The Government has announced it’ll be giving $721 million back to people who paid so-called Robodebts, here’s what we can tell you if you think you’re owed money.

If you think you’re in line for a refund as a result of the failed Robodebt scheme, The Government says you don’t need to do anything right now.
Yesterday, the Government announced it will be giving $721 million back to people who paid Centrelink debts they may never have owed.
About 373,000 people are affected, though it’s not clear how many of those people paid unsound debts and are now owed money by the Government.
Here’s what you need to know.
I paid Centrelink, will it be refunded?
That depends on the type of debt the Government demanded you pay.
Yesterday’s decision relates to income-compliance debts that relied on the process of income averaging between the 2015-16 financial year and November 2019, when the process was halted.
There’s a bit of jargon in the above sentence, but the debts are more commonly known as Robodebts, because of the automated notices sent out after the income-averaging process without human oversight.
Government to repay over $700m in wrongly claimed ‘robodebts’
The purpose of the scheme was to detect discrepancies in the incomes of people who were receiving welfare payments, in order to ensure they were paid the appropriate amount.
But in practise, the scheme saw thousands of people issued with incorrectly calculated debts, then being asked to explain why they did not owe the Government money.
The Government says if you’ve accrued debts that weren’t linked to income averaging, you won’t be getting your money back and you will still have to pay them.
But anyone who paid a debt that was raised due to income averaging will get a refund from the Government, including any fees and charges.
The Government will also refund people whose tax returns were raided in order to settle their alleged debt.
If you were contesting a Robodebt, or had not paid it, your debt will be waived.
What do you need to do? Not much, the Government says
Detail is scant at the moment.
Yesterday, Government Services Minister Stuart Robert said the Government would proactively reach out to you if it owed you money.
“Australians don’t need to do anything in terms of getting a refund,” he said.
“We’ll be paying some 190,000 from July 1 whose details we have.”
But that leaves about 183,000 people for whom the Government doesn’t have current details.
“The remainder, we’ll be contacting to update their details to ensure we have their details, and will be proactively rectifying the record we have with them,” Mr Robert said.
The Government Services Department’s website says more information will be provided in coming weeks on how to ensure your refund is processed.
What is ‘Robodebt’?
It’s been making headlines for a while now, but how does Centrelink’s controversial debt-recovery system actually work?
Read more
Asked for further information on how the Government would ensure the remaining 183,000 people would receive their money, a spokesman for Mr Robert declined to answer questions, pointing instead to an earlier statement.
“Services Australia will now put in place the mechanisms needed to start making refunds, including how affected customers are advised of next steps,” the statement said.
“Consultation will occur with stakeholders, including the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and clear communication is a priority, so people understand what it means for them.”
The Government said payments would take place through the 2020/21 financial year.
Why didn’t Robodebt work?
Income averaging operated by taking the income details applicants self report on Centrelink, and compared it with other government records, like tax details from the ATO.
If the system suspected you were earning more than you declared to Centrelink, an automated process of debt notices began.
But inaccuracies in the income-averaging process can arise frequently because tax records, which encompass earnings for an entire year, might not match up with short-term requests for assistance.
Terry Carney, a law professor at Sydney University, said the use of yearly averages to assess short-term requests for help made no sense.
“It was a really primary school mathematical error in assuming that because Bradman had an average of 99. 94 that every time he went out to bat he made 99.94 runs,” Professor Carney said.
“It really was as ludicrous as that.”
Once the automated notices were sent out, the burden was on recipients to prove they did not owe the Government money, even if they had fallen victim to the arithmetic error.
The Government paused the program last year, after receiving advice income averaging was not lawful.