching services have a legitimate role to play in income compliance programs; however, such methods should be fair, transparent and accountable. 6 Economic Justice

1 Ms Belinda Cole, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 19 August 2021, p. 6.

2 Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2021] FCA 634, p. 2.

3 Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Centrelink’s compliance program:

Second interim report, September 2020, (second interim report).

4 Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts

awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative, 21 June 2017.

5 Second interim report, p. 10.

6 See for example: Commonwealth Ombudsman, Submission 21, pp. 2-3; Ms Leanne Ho,

Chief Executive Officer, Economic Justice Australia (EJA), Committee Hansard, 19 August 2021, pp. 9-10; Anglicare Australia, Supplementary Submission 30A, p. 5; Brotherhood of St Laurence, Submission 34, pp. 2-3.

10

Australia submitted that income data matching should ‘only ever be used as a starting point which triggers further investigation by Services Australia compliance officers’.7

2.5 The experiences of a client of the Welfare Rights and Advocacy Service demonstrate the extent of automation and how Services Australia employees were unable to override automated processes:

…a client with an acquired brain injury on [the disability support pension]…was referred to us from the [Administrative Appeals Tribunal]. Debt recovery was supposed to be paused whilst the review was completed…[Services Australia] confirmed that this was noted on her record. Despite this, she kept getting calls from a debt recovery team demanding she start repaying the debt. When I queried this, I was initially told it was probably a scam call and she should ignore it. She then got two more calls from debt recovery, and we went back to Centrelink. Then they basically said, 'Oh, yes. Actually it was us. The computer is initiating these calls and they can't be overridden. The best we can do is reduce the amount that she has to repay’.8

2.6 Several submitters examined the potential implications for individuals when administrative decisions rely on automation. These submitters noted that automated technologies can improve the quality and efficiency of administrative decisions provided there are safeguards in place, such as review rights and transparency over the use of data in these decisions.9

2.7 The Australian Human Rights Commission has recommended that where artificial intelligence is used to support decision-making, governments must ensure these decisions remain ‘lawful, transparent, explainable, [that artificial intelligence is] used responsibly, and subject to appropriate human oversight, review and intervention’.10

Use of averaged income data to assert the existence of a debt 2.8 A central feature of the Income Compliance Program was the reliance on averaged income data to identify potential overpayments.11 This method was

7 Ms Ho, EJA, Committee Hansard, 19 August 2021, pp. 9-10.

8 Ms Catherine Eagle, Principal Solicitor, Welfare Rights and Advocacy Service, Committee Hansard,

19 August 2021, p. 11.

9 Queensland University of Technology Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 70;

Australian National University Law Reform and Social Justice Research Hub, Submission 68, pp. 9-10; second interim report, pp. 15-21.

10 Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Human Rights and Technology, Final Report 2021,

p. 12; Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher AM, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 27 August 2021, p. 1.

11 Second interim report, pp.7-8, 33-37.

11

found to be unreliable because averaged income calculations do not reflect the reality of how many income support recipients earn income over time.12

2.9 One witness told the committee how their work pattern made it impossible to accurately report their earnings to Services Australia:

I was working shift work for an out of home care for youth in out of home trauma care. I worked dayshift, afternoon shift and night shift. We had 3 different pay levels and never knew when we would be working. We could get called in at the last minute. I never knew how much I would be getting paid. I informed this to Centrelink and they told me I had to guess my earnings for the fortnight...I ended up guessing like I was told to and they hit me with a huge debt. I was so devastated. I gave them some payslips but that didn't change a thing.13

2.10 Witnesses and submitters told the committee that the Government’s use of incorrect or incomplete income information called into question the legality of debts raised under the Income Compliance Program.14 These concerns were confirmed in Deanna Amato v The Commonwealth of Australia (Amato), where Justice Davies ordered by consent that calculations based solely on averaged fortnightly income data are insufficient to establish the existence of a debt.15

2.11 The decision in Amato supported a successful class action against the Commonwealth.16 This was discussed in the fifth interim report.17

Interactions with Services Australia 2.12 Deficiencies in online systems, the methods used to calculate debts, and communication processes have been consistently raised as areas where Services Australia has not fulfilled its own service commitments. These failures

have had a demonstrably negative impact on people’s interactions with Services Australia in the course of their efforts to understand and resolve debts.

2.13 When the Income Compliance Program was first introduced

Services Australia’s described its service commitments as being ‘at the core of

12 Order of Justice Davies in Deanna Amato v The Commonwealth of Australia, Federal Court of

Australia, VID611/2019, 27 November 2019.

13 Name withheld, Submission 71, [pp. 1-2].

14 Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), Submission 7, p. 2; Mr Jairaj Manoharachandran,

National Social Security Rights Network, Committee Hansard, 3 October 2019, p. 8. See also, Anglicare Australia, Submission 30, p. 7; Law Council of Australia, Submission 60, pp. 16, 17.

15 Order of Justice Davies in Deanna Amato v The Commonwealth of Australia, Federal Court of

Australia, VID611/2019, 27 November 2019, pp. 4-6.

16 Amended originating application, Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2021] FCA 634,

VID1252/2019, 1 July 2020.

17 Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Centrelink’s compliance program: Fifth interim

report, November 2021, (fifth interim report) pp. 5-12.

12

the way we develop and deliver our services’,18 and were supported by a range of business improvement priorities, including to ensure:

 individual circumstances are taken into account;  customers are able to access the information they need;  decision-making timeframes and processes are clear and available to customers;

 products and services take into account customer feedback; and  Services Australia acts in a manner that is transparent and consistent.19

2.14 From 2019-20, Services Australia’s vision became ‘to provide

customer-centred, trusted services that are respectful, simple, helpful and transparent’.20 Evidence from inquiry participants indicated these service delivery standards were not met in respect of the Income Compliance Program.

2.15 Submitters and witnesses told the committee that Centrelink’s debt notification letters were unclear and did not provide an explanation of how or why a debt had been raised. When these people contacted Centrelink to seek an explanation, staff were unable to assist them. Inquiry participants reported being told their information was not on file; the information held by Centrelink did not align with their records; or they were given information that contradicted previous communications.21

2.16 One submitter described the impact of their interactions with

Services Australia as follows:

…dejected, beaten, stomped on and feeling dehumanised I just paid the full amount to get it over and done with. I was done with fighting because I knew I was dealing with Centrelink. The government agency that just doesn’t care about the people they serve.22

2.17 The committee was informed that Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were often the only way to gather information relating to debt cases, and that

18 Department of Human Services, 2015-16 Corporate Plan, p. 7.

19 Services Australia, Service Commitments, 10 December 2021,

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/service-commitments (accessed 7 April 2022).

20 Services Australia, 2019-20 Corporate Plan, p. 3.

21 Second interim report, pp. 15-33; Mr David Mundy and Mrs Kathy Mundy, Private capacity,

Committee Hansard, 19 August 2021, pp. 2 and 7; Ms Belinda Cole, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 19 August 2021, pp. 1 and 4; Clare, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 19 August 2021, pp. 20 and 20-22; Mr Richard Winzor, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 19 August 2021, pp. 18-20.

22 Name withheld, Submission 74, [p. 2].

13

information released under FOI enabled advocates to identify the possible origins and test the validity of a client's alleged debt.23

The impact on current and past income support recipients 2.18 The committee received evidence that people issued with debts under the Income Compliance Program were disproportionately from vulnerable cohorts or were more likely to become vulnerable when a debt was being collected.24

The committee also received evidence that vulnerable people were forced to engage with the program without appropriate support from

Services Australia, causing them to rely heavily on support from the community sector.25 For example:

[Paul] worked at a supermarket pushing trolleys and received a modest income, which supplemented his disability support pension. His income was reported to Centrelink, and then, in the previous year, he received a debt notice of [$14 500] going back to around 2012. He did not understand the letters…The debt was raised and, as far as I'm aware, no support was provided to him in that process.26

2.19 The severe impacts for many people issued with debt notices cannot be understated. The underlying vulnerability of people issued with debts and the lack of support, combined with the difficulties interacting with Services Australia, created an environment where the notification of a debt was not simply a bureaucratic inconvenience, but an antecedent of serious harm to people’s emotional and financial wellbeing.

2.20 Many people repaying debts issued under the Income Compliance Program experienced considerable financial hardship, pushing them further into poverty and making it more difficult for them to meet basic living expenses and exacerbating their stress and anxiety.27 For some, particularly those

23 Ms Catherine Eagle, Principal Solicitor, Welfare Rights and Advocacy Service, Committee Hansard,

19 August 2021, p. 12; Ms Rowan McRae, Executive Director, Civil Justice, Access and Equity, Victoria Legal Aid, Committee Hansard, 19 August 2021, p. 29.

24 Second interim report, pp. 25-27.

25 Second interim report, pp. 27-29.

26 Ms Katherine Boyle, Board Member, National Social Security Rights Network and

Executive Director, Welfare Rights Centre New South Wales, Committee Hansard, 3 October 2019, p. 12.

27 Mr Antonio Gonzalez, Welfare Rights Advocate, Fremantle Community Legal Centre,

Committee Hansard, 4 October 2019, p. 3; Ms Shauna Gaebler, Chief Executive Officer, Consumers of Mental Health WA, Committee Hansard, 4 October 2019, p. 39; Uniting Vic.Tas., Submission 22, p. 7; Ms Katherine Boyle, Board Member, National Social Security Rights Network, and Executive Director, Welfare Rights Centre New South Wales, Committee Hansard, 3 October 2019, p. 15.

14

experiencing financial difficulty and long-term poverty, the shock of a sudden and unexpected debt, had a ruinous impact on their mental health.28

2.21 One submitter told the committee about their friend’s experience receiving several debt notices:

She had already repaid two debts [totalling approximately $300 in April and May 2017] when she received another debt call while at my house in June 2018. She broke down crying and shaking as she was told she owed [at least another $700]. She said “I can’t do this all over again”.29

2.22 The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) told the committee that ‘no one should underestimate the stress and anxiety caused' when individuals have received initiation letters and debt notices:

People have reported their life being ruined as a result of robodebt. People have experienced breakdown, anxiety, depression requiring medication, sleeplessness, stress causing physical illness, and fear.30

2.23 Several individuals have described thoughts of self-harm and suicidal ideation as a very real consequence of being in these circumstances.31 Recognising that the issues around the causes of suicide are complex, the committee has received evidence of at least two suicides—Jarrad Madgwick, 22, and Rhys Cauzzo, 28—related to the Income Compliance Program and it is not clear how many more may also be linked to the program.32

2.24 The committee passes its deepest condolences to the families of those two young men and acknowledges that the acute and enduring impacts of this program on the mental health of many Australians remain undocumented and unacknowledged by the Government.

28 Committee Hansard, 17 August 2020, pp. 4, 10. See also Ms Taryn Harvey, Chief Executive Officer,

Western Australian Association for Mental Health, Committee Hansard, 4 October 2019, p. 33-34; Mr David Taylor, Policy Analyst and Media Liaison, Jobs Australia, Committee Hansard, 9 October 2019, pp. 63-64; Newcastle University Legal Centre, Submission 14, p. 1; Name withheld, Submission 50, [p. 1]; Name withheld, Submission 59, [p. 2].

29 Name withheld, Submission 53, p. 1.

30 ACOSS, Submission 7, p. 4.

31 Mr Kevin Brennan, Submission 47; Name withheld, Submission 50; National Legal Aid,

Submission 26, p. 11. See also, Commonwealth Ombudsman, Centrelink's automated debt raising and recovery system, April 2017, p. 21 (Ombudsman Report 2017); ACOSS, Submission 7, p. 4; Law Council of Australia, Submission 60, p. 11.

32 Queensland Advocacy Incorporated, Submission 6, p. 4; ACOSS, Submission 7, p. 4;

Queensland Council of Social Service, Submission 10, p. 2; Law Council of Australia, Submission 60, pp. 27-28; Senator Deborah O'Neill, Proof Committee Hansard, 17 August 2020, pp. 4, 10-11; Ms Annette Musolino, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Income Compliance Taskforce, Services Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 17 August 2020, pp. 12, 13.

15

Changes in Services Australia’s approach 2.25 Improvements in Services Australia’s approach to income compliance have been supported by appropriate scrutiny of the Government’s actions through this and other inquiries. This section of the report summarises some important

changes that are directly related to the issues discussed in this chapter.

Debts will no longer be calculated solely using averaged income data 2.26 In November 2019, the Government announced that it would no longer solely rely on averaged income data from the Australian Taxation Office.

2.27 The Government has also acknowledged that relying on averaged income data ‘to determine a debt where other information was not available or people did not engage with [Services Australia]’ was based on a ‘flawed assumption’.33 On 15 September 2021, the Government committed that ‘no debts will be re-raised based on annual income averaging.’34

Move to near real-time compliance 2.28 Services Australia has noted that data-matching activities have been undertaken retrospectively and that the agency is seeking to move towards near real-time compliance.35 Changes implemented from July 2020 have

enabled income support recipients to report the gross income as it appears on their payslip.36

2.29 The implementation of Single Touch Payroll (STP) is also likely to reduce discrepancies between earned and reported income, and therefore help to prevent overpayments.37 STP introduced a mandatory requirement for employers to report payroll information to government. For most employees, this will occur each pay day.38

33 Opening statement, tabled by Department of Social Services, at Canberra public hearing,

31 July 2020, p. 2.

34 Answer to question taken on notice during 27 August hearing, received from Services Australia,

5 November 2021.

35 Services Australia, Submission 20, p. 16.

36 These changes were implemented by the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment

(Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Act 2020 which commenced from 1 July 2020; See Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions], February 2020, pp. 1-2.

37 See Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social Services and Other Legislation

Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions], February 2020, Multi-agency Government Submission, Submission 6; Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020, Explanatory Memorandum, pp. 1-2.

38 Australian Taxation Office, Single Touch Payroll, 10 November 2021,

https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Single-Touch-Payroll/ (accessed 15 March 2022).

16

2.30 While inquiry participants were cautious about the introduction of STP,39 many submitters and witnesses supported its use to help prevent overpayments and ensure that there is accurate information available to Centrelink.40

Efforts to improve communication and transparency 2.31 As noted in the second interim report, several other inquiries into the Income Compliance Program have highlighted the need for improved communications and transparency.41

2.32 For example, the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s (Ombudsman) most recent report made several recommendations to Services Australia and covered themes of communications, fairness and transparency.42 Services Australia has accepted, and worked with the Ombudsman to implement, many of these recommendations.43

2.33 In relation to specific concerns about debt notification letters,

Services Australia informed the committee that the current ‘content and the format of and the approach to the letters is based on the feedback from customers and other customer advocates’.44

2.34 Additionally, Services Australia told the committee that they are improving the explanations they provide to customers about overpayments. In particular, Services Australia noted that it provides explanations in simple English and ‘tips’ to assist with the prevention of debts in the future. 45 Services Australia advised that they aim to be ‘simple, helpful, respectful and transparent’ in their engagement with social security recipients.46

39 Dr Darren O’Donovan, Submission 15, p. 7; #NotMyDebt, Submission 29, p. 7; Ms Emily Lightfoot,

Submission 38, p. 8.

40 See for example: Emeritus Professor Tarry Carney AO, Private Capacity, Committee Hansard,

9 October 2019, p. 15; Ms Emily Lightfoot, Submission 38, p. 6; Law Council of Australia, Submission 60, p. 17; Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (Ombudsman), Submission 21, p. 6; ACOSS, Submission 7, p. 3.

41 Second interim report, pp. 10-12.

42 Ms Penny McKay, Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman, Ombudsman, Committee Hansard,

27 August 2021, p. 22.

43 Ms McKay, Ombudsman, Committee Hansard, 27 August 2021, p. 22.

44 Ms Michelle Lees, Deputy CEO, Payments and Integrity, Services Australia, Committee Hansard,

27 August 2021, p. 18.

45 Ms Michelle Lees, Deputy CEO, Payments and Integrity, Services Australia, Committee Hansard,

27 August 2021, p. 17.

46 Mr Chris Birrer, General Manager, Compliance Assurance and Debt Operations Division,

Services Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 August 2021, p. 18.

17

The deliberate withholding of information 2.35 Throughout this inquiry, the committee has repeatedly requested crucial information from the Government, which has been refused on the basis that the release of information would harm the public interest (referred to as claims

of public interest immunity or PII claims).47 These claims require a clear statement of the ground on which immunity from production is asserted and the harm to the public interest that could result from disclosure of the information.48

2.36 Key information requested by the committee includes:

 briefings provided to Government throughout the course of the program;  whether legal advice was obtained at various stages of the program, how many times the Government sought legal advice and the date of any such advice;

 the Government’s legal costs attributable to the program; and  an Executive Minute to the Minister for Social Services, proposing a ‘new online approach to compliance’, dated 12 February 2015.49

2.37 These documents could reveal what the Government, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia knew about the legality of the Income Compliance Program and when they were alerted to the systemic failures of the program. These documents would provide the public with an understanding of the cost of government action to continue and defend the Income Compliance Program.

2.38 The Government’s rationale for withholding the relevant documents and information is that it ‘would or could’ reveal cabinet deliberations, is subject to legal professional privilege or that it could prejudice current and future court cases.50 The Government’s failure to sufficiently establish PII claims was discussed and provided the basis for recommendations in the first, third, fourth and fifth interim reports of this inquiry.51 By adopting these

47 Fifth interim report, pp. 13-14.

48 Journals of the Senate, No. 68, 13 May 2009, pp. 1941-1942.

49 Ombudsman Report 2017, p. 5.

50 The Hon Stuart Robert MP, Minister for Government Services, correspondence received

28 January 2020; The Hon Stuart Robert MP, Minister for Government Services, correspondence received 31 July 2020; The Hon Stuart Robert MP, Minister for Government Services, correspondence received 14 August 2020; Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds,

Minister for Government Services, correspondence received 9 August 2021; Ms Rebecca Skinner, Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia, correspondence received 9 August 2021; Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds, Minister for Government Services, Senate Hansard, 24 November 2021, p. 6626.

51 Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Centrelink’s compliance program:

First interim report, February 2020, pp. 1-2; Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Centrelink’s compliance program: Third interim report, September 2020, pp. 1-7;

18

recommendations, and thereby ordering that documents be produced, the Senate has signalled its rejection of the Government’s reasons for withholding this information.52

2.39 Rather than engage with public interest considerations in a genuine way, the Government has continued to offer the same public interest grounds as have been repeatedly rejected by the Senate, without genuinely describing the harm to the public interest that would be caused due to providing this information.53 At the same time, the scope of information being withheld on public interest grounds continues to expand.

2.40 Odgers Australian Senate Practice provides the following commentary on resistance by government to orders for documents:

While the public interest and the rights of individuals may be harmed by the enforced disclosure of information, it may well be considered that, in a free state, the greater danger lies in the executive government acting as the judge in its own cause, and having the capacity to conceal its activities, and, potentially, misgovernment from public scrutiny. It may also be considered that a representative House of the Parliament is the best judge of the balance of public interests.54

2.41 The committee remains deeply troubled that the Government has not released critical information about the Income Compliance Program, either publicly or in camera. The committee again reiterates its rejection of the PII claims advanced by the Government and its concern that this is impeding necessary scrutiny of the Income Compliance Program.

Calls for a Royal Commission 2.42 The second interim report referred to ‘growing pressure for the establishment of a Royal Commission’ and contained a recommendation that a broad-based independent review with ‘powers to compel witnesses and evidence’ be

established immediately.55

2.43 Royal Commissions may be established for a range of pragmatic reasons, including where there is a need ‘to investigate allegations of impropriety where the government, or an individual working in government, is

Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Centrelink’s compliance program: Fourth interim report, August 2021, pp. 4-5; Fifth interim report, pp. 14-17.

52 Journals of the Senate, No. 40, 11 February 2020, p. 1326; Journals of the Senate, No. 65,

2 September 2020, pp. 12246-2247; Journals of the Senate, No. 113, 12 August 2021, p. 3936; Journals of the Senate, No. 127, 23 November 2021, p. 4282.

53 Journals of the Senate, No. 127, 23 November 2021, p. 4282. Journals of the Senate, No 128,

24 November 2021, p. 4294.

54 Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing, eds, Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, 14th edition,

Department of the Senate, 2016, p. 588.

55 Second interim report, pp. 3, 46.

19

involved.’56 Royal Commissions have broad powers to compel the production of evidence and independently determine whether such evidence ought not be published.57

2.44 Although the settlement of the class action has seen money returned to people unlawfully issued with debts, it did not make any findings that would satisfy the need for an independent review.58 Important questions remain regarding how the failures of the Income Compliance Program were allowed to occur and what action is required to ensure these mistakes are not repeated. The devastating impacts of the Income Compliance Program intensify the need for absolute transparency and accountability.

Committee view 2.45 The Income Compliance Program indiscriminately targeted some of Australia’s most vulnerable people. It caused significant and widespread harm to their psychological and financial wellbeing. The committee reiterates its

concern that many people may not receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise), for the severe hardships they endured because of the program.

2.46 The Income Compliance Program relied extensively on online systems and data-driven processes. These methods can play an important role in supporting the efficient delivery of government services. However, use of technology by Government must be supported by appropriate safeguards, especially to protect vulnerable people. Rights to an explanation of administrative decisions and to have those decisions reviewed should never be displaced by the use of technology or online systems.

2.47 At a more fundamental level, the Government must ensure there is rigour in the methods used to determine the existence of debts and always ensure that people are treated fairly and with care and consideration for their circumstances. This did not occur for those issued with debts under the Income Compliance Program. Those who access payments through Services Australia are among Australia’s most vulnerable communities. Those who were sent illegitimate debts were often unable to challenge the debts due to the opacity of the system and their own difficult circumstances.

2.48 A harmful program was allowed to continue despite warnings about its shortcomings that began within months of the decision in July 2016 to switch to automated, online systems. Claims for debts that had no basis in law continued for well over three years before a case in the

56 Australian Law Reform Commission, Making Inquiries: A New Statutory Framework,

(ALRC Report 111) 9 February 2010, p. 56.

57 Royal Commissions Act 1902, ss. 2, 3.

58 Fifth interim report, p. 6.

20

Federal Court of Australia left the Government with little option but to ‘pause’ debt recovery. It took another six months for the Government to commit to repay the money it had already collected and cancel all debts based on income averaging. Recovery of supposed debts should have stopped as soon as the scale of the harm caused by the Income Compliance Program became apparent.

2.49 Despite numerous reports and inquiries, significant questions remain. This is due to a Government that continues to withhold critical information about the Income Compliance Program. This resistance takes place in the context of major public policy failures that have corroded public trust in both the Executive and the public service and may cause many to question what these documents contain.

2.50 The committee met with entrenched resistance and opacity to its request for information from Government Ministers and departments, severely hindering its ability to produce this report for the Senate. The committee was met with a dynamic and changing barricade of Parliamentary and departmental tactics to hide the faulty or non-existent legal advice underpinning the

Income Compliance Program. The Government made frequent and often overlapping claims of public interest immunity, on the basis of legal professional privilege and disclosure of cabinet deliberations and, later, ‘unreasonable diversion of resources’. These claims created a mosaic of obfuscation that leaves many significant and necessary questions unanswered.

2.51 In the absence of immediate production of the information being withheld, the committee considers that a Royal Commission is required to completely understand how the failures of the Income Compliance Program came to pass and why they were allowed to continue for so long despite the dire impacts on people issued with these debts.

2.52 These failures cannot be ignored or left in the past. The Australian public, and especially the people harmed by this program, deserve to know what advice was provided to Government and how this advice informed decision-making.

Recommendation 1

2.53 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government establishes a Royal Commission into the Income Compliance Program.

Senator Janet Rice Chair

21

Government Senators' Dissenting Report

1.1 Government Senators do not support the Senate Community Affairs References Committee (committee) Final Report into Centrelink’s compliance program as presented by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens Senators.

1.2 Government Senators note that this report is the sixth report tabled by the committee and that this dissenting report should be read in conjunction with previous dissenting comments.

1.3 The Income Compliance Program has been subject to extensive scrutiny including from the Commonwealth Ombudsman, through Parliamentary inquiries and has also been subject to decisions of the Federal Court. Those inquiries have supported practical, ongoing improvements to the delivery of income compliance.

1.4 Government Senators accept the evidence presented to the inquiry regarding shortfalls, particularly in the early iterations of the program, in relation to communications with customers at key stages of the compliance process. Extensive evidence has been provided to this inquiry about changes made to income compliance processes in response to these acknowledged problems. Improvements to the program have been informed by, and benefited from, extensive consultation.1

1.5 There have been apologies from both the Government and senior officials for any hurt or harm caused by income compliance.2 Once it became clear that the basis upon which the debts were being raised through the sole use of averaged Australian Taxation Office (ATO) income data was insufficient, Services Australia paused in-scope debts as they were identified. On 29 May 2020 the former Minister for Government Services,

the Hon Stuart Robert MP committed that debts would no longer be raised solely on ATO income data.3

1.6 The Government is in the final stages of repaying eligible group members under the terms of the class action settlement distribution scheme. While both Gordon Legal and the Commonwealth acknowledge that the settlement is not

1 Services Australia, Submission 20, p. 5.

2 Ms Campbell, Secretary, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 31 July 2020, p. 2.

3 The Hon Stuart Robert MP, Minister for National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for

Government Services, ‘Changes to the Income Compliance Program’, Media Release, 29 May 2020, https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20200803225023/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/180163/2020080 4-0842/minister.servicesaustralia.gov.au/media-releases/2020-05-29-changes-income-compliance-program.html ( accessed 6 May 2022).

22

an admission of liability by the Commonwealth, this settlement has meant that almost all current Services Australia customers who are eligible for a refund have been refunded or had their debt reduced to zero. To date, over 99 per cent of refunds have been made and approximately 429 000 people have received a refund or had their debts reduced to zero.

1.7 In view of the significant changes that have been implemented, including as a result of substantial external scrutiny, Government Senators see no compelling reason why any further review is required. Another review on the Income Compliance Program will only promote anxiety and undermine trust in Government services on the basis of issues that have been acknowledged and comprehensively addressed. The recommendation to establish a Royal Commission into the Income Compliance Program is unnecessary due to the scale of changes that have already been made to the program.

1.8 On this basis, Government Senators are strongly of the view that the recommendation of the majority final report be rejected by the Senate. Further, that Services Australia should be focused on the necessary action going forward of ensuring that the Settlement agreement is implemented.

Senator Wendy Askew Senator Hollie Hughes

Deputy Chair

23

Appendix 1

Summary of Recommendations

First Interim Report Recommendation Implementation status

The committee recommends that the Senate adopt the following resolution requiring the production of documents:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services no later than 10 am on 24 February 2020, responses to all questions placed on notice by Senators Siewert and O'Neill relating to legal advice and Centrelink's compliance program. This includes, but is not limited to, questions about:

 meetings and/or briefings between the Minister and Services Australia in relation to the current legal proceedings regarding Centrelink's compliance program;

 the frequency and dates of legal advice obtained by Services Australia from the Solicitor-General, Australian Government Solicitor, departmental lawyers, and external counsel and/or solicitors in relation to any aspect of the compliance program and, specifically, whether a debt or debt components is able to be founded on extrapolations from Australian Taxation Office records;

 legal advice about the lawfulness of debt or debt components solely based on extrapolations from Australian Taxation Office records;

Resolution adopted by the Senate.1

The Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck, tabled a letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston), dated 24 February 2020, responding to the order, and attachment. Correspondence made a PII claim concerning all information.2

1 Journals of the Senate, No. 40, 11 February 2020, p. 1326

2 Journals of the Senate, No. 43, 24 February 2020, p. 1420.

24

Recommendation Implementation status

 legal advice in relation to liability for the death of any Australian who received a debt notice under the compliance program; and  the cost of legal advice in relation to the compliance program.

25

Second Interim Report Recommendation Government response

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that Services Australia immediately terminate the Income Compliance Program.

Not supported.

‘Income compliance activity will continue. However, as announced by Government on 19 November 2019, Services Australia will no longer raise debts based solely on averaging of Australian Taxation Office (ATO) income information.’1

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends Services Australia ensure its communication strategy relating to the repayment of unlawfully-raised compliance debts takes into consideration the additional needs of and provides appropriate supports to:

 vulnerable populations, such as people with disability or who are experiencing homelessness;  people with low literacy and numeracy; and  people for whom English is not a first language.

Supported in principle.

‘Refunds of Income Compliance Program debts to current and former customers commenced in July 2020. Services Australia developed and implemented a comprehensive communication strategy to inform current and former customers about their refunds.’2

The Government response also referred to strategies to assist vulnerable groups.

1 Government Response to Second Interim Report, tabled 11 February 2021, p. 3.

2 Government Response to Second Interim Report, tabled 11 February 2021, p. 3.

26

Recommendation Government response

Recommendation 3

The committee further recommends Services Australia immediately allocate additional staff to focus on contacting customers who have not engaged with the refund process in order to ensure the repayment of all unlawfully-raised compliance debts to all affected individuals is completed in a timely manner.

Noted.

‘The Government notes this recommendation as not needed.’3

‘The Government will continue to take all reasonable steps to ensure that eligible former customers have ample opportunity to confirm or update their details and receive their refund.’4

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that Services Australia immediately reviews its evidentiary responsibilities for raising overpayment debts in all of its compliance programs, with particular reference to:

 the responsibilities of the agency under sections 1222A and 1223 of the Social Security Act 1991 for proving an overpayment debt is due to the Commonwealth; and

 whether section 66A of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 provides an appropriate legal basis for requiring individuals to update income information where there has been no change in circumstances.

Noted.

‘The Government notes this Recommendation. Payment integrity activities will continue, with a strong focus on prevention of debt. Services Australia will continue to engage with customers, and third parties, to ensure they receive the correct payments.’5

3 Government Response to Second Interim Report, tabled 11 February 2021, p. 4.

4 Government Response to Second Interim Report, tabled 11 February 2021, p. 5.

5 Government Response to Second Interim Report, tabled 11 February 2021, p. 5.

27

Recommendation Government response

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that an independent review is immediately initiated into the policy, design, administration and impact of Centrelink's compliance program, including the Income Compliance Program.

Not supported.

‘The Government notes that the current Senate Inquiry into Centrelink’s Compliance Program is an independent process of inquiry, as was the Senate Inquiry on the “Design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative” during the last Parliament. The Ombudsman has conducted multiple investigations into the Program, including its reports of April 2017 and April 2019, both titled “Centrelink’s Automated Debt Raising and Recovery System”.’6

6 Government Response to Second Interim Report, tabled 11 February 2021, p. 5.

28

Third Interim Report Recommendation Implementation status

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that the Senate adopt the following resolution:

That the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 6 October 2020 to provide an explanation, of no more than 10 minutes, of:

 the government’s continued reliance on a rejected claim of public interest immunity in answers to questions on notice provided to the Community Affairs References Committee on 24 February 2020 in relation to the inquiry into Centrelink’s compliance program;

 whether it was the intention of the Minister for Government Services, or of officers of Services Australia, to show disregard for the 11 February 2020 resolution of the Senate by providing answers relying on that rejected claim for public interest immunity; and

 the Minister for Government Services’ failure to respond to that committee’s correspondence of 6 April 2020 seeking clarification in relation to this matter.

Resolution adopted by the Senate.7

Pursuant to order, the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services (Senator Ruston) provided an explanation relating to PII claims of made during the Community Affairs References Committee’s inquiry into Centrelink’s compliance program.8

7 Journals of the Senate, No. 65, 2 September 2020, pp. 2246-2247.

8 Journals of the Senate, No. 67, 6 October 2020, pp. 2329.

29

Recommendation Implementation status

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the Senate adopt the following resolution requiring the production of documents:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, by no later than 12.00pm on 6 October 2020, either:

 revised responses to all questions relating to legal advice and the Income Compliance Program which have been subject to rejected claims of public interest immunity during the Community Affairs References Committee’s inquiry into Centrelink's compliance program; or

 a letter confirming that these responses will provided in camera to the Community Affairs References Committee by no later than 5pm on that same day.

In the event that the Minister fails to table these documents, the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 6 October 2020 to provide an explanation of the Minister’s failure to table the documents.

Resolution adopted by the Senate.9

Pursuant to order, the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services (Senator Ruston) provided an explanation relating to PII claims made during the Community Affairs References Committee’s inquiry into Centrelink’s compliance program.10

9 Journals of the Senate, No. 65, 2 September 2020, pp. 2246-2247.

10 Journals of the Senate, No. 67, 6 October 2020, pp. 2329.

30

Recommendation Implementation status

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the Senate adopt the following resolution requiring the production of documents:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, by no later than 12.00pm on 6 October 2020, either:

 a copy of the Executive Minute to the Minister for Social Services, dated 12 February 2015, as referenced in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's April 2017 report into Centrelink’s automated debt raising and recovery system; or

 a letter confirming that this Executive Minute will provided in camera to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee by no later than 5pm on that same day.

In the event that the Minister fails to table either of these documents, the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 6 October 2020 to provide an explanation of the Minister’s failure to table the document.

Resolution adopted by the Senate. 11

Pursuant to order, the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services (Senator Ruston) provided an explanation relating to PII claims made during the Community Affairs References Committee’s inquiry into Centrelink’s compliance program.12

11 Journals of the Senate, No. 65, 2 September 2020, pp. 2246-2247.

12 Journals of the Senate, No. 67, 6 October 2020, pp. 2329.

31

Fourth Interim Report Recommendation Implementation status

The committee recommends that the Senate adopt the following resolution requiring the production of documents:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Government Services, no later than 12.00pm on 24 August 2021:

 revised responses to all questions relating to legal advice and the Income Compliance Program which have been subject to rejected claims of public interest immunity during the Community Affairs References Committee’s inquiry into Centrelink's compliance program; and

 a copy of the Executive Minute to the Minister for Social Services, dated 12 February 2015, as referenced in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's April 2017 report into Centrelink’s automated debt raising and recovery system; or

 a letter confirming that the above responses relating to legal advice and the Executive Minute will be provided in camera to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee by no later than 5.00pm on that same day.

In the event that the minister fails to table these documents, the Senate requires the minister to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 25 August 2021 to provide an explanation of the minister's failure to table the documents.

Resolution adopted by the Senate.13

The Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General (Senator Stoker) tabled a letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Government Services (Senator Reynolds) responding to the order and raising public interest immunity claims.14

Pursuant to order, the Minister for Government Services (Senator Reynolds) provided an explanation concerning non-compliance with the requirement to table documents relating to the income compliance program.15

13 Journals of the Senate, No. 113, 12 August 2021, p. 3936.

14 Journals of the Senate, No. 115, 24 August 2021, p. 3971.

15 Journals of the Senate, No. 116, 25 August 2021, p. 3984.

32

Fifth Interim Report Recommendation Implementation status

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that Services Australia distributes the settlement sum in accordance with the Implementation Plan for Distribution Scheme, as a matter of priority.

Recommendations adopted by the Senate.16

Distribution of the settlement sum is due to be completed by ‘late September [2022]’.17

Calculation of the sum owed to each eligible group member is currently being calculated. Group members will be notified of the sum of any repayment due to them by ‘mid 2022’.18

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that following the finalisation of the Implementation Plan for Settlement Distribution Scheme, Services Australia publicly release the following data:

 the number of class action Group Members in each category;  the total value of the debts of Group Members, broken down by category; and  the average share of the settlement sum eligible Group Members received.

Recommendations adopted by the Senate.19

Distribution of the settlement sum is due to be completed by ‘late September [2022]’.20

Calculation of the sum owed to each eligible group member is currently being calculated. Group members will be notified of the sum of any repayment due to them by ‘mid 2022’.21

16 Journals of the Senate, No. 127, 23 November 2021, p. 4282.

17 Robert McKellar, National Manager, Integrity Strategy, Engagement and Policy Branch, Services Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 August 2021, p. 9.

18 Services Australia, Implementation Plan for Settlement Distribution Scheme (15 March 2022) https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/implementation-plan-for-settlement-distribution-scheme ( accessed 12 April 2022).

19 Journals of the Senate, No. 127, 23 November 2021, p. 4282.

20 Robert McKellar, National Manager, Integrity Strategy, Engagement and Policy Branch, Services Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 August 2021, p. 9.

21 Services Australia, Implementation Plan for Settlement Distribution Scheme (15 March 2022) https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/implementation-plan-for-settlement-distribution-scheme ( accessed 12 April 2022).

33

Recommendation Implementation status

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the Senate adopt the following resolution.

1. That the Senate notes that the Senate Community Affairs References Committee has rejected the Minister for Government Services' explanation regarding public interest immunity claims on several occasions.

2. That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Government Services, by no later than 1pm on Wednesday, 24 November 2021:

 revised responses to all questions relating to legal advice and the Income Compliance Program which have been subject to rejected claims of public interest immunity during the Community Affairs References Committee’s inquiry into Centrelink’s compliance program; and  a copy of the Executive Minute to the Minister for Social Services, dated

12 February 2015, as referenced in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s April 2017 report into Centrelink’s automated debt raising and recovery system; or  a letter confirming that the above responses relating to legal advice and the Executive Minute will be provided in camera to the Senate Community Affairs

References Committee by no later than 2pm on that same day.

3. In the event that the Minister again fails to table these documents:

 the Senate requires the Minister to attend the Senate at the conclusion of

Resolution adopted by the Senate.22

The Minister for Government Services (Senator Reynolds) tabled a letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Government Services (Senator Reynolds) responding to the order and reiterating public interest immunity claims, and attachment.23

Pursuant to order, Senator Reynolds provided an explanation relating to the response.24

The explanation was in similar terms to that provided on 25 August 2021, to the effect that she had personally reviewed the public interest grounds asserted by the Government and concluded ‘that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information over which the claim is being reiterated in relation to legal advice and also to the deliberations of cabinet.’25

22 Journals of the Senate, No. 127, 23 November 2021, p. 4282.

23 Journals of the Senate, No 128, 24 November 2021, p 4294.

24 Journals of the Senate, No 128, 24 November 2021, p 4294.

25 Senate Hansard, 24 November 2021, p. 6626.

34

Recommendation Implementation status

question time on Wednesday 24 November 2021 to provide an explanation of the Minister’s failure to table the documents;  at the conclusion of the Minister’s explanation, or in the event that the Minister fails to provide an explanation, any senator may move to take note of the

explanation or the failure to provide an explanation;  any motion under the above paragraph may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes and have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for no more than 10 minutes each.

35

Appendix 2

Submissions and Additional Information

Submissions 1 Yfoundations 2 Australian National Audit Office 3 Uniting Communities 4 Australian Human Rights Commission 5 Northern Territory Government 6 Queensland Advocacy Incorporated 7 Australian Council of Social Service 8 Carers NSW

9 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service (Qld) Ltd 10 Queensland Council of Social Service 11 Community and Public Sector Union 12 Jobs Australia 13 Tasmanian Council of Social Service 14 University of Newcastle Legal Centre 15 Dr Darren O'Donovan 16 Financial Counsellors' Association of NSW Inc 17 Mental Health Australia 18 Financial Counselling Australia 19 Australian Privacy Foundation 20 Services Australia 21 Commonwealth Ombudsman

 21.1 Supplementary submission  2 Attachments

22 Uniting Vic.Tas 23 Equality Rights Alliance 24 COTA Australia 25 Australian Lawyers for Human Rights 26 National Legal Aid 27 Economic Justice Australia

 27.1 Supplementary submission

28 Emeritus Professor Terry Carney AO 29 #NotMyDebt 30 Anglicare Australia  30.1 Supplementary submission

 3 Attachments

31 Australian Association of Social Workers

36

32 Accountable Income Management Network 33 Office of the Australian Information Commissioner  1 Attachment

34 Brotherhood of St Laurence 35 National Union of Students  35.1 Supplementary submission

36 Australian Lawyers Alliance 37 Dr Monika Zalnieriute, Professor Lyria Bennett Moses and Professor George Williams AO  1 Attachment

38 Ms Emily Lightfoot 39 Name Withheld 40 Confidential 41 Name Withheld 42 Confidential 43 Confidential 44 Confidential 45 Ms Wendy Thacker 46 Name Withheld 47 Mr Kevin Brennan 48 Mr Richard Ure 49 Confidential 50 Name Withheld 51 Confidential 52 Confidential 53 Name Withheld 54 Confidential 55 Confidential 56 Name Withheld 57 Confidential 58 Confidential 59 Name Withheld 60 Law Council of Australia 61 Confidential 62 Name Withheld 63 Name Withheld 64 Ms Jessica Miller

 1 Attachment

65 Confidential 66 Confidential 67 Ms Dannielle Smith 68 Australian National University Law Reform and Social Justice Research Hub

37

69 Victoria Legal Aid 70 Queensland University of Technology Digital Media Research Centre 71 Name Withheld 72 Ms Sarah Hodges 73 Name Withheld

74 Name Withheld 75 Name Withheld 76 Confidential 77 Confidential 78 Ms Lauren Hustwaite

Additional Information 1 Correspondence regarding further consideration of public interest immunity claim, sent by the Chair of the Community Affairs References Committee, Senator Rachel Siewert, to the Minister for Government Services,

the Hon Stuart Robert MP, 6 April 2020 2 Public Interest Immunity Claim - Additional Information, received from the Hon Stuart Robert MP, Minister for Government Services, 14 August 2020 3 Public Interest Immunity Claim, received from the Hon Stuart Robert MP,

Minister for Government Services, 14 August 2020 4 Public Interest Immunity Claim, received from Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC, Minister for Government Services, 9 August 2021 5 Public Interest Immunity Claim - Additional Information, received from

Ms Rebecca Skinner, Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia, 9 August 2021

Answer to Question on Notice 1 Answers to written Questions on Notice, received from Department of Human Services, 26 September 2019 2 Answers to written Questions on Notice, received from Department of Human

Services, 27 September 2019 3 Answers to written Questions on Notice, received from Department of Human Services, 1 October 2019 4 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 3 October public hearing,

received from National Social Security Rights Network, 23 October 2019 5 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 3 October public hearing, received from Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, 25 October 2019 6 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 3 October public hearing,

received from Australian Council of Social Service, 28 October 2019 7 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 3 October public hearing, received from Community and Public Sector Union, 28 October 2019 8 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 3 October public hearing,

received from Department of Human Services (Services Australia), 28 October 2019

38

9 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 3 October public hearing, received from Department of Human Services (Services Australia), 29 October 2019 10 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 3 October public hearing,

received from Department of Human Services (Services Australia), 31 October 2019 11 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 3 October public hearing, received from Department of Social Services, 27 November 2019 12 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 3 October public hearing,

received from Department of Human Services (Services Australia), 6 December 2019 13 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 4 October public hearing, received from Western Australian Council of Social Service, 10 October 2019 14 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 4 October public hearing,

received from Western Australian Council of Social Service, 10 October 2019 15 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 4 October public hearing, received from Consumers of Mental Health WA, 28 October 2019 16 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 4 October public hearing,

received from Fremantle Community Legal Centre, 19 November 2019 17 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 4 October public hearing, received from Community Legal (WA), Peel Community Legal Service, and Fremantle Community Legal Centre, 21 November 2019 18 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 4 October public hearing,

received from Welfare Rights and Advocacy Service, 22 November 2019 19 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 4 October public hearing, received from Financial Counselling Australia, 9 December 2019 20 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 9 October public hearing,

received from Emeritus Professor Terry Carney AO, 10 October 2019 21 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 9 October public hearing, received from Anglicare Australia, 28 October 2019 22 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 9 October public hearing,

received from Uniting Vic.Tas, 28 October 2019 23 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 9 October public hearing, received from People with Disability Australia, 4 November 2019 24 Answers to written Questions on Notice, received from Department of Human

Services (Services Australia), 22 November 2019 25 Answers to written Questions on Notice, received from Department of Human Services (Services Australia), 25 November 2019 26 Answers to written Questions on Notice, received from Department of Human

Services (Services Australia), 4 December 2019 27 Answers to written Questions on Notice, received from Department of Human Services (Services Australia), 6 December 2019

39

28 Answers to written Questions on Notice, received from Department of Human Services (Services Australia), 16 December 2019 29 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 8 November public hearing, received from Launceston Community Legal Centre, 22 November 2019 30 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 8 November public hearing,

received from Tasmanian Council of Social Service, 10 December 2019 31 Answers to written Questions on Notice, received from Department of Human Services (Services Australia), 16 December 2019 32 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 16 December public hearing,

received from Department of Social Services, 24 January 2020 33 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 16 December public hearing, received from Australian Taxation Office, 24 January 2020 34 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 16 December public hearing,

received from Australian Taxation Office, 24 January 2020 35 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 16 December public hearing, received from Services Australia (Department of Human Services), 24 February 2020 36 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from

Services Australia (Department of Human Services), 24 February 2020 37 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from Services Australia (Department of Human Services), 27 March 2020 38 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 31 July public hearing, received

from Services Australia, 14 August 2020 39 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 31 July public hearing, received from Department of Social Services, 17 August 2020 40 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 17 August public hearing,

received from Services Australia, 28 August 2020 41 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 17 August public hearing, received from Department of Social Services, 28 August 2020 42 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 17 August public hearing,

received from Services Australia, 14 September 2020 43 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 17 August public hearing, received from Department of Social Services, 15 September 2020 44 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 17 August public hearing,

received from Services Australia, 17 September 2020 45 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 17 August public hearing, received from Australian Taxation Office, 16 October 2020 46 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from

Services Australia, 3 September 2020 47 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from Services Australia, 11 September 2020 48 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from

Services Australia, 14 September 2020

40

49 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from Services Australia, 9 October 2020 50 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 12 October 2020 51 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 29 March public hearing,

received from Services Australia, 3 May 2021 52 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 29 March public hearing, received from Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 20 May 2021 53 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 29 March public hearing,

received from Department of Social Services, 25 May 2021 54 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 29 March public hearing, received from Department of Social Services, 2 June 2021 55 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from

Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 21 May 2021 56 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 24 May 2021 57 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from

Department of Social Services, 25 May 2021 58 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from Services Australia, 2 June 2021 59 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from

Services Australia, 17 June 2021 60 Answers to written Questions taken on Notice, received from Services Australia, 14 July 2021 61 Answer to question taken on notice during 29 March public hearing, received

from Services Australia, 11 August 2021 62 Answers to questions taken on notice during 19 August public hearing, received from Economic Justice Australia, 19 August 2021 63 Answers to questions taken on notice during 19 August public hearing,

received from Economic Justice Australia, 30 August 2021 64 Answers to questions taken on notice during 19 August public hearing, received from Gordon Legal, 2 September 2021 65 Answers to questions taken on notice during 27 August public hearing,

received from Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, 15 September 2021 66 Answers to questions taken on notice during 27 August public hearing, received from the Australian Human Rights Commission, 14 September 2021 67 Answers to questions taken on notice during 27 August public hearing,

received from Services Australia, 12 October 2021 68 Answers to questions taken on notice during 27 August public hearing, received from Services Australia, 15 October 2021 69 Answer to question taken on notice during 27 August hearing, received from

Services Australia, 5 November 2021

41

70 Answer to question taken on notice during 27 August hearing, received from Services Australia, 14 February 2022 71 Answer to question taken on notice during 27 August hearing, received from Services Australia, 24 February 2022 72 Answers to written questions taken on notice, received from Services Australia,

24 February 2022 73 Answer to written question taken on notice, received from Services Australia, 25 February 2022

Correspondence 1 Public Interest Immunity Claim, received from the Hon Stuart Robert MP, Minister for Government Services, 28 January 2020 2 Letter regarding the resubmission of questions on notice, received from

Services Australia, 26 November 2020

Tabled Documents 1 Power point slides: Check and Update Past Income, tabled by Department of Human Services (Services Australia), at Canberra public hearing, 3 October 2019

2 State-wide data snapshot of Western Australian community legal centres 2018-19, tabled by Community Legal Centres Association of WA, at Mandurah public hearing, 4 October 2019 3 Document defending the use of the term ‘robodebt’, tabled by

Dr Darren O'Donovan, at Melbourne public hearing, 9 October 2019 4 Relevant Extract from Chapter 6.3.9 of The Guide to Social Security Law (accurate as at 9th October 2019), tabled by Dr Darren O'Donovan, at Melbourne public hearing, 9 October 2019 5 Case studies, tabled by Jobs Australia, at Melbourne public hearing,

9 October 2019 6 Documents relating to communication about the refunding of debts, tabled by Department of Social Services, at Canberra public hearing, 31 July 2020 7 Opening statement, tabled by Department of Social Services, at Canberra

public hearing, 31 July 2020 8 Public Interest Immunity Claim from the Minister for Government Services, tabled by Department of Social Services, at Canberra public hearing, 31 July

2020

9 Documents relating to the request for Statements of Account through the Centrelink online portal, tabled by Services Australia, at Canberra public hearing, 17 August 2020

43

Appendix 3 Public Hearings

Thursday, 3 October 2019 Committee Room 2S3 Parliament House Canberra

Australian Council of Social Service (via teleconference)  Ms Jacqueline Phillips, Director of Policy and Advocacy  Ms Charmaine Crowe, Senior Advisor, Social Security

National Social Security Rights Network (via teleconference)  Leanne Ho, Executive Director  Jairaj Manoharachandran, Policy and Law Reform Officer  Ms Katherine Boyle, Board member

Community and Public Sector Union  Mr Michael Tull, Assistant National Secretary  Ms Melissa Donnelly, Assistant National Secretary

Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman  Mr Michael Manthorpe, Commonwealth Ombudsman  Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Deputy Ombudsman  Ms Fiona Sawyers, Senior Assistant Ombudsman  Ms Julia Taylor, Director, Social Services, Indigenous and Disability

Australian National Audit Office  Ms Lisa Rauter, Group Executive Director, Performance Audit Services Group  Mr David Brunoro, Executive Director, Performance Audit Services Group

Services Australia (Department of Human Services)  Ms Annette Musolino, Acting Deputy Secretary, Integrity and Information Group  Mr Jason McNamara, General Manager, Integrity Modernisation  Mr Anthony Seebach, General Manager, Debt and Appeals Division  Ms Jennifer Rufati, General Manager, Smart Centres Operations Division

Department of Social Services  Mr Nathan Williamson, Deputy Secretary, Social Security Stream  Ms Vanessa Lapthorne, Study and Compliance Branch Manager

44

Friday, 4 October 2019 Acacia 2 Room The Sebel 1 Marco Polo Drive Mandurah

Community Legal Centres Association of WA  Ms Sharryn Jackson, Executive Director

Welfare Rights and Advocacy Service  Ms Kate Beaumont, Executive Officer

Fremantle Community Legal Centre (via teleconference)  Mr Antonio Gonzalez, Welfare Rights Advocate

Peel Community Legal Services  Mrs Jackie Wallis, Community and Tenancy Advocate

Financial Counselling Australia  Ms Fiona Guthrie, Chief Executive Officer  Mr Colin Harte, Financial Counsellor with the National Debt Helpline

Financial Counsellors Association of WA  Mrs Diane Hayes, Senior Policy Officer

Australian Privacy Foundation  Mr David Vaile, Chair  Ms Kat Lane, Vice-Chair

Western Australia Council of Social Service  Mr Chris Twomey, Leader, Policy and Research

Passages Youth Engagement Hub - Peel  Ms Jade Gillespie, Co-ordinator

St Vincent de Paul Society WA  Mrs Sandra McKiernan, Executive Manager, Specialist Community Services

WA Association for Mental Health  Ms Taryn Harvey, Chief Executive Officer

Consumers of Mental Health WA  Ms Shauna Gaebler, Chief Executive Officer

45

Wednesday, 9 October 2019 Seminar Rooms 2 & 3 Monash Conference Centre Level 7, 30 Collins Street Melbourne

Australian Lawyers Alliance (via teleconference)  Mr Greg Barns, National Criminal Justice and Human Rights Spokesman

Emeritus Professor Terry Carney AO, Private capacity

Dr Darren O'Donovan, Private capacity

Victoria Legal Aid  Ms Rowan McRae, Executive Director, Civil Justice Access and Equity  Mr Joel Townsend, Program Manager, Economic and Social Rights

Social Security Rights Victoria Inc  Mr John Berrill, Acting Principal Lawyer  Mr Peter Horbury, Manager, Information and Operations

Private individuals  Letecia Luty  Mr Kenneth O’Shea

Australian Association of Social Workers  Ms Christine Craik, President  Ms Angela Scarfe, Senior Policy Advisor

Anglicare Australia (via teleconference)  Ms Kasy Chambers, Executive Director

Uniting Vic.Tas  Ms Joanna Leece, Acting General Manager, Western Victoria and Tasmania  Ms Anna Matina, Acting Executive Officer, Kildonan and Lentara

People with Disability Australia  Ms Romola Hollywood, Director Policy and Advocacy

Children and Young People with Disability Australia  Ms Mary Sayers, Chief Executive Officer

COTA Australia (via teleconference)  Mr Ian Yates, Chief Executive

46

Jobs Australia  Mrs Debra Cerasa, Chief Executive Officer  Mr David Taylor, Policy Analyst and Media Liaison

Friday, 8 November 2019 Tram Room 28 Tramsheds Function Centre 4 Invermay Road Launceston

Tasmanian Council of Social Service  Ms Kym Goodes, Chief Executive Oficer

Launceston Community Legal Centre  Ms Emma Smith, Welfare Rights Advocate

Women’s Legal Service Tasmania  Ms Yvette Cehtel, Chief Executive Officer

Monday, 16 December 2019 Committee Room 2S3 Parliament House Canberra

Australian Taxation Office  Mr Jeremy Hirschhorn, Acting Second Commissioner, Client Engagement  Mr Jason Lucchese, Assistant Commissioner, Single Touch Payroll

Services Australia  Dr Ros Baxter, Deputy Secretary, Integrity and Information Group  Mr Jason McNamara, General Manager, Integrity Modernisation Division  Mr Craig Storen, General Manager, Customer Compliance Division  Mr Anthony Seebach, General Manager, Debt and Appeals Division

Department of Social Services  Mr Shane Bennett, Group Manager, Participation Payments and Families  Ms Vanessa Lapthorne, Branch Manager, Study and Compliance

Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business  Ms Janine Pitt, First Assistant Secretary  Ms Benedikte Jensen, First Assistant Secretary, Labour Market Strategy Division  Mr James Peterswald, Assistant Secretary

47

Friday, 31 July 2020 Committee Room 2S1 Parliament House Canberra

Services Australia  Ms Annette Musolino, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Income Compliance Taskforce  Ms Michelle Lees, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Customer Service

Delivery Group  Ms Liz Bundy, Acting General Manager, Income Compliance Taskforce  Mr Matt Corkhill, Acting General Manager, Integrity Modernisation

Division  Ms Lisa Keeling, Acting Chief Counsel, Legal Services Division  Mr Robert McKellar, Acting General Manager, Compliance Assurance

Division  Mr Jason McNamara, General Manager, Debt and Appeals Division

Department of Social Services  Ms Kathryn Campbell AO CSC, Secretary  Mr Nathan Williamson, Deputy Secretary  Mr Shane Bennett, Acting Deputy Secretary, Social Security  Ms Mary McLarty, Acting Group Manager, Participation Payments Group  Mr Paul Menzies-McVey, Branch Manager, Legal Services Branch

Australian Taxation Office  Ms Melinda Smith, Chief Service Delivery Officer  Mr Jeremy Hirschhorn, Second Commissioner, Client Engagement  Ms Catherine Willis, ATO General Counsel

Monday, 17 August 2020 Committee Room 2S1 Parliament House Canberra

Australian Taxation Office (via videoconference)  Ms Melinda Smith, Chief Service Delivery Officer  Mr James O’Halloran, Deputy Commissioner, JobKeeper Payment Program  Ms Catherine Willis, ATO General Counsel

Services Australia  Ms Annette Musolino, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Income Compliance Taskforce

48

 Ms Michelle Lees, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Customer Service Delivery Group (via videoconference)  Mr Charles McHardie, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Transformation Projects Group  Ms Liz Bundy, Acting General Manager, Income Compliance Taskforce  Mr Matt Corkhill, Acting General Manager, Integrity Modernisation

Division  Ms Lisa Keeling, Acting Chief Counsel, Legal Services Division  Mr Jason McNamara, General Manager, Debt and Appeals Division

Department of Social Services  Ms Kathryn Campbell AO CSC, Secretary  Mr Nathan Williamson, Deputy Secretary, COVID-19 Taskforce  Mr Shane Bennett, Acting Deputy Secretary, Social Security  Ms Mary McLarty, Acting Group Manager, Participation Payments Group  Mr Paul Menzies-McVey, Branch Manager, Legal Services Branch

Monday, 29 March 2021 Committee Room 2S1 Parliament House Canberra

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (by videoconference)  Ms Sian Leathem, Registrar  Ms Monique Adofaci, National Director Tribunal Services  Mr Chris Matthies, Chief Legal Officer

Department of Social Services  Mr Matt Flavel, Deputy Secretary, Social Security  Ms Mary McLarty, Acting Group Manager, Participation and Family Payments

Services Australia  Ms Rebecca Skinner, Chief Executive Officer  Ms Michelle Lees, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Payments and Integrity Group (by videoconference)  Mr Chris Birrer, General Manager, Compliance Assurance Division  Mr Robert McKellar, General Manager, Debt and Integrity Projects Division  Ms Kathryn Haigh, Chief Counsel, Legal Services Division  Ms Annette Musolino, Chief Operating Officer, Corporate Enabling Group

49

Thursday, 19 August 2021 Committee Room 2S3 Parliament House Canberra

Panel of individual witnesses (via videoconference)  Ms Belinda Cole  Mrs Kathy Mundy  Mr David Mundy

Australian Council of Social Service (via videoconference)  Ms Charmaine Crowe, Senior Advisor, Social Security

Economic Justice Australia (via videoconference)  Ms Leanne Ho, Chief Executive Officer

Welfare Rights and Advocacy Group (via videoconference)  Ms Catherine Eagle, Principal Solicitor

Panel of individual witnesses (via videoconference)  Clare  Mr Richard Winzor

Victoria Legal Aid (via videoconference)  Mr Joel Townsend, Program Manager, Economic and Social Rights  Ms Rowan McRae, Executive Director, Civil Justice, Access and Equity

Darwin Community Services (via videoconference)  Ms Judy Harrison, Principal Solicitor

Gordon Legal (via videoconference)  Mr Andrew Grech, Partner  Mr Guy Tiffany, Lawyer

Friday, 20 August 2021 Main Committee Room Parliament House Canberra

Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (via videoconference)  Ms Penny McKay, Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman  Ms Louise MacLeod, Acting Deputy Ombudsman  Mr David Fintan, Senior Assistant Ombudsman, Strategy Branch

50

Australian Human Rights Commission (via videoconference)  Professor Rosalind Croucher, Australian Human Rights Commission President

Department of Social Services (via videoconference)  Mr Matt Flavel, Deputy Secretary, Social Security  Ms Jo Evans, Group Manager, Participation and Family Payments Group

Services Australia (via videoconference)  Ms Michelle Lees, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Payments and Integrity  Mr Chris Birrer, General Manager, Compliance Assurance and Debt Operations  Mr Robert McKellar, National Manager, Integrity Strategy and Engagement  Ms Kathryn Haigh, General Manager, Legal Services (Chief Counsel)

Friday, 27 August 2021 Via Teleconference Committee room 2S2 Parliament House Canberra

Australian Human Rights Commission  Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher AM, President

Department of Social Services  Mr Matt Flavel, Deputy Secretary, Social Security  Ms Jo Evans, Group Manager, Participation and Family Payments Group

Services Australia  Ms Michelle Lees, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Payments and Integrity  Mr Chris Birrer, General Manager, Compliance Assurance and Debt Operations Division  Mr Robert McKellar, National Manager, Integrity Strategy, Engagement and

Policy Branch  Ms Kathryn Haigh, General Manager, Chief Counsel Legal Services

Commonwealth Ombudsman  Ms Penny McKay, Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman  Ms Louise MacLeod, Acting Deputy Ombudsman  Mr David Fintan, Senior Assistant Ombudsman, Strategy Branch