Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendments moved by my colleague the member for Clark. I acknowledge what the minister has just said to us and thank her for her careful consideration of the recommendations of the final report of the royal commission into robodebt and acknowledge that it was established by the Albanese Labor government.

I am heartened that these amendments and the argument put by the member for Clark are under consideration, more broadly, by the minister and her department. It is tremendously important that, at all times, we act with fairness and humanity, as the minister just pointed out and as the member for Clark so eloquently described. It's critical that the recommendations of the royal commission, which the government have agreed to, are enacted because we can never forget and we must not forget. As parliamentarians and as legislators, we cannot allow this ever to be repeated. We simply can't allow the most vulnerable in our community to come up again against the might of an automated and dispassionate government system set up deliberately—let's not forget—to target them.

The amendments would place a six-year time limit on debt recovery actions. It is, effectively, a statute of limitations, and I thank the minister for explaining that, because it's useful. I think this is what we seek. The public, more broadly, seeks nuanced understanding of the rationale for government to act or not act, to act immediately or to delay and consider. So it's really useful to have that explanation.

In light of what the minister said and in addition to it, I still think that, ultimately, recovering social security debts with a time limit is a fair approach and that there should be some limitation on the length of time. It's practical that this be brought in line with ordinary law because ordinary law has such a thing. I think that there is actually no reason why social security debts should be treated differently to any other kind of debt.

In 2016 the former coalition government removed the previous six-year limit. It allowed debts to be pursued at any time, and we've seen the consequences of that—devastating consequences. I would argue that there's probably not a member of this House of Representatives who cannot cite devastating stories from their own electorate of the impact of this. I know I have countless stories. The decision by the coalition government in 2016 opened the door to chasing very, very old debts—years after the fact. These were debts that the member for Clark has said people would not even know that they had. Worse still, these debts were often the result of government errors, not their own. This is serious.

The bill before the House today recognises that governments make mistakes. This bill—and the intention with which the minister puts it—demonstrates as clearly as you could possibly demonstrate that thousands of people never even knew that they were being overpaid due to income apportionment. We know that chasing people down for these unknown and often minor debts years down the track is not only unfair but actually unconscionable. It's why I ultimately welcome so many parts of this bill that will provide some justice and recourse for victims of income apportionment, including the small debt waiver and the resolution scheme. It was really useful again to hear the minister talk about what that will ultimately do.

Even the mere existence of limitless debt recovery powers is ultimately, though, a failure of fairness in our social security system. It's not how a trustworthy system should work, and it hasn't been rectified in the almost 10 years since the coalition government enacted this. The robodebt royal commission recommended restoring the six-year limit by repealing section 1234B of the Social Security Act. I back that recommendation in full. The government has accepted it in principle, and I understand that you're working towards this, so I really encourage you to continue to do so. I thank you for the courage in what you've done so far, and I ask you to continue that courage and adopt this recommendation as quickly as you possibly can. Reinstating the time limit will encourage Services Australia to act promptly to keep proper records and to fix errors early rather than pursuing people years later. Ultimately, that will reduce harm, and that's what we're all seeking to do. I thank the member for Clark for raising in a debate, and I urge the minister to continue to act with haste to sort out this last problem.

See this speech in context