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

Last week the Federal Court backed the people who were affected by robodebts. It handed down its judgement on the robodebt class action that found that the Commonwealth unlawfully raised $1.7 billion in debts against 443,000 people. In his judgement, Justice Murphy criticised the federal government's massive failure and said that the court heard 'heart-wrenching' stories of pain and anguish from victims of the Centrelink debt recovery program. Justice Murphy said it should have been obvious to government ministers and senior public servants that the debt-raising method central to the system was flawed. He said:

The proceeding has exposed a shameful chapter in the administration of the Commonwealth social security system and a massive failure of public administration.

The bill we are dealing with today will waive the Farm Household Allowance debts of 5,300 farmers and their partners. It will waive $51 million in income support debts. I will say right now that the Greens think that farmers and people in regional areas should be supported by the government and that these debts should be waived. However, the point I'm making is that the stark contrast between the way people on other income support payments were treated through the disgusting robodebt disaster and the appropriate way that people with debts through the Farm Household Allowance are now being treated should be blindingly obvious to anyone. The difference between the ways the two groups have been handled is startlingly obvious.

Of course, we support those people with Farm Household Allowance debts. We support this bill. The government argues that the waiver is appropriate for farmers because they were acting in 'good faith'. If only the government gave other people on income support even some of that benefit of the doubt. It's truly outrageous when you compare the different approaches. When it came to robodebt, income support recipients were assumed guilty, simply for being on income support. There was none of this government's presumption-of-innocence approach. The government pursued people for debts they did not owe when the government should have known—if they didn't know—that it was illegal. Now the government doesn't want to hand over the documents, the evidence, that tell the community when and what they knew, and who knew.

It is almost impossible to account for the social and economic costs of the government's punitive robodebt program. This program has caused so much pain and distress to so many for so long. The government knew this and continued it anyway, treating people appallingly. This program literally cost people's lives, it ruined many others and it caused so much pain and anguish. This is a shameful chapter in our history. People should not be treated this way. I'm glad the government has seen the light, and I encourage them to apply it to everybody who is on income support.