Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Hansard source

I don't agree with the analogy, on a whole range of grounds. Clearly, whether it's our tax laws or our income support payment arrangements, there are provisions for if somebody pays too little tax compared with what the law requires or somebody has paid more than they should have, based on the law of the land. This has been a position for governments of both persuasions, forever and a day—appropriately so. Then, of course, part of the compliance arrangements, appropriately, seek to recoup any money that is not paid in taxes—that's what our anti-avoidance measures in our tax laws are all about—or to recoup any money that has been overpaid.

The issue that Senator Patrick mentions is not so much that principle. The issue that Senator Patrick raises relates to the fact that governments of both persuasions, again, have used a particular methodology where income support recipients do not engage with the government. Governments have been forced to make assumptions and have used a methodology which, ultimately, the court found to be unlawful. Of course, governments, businesses and individuals—everyone—have to comply with the law. Governments have to comply with the law, and, given the findings there, the government is acting consistently with legal requirements, in the same way that businesses have to act consistently with legal requirements when they access the JobKeeper support payments. I don't think that anything that Senator Patrick has raised in any way suggests or provides proof for the proposition that any of the businesses that he references are breaching the law.