Posts

New Robodebt Scandal Waiting to Happen

,

One Nation cannot support this bill in its current form. While we agree that Australians caught up in the Robodebt scandal deserve closure, this legislation fails to deliver justice and accountability.

The government’s amendment MM100 introduces Section 44A, giving bureaucrats the power to use AI to mine data, match records, and even issue debt notices — all without human oversight. This is Robodebt 2.0. The same flawed approach that caused harm, heartbreak, and even loss of life is being repeated. The Royal Commission exposed the dangers of automated debt recovery. Why would we allow it again?

On top of that, Schedule 5 was added after the committee stage with zero scrutiny. It could suspend benefits for people accused, yet not convicted, of crimes. That’s a denial of natural justice and a dangerous precedent. An accusation is not a conviction, and financial penalties before due process is unacceptable.

One Nation supports restoring the six-year debt recovery limit, but without proper safeguards and accountability, this bill is a recipe for disaster. We’re calling on the government to pull these last-minute inclusions or send the bill back for full scrutiny. Australians deserve fairness, not another robodebt scandal.

— Senate Speech | November 2025

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Minister, this bill includes provisions that have been introduced after the committee stage and, as such, have not been subjected to proper scrutiny. It’s true that those who were caught up in the robodebt scandal need closure. One way or another, they need closure. A line needs to be drawn under as many of these debts as possible. This bill as it is, however, fails to achieve that objective to One Nation’s standard. 

I note that government amendment MM100 was passed this morning on the voices. I would like to ask Hansard to note One Nation’s opposition to that amendment, and here’s why: the amendment includes section 44A, which allows the government to use a computer program—in other words, AI, artificial intelligence—to mine data and match data and decide whether a debt occurs, and even to issue the debt notice. Are you kidding? This just restarts a robodebt type of debt recovery, but this time using AI. The fundamental problem still exists—data matching across systems with different software, different indexing and different ages that led to matching errors. The government has spent $2 billion trying to sort this mess out and has now pushed back the timeframe to complete the linking of government data back to 2028. We’ll get you. Why ask for these powers now when you have no ability to deliver? There’s no scrutiny and no guardrails; just do whatever the hell the secretary wants. This is a recipe for robodebt 2. 

The government must be responsible, accountable and transparent. The failure of robodebt was to try to match data from incompatible computer systems, which led to innocent people being presented with a debt notice, and it led to inaccurate amounts being claimed. This resulted from the use of computer matching software. Amendment MM100 repeats that same mistake and will surely lead to the same outcome of substantial errors in data matching leading to erroneous debt collection. As the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme found, people died as a result of these debt notices. Introducing a system that makes these notices, untouched by human hands, is not the answer. The answer is careful scrutiny. 

One Nation cannot support this bill with section 44A included. Senator David Pocock introduced a perfectly logical amendment to pull schedule 5 from the bill. The schedule was introduced after the bill went to committee. It has not been properly scrutinised. The provisions of schedule 5 could be misused to suspend benefits for persons accused, but not convicted, of a crime. In particular, fathers accused of domestic violence will be robbed of their benefits—whether that is unemployment, parenting payment, rent allowance or whatever—placing them in a weakened position to defend those charges. This schedule is designed to encourage domestic violence allegations. This provision should be limited to persons who have been convicted, not accused, of a crime, even where an arrest warrant has been issued. An arrest warrant is not a conviction. It is the police saying the accusation is serious and the complainant may be in danger. Suspending their liberty via an arrest warrant is how this is dealt with, not levying a financial penalty by terminating their income before a conviction. Greens amendment (2) on sheet 3487 restores the six-year limit for debt collection. While One Nation would have gone with seven years to align with the tax law, I understand that the six-year limit restores a provision the Liberal-National government repealed in order to facilitate robodebt initially. Again, you’re bringing it all back. Without this provision, the government has unlimited recovery powers. It has gone back to 2004 in some cases. I understand they have gone back to last century. This is a denial of natural justice and administrative fairness. Who has the documents from that far back to challenge a notice? Make no mistake: these debt notices are guilty until proven innocent. One Nation will support the Greens amendment. 

Without all of those amendments in place, One Nation cannot support this bill. We are happy to work with the government to clean the mess called robodebt and have the bill reintroduced next year with due scrutiny of the ramifications of using AI and with schedule 5 properly scrutinised. Minister, my question is: will you pull these last-minute inclusions out of the bill or send the bill back to a committee so that these last-minute inclusions can be properly scrutinised by the people’s representatives in this house? 

/0 Comments/by

Avoiding the Next Robodebt

,

I questioned the Minister regarding Schedule 1 of the Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, specifically the automation of Medicare Provider Numbers (MPNs).

My primary concern, as always, is ensuring that “automation” isn’t just a fancy word for another government digital disaster. We’ve seen the Robodebt fiasco, the Bureau of Meteorology website fiasco, Australia Post software fiasco and the Border Force Cargo management automation fiasco; my job is to make sure Australians aren’t the next victims of a “government stuff-up.”

I asked the Minister why legislation is needed for a process that is already using computers. She replied that this bill provides legislative support for existing practices and introduces safeguards, adding that computers will not be used to revoke or suspend provider numbers without a human request.

I asked if this automation of MPNs was a “Trojan horse” for Artificial Intelligence (AI). Despite the Explanatory Memorandum mentioning “computer programs” for non-discretionary decisions, the Minister stated on the record that there is no intention or requirement to use AI for allocating MPNs.

Finally, I sought clarification on changes to Commonwealth supported places. Under the new rules, medical students who withdraw from their degree, even late in their studies, will no longer be forced to repay the scholarship cost (though they remain liable for HECS). The Minister said that this is about “fairness” rather than recouping funds from students facing hardship.

I remain sceptical of any move toward “automated” government software, and I will be monitoring these automated systems very closely.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, schedule 1 of the bill automates the issuance of Medicare providers numbers, MPNs. ‘Automation’, I assume, means computer software. Computers are used now for the process. What is different about the process being proposed that it requires legislation to enact it?  

Senator McALLISTER (Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme): Thank you for your patience, Senator Roberts. I was just obtaining advice so I can advise you correctly. This new part of the act will ensure that the system can approve the use of a computer program for certain decisions relating to the allocation and management of Medicare provider numbers. It will not—and this, I think, will be important to you—enable the approval of the use of a computer program to make decisions about revoking a Medicare provider number or suspending a Medicare provider number where the suspension is not at the request of a health professional.  

It will also include safeguards around the use of computer programs to make decisions relating to Medicare provider numbers. Those safeguards include a requirement to notify a person where a computer program was used to make a decision about their Medicare provider number; a requirement to make it public when the use of a computer program to make decisions about Medicare provider numbers has been approved; a power to make substitute decisions where they are satisfied that a decision made by the operation of a computer program is incorrect; and a requirement to include information in the Services Australia annual report about the number and types of substituted decisions. 

Importantly, these things introduce safeguards, and they also, as is indicated in the explanatory memorandum, provide legislative support for an existing practice where some Medicare provider numbers have been allocated by use of a computer program, rather than by a human delegate.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think you anticipated one of my future questions, but, in the meantime, who decides if a person is qualified for a Medicare provider number, including the decision to give a Medicare provider number to a new arrival in the country? I’m asking this to see how this automation will impinge on the process of determining qualifications.  

Senator McALLISTER: May I clarify. I think what you’re asking is, ‘How would a new migrant to Australia have their qualifications recognised for the purpose of practising in an Australian context?’ Is that correct?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s part of the question. The other part concerns any Australian who’s here right now; how would they be qualified?  

Senator McALLISTER: I’m terribly sorry. I might ask you to clarify further. You said that you’re asking about how a person who is here now would obtain a Medicare provider number. Do you mean an Australian citizen or another person? What are you trying to elicit from me?  

Senator ROBERTS: Anybody who’s qualified to get a Medicare provider number—how would you make sure they are qualified, and how would you make sure that we’re not excluding people?  

Senator McALLISTER: The advice I have is that the bill that’s before us doesn’t change any of the existing arrangements. Those arrangements, of course, include a series of processes to ensure that a person seeking to practise within the Medicare system is qualified.  

Senator ROBERTS: How extensive are the checks, and is there any hint of automation being more than just computer software? Is the bill intending to allow for the use of AI for automatic MPNs?  

Senator McALLISTER: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s no requirement for artificial intelligence to be used in allocating MPNs?  

Senator McALLISTER: The advice I have is no.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll quote from the explanatory memorandum:  

The Bill will enable the Chief Executive Medicare to approve the use of a computer program to make appropriate, non-discretionary decisions relating to the registration and claims process.  

Can I confirm you intend to use AI for that process? If so, what checks are in place to make sure the AI is fit for purpose?  

Senator McALLISTER: The advice I have in relation to AI is that there is no intention. We do not require AI to perform the functions that are set out in the bill. In relation to your earlier question about the process by which a person becomes eligible for obtaining a Medicare number, the Parliamentary Library’s Bills Digest in relation to this says:  

To be eligible to provide a Medicare service, health professionals must meet certain criteria. Practitioners eligible to have Medicare benefits payable for their services ‘at the place of practice as well as refer patients to other health professionals for Medicare eligible services, such as pathology and diagnostic imaging from the place of practice’, may apply online or in writing to Services Australia for a MPN for the locations where these services/referrals/requests will be provided.  

MPNs are used by health practitioners both ‘as a means of identifying themselves and their place of practice for the purposes of claiming Medicare benefits for eligible services, and as an identifier to support other Medicare-related programs …  

Senator ROBERTS: To clarify for constituents and to get some reassurance: you didn’t hesitate when you used the word ‘intention’ with regard to AI and then said there was no requirement. After the robodebt fiasco, the Bureau of Meteorology website fiasco, the Australia Post software fiasco and the Border Force cargo management automation, constituents have every right to point out that these stuff-ups keep happening because of the way in which new technology is rolled out. That’s a big concern. Now you’re giving the software decision-making powers, and it sounds like there are no plans to do that with due care. What security steps are being taken to reassure our constituents that the automations proposed in this bill don’t become yet another government stuff-up? I acknowledge that not all of the stuff-ups have occurred on your watch. 

Senator McALLISTER: This bill puts in place safeguards to ensure that, to the extent that a computer is utilised, the circumstances in which a computer is being used are made very explicit. It also puts some constraints around the kinds of decisions that may be taken by a computer in the context of this process—that is, the process of obtaining a Medicare provider number. I read to you earlier some of those safeguards, which are set out in the explanatory memorandum. As I indicated to you, the advice I have is that this process, which involves the use of a computer for certain purposes that are quite tightly defined and constrained, does not require the use of AI.  

Senator ROBERTS: This final question has a lengthy preamble. Item 3124ZH1 removes the requirement for students who do not complete their degree to repay the Commonwealth supported place cost. Students can currently withdraw from the program without consequence up to the HECS census date in their second year of study. If the student withdraws after that date, they incur a debt to the Commonwealth equal to the full cost of their Commonwealth supported place up to the date of withdrawal in addition to any HECS or HELP liability. The proposed amendment, as I understand it, seeks to extend the existing grace period from the HECS census date in the second year of study to the award of the medical degree. Can you please explain that provision? It sounds like they can pull out right at the end of their degree and not have to pay back the cost. Is that right?  

Senator McALLISTER: Senator, you’re correct that at the moment a person who withdraws from their degree doesn’t need to pay the cost of the scholarship back if they withdraw prior to the census date you alluded to. I believe that they do remain liable for the HECS costs incurred by them in the pursuit of their studies up to that point. You are also correct that a purpose of this bill is to extend the period during which a person may withdraw without incurring a debt associated with their receipt of Commonwealth payments.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, that was my second-last question; I’ve got another one now. What is the rationale behind extending the withdrawal date so they won’t have to pay it back?  

Senator McALLISTER: Earlier in the debate I read out an email from a person who has incurred a debt in precisely these circumstances, and they spoke about the hardship they had experienced as a consequence of that. This person made the point that the purpose of the bonded nature of this program is to ensure that people who do qualify as medical professionals fulfil their obligation to work in an area that is underserved by medical practitioners. The purpose is not in itself to recoup funds from students, and we simply seek to make the system fairer. 

/0 Comments/by

Labor’s Robodebt U-Turn

,

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 is an embarrassment and another example of this government’s hypocrisy and deceit. Before the 2025 federal election, Labor condemned the Coalition over the RoboDebt scandal, using it as a key issue to win votes. Many Australians believed Labor would fix the injustice. However, this new bill seeks to retroactively validate the same flawed income calculation method that caused the RoboDebt problem in the first place—something Labor previously opposed.

The bill proposes offering small compensation payments—up to $600—to people who were wrongly charged thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. Once someone accepts this payment, they lose the right to claim anything further. This is a deceptive tactic to avoid paying full compensation and to silence victims. The scheme is only open for 12 months, and is designed to quietly close the door on proper justice for those affected.

The bill lacks transparency and detail, with much of its implementation left to future decisions by the minister, bypassing parliamentary scrutiny. Advocacy groups like Anglicare Australia and the Australian Council of Social Service have raised concerns, saying the bill doesn’t properly address the harm caused. Instead of correcting past wrongs, the government is validating them.

This is not just a failure to act—it’s a deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility and cheat vulnerable Australians out of what they’re rightfully owed.

Transcript

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 is an embarrassment and example of the Labor government’s hypocrisy and deceit. Before and during the last federal election, Labor used the robodebt scandal—and it was a scandal—as an election weapon to electorally gut the previous coalition government. It worked, and Labor won the election based on the incompetence of the coalition and on what Labor highlighted as the coalition’s cruel betrayal of robodebt victims. 

So what do we have here? Labor wants to pass this bill to retrospectively validate the unlawful income apportionment method that underpinned the robodebt rip-off. You pretended to oppose it, and now you want to invalidate it—the injustice, deceit and betrayal. To make matters worse, persons ripped off to the extent of thousands of dollars are being offered puny payments to a maximum of $600 when actually owed $15,000 or more. That’s not justice; that’s theft. Labor is inducing people to take $600 now so people go away and to ensure they never become able to reasonably claim what the government legally owes them. You’re conning these people. They’re already in misery, and now you’re conning them. 

Applications for the scheme will only be open for 12 months. Accepting a resolution payment will discharge the Commonwealth from any further liability. That ends it. In other words, the compensation scheme is completely inadequate. Worse, it’s deceptive, deliberately dishonest. Many robodebt victims likely voted for Labor to get justice on robodebt. That’s what you promised them. Those same people will now never get close to what they’re owed. The government is blatantly cheating robodebt victims out of thousands of dollars—in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars. 

This is not just an uncaring government, and on this issue its approach is not just lazily getting around paying lawful entitlements. No; this government is working hard to rip off innocent, vulnerable taxpayers. These faulty assessments extend back to September 2003—22 years. Instead of paying back exactly what each victim of the unlawful robodebt calculations is owed, the government is trying to introduce retrospective legislation to make what was unlawful then now lawful. And you wonder why we’re upset. This sneaky new bill is making what was illegal legal—the very reverse of your promise before the election. It will try to validate debts which were unlawful when they tried to collect them. I will say that again, in fact. This bill will try to validate debts which were unlawful when they tried to collect them. 

With potentially millions of unlawful debts to deal with, the government is using this bill to welch on its debts to innocent Australians who are victims of government dishonesty. There’s been little consultation with this bill, and it shows. There is little detail about how the scheme should work, and in some areas detail is totally missing. Instead, much of the detail is left to the minister’s use of future legislative instruments to bypass parliament, to bypass scrutiny. Now there’s Labor’s catchcry: ‘bypass scrutiny’—two words that tell us all about Labor in government at the moment. It is the complete opposite of transparency—bypass scrutiny. 

The government has not justified why it considers it necessary to rely on retrospective validation of the previously found unlawful means of calculation. The intention is clear: the government wishes to validate previous decisions that were made on an unlawful basis. You want to validate what you were supposed to fix. The rip-off that you were going to fix you are now validating, quietly cementing in place the Liberals’ violations that before the election Labor screamed about. Anglicare Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service and even the Commonwealth Ombudsman have indicated their concerns that the bill does not address cases where income apportionment wrongly resulted in debts and, in some instances, criminal prosecutions. This bill is an example of the government trying to cover up and weasel out of responsibility for the damage caused to innocent Australians who have been victims of the incompetence of governments, both the coalition and Labor. 

On this issue, the coalition in government was incompetent, negligent and uncaring. People died because of this—suicide. Labor in government, though, is deceitful, deliberately dishonest. Only One Nation has the integrity to restore sound, honest and caring government. Only One Nation cares about the Australian people. Only One Nation puts our country, Australia, first. One Nation will always act to protect the interests of Australians, and we’ll oppose this pathetically woeful bill, this dishonest, deliberately deceitful Labor bill.  

/by

When Conflicts Aren’t Managed, Trust is Lost

,

During my time with the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) in Senate estimates, I raised serious concerns about the handling of the Robodebt referral. The inspector’s report revealed that Commissioner Brereton declared a conflict of interest because he knew one of the individuals involved—yet despite that, his involvement in the decision-making was extensive.

The inspector found maladministration under the NACC Act. Mr Brereton contributed to discussions, settled meeting minutes, helped formulate reasons for the decision, and even shaped the media statement. That’s not how a conflict of interest should be managed. To make matters worse, the press release contained a false statement about investigative powers—an error acknowledged by the commission. For a former Supreme Court appeals judge, that’s a serious mistake. This isn’t about one error; it’s about trust.

Australians need confidence that the NACC operates with integrity and independence. When conflicts of interest aren’t properly managed, that confidence is undermined.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: In relation to the robodebt referral, Mr Brereton declared that one of the people who was subject to the decision not to investigate was a person he knew well.

Mr Reed: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Where did he know this person from?

Mr Reed: The letter that was tabled here didn’t identify that person’s name. The inspector has investigated that matter, and her report was produced on 30 October last year. It goes into a reasonable amount of detail about how that conflict of interest was managed, and it made a finding of maladministration against the commissioner.

Senator ROBERTS: Maladministration?

Mr Reed: That’s correct, under the NACC Act.

Senator ROBERTS: Despite declaring the conflict of interest, his involvement in the decision-making was comprehensive. That’s what the inspector said.

Mr Reed: That’s what the inspector found.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m now quoting the inspector, who said Mr Brereton contributed to the discussion at that meeting, settled the minutes of that meeting and was involved in formulating the reasons for the decision and also the terms of the media statement.

Mr Reed: And all of those facts are on the record in the inspector’s report.

Senator ROBERTS: And the decision to not investigate someone who had a close association with him; that is correct too?

Mr Reed: Sorry, I think I missed the point of the question.

Senator ROBERTS: The decision to not investigate someone that he had a close association with was his decision?

Mr Reed: The decision taken in relation to robodebt was not a decision of the commissioners; it was a decision or a matter—it was under assessment. It wasn’t an investigation; it was under assessment. That matter was allocated to a deputy commissioner because of the conflict of interest. What the inspector found was that he hadn’t managed that conflict of interest effectively—

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying.

Mr Reed: and, therefore, the decision about robodebt was made by a deputy commissioner, not by the commissioner.

Senator ROBERTS: Is my understanding correct that the press release on the decision not to investigate robodebt contained a false statement that another commissioner had the power to investigate those people, and did he, Mr Brereton, suggest including that when he helped formulate the media release?

Mr Reed: All of that was covered in the inspector’s report and—

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I know.

Mr Reed: the commission acknowledged, as part of that, that that was an error in that statement.

Senator ROBERTS: From a former Supreme Court appeals court judge who would have known this?

Mr Reed: People make mistakes.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a hell of a mistake. He would have known this. It would have been ingrained in him.

Mr Reed: This has all been explored in the inspector’s report. We’re going back over old ground here.

Senator ROBERTS: The inspector said his involvement in the robodebt decision to not investigate his mates was an error of judgement, would you just acknowledge?

Mr Reed: I don’t think those are the words that were used.

Senator ROBERTS: Was it an error of judgement?

Mr Reed: No. I don’t think ‘mate’ was referred to in that report, but I might be wrong.

Senator ROBERTS: So what would you call it? A colleague? An associate?

Mr Reed: It was a colleague from a former life.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve been through Mr Brereton’s former position in the appeals court in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That’s arguably the second highest tier of court in Australia. Is he really trying to make us believe, through you, that, given his experience, he would make such a consequential error of judgement?

Mr Reed: The error has been acknowledged, and it’s on the record, so I’m not quite sure where this is heading.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s heading to a loss of confidence in the NACC. That’s where it’s headed.

Mr Reed: I think it’s unfair that one matter, one aspect of the work of the commission, one of the first decisions that was announced about an assessment, as distinct from an investigation, somehow undermines the NACC for the rest of time.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a pretty serious issue.

/by