Wilkie's Robodebt fixes lapsed without a vote
Andrew Wilkie, an independent MP from Tasmania, wanted fairer rules for Centrelink debts. He wanted a person to check big computer decisions, and a six-year limit on chasing old debts. The bill never got a vote. It was dropped from Parliament's to-do list in March 2026.
Official name: Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Responding to Robodebt) Bill 2025
- Debts caused only by a government mistake would have been wiped.
- A person would have had to check computer decisions that stop a payment or raise a debt of $2,000 or more.
- The government could not have chased a debt more than six years after it paid too much.
- People in a crisis would have had 14 days to claim a crisis payment, up from 7.
- It never got a vote. It was dropped from Parliament's to-do list on 24 March 2026.
Who it affects
- People on Centrelink payments: They would have been told when a computer made a decision about them, and how to get it checked.
- People with a debt caused by a government error: The government would have had to wipe the part of the debt caused only by its own mistake.
- People living with family violence: Some debts come from false details given under pressure from an abuser. Those debts could have been wiped.
- People leaving prison, fleeing home or arriving as refugees: They would have had 14 days to claim a crisis payment, up from 7.
- People in country and remote areas: The welfare department would have had to keep their needs in mind when running payments.
Robodebt raised unlawful debts
Robodebt was a government scheme. It used a computer to guess if people on welfare had been paid too much. Then it sent them debts.
A Royal Commission looked into the scheme. A Royal Commission is a powerful public investigation set up by the government. It found that the way Robodebt worked out debts was mostly illegal. It made a long list of suggestions.
This bill came from Andrew Wilkie MP. It was a private bill, which means it did not come from the government. He brought it to the House of Representatives, Parliament's main house, on 25 August 2025.
His notes on the bill say some of the Royal Commission's advice needs new laws. That way Robodebt cannot happen again. The bill aimed to turn several of those suggestions into law.
The changes would have covered welfare payments, family payments and student payments. Services Australia is the agency that runs Centrelink. It handles these payments.
Wiping debts from government mistakes
Today the government can cancel a debt caused by its own error. But it can do this only if some extra tests are met. Cancelling a debt is called waiving it.
The bill would have removed those extra tests. The head of the welfare department would have had to cancel any part of a debt caused only by a government mistake.
Say Centrelink typed your income in wrong and paid you too much. Under this bill, you would not have had to pay that part back.
This change would have covered old debts as well as new ones.
Debts linked to family violence
The government can also cancel a debt in special cases. Right now it cannot do this if anyone knowingly gave false details.
The bill would have changed this. Only the person's own false details, given knowingly and by choice, would block it. A note would have said something more. Acting under threat, or under the control of family violence, is not acting by choice.
Say a woman's partner forces her to leave his income off a Centrelink form. Then a debt follows. Under this bill, her debt could have been wiped. The same would apply if the abuser gave false details to land her with a debt.
This change would also have covered old debts as well as new ones.
A six-year limit on debts
There used to be a six-year time limit on getting back welfare debts. Later it was removed. Now the government can chase a debt no matter how old it is.
The Royal Commission said removing the limit was random and harsh. The bill would have brought the limit back. Nobody could start legal action or other steps to get a debt back more than six years after the extra money was paid.
This limit would have covered welfare, family and student payment debts.
A human check on computers
Services Australia can let a computer program make some decisions. The bill would have added two new rules for these computer decisions.
First, any letter about a computer decision would have had to say clearly that a computer made it. It would also have had to explain how to find out more or ask for a review.
Second, some computer decisions would have needed a check by a staff member before they took effect. These were decisions to stop a payment or raise a debt of $2,000 or more. They also included decisions where staff use their own judgment, and reviews of earlier decisions.
The check would also cover one more step. That is asking the tax office to take money owed to a person and use it to pay their debt. This is called a garnishee request.
Mr Wilkie's notes say these decisions can lead to people losing their homes. They can cause home loan stress and great distress. So he says a person should look at them first.
New duties for the department
The law already lists ideas the department must keep in mind when it runs payments. The bill would have added two more. One was running things well. The other was meeting the needs of people in country and remote areas.
It would also have given the head of the department new duties. The department would have had to avoid words and behaviour that make people feel shame for needing help.
It would have had to offer contact online, in person and by phone. That contact had to work for people without computers or computer skills. It also had to work for people who move around a lot. The department would have had to explain things in plain words.
It would also have had to take care with the money stress and other stress people are under. It would have had to avoid making that stress worse.
A yearly review of checks
Services Australia runs checks to make sure people get the right amount. Robodebt was one of these checks.
The bill would have made the minister set up an independent review of these checks every 12 months. It would look at how often people break the rules, and why. It would also look at law or system changes that could help.
The report would have gone to each house of Parliament within 15 sitting days, which are days Parliament meets, of the minister getting it. That makes it public.
More time for crisis payments
A crisis payment is a one-off payment for people facing a sudden emergency. Right now people have 7 days after the event to claim it. The bill would have made that 14 days.
This would have covered people let out of prison or a mental health hospital. It would have covered people forced to leave home by extreme events. It would also have covered people who stay home after a violent family member is removed. And it would have covered people who arrive on a refugee visa.
Mr Wilkie's notes say people in distress often do not know about these payments. They struggle to apply in time.
Cost and start date
Mr Wilkie's notes say the bill would cost nothing.
It would have started the day after it became law.
Dropped after time ran out
Mr Wilkie brought in the bill and gave his opening speech on 25 August 2025. The House never debated it again or voted on it.
On 24 March 2026 it was dropped from Parliament's to-do list. House rules drop private bills that sit untouched for a set time. The bill will not become law unless someone brings it back.
Its journey through Parliament
| 25 Aug 2025 | House of Representatives: Introduced and read a first time |
| 25 Aug 2025 | House of Representatives: Second reading moved |
| 24 Mar 2026 | House of Representatives: Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42) |