Who decides what works? Ethical considerations arising from the Australian Government's use of behavioural insights and Robodebt

Behavioural insights and the use of nudge have attracted a lot of interest among governments across the globe since the introduction of the UK's Behavioural Insights Unit in 2010. One of the key challenges since these early days has been the concern that behavioural policy design, in particular the use of nudges, could be misused to manipulate citizens. When the Robodebt Royal Commission released its report in 2023, these concerns were renewed in Australia. It revealed that the Department of Human Services had used behavioural insights to inform the design of letters informing citizens of a debt in such a way as to minimise the impact on call centres while shifting that impact onto citizens. Did this use finally reveal what many had feared? Could government not be trusted with behavioural insights? This article will first explore the ethical concerns that have surrounded the implementation of nudges and behavioural policy. Following this, the paper will go beyond the debate over the ethics of implementing behavioural policies and argue instead that a focus on the theoretical opportunities and risks of nudge and behavioural policy fails to capture the significant risks inherent in implementation. When all proposed protections—the use of ethical frameworks, publication and testing, and in-depth research—remain optional in practice, a commitment to ‘ideology-free’ evidence can obscure more than it enlightens. The paper concludes by pointing to critical steps the Australian public sector can take to ensure future accountability and transparency for policy design, for nudges but also beyond.

Points for practitioners

• Nudging is neither ethically neutral nor inherently problematic. The context in which policy is designed is critical.
• Robodebt highlighted several flaws in the context in which policy is designed in Australian federal policymaking, including a public service which appeared more comfortable with debates over technical delivery concerns than the content of policy.
• Robodebt revealed that parts of the public sector had become overly focused on ‘what works’, rather than providing advice on social desirability, acceptability, human rights, and equity.
• This experience should therefore lead to greater apprehension about the use of nudging, as there is a risk that ethical issues will go uninterrogated.