Robo-debt illegality: The seven veils of failed guarantees of the rule of law?

Abstract

This article asks how rule of law institutions failed to ‘bell the cat’ on the illegality of Centrelink's robo-debt programme and its unethical character. It identifies serious structural deficiencies in the design of accountability and remedial avenues at seven different levels. It argues for adherence to Administrative Review Council guidelines on machine learning, Parliamentary accounting of Ombudsman and Audit agencies on rule of law foundations and model litigant protocols, attention to ethical administration, redacted publication of selected first tier Administrative Appeals Tribunal rulings, contractual guarantees of independence in legal aid/advocacy funding, building of pro bono advocacy partnerships, and cultural change designed to counter stigmatisation of the vulnerable.