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

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. Why did the government persist with its robodebt scheme when it knew the debt notices were inaccurate, and it kept sending them; it knew they were illegal, and it kept sending them; and it knew they were driving people to self-harm, and it kept sending them?

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

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The government rejects the premise of the Leader of the Opposition's question. But it is important the government put on the record exactly what we do know. We know that the use of averaged income data was widely used from 1994, under the Keating government. We know that, and we know that because yesterday I tabled not just an individual letter sent to a citizen but also the actual letter template that was pulled out of the ISIS mainframe and was widely used. We know it's been going on for at least 26 years, and, anecdotally, the use of averaged income data from taxation goes back further. What we know from that individual letter and from the form letter is that, from the Keating government onwards, letters were sent saying, 'If you don't engage with the department, averaged income data will be used and a bill will be sent.' We know that. It's not a question that's open. It's not an assertion. It's a fact. We know that—for 26 years. We know that from the work we've done to understand how far back this went.

We know that, in 2009, 16.8 per cent of reviews were done solely or partially using averaging. We know that, from 2011, when the member for Sydney was the minister, 24.4 per cent were used solely for averaging. Let's look at what else we know. In the budget 2009-10, on page 330 of Budget Paper No. 2—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

If the minister can just pause for a second and members cease interjecting. The minister's been able to compare and contrast, but the question didn't allow him to range as widely as he's starting to range. I'd just ask him to come back and be relevant to the question.

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

We know the widespread usage of this scheme. We know the widespread usage of income averaging, going back 26 years—

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

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

The member for Isaacs!

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

We know full well from the second, further amended statement of claim that both the Commonwealth and Gordon Legal have accepted and acknowledged—it is not an admission of liability—that there was no understanding of lawfulness. And the government is not suggesting—

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

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

The member for Isaacs in warned!

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

that those opposite knew it was unlawful from 2007 to 2013; the government is not acknowledging that at all. The government are working on the understanding that those opposite used exactly the same process from 2007 to 2013 and we accept that those opposite did that in good faith at the time. And the reason I know that is that I have a media release from June 2011 from the member for Maribyrnong and the member for Sydney saying:

A new data matching initiative between Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office is expected to claw back millions of dollars from welfare recipients who have debts with the Australian Government.

That is what we all now know.