Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that;

(a) it has been 41 days since the opposition formally requested that the robo-debt system be suspended while it was fixed;

(b) the Minister for Human Services says that the system is working well despite reports of innocent people being targeted, Centrelink staff at breaking point and widespread concern outside this place;

(c) the robo-debt system has seen hundreds of people issued with debt notices which are either false or grossly inflated; and

(d) the robo-debt system is due to target Age Pension and Disability Support Pension recipients this year;

(2) condemns the Minister for Human Services for his failure to respond to growing community concern and calls from welfare groups to act; and

(3) calls on the Prime Minister to intervene to halt the system and fix it before age pensioners and those with disabilities are terrorised for debt they may not owe.

This parliament has been witness to extraordinary arrogance over the past week. Rather than coming to this place to apologise for the robo-debt letters debacle that he has presided over and to suspend it, as Labor has asked him to do, last week the Minister for Human Services strutted to the dispatch box to effectively declare, 'Nothing to see here folks. It's all fine.' The minister has arrogantly swept aside the concerns that thousands of Australians have expressed, despite the breathtaking error rate. The government admits that 40 per cent could be wrong and that 20 per cent could be going to people who do not owe even one cent. Let us be clear: Labor supports recovering money from people who have been overpaid, whether it is from people who have sought to game the system—a tiny minority—or from people who have simply made errors or not kept their records up to date. But Labor does not support recovering money from people who do not owe it, and Labor does not support treating people who receive social security as second-class citizens, to be labelled as cheats, leaners and burdens on society, as government members have done.

This has been like one of those mail scams where thousands of fake invoices are mailed out or emailed and, if even just a handful of people pay up without checking whether they are real, it nets a tidy profit for the scammers. This is what this government has been doing—sending letters to people who do not owe any money and keeping whatever is sent back from people who are too busy, too trusting or too frightened to check. Indeed, this government is so committed to taking money from people who do not owe it anything that it has instructed Centrelink staff not to correct errors unless those errors are brought to their attention by a client. It is my sincere hope that the Senate inquiry into the robo-debt letter scandal, which was initiated last week by Labor, will take a good, hard look at that instruction and get to the bottom of who issued it and on what authority, and investigate its lawfulness and whether it breaches any code of conduct, because it is an abominable instruction.

Case study after case study has been presented of people being strong-armed into paying debts that they do not owe, and this minister's arrogant, dismissive reply is to say, 'Call the 1800 number.' That would be the 1800 number that it takes hours to get through on and where, even if you can talk to someone, you cannot reach an agreement, because they do not have the authority to properly help you. Last month the member for Franklin and I and Senator Carol Brown held a community forum with the shadow minister, who is here today, where we invited Tasmanians to turn up to tell their Centrelink stories. We heard from Marie and Bill and others, each of them struggling to deal with Centrelink and to meet its demands for information.

Bill used to drive a bus part time and received Newstart; now he is an age pensioner. Bill received a robo-debt letter claiming he owed 3½ thousand dollars. He did not believe he owed the money but, to avoid his pension being affected or being sent to a debt collector while he sorted it out, he asked to repay $10 a week, but was told no. He had money in the bank, so the government took the lot in one go. Now it turns out the ATO and Centrelink had used different names for the same employer. Bill is convinced he does not owe the money, but he is now worried he will not get it back. This government has taken 3½ thousand dollars from an age pensioner without being certain that he owes that money. A government that cared for its citizens would be more careful, but this is a government that cares for some citizens more than others.

For a week we have put up with a government road-testing its new focus group-approved slogan. We do not hear about 'jobs and growth' anymore; now it is 'hardworking Australians'. The insidious subtext is that if you are not a 'hardworking Australian' you are not included in this government's priorities—pensioners, students, people with a disability or mental illness. We get the picture, and it is not pretty. It is a deliberate plan to divide Australians, to turn them against each other, to encourage those who earn a wage or own a business to sneer at those who do not. A great strength of this country is that we look after each other. Some of our most iconic imagery and stories are of Australians lending each other a hand—whether it is through flood, fire or drought, the barricades of Eureka or the mud of Kokoda, we are at our best when we stand together. Today's cleaner is tomorrow's pensioner. A healthy firefighter today is tomorrow battling cancer. Today's farmer tomorrow busts his back. In Australia we look after each other through good times and bad. That is something this government should learn. I commend the motion to the House.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am still relatively new to this parliament, but I have to say that already, sadly, I have been blown away by the utter incompetence of the people opposite. Amidst all of the bluster and all of the frothing at the mouth that we have heard already this morning, the member for Lyons—who, I am sure, is otherwise a very good man—has obviously not done his research. If he had, he would have realised that the very methodology being used for the collection of invalid welfare payments by Centrelink was actually created by the Labor Party. It was created by Richo, of all people. They may not remember Richo, but since 1990 all Labor governments—Hawke, Keating, Rudd, Gillard and Rudd again—have used the very same methodology that is being used by the coalition government today. Where there has been any tweaking it was actually done by the current Leader of the Opposition, and so the Labor Party can hardly claim ignorance in this regard.

It is very simple. There are two sets of data. There is a set of data that comes in through the Australian Taxation Office, and there is a set of data that goes to Centrelink, indirectly or directly, from the recipients of welfare payments. Where there is a discrepancy between these two datasets, the system flags that money might be owed—that somebody has possibly received more money than they were due. This was also the case under the Labor Party. Labor though, being Labor, were woeful in their execution and their collection. The coalition inherited the system in 2013 and we have stuck with it.

If there is a difference between Labor's system and the coalition's system, it is that the coalition has digitised the otherwise archaic manual system that the Labor Party was using. Here is how it works. The computer basically identifies a potential mismatch between those two datasets. Where there is a discrepancy, a letter is triggered and sent to the recipient. Two weeks go by. If there has been no response, if Centrelink does not hear anything, they trigger a second letter, which is a fair and reasonable thing to do, because you never know whether or not the recipient received that first one. If there is no response, or if the data discrepancy cannot be explained to justify the payments already given, then a third letter is sent, along with a debt. The debt is then pursued and recovered, subject to all the normal appeal procedures et cetera, and all the discussions that are undertaken between the recipient and Centrelink. That is what plays out in about 80 per cent of the cases. In the other 20 per cent of the cases, recipients are indeed able to explain the discrepancy and for those there are no debts collected and the case is closed. This is a normal, responsible process—one that the Labor Party was woeful in trying to execute that the coalition is doing very well.

The member for Lyons mentioned that the coalition thinks that everyone who is collecting welfare is dodgy. That is unfair and an absolute porky. I personally believe there is no doubt that there are dodgy people out there—absolutely, I am sure there are. But I believe that the vast majority of people who receive welfare in this country are good, honest, decent Australians. I do not know about you, but if I inadvertently owed a debt, I would like to be told about that as soon as possible. That is the reasonable thing to do.

Labor is not arguing against the methodology. Labor is not arguing about the need to collect debt. What they are arguing about is the digitisation—the efficiency by which this is done. They are happy for this archaic manual system to not tell people about it for years and years to come and to then give them a nasty surprise at the end. Look at the scoreboard. At the end of the day we have already had $300 million collected by this. The forward estimates say $4 billion will be collected by this system. This goes to the heart. We have about $170 billion in our federal budget for welfare. There is only one side that is taking it very seriously to ensure that every dollar and cent of taxpayer money spent on welfare is due. I support this, and thank God we have the coalition in government.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting listening to those on the other side talk about this issue. We just heard the member for Fairfax painting a beautiful picture of how this is working beautifully. The reality is that 40 per cent of people who query their debt are found to have no debt. That is an astronomical figure, which means that the digitisation of this system is not working. Why they have gone down this track I do not know, but you wonder if it is because they need to find the money to give the $50 billion tax cuts to their rich mates. Is that what it is? In Australia we pride ourselves on giving people a fair go, but the robo-debt collection that this government has implemented is not fair. It is hurting too many Australians and it has to stop.

Despite what this government says, every member of parliament has heard stories from constituents who have ben forced to repay fictitious or over-inflated debts. I will give you a few examples from my own electorate of Hindmarsh. One constituent received a letter claiming she had a $6,000 debt to Centrelink. She was told that this was incurred during a period of unemployment in 2014. My constituent was very surprised because, as I said before in this place, she keeps meticulous records and was in constant contact with Centrelink throughout the transition from being unemployed to working. When she challenged the fee, it was reduced to $370. There is one example.

Another constituent received a letter claiming that she owed over $5,000 for payments received in 2013. The strange thing was that for the short period that she was on benefits she received in total around $2,000 from Centrelink, yet she was told she had a debt of $5,000 in total. She was being asked to pay back more than twice the amount she had received. When she queried this, she was told that the letter was not meant for her in the first place. That was the excuse that they came up with. Yet another constituent was informed that she had been overpaid to the tune of almost $20,000. When this particular person queried this, her debt was reassessed to just over $6,000—a massive discrepancy. It is a big difference. We are not talking about a dollar or two here. We are talking about big differences.

We have heard countless stories, and I am sure you will hear more from this side, but how can anyone have faith in this debt recovery process when over and over again the debts that people are told they owe turn out to be highly inflated or absolutely non-existent? This situation is simply unacceptable. The Turnbull government is not being honest with Australians. The government refuses to tell us how many of the debt notices which have been sent out are false, how many are being reviewed, how many are being disputed and how many are being appealed. These are the things that we need to know to get to the bottom of this particular issue.

We on this side of the House are not the only ones who are worried. The Ombudsman has launched his own investigation into this, and even the Prime Minister's own Liberal colleagues are starting to publicly criticise this flawed process. That is why we on this side of the House pushed for a Senate inquiry. We are demanding that this debt recovery process be stopped immediately until the inquiry has released its findings. It is only fair that we have this inquiry, get the findings and then go to the next step. Labor supports measures to catch fraud and recoup debt—of course we do. That is obvious. But we absolutely, emphatically do not support attacking honest Australians who are being hounded by this particular system. The minister, rather than devoting his time to smearing honest age pensioners, students, people with disabilities and those trying to find work, must spend more time fixing this particular mess.

The Senate inquiry's terms of reference include:

a. the impact of Government automated debt collection processes upon the aged, families with young children, students, people with disability and jobseekers …

What is the impact on those people? The terms of reference also include whether the Department of Human Services and Centrelink are able to cope with the level of demand related to the implementation of the program. We know that there have been job cuts. We know that there are fewer people working and answering calls.

What has happened is that the human element has been taken out of this. When you have a human element where someone can answer a question, where you can actually speak to someone face to face, where you can query something or explain the intricate details of a particular case and get to the bottom of it, then solutions are found a lot quicker, but all of that has been taken out. It reminds me of the Little Britain program where the client goes in to see a travel agent and the person behind the desk keeps looking at her and staring and then says, 'The computer says no.' This is exactly the same sort of situation. No matter what information people have, the computer says no.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may come as a surprise, but governments have a responsibility to spend taxpayers' money wisely. I am in this place to back hardworking aspirational Australians who want to apply their effort to get ahead. Part of this is to respect and remember that governments have no money—not one penny—because all of the funds that we have have been paid in taxes. In fact, we are the custodians of the taxes received from hardworking taxpayers. That is why it is our responsibility to respect their contribution by making sure that government funds, which taxpayers pay, are spent appropriately.

Welfare debt recovery is not something new, and the Labor Party should not pretend that it is. Let me take you through the process and away from all the political misinformation that the Labor Party has tried to put out on this issue. Centrelink receives information from other agencies, including the Australian Taxation Office. That information is analysed, and, where there appears to be a discrepancy between an individual's income data held at the ATO and their self-reported data at Centrelink, a letter is sent by Centrelink requesting an update, requesting clarification and asking for a bit more information.

The first letter simply notes the discrepancy and gives an opportunity for the individual to explain it. It asks people to 'confirm or update your employment information online'. It is not a debt letter. In fact, the letter actually says it is not a debt letter. The person who receives the letter has 21 days to respond. If they do not respond, another letter is sent. The second letter is also not a debt letter. It says, 'We would like some more information'—and it is right, on behalf of the taxpayer, to ask people to provide additional information to the government in relation to discrepancies between the ATO information and the Centrelink information.

If the person fails to respond again, a third letter is sent, which outlines money that has been overpaid according to Australian Taxation Office information. On 20 per cent of occasions the recipient is able to validly explain the discrepancy in the data. It shows the system is working. An opportunity is being provided for individuals to provide more information to the taxpayer via the government. Seeking information from welfare recipients when a discrepancy is identified is a longstanding practice undertaken by both Labor and coalition governments.

Through this whole process the person can request a review at any time; a re-assessment of the situation can be made to ensure that everything is correct; a review can be undertaken to ensure that current information is correct; and a review can be undertaken into any discrepancy between self-disclosed information and the ATO information. If people receive a debt notice, they can ask for an internal review and provide new information at any point. They can also appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There is a dedicated 1800 number to assist people at any time. The government will continue to refine the process to ensure that people have received requests for information.

But the most important thing we have learned during all of this is that you cannot always believe what you are told by Labor. Let me draw your attention to a very interesting article on Australia Day—our national day of celebration—because we have seen the Labor Party roll out a whole range of people giving their personal examples:

An assessment of the 52 cases of people publicly claiming they were being harassed by Centrelink … has revealed that 18 had in fact been identified under a manual system set up by the former Labor government—

by you, by the Labor Party, by your government—

… a number of those who claimed to have been wrongly targeted had in fact accepted that the debt was owed, with some even having entered into repayment programs.

One person that you trotted out, publicised by Labor in a television program as a victim:

… was discovered to have been claiming the Youth Allowance while not studying and failing to declare income from several jobs, leading to a debt to the taxpayer of almost $12,000.

So when people contact my office saying that they have lost confidence in Centrelink, that loss of confidence can be directly attributed to the misinformation peddled by Labor, trying to seek nothing but political gain. It is about time the Labor Party respected the contribution being made by hardworking aspirational Australians who go to work each day, pay their taxes and make a contribution to make this country even better.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member. Can I just remind members to address their remarks through the chair. The use of the word 'you' implies the chair's involvement in activities, so just refer them through the chair.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just astounded that the member for Tangney and the member for Fairfax believe that the briefing notes that they have received from the minister's office can be read verbatim. You may as well just table them, because we have all seen them, and they are what you are talking about.

Let me just undo a few of the things that have been said in this chamber this morning. I have also thought that Tudge and Porter Debt Collection Agency Pty Ltd might be a new company that could be set up. If these two men ever lose their seats they could go into debt collection. Tudge and Porter has a certain sound around it. What has been claimed by the coalition is that somehow or other this is the exact same system that Labor used for debt recovery. It is not the same system. What Labor had as part of the quality control was human eye oversight. There is no human oversight in this. It is totally an algorithm between two agencies, fully automated. That is why there have been so many problems.

What astounds me is just how intransigent and stubborn the ministers involved, Porter and Tudge Debt Collectors, have been in terms of publicly admitting that there are mistakes. Of course we know that privately they have admitted that, because there have been very quiet changes made to the system over the last couple of weeks as a result of Labor's persistence in drawing to the attention of the public just how unfair this is. What makes me very angry is the cynical decision taken by this government that they would kick welfare recipients. They would kick people that had to rely on Centrelink and had a right to rely on Centrelink, and no-one would care. Hasn't that backfired wonderfully? Hasn't that backfired, because the Australian people do not put up with what is unfair.

What is fundamentally unfair about this assessment system is that those people that did not respond to an impossible 21-day deadline were forced to enter into debt repayment systems, and that is the only way that they could get a review. How criminal is that? If it were not for the legislation, that would not be allowed under the laws of this country. They had to enter into a repayment system and accept a debt that they fundamentally did not believe that they owed, or were questioning, to even get a review. On Sky last night, Patricia Karvelas interviewed Alan Tudge, and as I understand it the interview was a train wreck. Mr Tudge could not answer, even though he was asked for times, about the review process—where was it at, how many people have been reviewed and how many people have been found not to have that debt. By the government's own admission, 40 per cent of the people identified do not have debt. If you extrapolate that, you could make the assumption that somewhere around 40 per cent of people that have received these so-called non-debt-collection letters do not in fact owe any money to Centrelink.

I cannot understand any government of any persuasion thinking that it was okay to slug Centrelink recipients, many of whom are now running our schools, teaching our children and running our emergency departments. Most of them have jobs. That is what is so perverse about this: this is a punishment for people who have sought employment, often under the most difficult circumstances. They would not been getting these letters had they not worked. That is what is perverse about this, because of the automation between the Tax Office and Centrelink.

The other thing, of course, is that the article in The Australian that the member for Tangney and the others wave around, saying that somehow Labor, and me by implication, had given Simon Benson those examples, is actually wrong. I want to put it clearly on the record that those examples were not provided by me or my office, because I am absolutely careful about making sure that examples of people that have been victims of this system are absolutely checked out. That article that keeps getting waved around is absolutely scurrilous. Simon Benson and I have had a discussion about it. (Time expired)

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak in support of the government's appropriate and sensible activities when it comes to protecting the hard work of Australian taxpayers and ensuring that people who receive Centrelink benefits receive the right amount. To the extent that people have received too much, whether through a deliberate act or a misunderstanding or error, it is completely appropriate and entirely reasonable that the government should do everything it sensibly can to collect that debt on behalf of taxpayers.

Let us take an example of some of the success stories for taxpayers achieved through this debt recovery program. There was an example of a person in Victoria who was receiving Newstart for the financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13—that whole period. They had declared less than $11,000 in employment income during that time, but the ATO data showed that this person had earned over $50,000 in that time. This program successfully identified that there was a discrepancy between what that person claimed to have earned and what they had in fact earned. That person was then asked to substantiate or explain the issue, which they could not do, because they had earned more than $50,000. Consequently, those Centrelink overpayments were recovered—and so they should be. To suggest that they should not be or that there is something wrong with that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Centrelink system should work. That, of course, occurred under previous ministers—the member for Sydney, Senator Carr and Senator McLucas. We saw, in that example and certainly in many others, people being paid substantially more Centrelink benefits than they were entitled to, and that is wrong. That is absolutely wrong, and it should not happen.

It is often said that social security is about a third of federal budget. The federal budget, for reasons dating back to the Rudd era, includes the GST revenue gained by the state as a federal expenditure. I think there is an open argument about whether that should be the case. When you take out the GST revenue that goes to the states, social welfare is actually 41 per cent of all federal government spending—more than 40c in every dollar. It is sensible for the government to say: 'We need to ensure that that social welfare is provided to those who need it, who are entitled to it. Let's make sure people don't receive benefits they are not entitled to.' Minister Tudge and Minister Porter are saying, 'We are going to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, those people who receive Centrelink benefits are those who are entitled to them and that people who are getting more than they're entitled to are required to pay those benefits back.'

I struggle to accept the notion that there is, somehow, something wrong with this or that the average Australian would have a problem with this. The average Australian is, in my experience, supportive of a social welfare system for those in genuine need but equally supportive of the idea that those payments must be made only to those in genuine need. Rorting or ripping off the system is something that is wholeheartedly rejected by the Australian people.

There are other examples of the success of this program. There was an example from South Australia of somebody who had declared less than $2,000 of employment income. Through ATO records, this program identified that they had in fact earned more than $40,000. The system identified the discrepancy and asked the person to explain the difference. They could not do so, and they were required to pay back to the taxpayer a debt of $14,000—Centrelink money they should not have received. That was completely appropriate.

In 80 per cent of the cases where these letters go out, the apparent discrepancy is a real discrepancy. In 80 per cent of cases where the government gets in touch with people and says, 'Can you explain this discrepancy?' the person cannot do so and is required to make a repayment. In 20 per cent of cases, there is a legitimate reason for the discrepancy. In that case, the person is not required to make any repayments. Nor should they be, if they were entitled to those benefits. But when they are not entitled to receive the benefits, it seems to me to be entirely reasonable—it should be an unobjectionable principle, and it should be completely supported by those opposite—that we stand up and defend our taxpayers' funds while supporting those in need.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to support this motion moved by the member for Lyons. If the actual robo-debt debacle were not enough to prove this government is woefully out of touch, the response from the government members to this motion surely proves the case.

Returning to Canberra, all 150 of us who serve here would have had one thing in common about the summer break: our offices were inundated with calls—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12 : 00 to 12 : 23

As I was saying, I, like, I am sure, every other member of the House, was inundated by distressed constituents who received Centrelink debt notices just before or after Christmas. The targeting of vulnerable people on fixed incomes by this government is a disgrace and another clear indication of how out of touch and arrogant they are. Labor has always been clear that people who do the wrong thing in relation to social security payments should be investigated and compelled to pay the money back; however, our social security safety net is one of the most important foundations of our society, and the hallmark of a civilised and compassionate country is how we look after the most vulnerable in our community. This government is targeting the unemployed, pensioners and people with disability at the same time as they are giving a $50 billion tax cut to their corporate mates.

The flawed data-matching program used by the Turnbull government has resulted in the wrong outcome in about 20 per cent of the cases, although, as we saw last night with the minister, it could be up to 40 per cent of cases, and so many of these people are vulnerable Australians on low and fixed incomes.

I particularly want to draw the attention of the House to the experience of one of my constituents, Emma, who contacted my office. Last November, Emma received a debt notice for $11,000. This would, obviously, be distressing for anyone. However, the experience she has had with Centrelink in trying to clarify the notice has caused her more anxiety and stress. Emma has requested a review but has been advised that, until the review is finalised, she will have to begin a repayment plan or her pay will be automatically garnished. This is the wrong way around. Emma is an intelligent and sensible woman and has stated that, if the debt is the result of an error on her part, she will take responsibility for it and pay it back. However, she is adamant that she has reported all of her income correctly and on time in the period covered by the debt. This is just not right. A hardworking young woman like Emma should not have to endure this unnecessary and distressing experience. Emma's call is just one example of the numerous calls my office has received over the last few months.

Something that is causing people further distress is the fact that, having asked for a review, they are then required to provide pay slips to Centrelink to confirm that they have reported their income accurately. Some of the periods covered by these debts are up to six years ago and often cover a period of several years, so it is just ridiculous that the recipients of the debt notices have to try and gather together pay slips from years ago, particularly from former employers. In some cases, people would just not be able to do this.

This motion rightly condemns the Minister for Human Services for his failure to respond to community concerns about the robo-debt system. This minister has arrogantly claimed the system is working well. I say to him, 'How can a system that is terrifying pensioners, the unemployed and people with disability with incorrect debt notices be working well?'

This motion rightly acknowledges Centrelink staff are at breaking point. It was incredibly ridiculous for those opposite to keep talking about the 1800 number as if somehow that could resolve this issue. That 1800 number has wait times up to hours, and that is if you can get through in the first place and are not automatically blocked and if you can afford to spend the credit on your phone to use the line. I want to pay tribute to the employees of the Department of Human Services. They do a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances, but this government is making their job all the more difficult with this ridiculous system. The 1800 number will not solve this problem. It cannot solve this problem. We need human intervention earlier in the case to review these issues.

The robo-debt debacle clearly shows not only how dysfunctional the Turnbull government is but also how out of touch it is with ordinary Australians. Pensioners, people with disability and men and women looking for work in my electorate of Shortland, and indeed in all electorates around the country, do not deserve to bear the brunt of this farcical joke of a government—a government that cannot even manage simple debt collection properly. God help us all.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I totally reject this motion from the opposition that has been brought to this House today. It is absolute rubbish. It is untrue and I reject it outright and completely. We have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that we are spending their earnings appropriately. The $400 billion that we, as a government, receive each year in income tax and company tax must be spent appropriately. If overpayments have been made, either by accident or as a result of people claiming moneys that they are not eligible for, then they need to be repaid. The system will not be suspended, because we have a duty of care.

I agree with the member for Shortland on a couple of issues. He was the first opposition member to actually say that, if overpayments have been made, they need to be repaid. Even the shadow minister could not bring herself to say that. He also thanked his local Centrelink branches and the Department of Human Services. I also wish to do that. Centrelink offices in Deception Bay and Margate do a wonderful job helping the community. We have seen some great results locally in Petrie, including youth unemployment coming down in the last three years from some 19 per cent to about 10 per cent. So I put on the record my thanks to the Centrelink offices locally.

The opposition's claims are merely self-serving propaganda. It fits with their agenda of reckless spending, of wanting to keep people down and reliant on the department and on government, and of self-relevance, by making up lies against the Australian government like they did in the 2016 federal election in relation to Medicare.

My office has been able to help every single person who has called my office in relation to a debt inquiry—every single person. The member for Shortland said that members opposite have been inundated. That is where I disagree with him. We have not been inundated. In my office we have had 29 inquiries, including those from the GetUp! campaign that was done via email, and I have been able to help every single one of those 29 people. It is very important to note that some of these calls are from people who have received letters who do not necessarily owe a debt but who have not responded to contact over three weeks—for example, they have not uploaded a payslip, or they have not provided additional information to Centrelink that would sort out their debt. An example of this would be a young guy under the age of 25 who has not opened or read his mail within three weeks.

There are also serious non-compliance issues to be dealt with. In the Department of Human Services at Centrelink there is a serious non-compliance team that has been investigating people who have a record of giving inaccurate information to Centrelink. Some of these people now think they can get out of debt because of what those in the opposition are saying. But I want to make it very clear: if you do owe money, if you have a debt, you will be required to repay the debt.

As federal members of parliament we have a duty of care to help people who may need Newstart or disability payments, which is very important. They should be paid every single cent they are entitled to—not one cent more, not one cent less. But we also have a duty of care to those taxpayers who fund the $400 billion a year that we receive in income to make sure that every cent is spent well. Given that over the last 10 years—ever since John Howard left office—we have been spending $440 billion a year rather than the $400 billion we receive, it is even more important that we do so now.

I want to quickly touch on how out of touch the member for Barton, the shadow minister, is. Her scare campaign is absolutely outrageous. She comes into this place and makes a joke about the 'Porter and Tudge debt collectors'. We are spending $170 billion on social services. We need to make sure, and taxpayers expect, that we are not paying one cent more than we need to, and yet the shadow minister comes in here and makes jokes. She says they have a right to rely on Centrelink. I absolutely agree. She says it is impossible to get things done in 21 days. How outrageous is that statement? She is totally out of touch. (Time expired)

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a growing scandal and an important debate. We have heard that 40 per cent of debt notices are wrong—not four per cent, but 40 per cent. In any other government program a 40 per cent error rate would be an outrage. We should not accept it, but somehow it is okay when we are talking about vulnerable people. Can you imagine the reaction of those opposite if Labor were in government and sent blanket audit notices to all the super wealthy or to multinationals to make them pay their fair share of tax? What if 40 per cent of those notices were wrong? It would be a scandal. The Australian would go bananas. The tabloids would issue special lift-outs, with black borders, on struggling billionaires. But I do admit it is probably not a good idea, because the Green Left Weekly would like it, and that is never a good thing.

In sending in the debt collectors, there is a presumption of guilt here. It is almost impossible for people to prove what they have done because who has payslips from five or six years ago? Even Centrelink's website—until they took it down and scrubbed it—advised people to keep their payslips for just six months, but there is no mention of that now. Businesses have closed. The lived experience of so many people on low incomes is of jumping from job to job, doing their best to declare everything to Centrelink, yet living in abject terror of getting something wrong, because they will lose their lives on a 1800 number.

It is not just bad administration; it is ill-conceived and mean by design, picking on the vulnerable and with real impacts. The minister says it is just an opportunity to explain, but everyone knows that is nonsense. There is no explanation given by Centrelink; just a demand to start repaying a debt. Five dollars a week may not seem like a lot for many, but for those in my electorate who literally budget to the last dollar every fortnight, it absolutely is.

The effect is compounded—I spoke to the House last week about the case of Michelle—because as soon as a debt is alleged people then lose the right that everyone else enjoys in emergencies to seek a small advance on their own family payments. I call on the government to reconsider this double-whammy rule because of the unfairness and the double impact on people who do not owe a debt and are later let out of that debt. Not being able to grab $100 or $200 to buy their kids' school books or pay a bill or an emergency medical bill is unfair.

The government's reaction, having listened to it, is just astounding. It is not just denial but almost sociopathic scorn. Honestly, you opposite do not seem like terrible people. A little secret: I actually quite like a lot of you. But the response to this has been heartless and cruel. It is out of touch. There is denial, there is obfuscation, there is bewilderment at why we go on about this and there is blame and blustering like it is a crime to be poor. It is fantastic to hear that one of the Liberal members has been responding to his electorate, because my office has been deluged by people from neighbouring electorates, such as Deakin and Chisholm, whose members simply will not help them. We do what we can. We refer them to Senator Jacinta Collins, who is doing a great job.

Minister Tudge's fudges in question time were policy by anecdote: 'We'll justify picking on thousands of people who don't owe anything because we found someone who cheated $100,000.' Fair enough. Get the person who cheated $100,000. But suggesting that people call a 1800 number with impossible waiting times and no discretion—all they do is say, 'Just upload what you have on the internet that you don't have'—and no explanations is pointless.

It is to the state of absurd when Senator Eric Abetz, our little Aussie champion of the underdog from down under—it is such a weird world when 'Eric the Dark Lord' takes up the plight of the less fortunate. I do not believe, though, that it is an outbreak of compassion. It is a bit of Machiavellian magic to have a go at the Prime Minister. It is mainly a sign of how furious people are that even one such as Senator Abetz has spoken up.

Possibly the weirdest contribution was from the member for Gilmore last week, who compared—I am not joking—running a government and Centrelink robo-debt scheme to her previous fudge packing and distribution business. I was so bemused that I popped that clip on the internet to actually see if anyone else understood it, but so far no-one has shed any light on it.

My personal view, for the record—do not get excited—is that of course we should pursue significant debts from any time, and it is fair enough to seek repayment of small adjustments in more recent times if the system is right. But is it really worth pursuing tiny amounts of money from six years ago, with the cost of recovery and the incredible pain that this is causing to people? (Time expired)

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is nothing more than cheap, tawdry politics that has no foundation. It shows the Labor Party is bereft of ideas and policies. The reality is that in 2011 Bill Shorten introduced an automated system—the very one that we are looking at now. The hypocrisy of the Labor Party—to sit here and to try to have some game of politics that we are deluding the people of Australia around how the welfare system is in part being played out is absolute hypocrisy of the greatest level.

We have a welfare system of $170 billion a year which we actually have to fund year after year after year. There are five million people across Australia that are on social security. We actually have to have a sustainable welfare system that will be able to go on for years to come. We cannot afford to play politics with this. We cannot afford to let political parties come in here, try to forget about their actions of the past and actually try to put on new governments the mess that they are trying to fix in order to give credibility and sustainability to a welfare system that is truly out of control. We actually have to make sure that we do balance the budget. That is what this government is about: it is about balancing a budget responsibly, not playing politics. This nation needs to move past the politics. The nation wants us to move past the petty politics that you guys are going on with now with this frivolous motion. It is doing nothing for the body politic in Australia. The reality around this whole system is that the letter that is sent out is not a notice of debt. People get three opportunities to declare their innocence, their actual actions, throughout this. This is an automated system that is working through government agencies to ensure that there is credibility in our welfare system, to ensure that we do look after those that are most vulnerable in our country, those that do need a safety net in terms of the welfare system that will provide that ongoing throughout the years to come.

The other piece around this is that those who are the most vulnerable in the community are not part of this. We as a government have understood that there are people within our society that are vulnerable through disability or issues that they have, who we cannot undertake this type of program on. We have done that in a responsible and sensitive way to ensure that we do this in a pragmatic and sensible way to ensure that we have a welfare system that will continue on for years to come.

That is an important piece of it. The other piece is that there will not be a computer system that will determine whether a debt is finally owed to the Australian people, the taxpayer, each and every one of us. It will be a human. It will be a person who will sit there and make a decision predicated on the information that has been provided. It is important that that is a pragmatic sensible way to ensure that the people of Australia, the taxpayers of Australia, get the money that they deserve.

We have to be realistic. With five million people that are recipients of the welfare system, it would be very naive of any of us to think that there are not some people out there trying to defraud the system. We have to have credibility within that system. I think the Labor Party found that out quite quickly after they ran to the media and tried to make an issue out of this frivolous case. One of the examples came from Victoria. It was a recipient receiving Newstart for all of the financial years 2011-12 and 2011-13. During that time she declared less than $11,000 in employment income. The ATO data showed that she had earned more than $50,000 during that time. The customer had debt raised in relation to earnings in those financial years. I ask the question, as the federal government responsible for each and everybody's taxpayer money, why shouldn't we try to ensure that there is credibility, and not run off on some frivolous case of trying to make politics out of something that is quite important for ensuring that the Australian economy is one that has validity and sustainability, not trying to play on people's emotions when the reality does not exist. That again is another example from our friends in the Labor Party, who were quite embarrassed when they came out and made these claims.

A recipient from Queensland was receiving Newstart for all financial years of 2011-12 and 2012-13. During that time he declared less than $22,000 employment income. However, ATO data showed that he had earned more than $52,000 during that time. The customer had a debt of approximately $15,000 raised in relation to that year. Those are the cases that the Labor Party had tried to politicise to try to embarrass the government. We are not embarrassed. This is about us ensuring that every Australian should have a safety net that will support them if times are not with them. That is why I am proud to be part of the government that will ensure that will happen and will ensure the sustainability of that system.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.