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

Today, as in quite a lot of days in parliament, one of the debates which has been argued in our nation's forum is the issue of the robodebt scheme. Robodebt, translated into plain English, was the issuing of letters of demand from the federal government to Australian citizens it asserted owed the government money; they'd been overpaid social security. Labor and many in the community—and, no doubt, even some coalition backbenchers—raised many examples of unfairness since the scheme was rolled out over its 4½ years of tragic history. But I was privileged to watch an interview on the ABC this afternoon, and it's to that I specifically wish to address my remarks. A lady by the name of Kath Madgwick was interviewed by Patricia Karvelas. Her son took his own life in the immediate aftermath of acrimonious arguments about a debt that the Commonwealth alleged he owed them.

This is a very human issue. This is not politics on a daily basis. This is not another day at the office in the national parliament. Kath Madgwick has to deal with the fact that she doesn't have her son anymore. As we know, and as both sides of politics recognise and are very clear about, mental health is complex, and there can be many causes. But what I realise, listening to Kath Madgwick, is that she's owed answers. She listened to her son argue with Centrelink. She herself had conversations and tried to help protect her son. It is a parent's worst nightmare—not being able to protect your child. She now faces not having her child. This is an immense tragedy. I think the parliament and the political debate owes it to her and to others to understand what happened. This can't just be written off as unfortunate or unavoidable. It's a tragedy. It's been a very emotional day for her today.

The Prime Minister did use a form of words which some are interpreting as an apology. But the problem is: how did it come to be that the government of Australia could issue and raise debts against hundreds of thousands of its citizens and it was unlawful? How could it be that people felt pressured and felt harassed, and at the end of the day the government didn't have the power to do it? This is a major stain on the nation. Sometimes in this place we make sweeping declarations of right-doing, of wrongdoing, of self-congratulation, of criticism, but a lot of our fellow Australians feel that all too often politics is broken, that no-one seems to be accountable, and I think all sides of politics must contribute to the improved perception of our political discourse.

On the question of robodebt, it is not a satisfactory state of affairs for us to say to Kath Madgwick, to say to the memory of Jarrad, to say to hundreds of thousands of others, 'The scheme was unlawful,' 'We are refining it,' 'It is not sufficiently legal,' as I have heard the Attorney-General say on the Insiders show. These are weasel words. Saying that something is unlawful when we said it was lawful is not a refinement—that's a 180-degree turn. Saying that something is not sufficiently legal doesn't really cut it. If you steal a car, that's illegal; that's unlawful. But if you as the Commonwealth issue a demand to hundreds of thousands of your citizens, putting them under stress when you had no power to do it, that, too, is unlawful. And the system couldn't stop the government.

Social security recipients have appeal mechanisms to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, on any number of occasions, said they had grave concerns with this system, that what was happening wasn't sustainable. The government ignored the checks and balances. Last November, with the threat of legal action, the government finally said, 'Yes, the scheme is not sufficiently legal'—or, in plain English, it is unlawful. But after 4½ years we still can't tell Kath Madgwick why it happened. We still can't tell her who did it. She acknowledges that it's not the Centrelink staff—that it's not the frontline people, that it's not Hank Jongen, the spokesperson for the department. She just wants answers. Let's find some answers for her. It can't bring us back to where we were beforehand, but at least it might do some respect for Jarrad's memory.