The Terms of Reference for the Royal Commission on RoboDebt note that
in November 2019 the Federal Court of Australia declared, with the consent of the Australian Government, that a demand for payment of an alleged debt under the Robodebt scheme was not validly made; and the Australian Government had adopted the same or a similar approach in calculating and raising debts against hundreds of thousands of other individuals under the Robodebt scheme; and the Australian Government subsequently announced that over 400,000 debts raised under the Robodebt scheme would be zeroed or repaid.
The Commission is to inquire, speedily, into the following matters -
the establishment, design and implementation of the Robodebt scheme, including:
- who was responsible for its design, development and establishment;
- and why those who were responsible for its design, development and establishment considered the Robodebt scheme necessary or desirable;
- and the advice, process or processes that informed its design and implementation;
- and any concerns raised regarding the legality or fairness of the Robodebt scheme;
- the use of third party debt collectors under the Robodebt scheme;
in relation to concerns raised about the Robodebt scheme following its implementation:
- how risks relating to the Robodebt scheme were identified, assessed and managed by the Australian Government in response to concerns raised by the Australian Taxation Office, other departments and agencies, affected individuals and other people and entities;
- and the systems, processes and administrative arrangements that were in place to handle complaints about the Robodebt scheme from members of the public affected by the scheme, their representatives or government officials and staff;
- and whether complaints were handled in accordance with those systems, processes and administrative arrangements, and, in any event, handled fairly;
- and how the Australian Government responded to adverse decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal;
- and how the Australian Government responded to legal challenges or threatened legal challenges; and approximately when the Australian Government knew or ought to have known that debts were not, or may not have been, validly raised;
- and whether the Australian Government sought to prevent, inhibit or discourage scrutiny of the Robodebt scheme, whether by moving departmental or other officials or otherwise;
the intended and actual outcomes of the Robodebt scheme, in particular:
- the kinds of non‑pecuniary impacts the scheme had on individuals, particularly vulnerable individuals, and their families;
- and the approximate total cost of implementing, administering, suspending and winding back the Robodebt scheme, including costs incidental to those matters (such as obtaining external advice and legal costs);
