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

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. In May, Anastasia McCardel, the mother of Bruce McCardel, who was in receipt of a disability pension until he died in November last year, received a call from a Centrelink officer and was told that her son Bruce owed a debt of $6,700. Ms McCardel said:

I wanted to know how they thought Bruce would have worked his way through his paperwork when he actually was dead.

What advice can the minister give Ms McCardel?

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me first of all pass on my sincere condolences to Ms McCardel. These things are very difficult for her.

In many cases when the department raises a debt against someone who is deceased and they knowingly know about it, if the debt is large enough they'll seek to recover it through the trustee of the estate. In the vast majority of times, compassion will step in and the debt will be wiped. In this particular case, because of the size of the debt being both uneconomical to recover as well as the length of time the department should simply have waived the debt. They didn't. My department was wrong and I apologise for it.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Government Services. When will the government finally admit that its robo-debt experiment has failed?

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. As I stated previously, the government has a lawful requirement to recover debts that Australians owe. For the benefit of the House, debts are raised either on income support—there are approximately 13 income support payments, and income compliance goes across eight of them—and then there are family benefit debts that also arise. Together, those debts equal $4.99 million.

To give the House an idea: with family tax benefit debts there are 373,712 outstanding at $1.3 billion. When it comes to Newstart there are 408,895 debts equalling $1.121 billion. Does the Leader of the Opposition seriously want the government to wipe $1.121 billion from 408,000 debts because the member doesn't believe in income compliance? Does the Leader of the Opposition really expect this House to believe that the member for McMahon, who held this—

Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister just pause for a second. I have warned the member for Lyons a number of times. He can leave under 94(a).

The member for Lyons then left the chamber.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the Leader of the Opposition truly expect this House to believe that it was all right for the member for McMahon, when he was the minister for DHS, to actually seek to raise debts under income compliance but it's not okay for this side of the House? Does the Leader of the Opposition really believe that it was fine for the member for Sydney, under income compliance, to raise debts but somehow it's not appropriate for this side of the House? Does the Leader of the Opposition seriously believe that it's fine for the member for Gorton to collect income compliance but it's not okay for this side of the House? Does the Leader of the Opposition seriously believe that going to an election with $387 billion worth of new taxes but not following the law in income compliance is the way to govern? If that's what the Leader of the Opposition believes, then our government and his opposition are vastly at odds.