Australia 'robodebt' welfare debt recovery

The Australian government's Robodebt (or "Online Compliance Intervention" (OCI)) scheme was a highly controversial automated debt recovery system that replaced a manual system of calculating overpayments and issuing debt notices to welfare recipients.

Launched in July 2016, the OCI data-matching system automated much of the investigation and debt raising process where Australia's Department of Human Services detected a discrepancy between the amount of income a citizen declared in a year with averaged fortnightly income data from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).

The new system, according to then Prime Minister Scott Morrison, would increase the 'number of fraud investigations and compliance interventions by over 900,000 over four years', saving AUD 1.8 billion. 

Risks and harms 🛑

Australia’s Robodebt scheme has been criticised for causing financial distress, mental health issues, suicides, and a lack of access to justice, largely due to its flawed algorithm and illegal practices.

Transparency and accountability 🙈

Australia's Robodebt scheme had many important significant transparency and accountability limitations:

• Calculation process. The automated system used to calculate alleged debts was not transparent. Many people did not understand how their alleged debts were calculated, making it difficult to challenge or verify the amounts.

• User communication. Centrelink correspondence often lacked clear information about how debts were calculated, leaving people unable to properly understand or resolve their alleged overpayments.

• Burden of proof. The scheme unfairly placed the responsibility on individuals to prove they did not owe the claimed amounts, rather than on the government to prove debts were valid.

• Complaints and appeals. Many people found it effectively impossible to contest their Robodebts, especially if they could not produce payslips from the period in question.

• Institutional culture. The Royal Commission found that the system was sustained by a lack of transparency, accountability, and a culture characterised by "venality, incompetence and cowardice".

• Regulatory disclosure. One Commonwealth department failed to adequately disclose information about the scheme to the Ombudsman who was investigating it.

• Ministerial failings. Government ministers failed to adequately inquire about the scheme's legality or knowingly misled colleagues and the public about it.