Robodebt - Part 1 Introduction & Part 2 Reverse Onus of Centrelink Overpayments

PART 1 - INTRODUCTION

Yet again the Senate Inquiry on Compliance aka Robodebt has been extended out.  As someone that has fought off 2 data match compliance accounts now & been fighting this horror since the start of November 2017, I won't stop till the people behind it see jail for Crimes Against Humanity.

I was one of less than 1% of victims that chose to self-research & self-defend my Robodebt at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).  My win of a full waiver was June 2018 well over a year before it was proven unlawful in the Legal Aid Amato Court case.  My Tribunal action was lodged public April Fools Day 1 April 2018 which ironically was also Easter Sunday - Robodebt came out of the cave that day.  I knew my odds of a win was slim even with legal aid & being innocent (less than 2%).  That says a lot about the Australian Tribunal system.  I knew I could prove my innocence beyond a shadow of doubt. I thought though, I may as well go for broke.  I included in my defence enough information to show the system was grossly flawed & try to prove the program was grossly flawed which I believe I did.  Though I only won my waive I did actually get mention in the Members decision of raising the program flaws.  So I kept fighting on for other victims.  

Many Australians now have heard of Robodebt, the Centrelink debts the Australian Government unlawfully gave to hundreds of thousands of citizens & is now having to pay back & compensate them  $1.2 Billion.  I have a Senate Compliance Submission & its update lodged & both accepted confidential, so I'm going to have to tread carefully here.  I have provided information that shows there is a case for another 2 million victims who deserve to receive a credit too.. 

PART 2 - REVERSE ONUS

The key that unlocked the unlawfulness of Robodebt, was always that it was essentially in accounting not really a new debt or invoice transaction.  It was the claim that it was an "overpayment" by Centrelink to a liability they owed to Centrelink customers previously.  In accounting this creates a special transaction that is called an "undue" or "unduly" paid transaction. In the Australian Accounting Standards we include International Standards & procedures  as the base for our Standards, because it is crucial for trade.  For a financial transaction to be valid, & deemed a true & correct transaction, part of a true & correct set of books, it needs to be able to be evidenced as a true & correct representation of a financial transaction.  

Once it was established what the transaction type really was, the only question left was who had the onus or responsibility to evidence or prove that a transaction actually existed. Though the Standard was not immediately visible in Australia's Standards, because it was such a common place or common law accounting practice, it was formalised & put to law in the Spanish Civil Code "Second Section" Articles 1895-1901.  1900 of that Code very clearly shows that the onus of proof was incumbent upon Centrelink as they were claiming or pretending to have made an overpayment. Centrelink was also obliged to prove how they made the overpayment error in the first place to each & every person as part of their overpayment claim.(https://archive.org/stream/spanishcivilcode00spairich/spanishcivilcode00spairich_djvu.txt).  

Centrelink did none of that.  Its first action when it arrived at a data mismatch on a Centrelink customers account was to send the relevant customer a please explain letter demanding further information without a warrant to search or obtain that extra information. This was an unwarranted demand for information & offends every aspect of privacy.  An overpayment aka "undue" or "unduly" paid transaction proven with intent can result in a prison sentence. What Centrelink was doing was going on a phishing expedition for any crime & trashing right that protect individuals from self incrimination.  For dual nationals this could have resulted in the loss of their citizenship & deportation.  When I received my Robodebt enquiry letter dated 25th October, 2017, none of this was even explained in my letter, but as a former legal secretary & privacy advocate, I was aware of the law.  Additionally, my Centrelink letter included, with menace, the threat of my welfare benefit loss, if I did not provide the information they wanted. Every person who received a letter asking for more information was I allege the victim of an unwarranted demand with menace, which is an offence under the Criminal Code Act. Centrelink had the responsibility or onus of proof in accounting law & Standards to validate an overpayment aka "undue" or "unduly" paid transaction. The onus of proving an account was valid & an overpayment had occurred & was due & payable was always with Centrelink.  If Centrelink needed to send out an an enquiry letter for information, it did not have valid tangible proof an overpayment even existed.  Further the program's algorithm was poor.  So even if people had the correct information they were trying to match to incorrect details that Centrelink's data match had arrived at, ehich is an impossible undertaking.  Ergo Centrelink had neither reasonable grounds to make a demand in the letter for further information (its job to find) or reasonable grounds to apply menace of lost benefits in reinforcing the demand for that information.  I allege every single recipient of a Centrelink letter asking for more information with the threat of benefit loss was a victim of an unwarranted demand with menace per the Criminal Code Act 1995 Part 7.5 Sections 138.1 & 139.2 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2015C00254).

Did Centrelink have access to information that showed it was common place practice that it was its onus to prove an overpayment had occurred instead of reversing the onus & placing it on Centrelink customers?  Yes!  

Based on this article in the Daily Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2965907/We-running-turbocharged-Commodore-64-age-iPhone-Minister-warns-Centrelink-s-computer-handles-payments-worth-100-billion-year-disaster-waiting-happen.html) the old Centrelink computer program was built originally in 1983, before the Data Match Act 1990. So the first real time to scrutinise in detail the lawfulness of the program itself & processes was in the feasibility phase of the new Compliance program. 

Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative Committee that was involved included Ms Golightly who published on the topic auditing.  So, the Committee had an experienced person to advise itself in the feasibility phase. Centrelink was given a budget of $16.2 Million to run a feasibility study for the new program & that should have included considering risk management & lawfulness.  So, it had the funds available also.

Government's contracting accountants included Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC).  The US Court case Taylor Bean Whittaker vs Colonial ruled by Judge Rothstein 2018 was related to mortgages (a debt) being proven valid. PWC were the auditors & in questioning they conceded that the original paperwork aka source documents were required to prove the existence of the Mortgage or debt transaction.  As one of the big 4 Accountants this enforced the Spanish Civil Code Article 1900 and showed it was commonplace accounting practice. Centrelink could've easily accessed external advice as part of its feasibility.

Centrelink is a Government Department & frequently subjected to the implications of changes in various Acts, over & above the Social Security Act 1991. I find it utterly unbelievable & neglectful that Centrelink would not consider it critical to review the risk & lawfulness again in the Robodebt feasibility phase 25 years later. It had access to an advance of budget monies, availability of accounting advice sources & an onus to consider risk & lawfulness as part of the implementation of a new accounting information system (AIS). 

A Court would have quickly arrived at the same conclusion as me that Centrelink had the onus of proof using suitable evidence from its files.  Could Centrelink have done that?  No!  Centrelink had an archiving process that involved uploading originals onto microfiche & then destroying the originals.  The laws evidence were changed to accommodate Government & ergo Centrelink to suit, but they had a key proviso in that like any evidence locker the date & time of entry must be seen accurate for print extractions therefrom to be deemed true & correct copies of the original acceptable by a Court.  Centrelink could not do that. In my self-defended Administrative Appeals Tribunal action of my first Robodebt lodged 1st April, 2018, I provided unquestionable proof that the Centrelink program's date system was hopelessly flawed.  This evidence was provided to both Centrelink's own legal department when received across the evening 15/16 November 2017 & sent to a number of other Government Department including the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office & the Auditor General towards the end of 2017.  I realised the implications of the flawed receipting system immediately.

Centrelink ignored the risk on the onus of proof.  Could not have proved anyway it had a system capable to provide even critical basic true & correct information and instead reversed the onus of responsibility of it proving the validity of overpayments it claimed existed onto the customers. 

From our Attorney General's website & I note Mr Christian Porter the Attorney General was Minister for Social Services in the early period of Robodebt so his judgement is compromised. "Under international human rights law, a reverse onus provision will not necessarily violate the presumption of innocence provided that the law is not unreasonable in the circumstances and maintains the rights of the accused." 

I allege the rights of  Robodebt Overpayment Account recipients violated presumption of innocence from the moment the unreasonable unwarranted demands for menace were made, calling for recipient customers to self-incriminate themselves. Further, the level of what would be deemed a reasonable circumstance for removal of presumption of innocence for haste was already set at $170 x 40 pts or $6,800.  The vast majority of people that received a Robodebt Overpayment Account were below $6,800. The average was found from memory to be around $2,300.  My Robodebt was below $6,800 & yet I was interrogated in a manner I likened to a Nazi interrogation.  This was while I was still in nursing transition care & high as a kite on post-amputation pain medications.  They used undue menace to get my agreement to make repayments on a debt Centrelink knew I did not owe.  Even after I won the Tribunal action they took another payment & I had to fight to get my money back.  There was absolutely no presumption of innocence & my rights as someone that was accused of having a Robodebt that proven with intent could be deemed welfare fraud were trashed.