Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In regard to Senator Bilyk's comments, it was certainly not the intention of the government to take money out of people's pockets. The government pays out about $180 billion every year in social welfare payments. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure that those dollars are spent properly and that they get to the people who need them. There is a need for compliance in the system to make sure that payments are made properly.

It's a bit hypocritical for those opposite us, the Labor Party, who were responsible for over a thousand deaths at sea, a problem which cost billions and billions of dollars to overcome, to start accusing us of being malicious. In their own time in government they were very, very inept at protecting the lives of people. Indeed, many of the opposition who are on the front bench today, have actually come out and supported the idea of recovering overpayments. I will quote a couple of these people. Tanya Plibersek, the member for Sydney, said:

If people fail to come to an arrangement to settle their debts, the government has a responsibility to taxpayers to recover that money.

We've also got the member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, saying:

The automation of this process will free up resources and result in more people being referred to the tax garnishee process, retrieving more outstanding debt on behalf of taxpayers.

Finally, there was Mr Bowen saying:

It is important that the Government explores different means of debt recovery to ensure that those who have received more money than they are entitled to repay their debt.

As Ms Plibersek and Mr Bowen said, the government does have a responsibility to recover debts where people have been overpaid. And, as Mr Shorten said: 'The automation of this process will free up resources.' I also should say, of course, that the government recognises the recovery of debt has to be done in a way that is lawful. That is why the government has made decisions to make repayments.

I should also note that on 11 June the Prime Minister apologised in parliament for any hurt and harm caused through the way the government has dealt with this issue. Department officials have also come out, at recent inquiries, and echoed the sentiments of the Prime Minister. There is no doubt that errors were made in relation to the automation of the income compliance program. These are being addressed, and we will make the repayments to make sure that just cause is served.

However, we shouldn't shy away from the importance of technology. As I said earlier, we pay over $180 billion every year in social welfare payments. Over 1.2 million people receive income support. As the population grows and as payments get more complicated—I work on the tax side of things, and I must admit that I've always found that easier than actually trying to understand all the different social service payments—I can understand that if you're trying to do it manually over time then these things get more and more complex. So, I think the fact that we are trying to automate the process is something that should be applauded, and I ask you: would we go back and turn off internet banking, for example? I think we all enjoy the benefits of automation in return for internet banking. Unfortunately, we've made mistakes this time but we are working to improve that.

One of the things I would like to see—and I've mentioned this on many occasions—is parallel runs when we implement new systems. I've discussed this many a time with other departments, about the need to make sure we double-check things. (Time expired)