Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Birmingham) and the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services (Senator Ruston) to the questions without notice asked by Senators Wong, Gallagher and McCarthy today relating to robodebt.

In a feat of contortionism I don't think I've quite ever witnessed in this place, Senator Birmingham was unable to answer any of the three questions asked by Senator Wong with the truth. So let's just get it on the record. Senator Wong did ask:

Can the minister tell the Senate who was the social services minister in 2016 when the robodebt scheme was first introduced?

For those want to know the truth, the answer is: Mr Scott Morrison. The second question that was asked of Senator Birmingham by the Leader of the Opposition here in the Senate, Senator Wong, was: who was the Treasurer in 2016 and bragged that robodebt was 'proof of the social welfare system being "better managed"? And the answer to that question is: Mr Scott Morrison. Finally, Senator Wong asked Minister Birmingham:

Can the minister advise who was the Prime Minister in 2020 when $1.2 billion was used to settle the claims of victims of this government's illegal robodebt scheme?

Again—the trifecta—the answer was: Mr Scott Morrison. And Australians should never forget that the Prime Minister was the man who cooked up the robodebt scheme. He was the Treasurer who bragged about using robodebt to reduce Australia's debt, preying on very vulnerable people in the most egregious way. And he is the Prime Minister right at this moment, when the biggest payout for a failing of a government is making history—$1.2 billion was assigned by the courts to give compensation for people who were caught up in the scheme of Mr Morrison's design, of his implementation. And now there is a very, very belated clean-up.

I want to deal with the constant mistruth that we keep hearing from Senator Ruston with regard to this robodebt scheme being a common practice and the absolute untruth that she told when she said that this was a practice established by the Labor Party. I want to make it very, very clear that the Labor Party did check to see if there was a signal of a mismatch between what was on the record in the Department of Social Services and in the ATO. And, if there was a mismatch, the public servants then absolutely did the work to confirm the facts. The reality is that there were 20,000 Australians per year who were investigated using that scheme. But, the minute Mr Morrison got his hands on it, let me tell you how many illegal debts were being delivered to Australian people per week: 20,000 Australian people were served a debt from their own government—an illegally constructed debt. That lie that is constantly being told—that it was once the same under a Labor government—must end. It is nowhere near the truth. Mr Morrison is responsible for the construction of the robodebt debacle. He is the Treasurer who banked the savings at the expense of the Australian people, and he is the Prime Minister who must be held responsible for the impact on the great Australian nation.

Senator McCarthy asked Senator Ruston a very sensitive question. Senator Ruston's response was to lower her voice and talk about suicide and self-harm as a sensitive and delicate matter. It is, indeed; it's a very sensitive matter. It matters very much to people who've lost loved ones because they couldn't stand the pressure of the debt notices and the debt collectors that were sent upon them by their own government. The government has continued to deny that people self-harmed and, in desperation, took their lives, because of Mr Morrison—because he cooked up the scheme, because he delivered it as Treasurer and because he backed it in as Prime Minister on at least 76 occasions when the AAT knew that they were doing the wrong thing and told the government. This is a government that must hang its head in shame. The Australian people should kick them out on this matter alone. (Time expired)

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to this important issue. The conclusion to Senator O'Neill's speech indicates the objectives of the other side here. Senator O'Neill was most passionate when she was accusing the Prime Minister of certain ills, not when she was seeking to defend or pursue the interests of average Australians. Clearly, the objective of the opposition is not to help people but to hurt the Prime Minister. That is the approach they have taken here. In fact, in her very first contribution, Senator O'Neill accused the government, the Prime Minister and others of being untruthful. Then she went on to make clearly untruthful statements at the very time she herself was accusing others of being untruthful. Senator O'Neill mentioned that, in her view, Minister Birmingham did not provide truthful responses to the questions given today. One of the questions that she claimed there was no response to was: who was the social services minister in 2016? Despite a simple Google search being able to provide the answer to that, Minister Birmingham did mention Mr Scott Morrison in answer to that question. Despite the heckling from the other side—it was often hard to hear half of what was being said by ministers this afternoon—I did distinctly hear Minister Birmingham, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, say that, yes, Mr Morrison was the social services minister in 2016. That was a very useful part of question time this afternoon.

Unlike the opposition, the government's focus now is on helping those that have been put in this situation. The Prime Minister has apologised for the hurt and harm that has been caused by the issues with this program. The government's focus now is on ensuring that people receive the relief as soon as possible. We know and have been transparent about the fact that around 525,000 debts have been wholly or partially raised using income averaging. The total amounts of the refunds being provided because of these debts sit at around $741 million. Around 430,000 Australians will have their debts zeroed through this process. Of those, approximately 378,000 will receive a refund. The balance hadn't actually made a repayment, so there'll be no direct refund, of course, but the debt will be wiped. As of 27 November, just over 406,000 people had had their refunds completed, with a total of $707 million paid. While not mentioned here in my notes, by my math, that leaves around 23,000 to 24,000 people that are still to process their debts. But the vast majority, about 95 per cent of people and 95 per cent of refunds by value, have now been processed. That's going to remain as the focus of the government, including through the settlement that has been reached in the class action with Gordon Legal. And that should be the focus of any government, because if the opposition were true to their claims to care about the impacts of these issues on people then what they should focus on now is that relief—be focused on providing that assistance to people in this circumstance.

It's still very important, of course, that we continue to maintain the integrity of our welfare system. The Australian government spends $180 billion a year on welfare, and support for such welfare programs is reliant on making sure that the money is spent on those who truly need it. Of course there are those who do seek to defraud the Commonwealth and it is important that there are compliance activities to stamp out and penalise such fraud when it does occur. For decades, all governments have pursued such anti-fraud programs. I'm confident that all governments in the future, including if there is to be a Labor government in the future, will continue to do so, because we support our welfare system and we support its integrity. We'll continue to operate it in the best way we can.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[Appearing via video link] I want to speak about the ministers' completely underwhelming response to questions about robodebt today. We all know that robodebt has been an unparalleled disaster. It was illegal and it was executed atrociously. Hundreds of thousands of Australians had to go through the unnecessary stress and heartache of disproving their liability for debts that they didn't even owe, and while governments have previously matched ATO data with Centrelink data, this government automated it, taking out the human oversight element and moving from 20,000 cases a year to 20,000 cases a week.

I'm a member of the Community Affairs References Committee. We've handed down Centrelink's compliance program: Third interim report on robodebt, as it's known. We heard evidence and read submissions from witnesses whose lives were completely devastated by this program. Let's remember that the government's intent was to rip hundreds of millions of dollars out of the pockets of people who have been on extremely low incomes. They wanted to do everything they could in the hope of getting cash for their fantasy surplus, no matter how dubious the methods were. Instead, they've now been ordered to drop the debts, to repay discredited debts which were already paid and to pay millions in compensation and legal fees. This has resulted in a cost to taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars in government legal and administrative costs.

Robodebt was illegal; it was against the law—there are no ifs, buts or maybes about it. It wasn't just 'legally insufficient', as a government official tried to tell me in a hearing into robodebt, it was plain illegal, and the government's explanations today just weren't good enough. People were treated as cheats and debtors by their government. In fact, 430,000 people were treated like this—430,000 people repaid the government when they didn't owe them a cent. This is money that they usually use to pay for rent, electricity, food and other daily basic living expenses. These people went through enormous stress and suffering. People died; people committed suicide. Lives were ruined by this program and now, today, in question time, the government were warning us about speaking about it with a sense of respect. Well, it's a shame they didn't have that same sense of respect when they were harassing people.

We all know whose brainchild robodebt was and who the Treasurer was who announced it and who the Prime Minister now is who didn't stop the implementation of his own botched policy. Yes, it was Mr Morrison in all three positions and that probably explains why we can't find out what the government knew and when they knew it. Personally, I think there's a fair bit of protecting your own backside going on on that side of the chamber, and maybe in the Prime Minister's office too.

This should never have happened. It shouldn't have taken a class action on behalf of thousands of people to rectify the mistakes of this government. The government dragged their feet on the class action for months and have spent years trying to defend the program, even though they were warned 76 times over the years about their actions. What I really don't understand is why the government had to get to the point of settlement instead of listening to the victims concerned. I'll say it again: this must never be allowed to happen again. The government settled on the cusp of the trial without admitting any liability, but obviously knowing they were wrong. The Australian people really need and deserve to know who was responsible. We need to determine how it happened that ministers of the government either knew that the law was being broken and did nothing about it, or never bothered to find out if the law had been broken in the first place. We need to discover how we got into this situation with senior public servants authorising a scheme which was illegal, because if we don't do that, if we don't find out how this disaster occurred, how can we ensure that it won't happen again?

Labor will continue to push for a royal commission into robodebt. It's the only appropriate outcome. The government unjustly enriched itself with $720 million-plus of people's money. It did so at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars in administrative costs and legal fees, before having to hand all the funds it raised back and pay compensation. This process, this policy and this program were incompetence at the highest level. Australian taxpayers and robodebt victims deserve an explanation for this— (Time expired)

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government's robodebt scheme is a travesty and a tragedy. The government knew the damage that this illegal scheme was doing to the people. The Prime Minister was forced into an apology and now there has been a last-minute pre-trial admission conceding that the government owes robodebt victims their money back, plus compensation. This is likely to total more than $1 billion that the government owes victims of the robodebt scheme. A settlement for approximately 400,000 class action members is both the most costly and involves the most people of any settlement by an Australian government. But it is some form of justice for victims, who have been treated terribly by the Morrison government.

For years the Morrison government has been in denial about robodebt's fairness and legality, even after the defective robodebt system had wreaked a trail of carnage across the nation, resulting in anxiety, poverty and even suicides. This dodgy scheme is more than what Christian Porter now calls 'legally insufficient'. It has cost countless Australians their livelihoods and in some cases their lives. It's only after the prospect of coalition ministers such as former Minister for Human Services Alan Tudge having to take the witness stand to answer questions about what they knew that the government has agreed to fairly pay back victims.

There are so many dirty hands involved in this dodgy scheme. Scott Morrison, once the social services minister and then the Treasurer, was a key architect of robodebt. Christian Porter, who became social services minister, was also involved, and Mr Robert. This government, the minister and this Prime Minister will not even answer the most basic questions about how this illegal robodebt scheme was designed and implemented. The minister has dodged and ducked and thrown up flimsy claims of public interest immunity time after time after time and has just plain refused to answer questions about robodebt. The Prime Minister needs to step up and answer the questions about how robodebt came into being and when the government was first made aware that what they were doing was actually illegal. He needs to answer the question about exactly how much this botched scheme cost the country. And he needs to make it very clear what they knew, and when, about the devastating impact that the robodebt scheme was having on individuals and about the reports that were received about threats of self-harm.

What is it about robodebt's origins that the government does not want anyone to know?

Were they told it was illegal and ignored the advice? Or did they not check its legality at all before unleashing it on an unsuspecting public? How much extra in taxpayers' money has the Morrison government wasted fighting this unwinnable case? Only a royal commission into robodebt will give the public the answers they deserve, and only a royal commission will give the families of those who took their own lives after falling victim to robodebt some answers. This government has not even bothered to find out how many people have threatened self-harm or how many victims of robodebt have tragically taken their own lives. You cannot refund the debt. The government must immediately allow such an independent inquiry into the robodebt scandal.

Sunlight on how these hidden decisions were made is vital. It's needed to ensure the Australian public is never again exposed to whatever has gone horribly wrong here. It is extremely offensive to the Australian public that no-one in this government is taking any responsibility for this $1.2 billion scam on the Australian people. Every day that no minister is stood down over this theft from the public is another argument for a robodebt royal commission as the only route to accountability. In the meantime the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, must explain what the consequences will be for ministers for their involvement in the single greatest social security scandal in this nation's history and the subsequent cover-up.

Question agreed to.