A key robodebt whistleblower is suing the Australian government, alleging she was threatened before she appeared at a royal commission and was warned that her testimony “could cost you your job”.
Services Australia whistleblower Jeannie-Marie Blake has filed proceedings in the federal court, alleging her department made repeated threats against her before and after her explosive evidence to the robodebt royal commission.
Blake, a compliance officer at the agency’s Mornington office in Victoria, was on the frontline during the rollout of the robodebt scheme.
She was involved in an initial pilot and was in the compliance team during its disastrous implementation from 2016.
Blake has previously spoken of being haunted by the voices of those who pleaded with her and her team for help, and says the trauma has left her suicidal and battling alcoholism.
In court documents, Blake says she blew the whistle repeatedly about the scheme’s unfairness and harm, including during monthly team meetings, in meetings with her team leaders, and to senior executives. She alleges she was told to resign if she did not want to administer the scheme.
She alleged that in 2023, she informed her department that she intended to give voluntary evidence to the royal commission, telling a superior that: “I feel it is the right thing to do”.
He allegedly responded with words to the effect of: “You better make sure you cross your T’s and dot your I’s because this could cost you your job if you’re not telling the truth.’”
Blake alleges she was also told: “The only people giving evidence are the people that have been subpoenaed. You should get legal advice before giving evidence.”
Blake is being represented by lawyers at the Human Rights Law Centre, which runs a dedicated whistleblower support service.
In its defence filed in court, the government has denied that Blake was threatened.
A crucial witness
Blake’s evidence to the royal commission in February 2023 was crucial. She was the only current Services Australia employee to give testimony voluntarily, and was overcome with emotion when speaking about the impact of the scheme on victims and staff. She also revealed that senior Centrelink officials were repeatedly warned about the dangers of the scheme.
“We were speaking about the incorrectness from the start until the end,” she said.
But in court documents, she alleges that in the month after her evidence, her work was sent for quality-checking at a significantly higher rate than usual. She asked a superior why she was being placed under so much scrutiny, saying it felt punitive.
“I don’t know, I’ve just been told to,” the superior allegedly told her.
after newsletter promotion
Blake also alleges that she was suddenly refused flexibility to begin her shifts within a 15-minute window of the scheduled start time, a practice common for her team.
In July 2023, just before the royal commission handed down its findings, Blake – who was on extended leave at the time – received a call from a separate senior department manager.
She was allegedly told: “If you’ve breached the code of conduct, you could be given an official warning, fined, suspended or dismissed.”
Blake had also earlier been warned about a mug being sold by an online retailer, with her face on it, that included words she’d used in her evidence to the royal commission.
“I will remember and I will not forget,” the text on the mug said.
Blake had nothing to do with the mug or its sale. But she alleges she was warned by her superiors not to bring the mug into the office because it would “offend others”.
The department has admitted it told her not to bring in the mug, but said it “had a responsibility at all times to ensure a safe working environment for all employees under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011”.
It has otherwise denied Blake’s claims and is fighting the case.
In a document outlining its defence, the government says Blake did not raise concerns about the scheme internally during “team meetings or at all”.
It has also denied the threats were issued to her. The department said the call prior to Blake’s evidence simply “encouraged the Applicant to listen to legal advice prior to finalising the statement”, and suggested she reach out to a support team helping witnesses. The department also said the call was used to thank Blake for informing her superiors that she planned to give evidence.
It said the call to Blake after her appearance at the royal commission was in line with standard talking points created for calls to all employees who had given evidence. Those talking points said:
“We do expect that some employees, based on findings from the Royal Commission, will be referred for Code of Conduct consideration under the Public Service Act 1999.”
“The process for Code of Conduct investigations, as currently proposed, will be undertaken by a Taskforce in the APSC [Australian Public Service Commission]. That is not to say that you will be the subject of such an investigation, but I will run through what we know about the Code of Conduct process and other potential disciplinary processes for your information. The same information is being shared with all employees who were witnesses or provided a statement to the Royal Commission.”
The government has also made an argument that could have broader implications.
‘Must be able to blow the whistle’
Blake is arguing she was protected by the Fair Work Act in making disclosures to the royal commission, because she was effectively making a complaint about her work and her workplace.
But the department says Blake’s evidence was not protected by the Fair Work Act and does not enliven Australia’s whistleblower protection laws.
The Human Rights Law Centre said that would expose a significant gap in the current law.
“Public servants must be able to blow the whistle to royal commissions and inquiries without fear of retaliation,” the centre’s associate legal director, Kieran Pender, said.
“We have repeatedly called on the Albanese government to enact stronger whistleblower protections, including for royal commission participants.”
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.theguardian.com ’
