Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, Senator Ruston. On Monday the minister said that, as soon as the government became aware 'that the method of debt collection was not valid, we immediately ceased collecting funds'. Can the minister advise on what date the Morrison government first became aware that the method of debt collection was not valid?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Wong for her question. In the interests of being absolutely clear, and I accept the direct quote that Senator Wong has just read into the Hansard, what I said on Monday was that income averaging was deemed to not be a valid method by which to determine a debt. So we just need to be very clear that it was not what Senator Gallagher alleged that I had said, and that was that the income compliance program was not valid—just to be absolutely clear.

Senator Wong, as is always the case in this place, we do not—and it has been the practice of everybody, whether it be the Labor government or successive Liberal governments—provide details in relation to specific legal advice. However, I do stand by my statement that, as soon as we were made aware, we acted with great speed to make sure that we did not continue to use income averaging as the sole method by which we would determine debts. In fact, we made it very clear that we would make sure that we had further proof points, if a debt was raised, to ensure that the income compliance program was determining debts by a valid means.

As I subsequently went on to say during the week, we have now, this year, proceeded to repay the debts that were generated through income averaging as the sole means for collecting those debts. We have now gone through the process of repaying the majority of the debts that were determined by that means.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, a supplementary question?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the minister's answer. I'm not seeking legal advice. The minister herself has made a public statement, including to this chamber, that the method of debt collection was not valid. She herself has indicated that. I am not going to the substance of legal advice. I am asking this government when you became aware of the method of debt collection not being valid. What was the date?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong would be well aware that the matter that we are referring to is actually still before the court and so I can't come in here and provide information about not only the legal advice but the date it was received. However, what I can tell you is that, last year, we made a decision that we would include an additional proof point to enable us to make sure the method by which debts were calculated was valid. That was undertaken at that time.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister explain why this government ignored warnings over three years prior to late 2019 and at least 76 AAT decisions and continued with a method of debt collection which was not valid?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reject the premise of the question that Senator Wong just put to me. As I have said in this place, when I and the government became aware that income averaging as a method for determining debts was not a valid means by which to determine those debts we changed the program to ensure that we did not continue to determine debts via this invalid method. However, going back to the comments in relation to the AAT, as I've said in this place on a number of occasions this week, each and every case that goes before the AAT turns on the specific facts of that case. There were cases before the AAT that were upheld and there were also cases that went before the AAT that were overturned—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Canavan on a point of order?

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

On a point of order, Mr President—this has been happening all week. It's hard to hear the answer to this question with Senator O'Neill's constant interjections. I would like to be able to hear interjections equally! I can't hear Senator Keneally's interjections over Senator O'Neill's interjections! I think it would be only fair if they were given an equal opportunity to interject on these important issues!

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Canavan! Senator Wong, are you rising on this or another point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On this point of order, Mr President. I would have hoped Senator Canavan might care a little more about the fact that this minister is entirely refusing to be accountable to the chamber.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, that's not a point of order. Interjections, I will restate, are always disorderly. I ask senators to allow their colleagues to hear the answers to questions so they may be debated after question time. Senator Ruston, have you concluded your answer?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.