Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. The minister said in question time today that its robodebt scheme is neither unlawful nor that any documents exist that prove that the Commonwealth was warned robodebt victims were threatening self-harm. So, why did it pay $1.2 billion in the largest ever class action settlement to settle robodebt, including $112 million of compensation, and does the minister stand by his statement that there was no advice to the Commonwealth that victims of robodebt were threatening self-harm?

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I announced on 19 November last year, the government had come to the conclusion, after decades and decades of averaged ATO income data being used—at least back to 1994—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my left!

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I announced on 19 November that the use of raising a debt solely or partially based on averaged income data from the ATO was not sufficient. It was being used for at least 26 years, back to the Keating era, but it was this government that said it was not sufficient. And, based on the lack of sufficiency of proof points for a debt to be crystallised, that's when the government acted. But, be under no doubt, the automatic raising of debts is not an issue here—governments of all persuasions have been doing this quite rightly and quite legitimately for a long time. In the 2007-08 financial year, there was $1.8 billion, and in 2008-09 there was $1.9 billion—the list goes on. It's a legitimate process of government, but the use of income average—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. The member for Maribyrnong on a point of order.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on relevance: acknowledging a preamble, my question specifically said: Why did the government pay $1.2 billion if you were perfectly legal?

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on both sides! The minister has the call.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I announced on 19 November last year, the government came to the conclusion that a process that had been going for three decades lacked sufficiency. Therefore, the government responded. The government's data goes back—in terms of computing power—to 2015. Hence, we were able to provide refunds to Australians because our data went back to 2015, and we responded because of a lack of sufficiency. Hence, to date, we have paid back $707.3 million in refunds to 406,672 people. But considering the use of averaged income data has been going back for two or three decades, Australians always have the right to seek for their debts to be reviewed at any time. If there are Australians who believe that their debt going back that amount of time was raised solely or partially, and can demonstrate that, they should come to Services Australia and ask for a review. It was on that basis, after three decades, that the government reached the point of the lack of sufficiency and acted lawfully.