Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I second the motion. This government are hurting people and this parliament needs to stop them. Over the summer, when most of us were relaxing and spending time with family and friends and winding down, this government were spending time attacking the poorest of the poor and putting them under so much stress that many people were even talking about taking the ultimate step and taking their own life. This is a classic example of when standing orders should be suspended because over the summer it has become apparent that this government, in an attempt to raise revenue, is prepared to oversee a system that tells people to pay money they do not owe and forces people who have very limited resources and who are by definition the ones in our society most in need of a helping hand to prove that they are innocent just because the government has deemed them guilty.

My office has been approached by dozens and dozens of constituents. I know that many other members of this place will have been approached as well by people across the country who ring up in enormous distress, saying, 'I've just received this notice; what do I do?' For many of them, the first time they hear that there is an alleged problem with their Centrelink payments is when they get a call from what is effectively a debt collection agent. The Victorian Council of Social Service has made the point that this is like a debt collection agency ringing you up and saying: 'We've got a note from a video store that back in 2009 you borrowed Flying High. You've got several thousands of dollars in overdue fines owing on it. Unless you can prove that you didn't borrow that video we're going to make you pay and we're going to start taking money away from you.'

This is happening not to people like us here in parliament who might have the wherewithal to defend ourselves. This is happening to people who are trying to get by on all of a few hundred dollars a week. Why is it happening? It is happening because the government has said, 'In order to do things like fund a $50 billion tax cut to the top end of town and to make sure that the likes of Gina Rinehart can buy cheap and subsidised petrol by giving them a tax break, we are prepared to go after those who don't tend to have a spare $10 million or $26 million lying around to run an ad campaign or to donate to political parties. We're going to go after them to balance the books.' It takes courage to stand up to the top end of town and say, 'You have to pay your fair share to help balance the books.' But it is absolute cowardice to turn the machinery of government onto those who are unable to defend themselves. That is what this government has done.

I have heard from an artist who has been repeatedly given misinformation about appropriate ways to report to Centrelink, which has resulted in the issuing of significant debts. In other words, they were told the wrong thing about how to report to Centrelink about their income and all of a sudden they do not get a letter saying, 'Can you please do the right thing?' but they get told, 'You've got to pay a debt.' I have heard from students who have complied with Centrelink and advised of travel periods overseas, only to be issued with debt notices and due dates whilst overseas without any appropriate forums to make contact with Centrelink. I have heard from distressed single parents, some of whom have been issued with debt notices of $45,000. These are people who are already struggling under inadequate Centrelink payments.

The government has a choice about to who to get money from to balance the books and the government has a choice about how to deal with those in our society who are most needing our help. The figure of 20 per cent of incorrect notices going out, I suspect, is an understatement. I suspect we are going to see a lot more than that. When the Senate turns its attention to this in coming days we are going to see in a lot more detail just how bad this system is and just how brutal the government's approach has been. Everyone in this place would accept that if someone is not entitled to something then they should not be paid it under the law. The question is: when there is a grey area, what do you do about it? Do you go headstrong and charge at the most vulnerable in our society and say, 'You have to pay tens of thousands of dollars even though you might not owe it'? Or do you take a more sophisticated approach? We need to do this now because it is hurting people. (Time expired)

See this speech in context