Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the discussion of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Waiver of Debt and Act of Grace Payments) Bill 2019. This bill requires the Department of Finance to include information about debt waivers and act-of-grace payments in its annual report. It requires the department to report on the total number of debts waived and act-of-grace payments made. The Minister for Finance already has the power to extinguish debts owed to the Commonwealth, including ATO and Centrelink debts. This bill would provide for additional transparency by requiring the department to report on those figures. However, this bill would not fix the robodebt mess or deliver justice for robodebt victims, and it shouldn't distract from the bigger problems at hand.

The robodebt debacle highlights the need for transparency. The fact that members of this place and members of the Community Affairs References Committee have not been able to find out some very basic details about robodebt and the way the government has handled it is a very good example of the need for increased transparency. It demonstrates the way the government hides behind its public interest immunity claims and privacy claims and its lack of accountability measures. That's why the Greens think it's very important for this sort of information to be released. This bill is a step in that direction.

Over many years, the government have been absolutely intransigent on releasing critical information about robodebt and admitting that they got it wrong—that the debts were illegal. They put a machine in charge and continued to claim that, yes, there was human oversight. But the debts still kept going out to people; they were still wrong, and they were still based on income averaging. The government said debts were eyeballed before they went out, but either they weren't doing it properly or they didn't actually do it, instead relying on the algorithm to be right every time. Quite clearly it was wrong on many occasions, but, most importantly, it was illegal. The government has finally admitted that, by now saying they'll refund some of the debts—but only if you've got a debt past 2015.

It's impossible to put a dollar figure on the harm done to hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Australians. The robodebt scheme has made people feel worthless and humiliated. They talk about their feeling of shame. They are embarrassed. And it has strongly affected people's mental health. It has endangered people's jobs, health and education. Just imagine the mental and physical cost of dealing with Centrelink as they chase you over a debt. People talk about being 'hounded'. They talk of feeling harassed and of never being able to get away from the fact that the government said they owed a debt. The government has sought to demonise people on income support, through the robodebt program; the very people who need assistance and have a right to access social security have been made to feel worthless and that they have cheated because they have accessed our social safety net.

What's even worse is that this government won't rule out doing this again—changing the legislation so that they can continue the income compliance program into the future. We still haven't received a genuine apology from the government on this issue. When the Prime Minister commented in the other place on this matter, it was as if he didn't understand the depth of anguish, harm and trauma that had been caused by this program. I strongly believe that we need to get to the bottom of this and to actually forensically look at all the files because, quite frankly, I don't trust the government to acknowledge all the income-averaged or partly income-averaged debts. The government don't even know how to contact some of those people, and they claim that, as to debts going back to before 2015, they can't actually find those people. I think those people know very well who they are, so I'm very confident that they would come forward. The government knew about the illegality of the debts, way before they acknowledged that and suspended the program. If they keep up this facade about not really knowing that it was illegal, the question is: where was the due diligence in terms of actually thoroughly investigating it? We saw the farce of their claim that they did not have a duty of care. Well, Australians believe that our government does have a duty of care.

A royal commission would allow us to examine all elements of the robodebt program, including debts that were issued before 2015 using income averaging or that were partly income averaged. It could look at what decisions were made, when and by whom, and the human cost of the program. It could look into all of the debts and do a proper forensic analysis of the process. Australians agree that robodebt victims deserve justice, and they support the concept of a royal commission. Recent polling showed that, when people were asked if there should be a royal commission into robodebt, 53 per cent of respondents agreed. The poll also found that 74 per cent of people said the government should apologise, and 66 per cent believe that victims should receive interest and damages on top of their refunds. The government won't do its job, and it can't be trusted to actually hold itself accountable when it comes to this unlawful scheme. That's why we need a royal commission. Victims deserve justice, and someone needs to be held accountable. This government needs to be held accountable.

In terms of this particular bill, anything that helps transparency and helps people to understand the act-of-grace system is good. There have been Senate inquiries into act-of-grace payments and into compensation and act-of-grace payments. I think it's fair to say that many in the community, or most in the community, don't actually understand how decisions on act of grace are made, how much the government spends on them or how many there are. And I don't accept the argument put forward by the minister that, if it were a small amount, it would identify people. There are ways that the government deals with releasing public information when there are only a small number of people involved. For example, in the community affairs committee we often ask for information on various payments, and, where there are a small number, the government then says, 'It is less than five,' so people aren't able to be identified—although, quite frankly, I think just telling us numbers does not identify people at all. This asks for public reporting on how many waivers of debt or act-of-grace payments have been made, and what amount of debt has been waived or what amount has been paid out in act-of-grace payments. I think that is fair enough.

I also think the government needs to be looking at how it's using these provisions to actually deal with the issue of debts to Centrelink right now, or supposed debts to Centrelink right now. These are issues that I think need to be very clearly identified.

This bill does help. It doesn't fix everything, but it does help. And I don't see why the government can't support this sort of information becoming public to increase transparency. It does not go as far as the Greens want the government to go in terms of transparency. There's a long, long, long way to go, and I'm sure my colleague Senator Waters will be addressing some of those other areas when she makes her contribution to the debate on this bill. But I fail to see why this sort of transparency is not acceptable to the government, given that this is public money and given that the community have a right to know this type of information.