Advertisement

Judge criticises government for allegedly refusing to tell grieving mother about son’s robodebt

The federal government has been criticised by a judge for allegedly refusing for four years to tell a woman whose son took his life whether he was caught up in the robodebt scheme.

Jennifer Miller was among the witnesses at a federal court hearing on Thursday considering whether the court should approve a class action settlement brought by Gordon Legal against the unlawful welfare debt recovery program.

Miller has previously spoken about her son, Rhys Cauzzo, 28, and while acknowledging his battles with mental health, believes his suicide was directly linked to a $17,000 Centrelink debt he received on Australia Day 2017.

“I could see quite clearly where the pressure came from,” Miller told the court on Thursday.

Despite the fact Cauzzo died in 2017, Miller told the court she still did not know whether her son had been caught up in the robodebt program, which ran from 2015 to November 2019.

Related: Robodebt victims referred to debt collectors even after government admitted scheme was unlawful

She said Services Australia had still not told her whether Cauzzo’s debt had involved “income averaging”.

Central to the robodebt scheme, the method relied on ATO data and has subsequently been ruled unlawful.

Miller said while she had not been given any answers, the government had at one point released some information to the media about her son’s case.

Justice Bernard Murphy said she should be told “frankly and candidly” whether the debt was generated using the income-averaging method.

“It just seems to me a matter of common humanity,” he said.

Michael Hodge QC, acting for the commonwealth, was unable to say whether Cauzzo was caught up in the scheme.

The court later heard this was in contrast to another mother, Kath Magdwick, who had been advised by Services Australia that her late son Jarrad’s debt had not been raised using “income averaging”.

Hodge acknowledged this was “not desirable”, but suggested there might be legal reasons why details of the debt could not be provided by Services Australia.

Murphy said he doubted privacy provisions would stop information being given to a “bereaved mother”.

Related: Federal government criticised for continuing robodebt after admitting it was unlawful

Miller told the court “the only things I’ve ever had are platitudes, I’ve been shown no respect” and that she was objecting to the settlement because the government had not been held accountable.

“I’m pleased that people are getting paid back, but it is illegal and we have had so many people suffer,” she said.

The class action, initially on behalf of about 600,000 people, was whittled down to about 400,000 when Gordon Legal and the government reached a deal on the first day of a trial in November last year.

Thursday’s hearing allowed some of the 500 objectors to tell their stories of distress, fear and the financial impact the program caused.

Magdwick, whose son Jarrad also took his own life in 2017 following a Centrelink debt, also objected to the settlement.

Madgwick acknowledged she had been told her son’s debt was not a “robodebt”, but she said that others deserved much more compensation.

“Justice hasn’t been served,” she said.

Jordan Chadwick said she had been hounded by debt collector Dun And Bradstreet during periods when her partner and then her father had taken their own lives.

She said she had continually received threats that her wages would be garnisheed or her car repossessed.

“My dad had just committed suicide and my phone rang ever single day,” Chadwick told the court.

After $11,000 was garnisheed from her tax return, Chadwick said she had to apply for a credit card and personal loans, noting “funeral costs aren’t cheap”.

She was eventually refunded but said she was “here to say it’s more than a matter of that”.

“The emotional toll is ridiculous,” she said.

Under the settlement, victims will be refunded and share in $112m in additional “compensation”, which will reflect the interest on money they were without, having paid unlawful debts to the government.

The settlement also includes about $720m of refunds and about $400m in debts that were “zeroed”, which was previously flagged by the government in May 2020.

It means those whose lives were impacted by the stress or anxiety of an unlawful debt, but continued to challenge it or refused to pay, will not receive any compensation.

Some objectors told the court it was unfair that they would not be receiving any compensation for distress and inconvenience because their debts – which were initially unlawful – were later substantiated with evidence.

In most cases, this evidence was provided by welfare recipients after they received an initial debt letter that told them to hand over payslips to prove they did not owe the money.

But Murphy reiterated his view was that this legal argument was “weaker” than the case for people who received an “unlawful” debt and had simply paid it back before it was substantiated.

Cyprian Kramarczyk said he contemplated suicide when he received a robodebt letter saying he owed in the tens of thousands of dollars.

It was later reduced to $5,000 after he provided the agency with his pay information.

Kramarczyk said it was a “small consolation prize” to be told “after a few years you have to pay us only $5,000”.

Murphy told him he was “not alone” in having felt suicidal, saying many of the objectors had “harrowing tales to tell”.

Some objectors also complained that class action members were being asked to approve the settlement when they had not yet been told whether they would be receiving compensation.

Services Australia has been approached for comment.

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