Department of Human Services officials nominated a public servant for a 2017 Australia Day achievement award to celebrate his role in designing the robodebt scheme, a royal commission has heard.
On Tuesday the commission investigating the botched Centrelink debt recovery program heard from two mid-level officials directly involved in the design of the scheme – Scott Britton, a former national manager of DHS’s compliance team, and Jason Ryman, a former director of the compliance branch, and who reported to Britton.
The inquiry has already heard the scheme, which ran from July 2015 until November 2019, continued despite internal legal warnings, culminating in a $1.8bn settlement with hundreds of thousands of people.
The inquiry has also heard the idea for the scheme was quickly progressed once it found favour with the then social services minister, Scott Morrison, who wanted it considered for the upcoming 2015 budget. Morrison was appointed to the role in late 2014.
Britton told the inquiry on Tuesday that his team was under internal pressure to come up with proposals for budget savings and one of the plans identified in the middle of 2014 was what became the robodebt scheme.
“We were being continually asked for the provision of new ideas, new proposals, new concepts, additional savings,” he said.
“I certainly felt the pressure internally … I don’t know whether that was … all internal or from ministers.”
Crucial questions being investigated include what departments involved did after internal legal warnings about the scheme.
The inquiry heard legal questions about the methods used in the program were a consideration within Britton’s team in June 2014, many months before a formal proposal was taken to ministers.
But Britton said he never received any legal advice, and that Ryman was tasked with engaging with lawyers.
Ryman told the inquiry he’d sought legal advice but conceded he did not ask about the central question of “income averaging” – which has been found to be unlawful.
Under questioning from counsel assisting Angus Scott, Ryman agreed no one in his team were lawyers, which put them at a disadvantage in identifying potential legal pitfalls.
But separate internal legal advice provided by lawyers at the Department of Social Services did warn the scheme was probably unlawful and a key question is how that was treated by officials more senior than Britton and Ryman.
The scheme began on a small scale in July 2015, the inquiry heard. Britton and Ryman said after that people above them had decided in September 2016 to launch the full-scale robodebt scheme.
Ryman said he had warned the computer systems were not prepared and kinks in the system were still being worked through, but he was told it was happening anyway.
This led to public outrage as tens of thousands of Australians started receiving welfare debts in late 2016.
It was around this time when Britton, who had appointed Ryman to manage the robodebt project, nominated him for an Australia Day achievement award, according to November 2016 emails shown to the commission.
He was nominated by the department’s compliance branch for “playing a significant role … leading the Online Compliance Intervention” project.
Britton said he did not know if Ryman had received the award and it does not appear that he did.
Ryman conceded the method used to raise a debt under the scheme used calculations from ATO data that would be “untrue” for many welfare recipients.
Asked by the commissioner, Catherine Holmes, how the scheme was “allowed to be set up” if this was known, Ryman said it was “about using the best information we had at the time”.
Pressed by Holmes, who noted that information could be “meaningless”, Ryman acknowledged it “wouldn’t be completely accurate”.
The inquiry also heard throughout the second half of 2016 – after the robodebt scheme had been ramped up – Alan Tudge’s office asked DHS officials when the scheme would hit a $500m savings target.
Britton told the inquiry he expected the “target” was a milestone that Tudge’s office wanted to mark with a media release.
During this time the inquiry heard one top DHS officials raised concerns the robodebt scheme was not raising actual budget savings that were anticipated, while they were also aware of “strident” commentary from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which reviews Centrelink decisions. The commentary was not public.
The royal commission continues.
