Robo-debt illegality: The seven veils of failed guarantees of the rule of law?

Carney, T

Robo-debt illegality: The seven veils of failed guarantees of the rule of law?

Carney, T

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Alternative Law Journal, 2019, 44 (1), pp. 4 - 10
Issue Date:: 2019-03-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	1037969x18815913.pdf	Published Version	278.24 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Carney, T https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3612-5986	en_US
dc.date.issued	2019-03-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Alternative Law Journal, 2019, 44 (1), pp. 4 - 10	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1037-969X	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/138335
dc.description.abstract	© The Author(s) 2018. This article asks how rule of law institutions failed to ‘bell the cat’ on the illegality of Centrelink’s robo-debt programme and its unethical character. It identifies serious structural deficiencies in the design of accountability and remedial avenues at seven different levels. It argues for adherence to Administrative Review Council guidelines on machine learning, Parliamentary accounting of Ombudsman and Audit agencies on rule of law foundations and model litigant protocols, attention to ethical administration, redacted publication of selected first tier Administrative Appeals Tribunal rulings, contractual guarantees of independence in legal aid/advocacy funding, building of pro bono advocacy partnerships, and cultural change designed to counter stigmatisation of the vulnerable.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Alternative Law Journal	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1177/1037969X18815913	en_US
dc.title	Robo-debt illegality: The seven veils of failed guarantees of the rule of law?	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	44	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
utslib.for	2201 Applied Ethics	en_US
utslib.for	1606 Political Science	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	44	en_US

Abstract:

© The Author(s) 2018. This article asks how rule of law institutions failed to ‘bell the cat’ on the illegality of Centrelink’s robo-debt programme and its unethical character. It identifies serious structural deficiencies in the design of accountability and remedial avenues at seven different levels. It argues for adherence to Administrative Review Council guidelines on machine learning, Parliamentary accounting of Ombudsman and Audit agencies on rule of law foundations and model litigant protocols, attention to ethical administration, redacted publication of selected first tier Administrative Appeals Tribunal rulings, contractual guarantees of independence in legal aid/advocacy funding, building of pro bono advocacy partnerships, and cultural change designed to counter stigmatisation of the vulnerable.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/138335