Desperate robedebt victims flocked to legal aid for help

A celebrated Australian barrister, academic and author has admitted he “used a bit of bluff’’ when he took on the Federal Government over the robodebt scheme.

A celebrated Australian barrister, academic and author has admitted he “used a bit of bluff’’ when he took on the Federal Government over the robodebt scheme.

Peter Hanks, KC, said he had once played a small role in a successful action against the Government led by Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser regarding unemployment benefits when he was a young man five decades ago, so he had a framework of reference.

But the Australian legal landscape had changed dramatically and, when faced with challenging the robodebt scheme in 2019, his “ambitious and starry eyed’’ team had to, in effect, fake it until they made it.

Peter Hanks KC, Barrister Victorian Bar Association. Picture David Clark

“We had to assume that we would use a bit of bluff,’’ Mr Hanks told the Royal Commission into robodebt which wound up a week of hearings in Brisbane Friday afternoon.

“We would structure the litigation in a manner that assumed we knew something about the program.

“I think we were a little ambitious and starry eyed at that point.’’

The robodebt scheme which operated between 2015 and 2019 used the controversial averaging income technique, based on Australian Tax Office records, to assess annual incomes of welfare recipients.

Up to 20,000 letters requesting debt payments were being sent out every week at one stage, causing emotional trauma and several cases of suicide among welfare recipients who were incorrectly identified as owing money.

The scheme, predicted to save more than $1 billion in 2014, ended in 2019 amid a $1.8 billion Federal Court legal settlement.

It was Mr Hanks who blew the whistle on the scheme in a 2017 administrative law conference when he suggested it contravened the Social Security Act and should be subject to a legal challenge.

When he did challenge the scheme, a key point he relied upon was that it was up to the government to collect evidence and prove an individual had a debt, and not up to the individual to disprove it.

The Commonwealth eventually accepted the scheme was illegal.

Under questioning from Justin Greggery, KC, Mr Hanks said he accepted “authorship’’ of the idea that robodebt was not lawful.

“I think it might have originated with me,’’ said Mr Hanks, who can boast of an extraordinary legal career stretching all the way back to the 1960s when he was a law lecturer at Sydney University.

“I think I could claim authorship.’’

The hearings resume Monday and are scheduled to run two more weeks.