I am a Robodebt whistleblower. I know what it's like to be punished for speaking out and why protection is urgent
For most of my career, I have worked for Services Australia. I was on the frontline of the implementation of what became known as Robodebt. As I explained in my testimony to the Robodebt royal commission, involvement in Robodebt was a deeply traumatic experience.
I tried, from the very beginning, when I was part of an initial Robodebt pilot, to blow the whistle on the scheme. I immediately saw Robodebt for what the royal commission eventually concluded it to be: unlawful and deeply unethical. I thought it should be stopped, to never proceed beyond the pilot.
But when I, and others, raised concerns, we were met with a clear, stark message: resign, transfer or comply. The message was as blunt as that: shut up or leave.
Our concerns were ignored. Instead, we received threatening communications. Performance targets, threats of underperformance notices and code of conduct breaches were used to suppress dissent. Daily emails reminded us that if we spoke to anyone outside our team about our work, we could face termination.
There was no safe, independent mechanism for staff to report concerns without fear of reprisal. If such a body had existed, I believe many more staff would have spoken out, and Robodebt may have been stopped before it began. Think about what that might have prevented – the trauma avoided, the beautiful lives not lost as a result, the billions in taxpayer dollars not wasted.
If whistleblowers were protected and empowered, not punished, maybe we could have avoided Robodebt altogether.
At its core, Robodebt was a breakdown of integrity. A logical response in such situations is to go outside that system and report – somewhere, some way, somehow. While the integrity of all government systems rely on public confidence, there are a range of reasons the integrity of those systems can be compromised. Whistleblowing is a vital safety valve when those systems fail.
No doubt you will hear much today about the importance of whistleblowing, and how we can improve support and protection for whistleblowing. But I want to speak to the personal cost of speaking out. I lost my career. My mental health suffered. I struggled with alcohol dependency. I became unable to properly parent, or care for my elderly parent. I endured suicidal ideation.
A decade since I first blew the whistle on Robodebt, and over two years since I gave evidence to the royal commission, I am still suffering. I was so traumatised by my experience that I am on workers' compensation, barely subsisting on a fraction of my former salary. Ultimately my family, my career and my colleagues have paid the high price for speaking up.
Meanwhile, those most responsible for Robodebt have faced no real consequences. The royal commission vindicated those who raised concerns, yet still we suffer. Society benefits when whistleblowers speak up – ultimately, Robodebt was stopped. But we are left on the scrap heap, paying a high price for our sacrifice – a sacrifice made in the public interest.
I am not the only one. In recent years there have been Australians prosecuted for blowing the whistle, a whistleblower imprisoned for speaking up. There are dozens more who have had their careers ended, or sidelined, for doing the right thing, not to mention those – including many colleagues during Robodebt – who simply walked away in disgust.
For this reason alone there should be some sort of mechanism to support whistleblowers who speak up in the public interest. To have a body which can offer a modicum of protection to those who would bring 'right' to a place where it can be considered, should be at the core of efforts to restore credibility in Australian public institutions.
That is why we need a Whistleblower Protection Authority. That is why I came here today, to call on the Albanese government and attorney general Michelle Rowland to act.
Whistleblower protections must ensure that those who speak out for what is right are not punished for doing so. Integrity in our public systems depend on it.
Jeannie-Marie Blake is a public servant. This is an extract of evidence she gave to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in Canberra on Wednesday, as part of the Committee's inquiry into a whistleblower protection authority
In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-8255. In the UK, Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123. Other international suicide helplines can be found at befrienders.org
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
13 minutes ago
- The National
Richest Scottish households have one fifth of country's wealth
With the figures showing the wealthiest 2% of households have almost a fifth (18%) of wealth in Scotland, campaigners said the data highlighted 'the vast scale of unfairness in Scotland today'. The report looked at wealth in Scotland – which includes the physical wealth of households' belongings, as well as savings and investment, property and pension wealth. The latest data, for the period 2018 to 2020, showed median household wealth in Scotland stood at £214,000 – with this down from £242,700 in 2016 to 2018 and £250,700 in 2014 to 2016. READ MORE: Palestinian journalists 'reporting on own extermination' call for action The report, which was published by the Scottish Government, noted: 'A typical household in the wealthiest 10% of households had £1.7 million in total wealth, whereas a typical household in the least wealthy 10% of households had £7,600.' It added: 'The least wealthy households rarely own property or have any private pension savings. Their wealth is mainly made up of the value of their possessions such as cars, furniture and clothing.' The report also noted that wealth can 'vary a lot by age', saying that 'younger households are less likely to have much or even any pension or property wealth, and most of their wealth is made up of the value of their belongings (physical wealth)'. It added: 'In general, people start building up wealth once they start receiving a salary, buy some goods, maybe save some money, and pay into a private pension scheme such as a workplace pension. 'Many buy a home, and through paying off their mortgage they build property wealth.' Meanwhile when people retire, the report said that 'pension wealth gets drawn upon and used up, while some people also downsize their homes and reduce their property wealth'. However campaigners at Tax Justice Scotland – which wants Holyrood's powers to be used to deliver greater equality – insisted changes are needed to 'share wealth more fairly'. Speaking on behalf of the group Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) – Scotland's largest trade union body – general secretary Roz Foyer said: 'These figures show the vast scale of unfairness in Scotland today. Roz Foyer (Image: free) 'Whilst those at the top accumulate more wealth, more than one in five children grow up in poverty and our public services are starved of the investment they urgently need. This cannot go on.' Foyer demanded: 'We need urgent tax reform to help share wealth more fairly and to distribute resources right across the country. READ MORE: Gordon Brown's had a good idea. But it won't fix the problem he created 'Over time, public finance pressures mean that most of us may need to pay a bit more, but this data makes clear this must start with those at the very top. 'In Scotland, that means parties must set out clear plans to scrap Council Tax and replace it with a fairer, modern property tax. 'At the UK level, we also need common sense wealth taxes that ensure the richest pay their fair share.' She insisted: 'It's time for our political leaders to step up with serious tax plans to help close this growing wealth gap and to invest in creating a fairer, more prosperous future for all of us.' Scottish Green equalities spokeswoman Maggie Chapman criticised the 'obscene inequality in these statistics', adding: 'There is a small number of people who are very well off, and a far greater number who have very little.' She added: 'Scotland has a very long way to go if we are to build a fairer society, and this must be a clarion call for change.' Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat MSP Willie Rennie said that 'so many people are finding that there is nothing left at the end of the month'. He said: 'People are paying the price for the SNP's incompetence and Liz Truss and the Conservatives crashing the economy.' Shirley-Anne Somerville (Image: PA) Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: 'As a result of Scottish Government policies, the poorest 10% of households with children are estimated to be £2,600 a year better off in 2025-2026.' However, she added: 'Inequality is still too high, with too many economic powers left in the hands of the UK Government which has too often sought to balance the books on the backs of the poorest. 'With the full powers of independence, Scotland could do more to take a different approach from the UK status quo, and take decisions which would make Scotland the fairer, more equal country that we want to see.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
If Scotland is so poor, why does Westminster resist independence?
This from a Westminster government that has run a deficit for my entire life, hence the continual increase in borrowing. In 2010, when the Tories came to power, the debt was £1.3 trillion. Under their governance, it's now reached well north of £2 trillion, despite the years of austerity that decimated our public services and which may take a generation or more to repair. WATCH: Expert debunks everything you've been told about Scottish 'deficit' Westminster has trashed the economy and then has the temerity to apportion 'our share' of that debt accrued to we Scots who had no influence in its creation. We Scots are paying for vanity projects we can never benefit from, nor do we have any influence over the political choices that waste money wholesale across the economy, while having also to bear continually higher interest rates, low wages, energy poverty and housing crises. GERS is a manufactured illusion designed to portray Scotland as bad and weak. This is the same bad and weak Scotland that English-dominated Westminster is desperate to hold on to. Why? Because we know they have long taken Scotland's resources and poured them into the UK financial cesspit to prop it up, and fully intend to do so going forward. It's they who can't afford Scotland's independence, not us. Common sense reveals that if these GERS figures were correct, Scotland would be independent by now, and Westminster would be driving it. READ MORE: Scottish Secretary Ian Murray reacts to latest GERS figures Independent, with full political and economic control, we could divest ourselves of the UK's sick economy of Europe that's long lived off its size and reputation rather than ability and strength, and build a stronger future for our descendants. Independence now is our imperative. Don't we urgently need an indy road map drawn with courage and determination rather than a seemingly cosy wee 'vote for us and we'll see what we can do' promise with the indy can kicked farther down the road? Jim Taylor Scotland THERE has been a significant increase in the number of people complaining about various plans or the lack of. Each inventor assumes that their specific plan is infallible and can produce the outcome we all seek. This is putting the cart before the horse. The problem most authors make is to not take account of the forces arrayed against us or the practical realities of plans being implemented. In most cases we probably need a combination of plans rather than just one. The circumstances at the time will dictate which plan or plans can or cannot be used. Creating plans is valid, and each of them goes on a shelf ready to be used when the time and circumstances are appropriate, as with preparing for contingencies like defence or pandemics. None of them have on their own any degree of certainty, and it remains essential that flexibility in argument and implementation is maintained. READ MORE: GERS figures show Scottish Government revenue growing faster than spending Fundamentally though, the prerequisite for pursuing any of the plans is a reliable majority of voters to start the process off. We can have as many plans as we like, but without that recognisable majority none of them can ever get off the ground. None of the plans actually recognises the need to convince people, probably because the only people who devise them speak to the already converted. If that enthusiasm and dedication were directed at those who are not converted, we would stand a much better chance of success. Internal arguments about plans get in the way of the primary need to convince a solid and consistent majority. Without that majority support, it doesn't matter whether it is Alex Salmond's ghost, John Swinney, Kenny MacAskill or somebody else leading the charge with whichever masterful plan is valid at the time. Arguing about who has the best and infallible plan is a futile waste of time and effort. Nick Cole Meigle, Perthshire OH how I really wish I shared Stan Grodynski's optimistic attitude to the leadership of the SNP in his recent letter headed 'An emphatic win for the SNP will mean no excuses for inaction' (Aug 13). I assume to help achieve this 'emphatic win' independence supporters will be asked to vote SNP on both ballot papers in May 2026. That election is now less than nine months away. A week is indeed a long time in politics, but my gut feeling is that we are heading for a result, at best, similar to the 2021 election – the SNP as the largest party but without an overall majority and another coalition with the Greens a very distinct and unfortunate possibility. READ MORE: The two plans for achieving independence are surely not incompatible I see little current evidence that Alba or any other of the small parties which support independence will reach the threshold required to turn list votes into list seats. To do so now would need the SNP to approve of their supporters voting for another independence-supporting party on the list. I see no chance of that happening any time soon. In addition, a potentially lacklustre and possibly poorly financed SNP campaign will see hundreds of thousands of independence supporters simply staying at home. The million or so SNP supporters who do vote may see their list votes result in a few extra SNP and Green candidates elected while the Unionist parties, now including Reform UK, will fill up the remaining large number of available list seats. It will be Groundhog Day – May 2021 all over again. If the SNP do really well and achieve a majority of MSPs, sadly I fear post-May 2026 there may suddenly appear a vast myriad of 'excuses for inaction'. The most obvious of which will be 'Keir Starmer just telt us NO'. The political ball will then be firmly bounced back into the SNP's court. The new SNP leader (assuming John Swinney has left the post) will have to decide on some very uncharacteristic radical action or meekly accept five more years of Donald Dewar devolution. Brian Lawson Paisley
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
We need to rethink the purpose and potential of prisons
In response to the recent publication of Anne Owers' report on prison capacity, Martin Kettle rightly points out that our prison system has historically been out of sight and out of mind, not a priority for anyone – whether among government departments or in the public consciousness (The biggest problem for Starmer and co: the machinery of government is broken and they can't fix it, 7 August). This is something we must change. It should matter to all of us, not least because the distance that lies between law-abiding lives and the justice system is thinner than we like to think. The blame for the crisis can be fairly laid at the doors of multiple governments who have traduced the prison system in the quest for votes, playing to the very worst of our human instincts. What we need is vision and courage. We need leadership that works for change and looks beyond day-by-day headcount management, and investment in what really works. And what really works is already evidenced in the work of so many small, independent charities across the justice system. None of it is rocket science. Time and again it proves to be person-centred, relational work delivered by a trained and supported workforce. If we increased investment in that now, we would see the savings three, five and 10 years down the line. The challenge is breaking the learned patterns of crisis management across the system, which roll from brink of breakdown to brink of breakdown and perpetuate a short-term vision framed forever in the assumption of inexorable increases in numbers. Penny ParkerFounder and CEO, StandOut Martin Kettle is right about the prison crisis, but, as it were, not correct enough. Since the media's representation of 'public demand' stands only for tougher sentencing and treatment, the prison system has not only all but disintegrated as money has tightened, but the most devastating consequence has been the rise of readmission rates. Almost all attempts to sustain re-education and reform of prisoners have been replaced by dysfunctional repression of what this induces: enduring EllisDerby Martin Kettle is right in explaining a major reason why the UK's prisons have problems in accommodating convicted people. But it ignores the issue of our having the largest numbers in prison of any country in western Europe. About 30 years ago I was a school governor alongside an experienced justice of the peace who was also an ex-teacher. We discussed the introduction of restorative justice to help reduce the numbers in prison and reduce reoffending. I said that it seemed that a significant number of people in prison were, possibly, creative but they had used that creativity in the wrong way. She agreed. I think the same still applies but our current leader is taking the pragmatic approach to so many things that such questions as this will not be asked. It's long past time that they were; other aspects of public services and education should be addressed to reduce offending and make more of people's positive potential. David Cockayne Lymm, Cheshire
