Deanna Amato never imagined she would take on the federal government in court. But then, in 2018, she opened her tax return and received a shock: her entire refund had been seized.
When she asked why, she learned she had a $2,754 debt, that's now widely known as a "robodebt".
"I was really shocked," she told ABC's 7.30.
"It gives you anxiety, and it just makes you worry about what you've done."
She became a reluctant test case, challenging the debt in court and, ultimately, winning a landmark case against the federal government in a decision that paved the way for the end of the Robodebt scheme.
"I just really hoped it was going to be the one case to change things," she told ABC's 7.30.
"I think that there were so many out there, that if it wasn't me, there would have been someone else, for sure."
On Monday, a royal commission into the now-defunct scheme begins.
Ms Amato's case is likely to be one of the matters that is scrutinised, as the inquiry dives deep into the origins of the scheme, and at what stage officials were warned about its legality.
Robodebt meant automating debt recovery activities
The robodebt scheme matched income data from the Australian Tax Office with income reported to Centrelink by welfare recipients.
If a discrepancy was detected, people are usually sent a letter asking for further information, such as pay slips and bank statements, sometimes from years earlier.
While data-matching had been used in small amounts under previous governments, the Coalition government dramatically expanded its use, claiming it as a key budget measure.
It faced heavy criticism from a range of civil and legal groups, because this system placed the burden on welfare recipients to effectively prove they did not owe any money.
The Coalition government defended its handling of the program, arguing it was an important compliance measure.
Ms Amato began receiving Austudy, a student support payment, when she began studying in 2012. She had previously been working full-time at a bar.
"It makes a huge difference. Studying full-time, you don't have much time to actually work," she said.
"So Austudy was really important. And it was offered. So, you know, I applied for it and did what I thought was right."
When concerns were first raised about robodebts in 2015 and 2016, she hadn't paid much attention. But that changed in 2018.
Unknown to her, Centrelink had attempted to contact Ms Amato.
However, the address it held in their systems was to an address that she no longer lived at. She had been under no obligation to update her address, because she no longer received support payments.
When her tax return was seized, she learned that she, too, had a $2,700 debt. Centrelink had also slapped on a 10 per cent "penalty fee" and added it to the bill.
"I thought I had reported everything right. But, obviously, when that robodebt catches up with you, you wonder what you've done," Ms Amato said.
"And, you know, you're trying to think back on five years previous, as well."
She turned to Victoria Legal Aid for help. It had an entire hotline dedicated to Robodebt cases, as more and more calls came through every week.
When it began reviewing her case, and the old pay slips she had kept, Ms Amato was relieved to learn that it appeared the debt was wrong.
"It was just, quite obviously, a mistake on their behalf or the robodebt algorithm," she said.
"And then, going through further into my pay slips, which I was lucky to keep, that I had actually reported all of my pays to the cent and really proved that the debt was incorrect."
At this point, Ms Amato could have walked away, wiping the debt and continuing on with her life.
However, there was another option: mounting a test case, with the support of Victoria Legal Aid, challenging the lawfulness of the debt in the Federal Court.
It wasn't an easy decision. Taking her case to the Federal Court could prove the government was raising debts in an unlawful way.
It could, on the other hand, be a costly affair if she lost.
"There was a big part of me that wanted to do it. Because, you know, I did feel like what they were doing was wrong," she said.
"There was another part that was quite scared, because it is the government.
"But, ultimately, it was seeing all the evidence and how clear it was to me."
At the time, many other cases were emerging of vulnerable Australians with these debts.
"Sometimes, I was a bit angry that they were able to do this. And just also upset for people as well, that were in more-difficult situations than me," she said.
Ms Amato decided to go ahead with the case — and she won.
In November 2019, the Federal Court made orders by consent with Ms Amato and the Commonwealth, finding that key parts of the robodebt process were unlawful.
The Commonwealth acknowledged that raising debts purely by averaging taxation data was unlawful, and that imposing a penalty fee based on the information it had was unlawful.
"I was so relieved when we got that outcome," Ms Amato said.
"If they could put a stop to other people being in the same situation, then it was all worth it."
The case had a profound impact. Just two weeks before judgement, ABC's 7.30 revealed the Department of Human Services had paused debt-recovery activities for debts raised in this way.
"It was the test case that stopped Robodebt in its tracks, pretty well," Terry Carney, a former senior member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, told ABC's 7.30.
"Centrelink accepted that it had no legal leg, at all, to stand on. It had not even a scintilla of an argument that it could go into court to try to make."
A class action led by Gordon Legal also quickly gained momentum.
There were 386,193 participants registered for the action, out of a total of 433,000 Australians who had debts raised against them.
The class action settled before judgement, without the Commonwealth acknowledging liability. However, the outcome was some $721 million in recovered debts was repaid to Centrelink recipients.
More than $112 million in interest was also paid on top of that.
The 'black box' of government decision-making
The royal commission set to start on Monday is expected to look closely at the origins of the robodebt scheme, and key points along the way where warnings were given.
While Ms Amato's case highlighted that there was a problem with the legality of robodebts, the Commonwealth Ombudsman had previously highlighted that it was concerned that Services Australia did not immediately freeze all debt-recovery more broadly for robodebts.
However, much remains unknown about what went on inside government.
While various attempts have been made over the years to gain access to crucial documents about the scheme through parliament, litigation or freedom of information laws, many of those efforts have been unsuccessful.
The royal commission's extensive powers are likely to see hundreds of thousands of documents produced about the scheme.
Mr Carney says that discovery will help, like examining the "black box" of government decision-making.
"It's very important to understand what it was that went wrong in either ministerial offices or within the bureaucracy, so that any future program is well designed and that these kinds of egregious injustices don't happen ever again," he said.
A range of senior public servants are also expected to be called to give evidence.
It's also possible that some members of the former Coalition government could be called to give evidence about the early days of the program.
Robodebt feels like a lifetime ago for Ms Amato. She's recently had a baby daughter.
She hopes the royal commission will deliver the answers that many Australians are still seeking.
"I'd like to see what everyone in those positions has to say about the whole scheme and, you know, about how some things were ignored at the time. It'd be good to see people answer for some of those decisions made," she said.
And she is looking forward to one day telling the story to her daughter.
"It'll just be nice to tell her what happened. And, as scary as it was, the fact that I did stand up for it, and go ahead, I feel really proud. And I'll be proud to tell her," Ms Amato said.
Watch ABC's 7.30, Mondays to Thursdays at 7.30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV
