Jeannie-Marie Blake, a key whistleblower in the robodebt scandal, is suing the Australian government, alleging she was threatened before appearing at the royal commission and warned that her testimony “could cost you your job.”
Whistleblower Alleges Threats Before Royal Commission
Blake, a compliance officer at Services Australia’s Mornington office in Victoria, filed proceedings in the federal court. She claims her department made repeated threats before and after her explosive evidence to the robodebt royal commission. Blake was on the frontline during the rollout of the scheme, involved in an initial pilot and the compliance team during its disastrous implementation from 2016.
She has previously spoken of being haunted by the voices of those who pleaded for help, saying the trauma left her suicidal and battling alcoholism. In court documents, Blake says she repeatedly blew the whistle about the scheme’s unfairness and harm during monthly team meetings, with team leaders, and to senior executives. She alleges she was told to resign if she did not want to administer the scheme.
Government Denies Threats
In 2023, Blake informed her department she intended to give voluntary evidence to the royal commission. She told the head of compliance: “I feel it is the right thing to do.” He allegedly responded: “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.” He also said: “The only people giving evidence are the people that have been subpoenaed. You should get legal advice before giving evidence.” The government has denied Blake was threatened.
Blake’s evidence 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 scheme’s impact on victims and staff. She revealed 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.
Alleged Retaliation After Evidence
Blake alleges that in the month after her evidence, her work was sent for quality-checking at a significantly higher rate than usual. She asked her superior why she was under such scrutiny, feeling it was punitive. “I don’t know, I’ve just been told to,” a superior allegedly told her. She also alleges she was suddenly refused flexibility to begin shifts within a 15-minute window of the scheduled start time, a common practice for her team.
In July 2023, just before the royal commission handed down its findings, Blake received a call from a 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 been warned about a mug sold by an online retailer featuring her face and words from her evidence: “I will remember and I will not forget.” She had nothing to do with the mug, but her superiors warned her not to bring it into the office because it would “offend others.”
Government’s Defence and Legal Arguments
The department admitted it told her not to bring in the mug, citing responsibility for a safe working environment under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. It has otherwise denied Blake’s claims. In its defence, the government says Blake did not raise concerns about the scheme internally during “team meetings or at all.” It also denies threats were issued, saying the call prior to her evidence “encouraged the Applicant to listen to legal advice” and suggested she reach out to a support team. The department said the call after her appearance used standard talking points created for all employees who gave evidence, stating: “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 government also argues Blake’s evidence was not protected by the Fair Work Act and does not enliven whistleblower protection laws. Blake contends she was protected because she was effectively making a complaint about her work and workplace.
Call for Stronger Whistleblower Protections
The Human Rights Law Centre, representing Blake, said the case exposes a significant gap in current law. “Public servants must be able to blow the whistle to royal commissions and inquiries without fear of retaliation,” said associate legal director Kieran Pender. “We have repeatedly called on the Albanese government to enact stronger whistleblower protections, including for royal commission participants.”
