Screenshot
The fallout from the Robodebt scandal continues as compensation payouts for victims are revealed to be significantly lower than the legal fees incurred by former Prime Minister Scott Morrison. A recent report by Rex Patrick, a former Senator for South Australia, highlights the stark contrast between the compensation received by those affected and the public funds used to cover Morrison’s legal expenses.
At the beginning of December, Gordon Legal notified members of the Robodebt Federal Court class action about a proposed settlement. Depending on their circumstances, victims can expect compensation ranging from $350 to $1,000 for basic claims, while some may receive up to $20,000 for non-economic loss or $50,000 for physical or psychiatric injuries. This compensation package has been criticized as inadequate, especially when compared to the substantial legal costs that Morrison has accrued.
Morrison’s legal fees, funded by taxpayers, amount to approximately $461,445. The Attorney-General’s Department revealed these figures in response to a Freedom of Information request, which sought documentation regarding payments made to cover Morrison’s legal costs. While the Department eventually released some documents, many were heavily redacted, leading to concerns about transparency.
The Royal Commission into the Robodebt scheme concluded that Morrison was aware of the legal issues surrounding the program when he pushed for its approval. The Commissioner stated, “Mr Morrison allowed Cabinet to be misled because he did not make that obvious inquiry.” Despite these findings, Morrison has rejected any accountability for his role in what has been described as one of Australia’s largest public sector failures.
Legal Fees and Ongoing Investigations
The situation raises questions about the appropriateness of using public funds for Morrison’s defense. According to Mark Dreyfus, the Attorney-General, Morrison’s legal fees are covered “in relation to all aspects of the Royal Commission.” In light of this, the potential for further taxpayer-funded legal battles looms, especially if Morrison decides to challenge the release of more documents from the Attorney-General’s Department.
Patrick expressed concern that if Morrison engages lawyers to appeal the Department’s decision, the government might once again be liable for his legal fees. This scenario underscores the ongoing struggle for Robodebt victims, who continue to seek justice while facing a system that disproportionately favors those in power.
The lack of accountability for Morrison has left many victims feeling disillusioned. As Patrick noted, the prospect of adequate compensation for affected individuals remains “elusive,” particularly as the National Anti-Corruption Commission investigates the broader implications of the Robodebt scheme.
The disparities in compensation and legal fees illustrate a troubling aspect of governance in Australia. While victims of the Robodebt scheme receive minimal financial support for their distress, the former Prime Minister has accessed substantial resources to defend his actions. Such dynamics raise important questions about fairness and accountability in public administration, particularly when the stakes involve vulnerable citizens.
As the investigation unfolds, the attention remains firmly on the ongoing impacts of the Robodebt scandal and the individuals affected by this significant administrative failure.
