Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert:

(2) Schedule 2, page 29 (after line 23), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4 — Time limit on debt recovery

Division 1 — Amendments

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999

15 Section 93B

Repeal the section, substitute:

93B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings or any action under a provision of this Part for the recovery of a debt or overpayment may not be commenced after 6 years has elapsed since the overpayment was made.

Social Security Act 1991

16 Section 1234B

Repeal the section, substitute:

1234B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Chapter, legal proceedings or any action under a provision of this Chapter for the recovery of a debt or overpayment may not be commenced after 6 years has elapsed since the overpayment was made.

Student Assistance Act 1973

17 Section 42B

Repeal the section, substitute:

42B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings or any action under a provision of this Part for the recovery of a debt or overpayment may not be commenced after 6 years has elapsed since the overpayment was made.

Division 2 — Application of amendments

18 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to a debt that is raised before or after this item commences.

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 bill contains a number of changes to the social security law that I and many others broadly welcome, particularly the expansion of debt waiver provisions. It also includes what I believe is an attempt at a nuanced and reasonable response to the issue of income apportionment debts. This was a method which was found to be unlawfully applied and which the Department of Social Services itself estimates has been used since the 1990s and could affect about three million people. While I would argue for waiving or writing off all of these debts, I can see that the minister has navigated a sensible pathway here.

What is missing from the bill is the commitment to address a key outstanding recommendation of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, and that is the reintroduction of a six-year limitation on debt recovery actions by Services Australia. The importance of this recommendation cannot be overstated. Two years have now passed since the royal commission report was handed down, and, frankly, there's no good reason that this simple reform has not yet been implemented. So that is exactly what my amendments seek to do, and they do so entirely consistently with the commissioner's own comment. She said, 'There is no reason that current and former social security recipients should be on any different footing from other debtors.'

Let me be clear. The amendments as drafted don't magically disappear a debt if it has already been identified and is being pursued by Services Australia. What they do is reintroduce a bit of fairness to the system and a bit of humanity. It's a recognition that if six years or more have passed, you shouldn't suddenly have Services Australia notifying you of debts and demanding immediate payment or requesting evidence, which most people would long ago have lost or discarded. Even the ATO only requires us to keep evidence for five years.

I'm proud that we have a comprehensive income support system in this country, but I think that, even despite the robodebt royal commission, people often forget or ignore the pain, frustration and terror the system can inflict on people. Of course, a debt notice is a frightening thing at any time. But one from a government agency which relates to a payment you might have received 10 years ago—you might have no documentation and perhaps only the faintest memory of your circumstances—is quite likely to be terrifying. It's no wonder that at the core of the robodebt royal commission's findings was the simple fact that government services need to return to providing access to an effective income support system for Australians, ensuring they are treated with respect and dignity. I would like to think that this government would have this goal as its guiding principle.

I'd like to think the minister would consider this bill to be just a very small first step, with many more to come quickly, because there's a lot still to be addressed. For starters, the government could support my amendments and reintroduce the limitation on debt recovery. They could also revisit the robodebt royal commission report and the many other recommendations for which, after over two years, we're still waiting for the government's response and implementation. Just a few weeks ago I introduced my responding to robodebt bill; I'd be happy if they were wanting to adopt and progress that bill. Once the government have done that, they could then turn their attention to addressing the gross injustice in the mutual obligation scheme, which led to the illegal suspension and cancellation of the Centrelink payments of some 300,000 people between 2020 and 2024.

Of course, there's one other big thing the government could do to bring decency and humanity back to the income support system, and that's to finally raise the rates of payments to lift recipients out of poverty and to provide them with the basic human dignity to which they are entitled. I'll leave that all out there for the government to consider, but, for now, I urge the government—and, indeed, all members in this place—to take a first step and support my amendments to reintroduce a six-year limitation on debt recovery actions by Services Australia as recommended by the robodebt royal commission.

See this speech in context