Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As we now know, the previous government set up a system that led to funds being withdrawn from hardworking Australians through the issuing of thousands of unlawful debts, which is now known as the robodebt saga. New analysis shows that in South Australia alone there were over 33,000 individuals who were caught up in the complexities of the robodebt scheme. To break it down further, in my electorate some of the suburbs, like Prospect, saw 309 victims, Walkerville in the electorate of Adelaide had 93, and within the Adelaide CBD there were 357 residents dealing with the repercussions. These are not just stats. They are real people who were trying to live their lives, and suddenly they were thrown into a nightmare. You can imagine the nightmare when you're thinking you are doing everything correctly, and you receive a letter saying that you owe X amount of dollars when you know you had done everything correctly. Australians innocent of wrongdoing found themselves subjected to threats of legal action and even the relentless pursuit of the former government's debt collectors.

I heard about this firsthand, as many members of parliament did. I took calls, and my office responded to calls and emails. We listened, we considered them and we took action. Our actions weren't just about shaping the future but about rectifying the past and assisting as many people as possible in their recovery from the emotional and financial strain that was unjustly placed on their lives by the former government. Our constituents were not the criminals, yet they were the ones that suffered. In effect, our neighbours, our friends and our constituents were all people that suffered. I recall 2016 and 2017 when worried and burdened pensioners walked through my door at the electorate office. These were people who had already lived through so much and now were grappling with the fear that, if they didn't pay what was claimed as their debt—a debt often wrongly calculated—the government would pause their lifeline, their pension. This is a great burden to put on people. How can you put someone through that kind of ordeal? How can you strip them of their sense of security through the very support they've earned through years of contribution? These questions should haunt the former government and anyone responsible for the decisions that led to such heartache and distress.

Even after seven or eight years I continue to have constituents seeking answers from my electorate office in Adelaide. I recently heard about a sad case from a father recounting an incident involving his family. Their daughter was wrongfully caught up not once but twice in this malicious scheme. Tragically, this family lost their beloved child as a result of the distress inflicted upon her. As members of parliament, many of us being parents or grandparents ourselves, we all hear a lot of pain and distress. But that family's reality was absolutely a hard one to stomach. We must be reminded that this matter was not just a financial or numbers issue. The pain caused harm for real-life human beings, and this pain was caused by the former government.

The robodebt scheme was an ordeal that Australians should never, ever have endured and should never endure again. Our constituents called out the systematic failure—a stance I commend, as they rightly deserve better. We heard Justice Murphy, the judge presiding over the case, approve the largest class action settlement in Australian history. Interestingly, when the idea of a royal commission was being proposed by the then opposition leader, it was just brushed aside as nothing more than a political witch hunt. We recall those debates and we recall those statements when we were in opposition.

In a different light, the current government is taking active steps to address the aftermath of the robodebt debacle, putting in place safeguards to prevent any potential recurrence of any similar scheme. The heart of the matter lies in the fact that the Australian people have entrusted us with their concerns and stories. It raises a legitimate question: how can we genuinely lend an ear to our constituents and then proceed to establish a system that inflicts even more hardships upon them? The former government may be okay with doing that, but I'm certain this government is not—

See this speech in context