Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Cunningham for her question. Madeleine Masterton appeared as a witness in the royal commission with Victoria Legal Aid on 31 October last year. For the record, she is a clinical research nurse and a credentialed diabetes educator. She has attained a Master of Nursing Science degree from the University of Melbourne, a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Western Australia and a Graduate Certificate in Diabetes Education from Deakin University. She worked part time while attaining these degrees and intermittently received modest Centrelink payments. She is also—although it doesn't go on her CV—a victim of the previous government's unlawful robodebt scheme. She received her illegal robodebt letter in mid-2018. She eventually rang Victoria Legal Aid, who supported her in an action against the government.

To stop her, on 27 March 2019 the government received the Masterton advice, exhibit 2-1731, which I hold in my hand. This advice only came to light because of the royal commission. Senate inquiries were unable to get this advice. It is another example showing that without the royal commission, which those opposite opposed, we wouldn't know what I'm about to tell you. The advice said:

The Applicant would have good prospects of succeeding in a claim for relief on the basis that the use of apportioned ATO PAYG data will not establish that she owed a debt under—

the act. Magically, as happened on 76 other occasions, the government recalculated the debt down to zero when someone took them to court.

But the Masterton case had wider-ranging implications for the scheme as a whole. The advice further notes:

As will be clear from the above, our analysis suggests that there are wider legal risks involved in the Commonwealth solely using apportioned PAYG Data to determine whether a debt is owed to the Commonwealth in relation to the payment of social security dependent on a fortnightly income test.

The former coalition government were told unequivocally, 'You've got a problem with this scheme.' They were unequivocally told on many occasions, but in this case the Masterton advice, which the former government did not want us to see, spells it out. It spelled it out in March of 2019, 240 days before the member for Fadden, just about the last of the robodebt ministers still here, took any action on it.

What's remarkable about Madeleine Masterton is that she didn't want to be the subject of these issues but she does say this at the close of her statement:

The outcome of the class action … is not compensation for the meals that were skipped, school trips that were foregone, and the stress, fear and despair that some families and individuals no doubt experienced.

She says, and I think she speaks for all of Australia:

I would like to hear remorse from the Robodebt architects for causing such harm.

Those opposite knew, and they did nothing about it for 4½ years.

See this speech in context