I rise to speak on the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026. The Knox settlement will compensate eligible group members either through fixed payments or by an individual assessment for a range of economic or non-economic loss types. The bill will amend the NDIS, social security and veterans' entitlements acts to exempt Knox settlements payments from the existing statutory recovery schemes and income testing provisions that ordinarily apply. Under normal circumstances, compensation payments received by a person would be assessed against their entitlement to social security payments. This bill will amend the Social Security Act to exempt any payment made under the Knox settlement from being classified as income or a compensation payment to assess a person's entitlement to social security payments. The same exemption will be applied under the Veterans' Entitlements Act to exempt these payments from being used for a person's entitlement to DVA payments. The bill will also exempt any settlement amount under the NDIS Act so as not to impact a person's NDIS plan for the funding of reasonable and necessary supports. I understand from discussions with the government that an additional bill will be introduced to the parliament by the end of the 2026-27 financial year to also exempt these payments from income tax provisions. The government has requested that this bill pass the parliament quickly to ensure settlement payments can be made promptly and there is no impact to people's payments. The coalition will support quick passage of the bill.

I wanted to take a moment, though, to highlight concerns with the Albanese government's approach to using similar automated assessment tools in aged care and now in the NDIS. The Albanese Labor government has created an algorithm driven system used in aged-care assessments that deliberately removes the ability for trained assessors to override the decision even when it produces the wrong outcome. Older Australians and their families across the country are telling us they are being underassessed, receiving inadequate levels of support or being given the wrong priority. This means that older Australians are going without the care that they have been assessed as needing or, worse, they are being assessed incorrectly altogether. This has led to people receiving lower support despite worsening conditions, fear among older Australians about requesting reassessments, and a surge of complaints and requests for a review.

Despite the government's rhetoric, they have failed to adhere to the very lessons they preach—that there must be transparency, accountability and meaningful human oversight when using tools like this. The government removed the ability for humans to override outcomes as part of a 2024-25 budget decision with no policy rationale apart from saving money on the budget bottom line. What makes this even more concerning is that the government cannot claim it didn't know there were problems. There have been months of warnings from aged-care clinicians, assessors, peak bodies, older Australians, carers, academics and state and territory health authorities. In February, aged-care workers described the integrated assessment tool as cruel and inhumane, with one experienced assessor telling the Guardian he disagreed with the tool eight times out of 10 and that he ultimately left his job. By March, more than 800 people had already sought reviews of their assessments, while assessors remained unable to override the algorithm even when they believed the result was wrong. One former member of the government's aged-care panel explicitly compared the system to robodebt.

The warnings weren't confined to the sector. State and territory health officials were raising concerns about real people being harmed by the system, documents recently released show health staff were compiling lists of concerning cases within days of the tool being launched, including people who had been severely under-assessed and people experiencing delays in receiving appropriate care. Western Australia's health director-general warned of potentially catastrophic outcomes without a discretionary pathway. And the warnings have continued. FOI documents have revealed that assessors were even warning some people with dementia against seeking reassessment, because they feared the algorithm could reduce their existing support despite the conditions worsening.

For all the prophesising from the Albanese Labor government about the mistakes of Robodebt, I fear they are repeating history. How many warnings does this government need? How many older Australians have to be underassessed? How many families have to fight the system? How many clinicians have to say the outcome is wrong before the government accepts that the design is wrong? The ABC's investigation found that the integrated assessment tool contained more than 500 questions, yet experts found that much of the information collected does not actually feed into the algorithm. A one-point difference at one point in the decision tree can mean a reduction of $40,000 a year in funding.

A person's care needs cannot always be reduced to a neat mathematical formula. Frailty, dementia, carer exhaustion, living circumstances and the interaction between multiple conditions require clinical judgement. The whole point of having trained assessors is that a human being can recognise when the computer has got it wrong. The Senate has already passed legislation to restore human oversight. The government could support that legislation and fix this problem now. Perhaps the most concerning part is that the government appears determined to take the same philosophy into the NDIS.

On 18 August, Minister Butler was asked why the government wouldn't simply cancel the aged-care algorithm given the hundreds of complaints and serious cases. His response was revealing. He said that the government was doing 'exactly the same' in the NDIS as it moves to its new framework planning system, with the aim of greater 'equity and predictability' in the level of funding provided. So the question for Australians with disability is: what exactly has Labor learned from the aged-care algorithm?

The coalition is not arguing that government should never use technology or data. Technology can assist decision-making. It should not replace it. And yet, Labor appears determined to never learn this lesson, even when another generation of vulnerable Australians will pay the price.

I rise to support the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026 introduced by the Minister for Social Services, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek. This bill is wise, principled and beneficial, but behind it lies one of the most shameful episodes in the history of Australian public administration—the Liberal and National parties' unlawful and punitive robodebt scheme.

For years, I and many of my colleagues have spoken in this parliament about the cruelty and illegality of the robodebt scheme. In 2020, I said that the financial cost of robodebt, appalling though it was—I'm quoting myself—'pales next to the toll in human suffering'. That remains true today. Robodebt was not simply a defective administrative program. It was not some technical error buried deep inside government. The Liberal-National government under the then prime minister, Tony Abbott, conceived and implemented robodebt, and the Turnbull and Morrison coalition governments expanded and defended it until legal action forced its abandonment.

The scheme used averaged annual income data from the Australian Taxation Office to assert that social security recipients had received money they were not entitled to. It turned an estimate into an accusation and the accusation into a debt, and then turned that debt into a demand for payment. It shifted the burden onto ordinary Australians to disprove debts the Commonwealth had not lawfully established.

The Commonwealth admitted, and the Federal Court declared, that more than $1.73 billion in debts were unlawfully raised against about 433,000 people—$751 million of it already taken from 381,000 of them. Those figures are staggering, but the figures do not tell us what robodebt did to people. They do not describe the fear of receiving a letter from your own government demanding thousands of dollars you did not owe. They do not describe the fear and anxiety of being pursued by debt collectors. They do not describe the humiliation of being treated as a cheat or a criminal when you had done nothing wrong—and that humiliation was set from the top.

Australians will not forget the blustering, mean-spirited threats of the Liberal minister, Alan Tudge, in the Morrison government. In December 2016, as robodebt notices were being sent out across the country, he went out in the media and said:

We'll find you, we'll track you down, you will have to repay those debts, and you may end up in prison.

People who had done nothing wrong opened letters from their own government demanding money. The minister responsible—that's Mr Tudge—told the nation they might end up in prison. When the Albanese Labor government came to office in 2022, we were determined that what had happened could not simply be allowed to pass into history unexplained and unexamined.

We moved swiftly to establish the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. At the time, I was Attorney-General, and establishing that royal commission was one of the key initiatives in my portfolio to repair the damage the former government had done to the rule of law. The Attorney-General's Department undertook the work of establishing and supporting the royal commission, work I have described as being of the highest standard. The royal commission was formally established by letters patent issued by the Governor-General in August 2022. It was given the powers and independence necessary to determine how robodebt was conceived, who was responsible, what warnings were given and ignored, and what it did to people.

The royal commission heard of financial hardship, profound distress and lives devastated. It heard evidence from mothers whose sons had died by suicide after becoming caught up in the scheme. They were people entitled to expect that their government would obey the law and treat them with dignity. I've said many times that acting lawfully is the bare minimum of a democratically elected government's obligation to the community. Robodebt failed even that most basic test, and that is not simply my judgement. The commissioner—Catherine Holmes AC SC, a former chief justice of Queensland—examined in forensic detail how this disaster was conceived, implemented and allowed to continue.

Commissioner Holmes' conclusions were unsparing and devastating. She described robodebt as 'a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal'. She said:

In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money.

The commission exposed a profound failure of government. It found a scheme rushed into operation without proper regard for its legality or the people it would affect and maintained despite mounting evidence of the devastation it was causing. In her closing observations, Commissioner Holmes named the causes in three words that won't be forgotten, and I'm going to quote them: venality, incompetence and cowardice. That is a damning finding about how public power was exercised in this country. This was a government working against its own citizens. The royal commission showed what can happen when legality is treated as an obstacle, when warnings are buried and when vulnerable people become a line in a budget.

That is why the lessons of robodebt cannot be left in the past. They impose an obligation on every government that follows. The first of those obligations concerns legal advice. It cannot be disregarded because it sits in draft, and advice must not be left in draft because its conclusions are unwelcome. Government lawyers must be free to provide frank, fearless and independent legal advice, and governments must be prepared to hear it. What makes this history still more disturbing is that the warnings came early. As Attorney-General, in a speech to a national tribunals conference in June 2023, I asked:

How can it be that members of the AAT could say—over and over and over again—that the Robodebt scheme was unlawful only for those decisions, and the obvious implications of those decisions, to be ignored and ultimately buried?

The royal commission answered that question. Commissioner Holmes found:

The beginning of 2017 was the point at which Robodebt's unfairness, probable illegality and cruelty became apparent.

She found that the scheme 'should then have been abandoned or revised drastically, and an enormous amount of hardship and misery would have been averted.' These are also Commissioner Holmes's words:

Instead the path taken was to double down, to go on the attack in the media against those who complained and to maintain the falsehood that in fact the system had not changed at all.

When our government responded to the royal commission's report in 2023, I said:

The Liberal Party's Robodebt scheme was not an innocent mistake. This was a deliberate, calculated scheme.

…   …   …

The Robodebt scheme was wrong, the Robodebt scheme was unlawful, the Robodebt scheme destroyed the lives of many innocent Australians.

Nothing we do now can give back to those Australians the years taken from them. No court order can erase the anxiety. No settlement can undo every injury. No payment can restore a life that has been lost. But we are obliged to do what justice still permits—and that's the purpose of this bill.

On 23 June this year, the Federal Court approved a settlement of the appeal from the original robodebt class action, providing a further $475 million in compensation for eligible group members. It is the largest class action settlement in Australian history. Justice Beach, of the Federal Court, began his reasons this way. Robodebt, he said, 'was a fiasco in public administration and an abrogation of ministerial responsibility and competent oversight'. Those who authored and promoted it acted, in His Honour's words, 'in contumelious disregard of individual rights', and the suffering it produced is 'immeasurable and ongoing'.

The legislation before us makes an important and principled change. It amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act, the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act so that settlement payments are not treated as compensation and are not counted as income for determining income support. The principle is simple: people harmed by the unlawful conduct of the Commonwealth should not then have that compensation clawed back by the Commonwealth or see their income support cut because they received it. Compensation is intended to compensate. It should reach the people for whom it is intended.

The Minister for Social Services, Ms Plibersek, put the principle simply when announcing these measures:

People impacted by Robodebt deserve nothing less than every single dollar of compensation they are entitled to.

She is right. This bill gives practical effect to that principle, and it is another part of the work this Labor government has undertaken to confront the legacy of robodebt.

There is a larger lesson here. The power of government is immense. The discipline of law is not an inconvenience to it; the discipline of law is what makes it legitimate. When the Commonwealth deals with a person who relies on social security, that person is not a problem to be managed or a debt to be collected; they are a citizen entitled to lawful treatment. They have rights, they are entitled to dignity and they are entitled to expect their government to obey the law. Robodebt deliberately ignored that. This parliament must never forget it.

This bill cannot undo what was done, but it can make sure that the people harmed by an unlawful scheme keep the compensation they are owed without another arm of government taking it back. That is a modest act of justice. After robodebt, it is the very least we owe them. I commend this bill to the House.

In June this year, the Federal Court approved a settlement in which the Commonwealth would pay $475 million as compensation for the harms caused by the illegal and immoral robodebt scheme. This was known as the Knox settlement. It was the largest class action settlement in Australian history. It was a settlement commensurate with the scale of the damage and the ruin caused by robodebt.

The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme found that the Australian government's scheme harmed economically and socially disadvantaged people who are in receipt of income support payments. Robodebt was illegal. In approving this settlement, the Federal Court described robodebt as 'a fiasco in public administration and an abrogation of ministerial responsibility and competent oversight'. It said that the suffering experienced by affected individuals was 'immeasurable and ongoing'. I have heard from people who were damaged by the robodebt scheme of the ongoing hurt and dismay they have experienced as a result of what was, effectively, victimisation by the federal government.

The $475 million settlement will compensate eligible members of the Knox class action for the harms caused by robodebt. Without the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026, some of that compensation could effectively be taken back by the Commonwealth. The bill exempts Knox settlement payments from the compensation and income tax provisions that would ordinarily apply under Australia's social security and veterans' affairs systems. It also ensures that payments are not treated as compensation under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That means that recipients will not have their social security or veterans' affairs payments reduced or diminished entirely because they receive such a settlement. They won't have to repay amounts to the Commonwealth under the relevant compensation provisions, and the settlement payment won't affect their NDIS supports through the compensation provisions.

Victims of robodebt certainly deserve to access full NDIS social security and veterans' affairs payments. People who are harmed by an unlawful government scheme shouldn't be penalised again when the government compensates them for that harm. They deserve to stand on equal ground. They deserve to receive compensation for the harm that they experience without that compensation impacting other ongoing supports that they receive and need. And so I unreservedly endorse this bill.

But we still have much to do to ensure that such a deliberate distortion of government policy can never happen again. In fact, as automated decision-making becomes more common in government, we are more exposed every day to a potential repeat of robodebt. It's now been more than 10 years since robodebt was introduced and three years since the royal commission found that the Automated Debt Recovery Scheme at its basis was unlawful. But we're still waiting for a government commitment to introduce transparency and appropriate safeguards when automated decision-making tools are used by Commonwealth departments.

In 2023, the royal commission made two important recommendations. Recommendation 17.1 called for a consistent legal framework for automation in government services, including clear pathways for review, transparency about where automated decision-making is used and capacity for independent experts to scrutinise the business rules and algorithms behind those systems. Recommendation 17.2 called for a body with the power to monitor and audit automated decision-making, including its technical operation and its impacts on fairness, bias and usability.

Those recommendations were based on the acknowledgement that robodebt happened, deaths happened and lives were ruined because an automated system was used by the government without adequate safeguards, transparency and accountability—without responsible human oversight. The royal commission warned that, as automated systems become more sophisticated, and as they are deployed at greater scale, their potential to cause harm will also increase. The government has accepted recommendation 17—a recommendation, let's remember, that was made three years ago. But, as yet, it has made no substantive progress on its implementation.

Last week I seconded the member for Curtin's private member's bill, the Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) Bill 2026. That bill implements recommendation 17.1 and 17.2 of the robodebt royal commission. It would a introduce legal framework establishing a set of safeguards and transparency requirements to guide the use of automated decision-making across Commonwealth departments and agencies. It would take a risk based approach, prohibiting automated decision-making where it would produce an unlawful outcome, where the decision requires genuine human discretion, when no explanation of the outcome can be given or where it would have an unjustified adverse impact on human rights. It would establish those circumstances in which additional safeguards are required. It would establish a body to monitor the use of automated decision-making in government, including through publication on a new Commonwealth automated tools register maintained by the Ombudsman.

This issue has now become particularly urgent in aged care, where the integrated assessment tool is being used as part of the assessment system that determines the classification, type of care and priority of older Australians who are seeking aged-care services. For the better part of a year the automated tool has now been determining supports for some of Australia's most vulnerable people. Assessors have been unable to override the findings of that algorithm but, for the one in five older Australians who are able to seek a review of the tools decision, the review found that its decision-making was wrong. The minister's rapid review into the integrated assessment tool is now two weeks overdue but it is unlikely to offer human oversight embedded within future iterations of the assessment pathway. I've repeatedly raised concerns in this House that this flawed algorithm could result in robodebt 2.0—robodebt aged care—but, equally, we could soon face robodebt NDIS or robodefence.

As the government looks to deliver services more efficiently and more cheaply, automation is only going to grow in influence across government. It is already increasing across the board. In the NDIS, it's being used both to determine eligibility for support and to set the level of support that recipients receive. Automation is being used more and more in social security payments, immigration determinations, environmental assessments and healthcare processes. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it will prove a false economy if it creates errors and if it harms people at scale and leaves the Commonwealth paying to fix its mess again.

The Commonwealth has ultimately agreed to pay $475 million, plus $73 million in administration costs—over half-a-billion dollars—to compensate Australians who have been harmed by robodebt. This is not an argument against automation; it's an argument against automation without safeguards. Last year, 27 civil society signatories joined with ACOSS and wrote to the Attorney-General about the need for further safeguards. So while I commend this bill to the House and I applaud the protections that it provides to victims of robodebt I also implore the government to urgently legislate safeguards over automated decision-making so that we don't end up here again, debating compensation for the victims of robodebt 2.0.

I rise to speak on the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026. It's purpose is to amend three particular pieces of legislation: the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act, the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This is to exempt Knox settlement payments, from the robodebt class action, from existing Commonwealth statutory recovery schemes and income-testing provisions that ordinarily apply for recipients of lump sum compensation payments.

There are some bills that come into this place that deal in the very technical language of statutory recovery schemes, income-testing provisions and rate calculators. And on the surface that is exactly what the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026 does. But underneath the schedules, underneath the subsections, this bill is about something much simpler. It is really about whether this parliament will let a government finish what is broken or whether we'll let one more piece of red tape reach into the pockets of the very people the robodebt scheme already hurt.

I want to start, if I may, with a story—not from a courtroom situation or from the royal commission transcript, but from the kinds of conversations I used to have across my desk in my old life as an employment lawyer and also from the kinds of conversations my electorate office still has most weeks in Hurstville, Kogarah, Rockdale and Bexley. Picture a woman in her 60s. She has worked cleaning offices around Kingsgrove for the better part of two decades, on and off, while caring for a parent and, later, a grandchild.

One year her hours changed twice; her income averaged out strangely across the financial year. A letter arrived from Centrelink telling her she owed almost $11,000. She hadn't done anything wrong. She hadn't hidden anything. A computer had simply averaged her income across fortnights—in which she had never actually earned that much—and decided she was a debtor. She said she didn't sleep properly for the better part of a year, and she started to avoid the mailbox. She said it felt like being accused of stealing from her own community by the very people who were supposed to have your back. That is robodebt—a real person in a real electorate like mine, Barton, in a lounge room, staring at a letter that told her that the government believed she was a cheat, when in truth it was the government's own scheme that was breaking the law.

We know now, because the royal commission told us in the clearest possible terms, that this was not a bureaucratic accident. It was a scheme built on income averaging that officials were advised again and again was not lawful. It was pursued anyway, against people who were disproportionately economically and socially disadvantaged, many of them already vulnerable.

The Commonwealth unlawfully asserted more than $1.7 billion in debts against 433,000 Australians. It recovered $751 million of that from people who owed nothing, and it did so using private debt collectors. Ordinary citizens were threatened with the machinery of law over debts that existed only on a spreadsheet. Those opposite, when they were in government, told Australians this scheme would save taxpayers $4.7 billion. Instead it has now cost the Commonwealth more than $2 billion, and an immeasurable human cost besides.

When the royal commission was established to get to the truth of what happened, those opposite called it a political stunt, a witch-hunt, a trial by media. We should never forget the words of a former minister, who told Australians:

We'll find you, we'll track you down and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.

Those are not the words of a government administering a lawful scheme. They are the words of a government that had lost sight of who it was supposed to serve. I raise this history not to relitigate the past for its own sake but because it is the only way to properly understand why this bill exists in the first place and why the exemptions it creates are so necessary.

The first robodebt class action resulted in a settlement approved by the Federal Court in 2021, an acknowledgement that administrative decisions under the scheme were never validly made, alongside $112 million in interest payments to group members. But when the royal commission's findings revealed that Commonwealth officials knew of it or were recklessly indifferent to it—the unlawfulness of what they were doing—an appeal followed. That appeal, brought by Nathan Knox and David Mandell on behalf of group members, led to a new settlement in September 2025, the Knox settlement, which the Federal Court approved in June this year. Under that settlement, the Commonwealth will pay $475 million in compensation to eligible group members on top of everything already repaid or written off in the earlier settlement. Combined with the debts refunded and the amounts already zeroed out, the total value of remedying this scandal now sits at over $2 billion.

In its judgement, the Federal Court did not mince words. It called robodebt 'a fiasco in public administration, an abrogation of ministerial responsibility and competent oversight'. It found that the suffering experienced by those affected was in, in its words, 'immeasurable and ongoing'. I think of that woman from Kingsgrove, and I think that is exactly right.

Here is the problem this bill solves. Under normal circumstances—and there are good reasons—the system usually works a particular way. A lump-sum compensation payment like this one would be subject to taxation, to income testing and to Commonwealth statutory recovery arrangements. That means a veteran on an income support pension could see their payment reduced. It means someone receiving NDIS support could have the National Disability Insurance Agency claw back the cost of past supports directly from their settlement money. It means a pensioner could be pushed into a preclusion period and lose access to income support they rely upon or find a portion of their long-awaited compensation swallowed up by aged-care fees or an unexpected tax debt they never saw coming because tax is not usually withheld from settlement payments.

Let that sink in; without this bill, some of the very Australians who were wrongly treated as debtors by an unlawful scheme could find part of their compensation for that scheme clawed back by the ordinary operation of other Commonwealth systems. It would be robodebt's ghost reaching out one more time to take money from people who have already waited years for justice.

This bill makes sure that doesn't happen again. It amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 so that the Knox settlement payments are specifically excluded from the definition of compensation that would otherwise trigger cost recovery or reduce a participant's future NDIS plan. It amends the Social Security Act 1991 so that these payments are treated as exempt income and not counted as compensation for the purposes of pension and benefit assessments. And it makes equivalent amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 so that a veteran who is one of the roughly 168,000 people covered by this settlement will not see their income support pension reduced or subjected to a preclusion period because of the money the Commonwealth owed them in the first place.

In practical terms, this bill means the difference between a Barton pensioner receiving the compensation they are owed in full and the same pensioner discovering that a portion of it has quietly disappeared into a recovery scheme or an income test. It really means that a veteran in our community is not penalised twice, once by an unlawful scheme and again by the ordinary machinery designed for very different, very ordinary circumstances. As the Minister for Social Services put it in her second reading speech, this is not about changing how our system usually works; it is about recognising that robodebt was never ordinary and that the 'extraordinary and unique' circumstances of the scheme demand an extraordinary response.

I want to be frank with the House about why this matters so deeply to me as a former workplace lawyer. For a decade, I stood in the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Circuit Court representing people—workers, employees and also employers—trying to get a fair and lawful outcome under systems that are supposed to operate by the rule of law. What made robodebt so corrosive was precisely that it inverted that principle. It was the government itself acting outside the law, against people with the least power to fight back. When you have spent years in rooms where the stakes for ordinary people are entitlements, wages and dignity, you develop a low tolerance for systems that get this wrong and an even lower tolerance for governments that know they have got it wrong and delay putting it right.

This bill is this Albanese Labor government putting it right methodically and completely. We established the royal commission. We agreed or agreed in principle to all 56 of its recommendations. We are delivering the largest class action settlement in Australian history, and, with this bill, we are making sure that settlement is not diminished by the very Commonwealth systems it was meant to remedy against. The government has also flagged that complementary exemptions relating to Medicare and aged care will follow through regulation and that a full exemption from income tax on these payments will be legislated before the end of the 2026-27 tax year. This bill is not the end of that work. It is the next necessary step in it.

To the woman from Kingsgrove and to the tens of thousands of Australians like her across this country and across Barton, in Hurstville, Bexley, Rockdale and Carlton, this bill says something very simple. We see what was done to you. We are not going to let one arm of government quietly undo what another arm of government has finally agreed to make right. You are owed this in full, and this parliament intends to see that you receive it.

I rise today to speak in support of the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026. I begin by thanking the member for Barton for her contribution—in particular, the way she highlighted the story of her constituent from Kingsgrove. I know that she has deep levels of empathy and concern for that lady and indeed for all Australians who were affected by the illegal and immoral robodebt scheme.

This bill operates to exempt settlement payments received by members of the Knox class action, which compensates for the harms caused by robodebt from existing Commonwealth statutory recovery schemes and income-testing provisions that would ordinarily apply for recipients of a lump sum compensation payment. The settlement payments will be made to eligible Knox class action members through the settlement distribution scheme approved by the Federal Court in Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia. In particular, the bill exempts these Knox settlement payments from the application of the compensation provisions in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 and from the application of the compensation and income-test provisions in the Social Security Act 1991 and Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. These exemptions ensure that settlement payment recipients will not have to repay any amount to the Commonwealth in accordance with the compensation provisions in those acts and that their receipt of their settlement payment will not be counted as income for the purposes of any income-support payments they are currently receiving.

What was Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia about, and what was the Knox and others v Commonwealth of Australia class action? Firstly, in the matter of Prygodicz, six applicants sought approval from the court for the settlement of a class action brought against the Commonwealth for its use of the automated debt collection system between July 2015 and November 2019, which we now refer to as robodebt. The applicants submitted that the requested settlement would address their claims for unjust enrichment from the Commonwealth in respect of the invalid debts it had raised against them.

Robodebt, as we know, was the automated debt collection system which was intended to recover social security payments that had allegedly been overpaid. The robodebt system sought to identify overpayments of social security benefits in a particular period of time through a process called data matching. The process of data matching was carried out automatically using pay-as-you-go income information of social security recipients kept by the Australian Taxation Office and then evenly apportioning that income over fortnightly increments in the review period. This was known as income averaging, and it was used to determine that person's notional or assumed fortnightly income. Data matching also involved the comparison of the notional or assumed fortnightly income of the person with the actual fortnightly income information provided by that person, which was the basis upon which the level of social security payments had been assessed and paid. This process then determined whether a person had been overpaid and what the alleged debt was.

In this matter, two claims were prosecuted against the Commonwealth. The second, which I raise only as a matter of completeness, was a common law tort claim in negligence for economic loss as arising from the Commonwealth's alleged breach of its duty of care in raising and recovering debts that had no foundational basis, in addition to damages for stress. The first claim against the Commonwealth, which is relevant to this bill, was a restitutionary claim for unjust enrichment, alleging that the Commonwealth was unjustly enriched by its receipt or recovery of wrongly asserted debts from the applicants and group members.

In the judgement, Justice Murphy noted that during the proceedings the Commonwealth had conceded that it had had no proper legal basis to raise, demand or recover the asserted debts, which were based on the income averaging from ATO data. Evidence put before Justice Murphy illustrated that the Commonwealth had unlawfully asserted debts totalling at least $1.763 billion against approximately 433,000 Australians. Then, including through private debt collection agencies, the Commonwealth pursued people to repay these wrongly asserted debts and recovered approximately $751 million from about 381,000 of them. Justice Murphy's summary of robodebt is articulate, direct and entirely appropriate. Justice Murphy said that the matter of Prygodicz had 'exposed a shameful chapter in the administration of the Commonwealth social security system and a massive failure of public administration.' He said:

It should have been obvious to the senior public servants charged with overseeing the Robodebt system and the responsible Minister at different points that many social security recipients do not earn a stable or constant income, and any employment they obtain may be casual, part-time, sessional, or intermittent and may not continue throughout the year. Where a social security recipient does not earn a constant fortnightly wage, does not earn income every fortnight, or only works for intermittent periods in a year, their notional or assumed fortnightly income based on income averaging is unlikely to be the same as their actual fortnightly income. It should have been plain that in such circumstances the automated Robodebt system may indicate an overpayment of social security benefits when that was not in fact the case. Yet, in the absence of further information from social security recipients, that is the basis upon which the automated Robodebt system raised and recovered debts for asserted overpayments of social security benefits.

To summarise that, robodebt was an illegal, immoral but deliberate case of maladministration knowingly perpetrated by the former coalition government. The financial hardship, the anxiety and distress, the suicidal ideation and in some cases suicide that people suffered because of robodebt is truly unforgivable, and the shame that people felt for wrongly being designated as welfare cheats cannot be underestimated. The Knox class action that this bill has regard to is an appeal from the original 2020 robodebt class action settlement, which was launched after a royal commission exposed fresh evidence that Commonwealth officials who ran the debt-raising scheme knew it was unlawful but proceeded anyway.

The royal commission concluded that the scheme was a malicious and spiteful mechanism neither fair nor legal. The government has agreed, quite rightly, to all 56 of the royal commission's recommendations, 52 of which have now been fully implemented. The Commonwealth reached agreement in the Knox class action in September 2025 for the harms caused by the robodebt scheme, with a cohort of approximately 168,000 class action members. The settlement makes $475 million available to compensate eligible group members, which can be paid as either fixed payments or by individual assessment. The payments are intended to compensate those eligible individuals for a range of economic and non-economic loss types. The settlement was approved on 23 June this year and is the largest class action settlement in Australian history.

What this bill does is ensure that those who are eligible to receive a payment pursuant to the Knox settlement receive that payment in full. Typically, lump sum compensation payments like these might be subject to taxation, income testing arrangements and Commonwealth statutory recovery schemes. That means amounts may be withheld and entitlements to benefits like social security or veterans payments, NDIS supports and aged-care contributions could be impacted. The general principles of that approach are not changing. But, in recognition of the extraordinary—and, frankly, uniquely terrible—circumstances of the robodebt scheme, an exception is being made.

What this government is doing is making that exception because of these circumstances. It's also an acknowledgement that the system that inflicted harm on people, being interaction with the government social safety net, may lead to retraumatisation if people are required to interact again in order to manage the payments to which they are entitled under this settlement.

To take effect, the bill will amend the National Disability Scheme Act of 2013 to exempt Knox settlement payments from recoveries and reductions to the funding of reasonable and necessary supports in participants' plans under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It will also amend the Social Security Act of 1991 and Veterans' Entitlements Act of 1986 so that the Knox settlement payments are not classified as income or compensation for the purposes of those acts. Other exemptions will follow, including an exemption from income tax, to be legislated before the end of the 2026-27 tax year.

To say that robodebt was a gross failure of public administration is plainly an understatement. It was a catastrophic failure. Its design and implementation meant it was always going to be a catastrophic failure because of the lens through which it was created. It always considered the social safety net to be a burden—a burden on the economy and thus something to be eliminated. It also always considered those who used the social safety net as 'rorters': people who were lazy, actively avoiding work and looking to take advantage of public funds, just because they could. Like new mothers who were accused of being 'double dippers', people using the broad social safety net in this country, and who were victims of robodebt, were treated like criminals.

Budget control and debt reduction are important, but there are ways to achieve this without grouping together individual Australians using the social safety net under the umbrella of rorters or dodgy welfare recipients or bludgers. Finding savings in the budget doesn't have to exclusively mean cutting services, reducing support and targeting vulnerable Australians in the hope that they lack sufficient agency and resources to challenge what is happening to them.

That is what robodebt did. It was lazy budget control. No other ideas to reform the budget? No problem. Vulnerable Australians are available. Robodebt found a group of vulnerable people that they considered easy targets, and the architects of the scheme hoped that they wouldn't say anything or speak up. Well, some of them can no longer speak up because they're no longer with us.

People's lives have been destroyed, in many cases, irreparably. The human impacts of robodebt: families struggling to make ends meet receiving a debt notice at Christmas, like the lady from Kingsgrove that the member for Barton told us about. There are young people being driven to despair by demands for payment and, horribly, an account of a young man's suicide. This can never happen again, and thanks to many stakeholders, especially the countless victims who did speak up and tirelessly advocated for themselves and others, it won't. And thanks to this bill, those entitled to payment through the Knox class action will receive that payment in full. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026. This bill deals with the final consequences of one of the worst failures of public administration in modern Australian history. It deals with everyday Australians who were caught up in robodebt—people who were wrongly sent debt notices, people who spent years fighting decisions that were later found to be unlawful and people who carried the stress and uncertainty of those decisions long after the notice arrived in their letterboxes. And it deals with a simple principle: when compensation is awarded to people who have been wronged, that compensation should reach them in full. This bill before the House helps make sure that happens.

I would like to share a story of one of the constituents from Melbourne. He was a student who, like many young Australians, balanced study with work. At one point he took on two jobs to help support his family while also covering his own living expenses. He was not trying to game the system. He was doing exactly what we encourage young people to do. He was studying, working hard and taking responsibility for himself and his family.

Despite having stopped claiming income support once he was working, he later received a robodebt notice based on income averaging. A year that included periods of study, casual work and changing circumstances was reduced to a spreadsheet calculation. The reality of this situation was ignored by robodebt in a way that a human overlooking it would not have. Then, two years later, the debt resurfaced. By that point, he had finished studying and was working full time. Rather than being reassessed fairly, the amount claimed against him increased. The total debt eventually exceeded $10,000. He was working full time in retail and trying to find a pathway back into study. Instead of focusing on his goals, he was trying to work out how he could repay a debt he did not believe he owed. Eventually, luckily, the debt was wiped because it should never have been raised in the first place. But the stress, uncertainty and lost time could not simply be erased.

His story is not unique. Across Australia, hundreds of thousands of people found themselves in similar situations—different lives, different circumstances and the same experience of receiving a debt notice that was generated not by the truth of their circumstances but by a flawed process that should never have been the basis for raising debt in the first place. That is why parliament is still dealing with the consequences of robodebt today.

The robodebt scheme has rightly become one of the clearest examples of what can happen when government loses sight of the people affected by its decisions. The royal commission into robodebt found that the scheme knowingly inflicted harm on economically and socially disadvantaged Australians, many of whom were already vulnerable. It was a shameful failure of the government of the time, and it caused real harm to people who were looking to the system for support. The Federal Court, when approving the Knox settlement, described robodebt as a fiasco in public administration. That is an extraordinary observation. It is also a reminder of how serious this failure was. This was not simply a policy that did not work as intended. This was not a program that produced disappointing results. This was a scheme that was ultimately found to be unlawful. It caused harm. It created fear and uncertainty. And it damaged confidence in the way that government interacts with citizens. The fact that parliament is debating this bill today tells its own story.

Robodebt began as a scheme that was supposed to recover money. Those opposite claimed it would save taxpayers $4.7 billion. Instead, it became one of the most expensive failures of public administration in Australian history. It harmed hundreds of thousands of Australians. It led to years of litigation. It required a royal commission. And, years after the scheme was dismantled, parliament is still dealing with the consequences. That is because the damage did not simply disappear when robodebt was declared unlawful. For many Australians, the fight continued. People challenged debts. People fought through the courts. People spent years seeking answers about how something like this could have happened. The royal commission exposed a reality that many Australians already understood from lived experience: the harm caused by robodebt was not accidental. The warning signs were there. Concerns were raised. Questions were asked. Yet the scheme continued. Australians were expected to carry the burden. They were expected to prove that the government's calculations were wrong. They were expected to defend themselves against a debt that often looked nothing like their actual circumstances.

Many Australians will never forget the language that surrounded robodebt. They will never forget being treated with suspicion. They'll never forget being made to feel as though they had done something wrong. And they will never forget hearing a former minister declare:

We'll find you, we'll track you down, you will have to repay those debts, and you may end up in prison.

That statement captured something about the culture that sat behind the scheme. The presumption was not fairness, not understanding; the presumption was that ordinary Australians had done the wrong thing and needed to prove otherwise. That approach caused immense damage.

The Albanese Labor government has taken a different approach. We established the royal commission. But accountability is not only about understanding what went wrong; it's about making sure it cannot happen again. Since the royal commission reported, the government has implemented 52 of the 56 recommendations. That work has included strengthening oversight across government, improving administrative review processes, enhancing the Ombudsman's powers and putting greater emphasis on transparency, accountability and proper legal advice in public administration.

Importantly, we have also taken steps to make debt management fairer and more responsive to people's circumstances. Changes have expanded access to debt waivers in special circumstances. The government has also increased the small debt waiver threshold so people are not burdened by debt recovery processes where pursuing a debt serves little practical purpose. These reforms are about restoring trust—trust that government decisions are lawful; trust that vulnerable people will be treated fairly; and trust that systems exist to support Australians, not overwhelm them. The lessons of robodebt extend beyond one failed scheme. The lesson is that people must remain at the centre of government decision-making. The lesson is that technology can never replace fairness. The lesson is that governments must never lose sight of the real-world consequences of administrative decisions. This bill is another important step in that process.

The Commonwealth reached an agreement in the Knox class action in September 2025, with approximately 168,000 class participants affected by robodebt. The Federal Court approved that settlement in June this year. It is the largest class action settlement in Australian history. It recognised that harm had occurred, that Australians who were affected by robodebt deserved compensation and that the consequences of this scheme extended far beyond the debt notices themselves. But there is a cruel irony at the heart of this legislation. After all the court proceedings, after all the inquiry's findings and after compensation was finally secured, some Australians affected by robodebt could still face new financial consequences if parliament did nothing. Without this legislation, Knox settlement payments would be treated in the same way as other lump sum compensation payments. In some circumstances, it could even leave recipients facing unexpected financial liabilities. Think about that for a moment. Australians were wrongly targeted by robodebt. Many spent years dealing with debt that should never have existed. Many fought lengthy legal battles. Many carried enormous stress and uncertainty. Then, when compensation was finally secured, they were potentially facing further consequences because that compensation had been paid.

This government does not believe that should happen. If compensation is being paid because harm occurred, that compensation should remain with the people who suffered the harm. The purpose of compensation is to provide redress, not to create another administrative obstacle or to create another debt. And the purpose is certainly not to force people back into the system that caused so many problems in the first place. That is what is at the heart of this bill. It recognises that robodebt was not an ordinary situation. The measures in this bill ensure that Knox settlement payments are exempt from a number of arrangements that would ordinarily apply under the Social Security Act, the Veterans' Entitlement Act and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act.

The government will also progress complementary exemptions relating to other Commonwealth systems. The objective is straightforward: we want people to receive the compensation that has been awarded—not part of it, not most of it, but the compensation they are entitled to receive. We want to close this chapter properly, and that means ensuring robodebt victims receive the full benefit of the settlement. Ultimately, this bill is about people. It is about recognising the consequences of decisions made in this place and in government offices. It is about understanding that, when government gets something badly wrong, the responsibility to fix that mistake does not end with an apology. It requires action, and that is what this legislation provides.

Earlier I spoke about a Melbourne constituent whose robodebt claim eventually grew to more than $10,000. The debt was ultimately wiped because it should never have existed. But for years he carried the burden, he carried the stress, he carried the uncertainty. He carried the responsibility of trying to prove that the government's calculations were wrong. At a time when he should have been focused on his studies, his work and building his future, he found himself dealing with a problem that should never have been created. This history helps explain why this legislation is before us today—not because it changes the past, not because it erases what occurred, but because it recognises that Australians who have already been harmed should not be disadvantaged again.

The Australians affected by robodebt did not ask to be part of a class action. They did not ask to be part of a royal commission. They simply expected government to treat them fairly, lawfully and with respect. Many were let down. This bill will not undo the stress and the hardship that people experienced. It will not return the years they spent dealing with a scheme that should never have been operated. But it will help ensure that, when compensation has been secured, the compensation reaches the people it was intended for. That is fair. That is responsible. And, after everything Australians affected by robodebt have been through, it is the very least they deserve. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

In this tragic tale, there are many heroes. They are not victims. There are two heroes in particular who I want to talk about in this my second contribution on robodebt that I'm privileged to make to this place.

The first contribution was when I recounted Kath Madgwick's evidence to the royal commission into robodebt. She relayed the events that led up to her son's suicide and how she had turned that personal tragedy into a crusade—a crusade to find justice for her son but also to make life better for other people. After I read her testimony to this place, Kath Madgwick, on the Facebook post that I'd made, commented:

Thank you Rowen Holzberger MP for that accurate account of what happened. This post means the world to me and I cannot express my gratitude to you! If you are up for it I would love the opportunity to come and meet you in Beenleigh?

We still haven't organised that, Kath. If we get a chance, let's do that soon. I know you have a sister in arms, Jennifer Miller, who you have, through these awful circumstances, joined forces with to shed light on what was an unspeakable failure of government policy. I know that because I've seen the media reports of you and Jennifer Miller together. So I went looking and I found Jennifer's testimony to the royal commission, and her words sum up what this bill is all about much better than I can. Jennifer Miller gave her testimony to the royal commission on 17 February 2023. She said: 'My name is Jennifer Miller. This statement made by me is to give a voice to what Rhys went through, since he is no longer here to speak for himself.' The statement went on:

5. I am a mother of two boys. My eldest … was born in 1983 and my youngest … was born in 1988.

6. On 26 January 2017 Rhys took his life. I believe that the pressures placed on him by Centrelink and Dun & Bradstreet due to his Robodebt largely caused his death.

7. Rhys was a creative and quirky child. He saw the beauty in things and was a very gentle soul. He was interested in artistic expression, and as Rhys got older his interest in music and art grew.

8. He was funny and sweet and had a terrific group of friends in Cairns, where our family lived on and off for many years. He and his friends would always be getting together and making music with their band, doing live shows, or making up silly skits and having fun.

9. I had separated from Rhys's father in 1990. It was a bitter breakup and I know that this did affect both of the boys. When Rhys was about three and a half years old, I met my current husband and the boys grew to have an enormous amount of respect and love for—

him. It goes on:

10. When Rhys started to show signs of experiencing panic and anxiety towards the end of his high schooling it was worrying, but we managed it as best as we could, and he finished high school in 2005.

11. During his high school years, Rhys worked casually in Cairns. He continued in casual positions after graduating from high school. He was only able to secure casual work, as the roles he was interested in fluctuated with seasonal demand. For a time, Rhys worked in customer service at a local photography store. I knew that he was living with anxiety, and that he had his struggles with depression, but he was also excited about his future. We always supported him pursuing his passions and living his life on his terms.

12. It was around early 2009 that Rhys and a group of his friends decided to move to Melbourne. Once they had made the move, the boys often had to couch-surf until they were able to establish accommodation and work. In that first year Rhys continued to couch-surf, and at times he was homeless. Ultimately though, Rhys found his feet and settled into Melbourne's music and art scene, playing in two bands. Rhys was receiving some Centrelink payments but found a job doing photography for the Museum of Melbourne and he later worked at a florist in Prahran Market. Later, Rhys found a job at … Florists. Rhys was very talented with floral designs and he was highly regarded … All of the jobs that Rhys had in Melbourne were on a casual basis or involved seasonal work.

13. He devoted himself to his work, but always made time for friends and other commitments. From 2014 Rhys was in a relationship with his partner … who he had met in Melbourne. … was a big support to Rhys, and they were together until he passed away …

14. When Rhys moved to Melbourne his anxiety did increase, but he would call me and let me know when he wasn't feeling right. … If he needed anything I would help him out, as would his biological father and his brother, but I know I was the only one in the family that he felt like he could talk to about his mental health issues.

15. … I know that despite working as much as he could he struggled to keep his head above water, and that anything financial was a major source of stress for him.

16. Towards the end of May 2016 Rhys rang me. He was extremely stressed and scared of his suicidal thoughts. He told me that he had large debt from Centrelink and was worried about it. …

17. I flew down in the first week of June 2016 and stayed with Rhys for a week or so. Rhys told me about the debt and said it was over $10,000. I didn't think that he could have a debt that large, and I said to him words to the effect of that it was rubbish, and that we would sort it out together. I was of the view that since he had been couch-surfing and not working much in the 2010-11 financial year, the … debt did not add up.

18. I suggested that we go to the Centrelink office … in Melbourne … But when we were served, the customer service officer did not look at Rhys' file at all and told us to ring a 1800 number. We could not understand why they were not able to tell him anything … We left feeling frustrated …

19. I remember Rhys being very overwhelmed and anxious about the whole process. … Rhys … did ring the 1800 number he was on hold at length. I believe that this added to his feelings of frustration and helplessness, as he was doing as he had been told but still faced difficulty getting answers about his debt.

20. … Once I returned home, I was unaware how frequently he was being contacted by Centrelink, and then by Dun & Bradstreet …

21. At the time of his death, Rhys was living with … and another friend. … did her best to help Rhys by shielding him from the letters that he was receiving. She told me how she would take the debt letters from the mailbox and put them somewhere out of the way, so that they were not the first thing he saw upon arriving home from work. She would show them to him at a time when she thought he might be better able to deal with the stress the letters caused. When I was talking to … after Rhys had passed, she told me about his first suicide attempt in May 2016 … when the Centrelink pressures commenced. Rhys had not told me about this.

22. … despite his struggles, he would have wanted to protect me from his troubles. I believe that this is why he did not share what he was going through with Centrelink …

23. At the time immediately following Rhys' death I requested access to his file from Centrelink. This was not granted. … but I was barred from accessing Rhys' information despite numerous requests for his information. This position was maintained until I was able to access certain documents by virtue of this Royal Commission. Only very recently have I been able to review the correspondence sent to him.

…   …   …

26. … I also recall that Rhys said he did not have the payslips or information Centrelink was asking for to confirm whether the debt was correct or not. Rhys had made a post on Facebook on 25 May 2016 that he had a debt, but that his proof—being pay documents—were "long gone".

…   …   …

28. … 20 May 2016, Centrelink had finished the first review and a debt of $10,876.23 had been raised against him. … I know that Rhys was sent four individual letters; each dated 20 May 2016, which contained the amount and period of each debt and had a due date of 20 June 2016 for the payment of these debts.

29. From 21 June 2016 Centrelink started withholding money from Rhys' Newstart payments …

30. After he had passed, I spoke with … about Rhys he had been feeling during this time. She told me that he had felt helpless. She told me how, despite trying to do his best to get ahead, he felt powerless against a system that he felt was doing its best to crush him.

At this point, let's take a break from Jennifer's testimony for just a minute. Between June 2016 and 30 October 2016, there were various interactions with Centrelink. Newstart was cut off, restored and cut off, and there was correspondence about the debt. Then, on 17 October, the second review into Rhys's income for the 2013 financial year came up with an additional debt of $7,035. I break here because at this point what she says could be viewed as mechanical. But, when you think about it and actually read it, you realise it that is nothing short of hounding somebody to their death. She continues:

43. On 18 October 2016 Centrelink sent Rhys a letter (which was also delivered to his MyGov account … notifying him of the additional debt and giving him a due date of 15 November 2016—

less than a month later, mind you—

44. On 20 October 2016—

two days later—

Centrelink sent Rhys a letter notifying him of the balance of the first review, requesting that he contact them to enter a payment agreement, and letting him know that if he did not repay the outstanding amount or contact them, they may reduce his Centrelink payments, refer the account to a debt collection agency, garnish his wages or tax refund, or refer the matter to solicitors for legal action.

45. On 7 November 2016, because Rhys was no longer receiving an income support payment from Centrelink and had not contacted Centrelink to establish an alternate payment arrangement, Centrelink referred the first review amount to Dun & Bradstreet.

46. On 8 November 2016 the first demand letter was sent to Rhys by Dun & Bradstreet with a total outstanding amount of $10.283.81. A text message was also sent to Rhys' phone.

47. On 12 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone.

48. On 15 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet sent Rhys a final demand letter in relation to the first review amount.

49. On 16 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone.

50. On 19 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone.

51. On 23 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone.

52. On 24 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone.

53. On 26 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone.

54. On 28 November 2016 … Centrelink referred the second review amount to Dun & Bradstreet.

55. On 28 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet sent Rhys a "Centrelink Consolidated Invoice Letter" which combined the first and second review amounts into a total demand amount of $17,319.58. A text message was also sent to Rhys' phone.

56. On 29 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet sent a first demand letter to Rhys seeking the total demand …

57. On 6 December 2016 Dun & Bradstreet sent Rhys a final demand letter …

58. On 8 December 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys but there was no answer.

59. On 12 December 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone.

60. On 14 December 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone.

…   …   …

62. On 16 December 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone.

63. On 31 December 2016 Dun & Bradstreet sent a letter dated 3 January 2017 with the header "Urgent Attention Required" to Rhys' address.

64. On 4 January 2017 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone.

65. On 4 January 2017—

again, on the same day—

Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone.

66. On 6 January 2017 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone.

67. On 26 January 2017, just after 8pm, Rhys took his own life.

68. Rhys received 12 letters from Centrelink between 12 May 2016 and 20 October 2016. He was phoned by Centrelink between five and six times.

69. When the debts were referred to Dun & Bradstreet, he received six letters, two text messages and 13 phone calls between 7 November 2016 and 6 January 2017.

70. I know from reviewing documents provided to me by virtue of this Royal Commission that Rhys had been assessed for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) on 18 September 2015. This assessment identified that Rhys had a permanent psychiatric disorder which was identified as anxiety and depression and that he suffered from anxiety and panic attacks.

I just want to—I don't have enough time. I don't have enough time, because the thing that I really wanted to spend time on is just to remember that Rhys is not a victim. That's why I want to return—it's so easy, when we're in this place and we've got examples, to look at what happened rather than who it happened to. So I want to read just this beginning:

Rhys was a creative and quirky child. He saw the beauty in things and was a very gentle soul. He was interested in artistic expression, and as Rhys got older his interest in music and art grew.

…   …   …

Rhys found his feet and settled into Melbourne's music and art scene, playing in two bands. Rhys was receiving some Centrelink payments but found a job doing photography for the Museum of Melbourne and he later worked at a florist in Prahran Market. Later, Rhys found a job at … Florists. Rhys was very talented with floral designs and he was highly regarded …

I commend this bill to the House.

I thank the member for Forde. It was a very moving speech. I understand the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into Hansard, in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I would like to speak to the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026, which is legislation that delivers on a solemn promise to the victims of the robodebt scandal—that the compensation they are owed will be received in full, without penalty, without reduction and without retraumatisation by the very system that harmed them. This bill is not about creating a precedent. It is about recognising an extraordinary and unique injustice—an illegal government scheme that the royal commission found was 'crude and cruel' and 'neither fair nor legal' and which knowingly inflicted harm on economically and socially disadvantaged Australians, many of whom were vulnerable.

The robodebt scheme was a shocking and deliberate case of maladministration, perpetrated knowingly by ministers of the former coalition government. It caused pain and trauma for more than 400,000 people across Australia. Former ministers boasted they would save taxpayers $4.7 billion. Instead, it has cost the Commonwealth more than $2 billion and, far more importantly, it has cost lives, livelihoods and trust in government. We cannot forget the rhetoric that accompanied this scheme:

We will find you, we'll track you down, you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.

That was the tone of a government that saw vulnerable Australians not as citizens to be served but as targets to be pursued.

When the Albanese Labor government came to office, we made establishing a royal commission one of our first priorities. That commission heard countless tragic stories of people being hounded by their government to repay debts they didn't even owe. Its conclusion was unequivocal: robodebt was a fiasco in public administration and a lack of ministerial responsibility and competent oversight.

The human cost of this scheme cannot be overstated. The royal commission linked the scheme to at least three suicides and identified a significant number of additional deaths that may have been connected, though aggregate suicide figures could not be reliably established. People reported feeling like criminals, traumatised on the off-chance they might have owed money. The psychological costs included stress, trauma, depression and suicidal ideation. Many wrongly accused citizens reported mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression. Victim testimony before the commission included accounts of suicidal ideation, with one person describing driving home in despair thinking they could drive their car into a tree. The experience left lasting trauma, leading many to distrust the welfare system entirely.

This government has a strong record of ensuring justice for robodebt victims. We accepted, or accepted in principle, all 56 recommendations of the royal commission. To date, 52 of those 56 recommendations have been fully implemented, with implementation of the remaining four measures ongoing. Key reforms include delivering a new debt-management program for Services Australia and ceasing the use of external debt collection agencies; introducing mechanisms to ensure all new programs and schemes are developed with a focus on the real people affected by policy changes; passing legislation last year to make social security debt fairer, including raising the small debt waiver to $250 for the first time in 30 years, resulting in around 1.2 million debts waived or not raised in 2025-26; and expanding the special circumstances debt waiver to better protect victims-survivors of family and domestic violence from coercive social security debt.

In September 2025, the Commonwealth reached agreement in the Knox class action for the harms caused by robodebt, covering a cohort of approximately 168,000 eligible class action members, with around 125,000 registered claimants. The settlement makes $475 million available to compensate eligible group members, which is the largest class action settlement in Australian history. The Federal Court approved this settlement on 23 June 2026. Payments can be made as either fixed payments or by individualised assessment, compensating eligible individuals for a range of economic and non-economic losses. Eligible participants include those who received robodebt notices between 2015 and 2019 and meet specific criteria related to the harm suffered. This covers Centrelink welfare recipients who had debts incorrectly raised via automated income averaging, were forced to repay debts they did not owe, experienced suspension or cancellation of payments due to disputed debts or were part of the original Knox v Commonwealth or Prygodicz v Commonwealth class actions.

Under normal circumstances, lump sum compensation payments like these may be subject to taxation, income testing arrangements and Commonwealth statutory recovery schemes. That means amounts may be withheld and entitlements to benefits like social security or veterans' payments, NDIS supports and aged-care contributions can be impacted. Let me be clear: we are not changing the normal operation of this system with this bill. There are good reasons for it generally to work this way. What we are doing is making an exception because of the extraordinary and unique circumstances of the robodebt scheme. We could not accept a circumstance where someone lost their pension because they were being compensated as a robodebt victim. We will not allow a situation where a robodebt victim has a debt raised against them because they have received a compensation payment through this settlement scheme. We will not have people retraumatised by the system that inflicted harm upon them in the first place.

Consider the situation we would create if we did not pass this bill. A person who suffered through the terror of being pursued for a debt they did not owe—who may have lost their home, their relationship, their mental health or, in the most tragic cases, their life—would receive compensation for that harm. But then, under normal rules, that compensation could be treated as income. Their pension could be cut. Their NDIS supports could be reduced. They could be told they now owe money back to the Commonwealth because they were finally given some measure of justice. That would be unconscionable. It would compound the original injustice with a new one. It would tell victims that their suffering matters but only up to a point—only until the compensation triggers another round of means testing, another letter from Services Australia and another sleepless night wondering if the government is about to take back what it just gave. This Albanese Labor government says enough—no more letters, no more threats and no more trauma.

This bill amends three key pieces of legislation to ensure Knox settlement payments are treated fairly. It amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 to exempt Knox settlement payments from recoveries and reductions to the funding of reasonable and necessary supports in participants' plans. It will also amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to prevent Knox settlement payments being classified as income or compensation for the purposes of those acts. Additional exemptions, including an exemption from income tax, will follow and are to be legislated before the end of the 2026-27 tax year. The compensation payments are set to be paid out to victims before the end of 2026.

For many recipients of these settlement payments, interaction with the social security system was itself a source of distress during the operation of robodebt. It is not appropriate that people should be required to re-engage with those systems, navigate complex assessments or face uncertainty about the treatment of compensation paid in recognition of harms caused by robodebt. This bill removes that uncertainty and the potential for further distress.

Gordon Legal has been appointed as the scheme administrator, responsible for assessing claims, calculating individual entitlements and overseeing distributions. Registration for the enhanced settlement closed earlier in 2026, with provisions for late applications considered on a case-by-case basis by the court. Payments are anticipated to commence in the coming months, though the exact schedule depends on the volume of claims and verification requirements. The circumstances surrounding robodebt and the royal commission process set this matter apart from other cases in which the Commonwealth may be found liable. This bill should be understood in that context. It does not create a precedent.

It is important that this bill passes quickly through both houses of parliament to ensure settlement payments to robodebt victims are not delayed. It is a duty of this parliament to do all it can to address the toxic legacy of robodebt and ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. We have to ensure the victims of robodebt get what they are owed as part of this historic settlement process. The swift passage of this bill will demonstrate the parliament's commitment to ensuring that those affected by robodebt receive fair, meaningful and lasting redress and that the toxic legacy of robodebt is banished for good.

This bill is about more than money. It is about dignity. It is about saying to every person who was terrorised by robodebt, 'We see you, we hear you and we will not let the system hurt you again.' It is about acknowledging that the harm done was not only financial but also human, personal and profound. Some will say this is unusual legislation. They are right. The robodebt scheme was unusual in its cruelty, unusual in its illegality and unusual in the scale of its failure. Ordinary rules do not apply to extraordinary wrongs. To the victims of robodebt: this parliament stands with you. This government will not rest until every person who was harmed receives the justice they deserve. And, when the compensation payments arrive, they will arrive in full because you have already paid enough. I commend the bill to the House.

I first start by acknowledging the contribution that the member for Forde shared—the testimony from Rhys's mother. I don't think anyone could listen to that and not be moved. I'm very appreciative of the member for Forde for sharing that with us.

The robodebt scheme created by those opposite caused pain and trauma for more than 400,000 people across Australia. It was a shocking and deliberate case of maladministration perpetrated knowingly by ministers. The royal commission heard countless tragic stories, like the one we've just heard now, of people being hounded by their own government to repay debts they did not even owe. A demand for money carried the authority of the Commonwealth. People questioned themselves. They, at the same time, worried about paying their rent. They faced accusations that cut deeply into their sense of worth. As we have heard, some lost their lives. We must keep their families—the families of Rhys and others—in our thoughts today. Clearly, I and many people in this House here this afternoon, from both sides, find it deeply upsetting that Australians who were seeking help were made to feel frightened of the very system established to support them.

There is no shame in needing income support—none. In fact, reaching out for support must be encouraged. Any one of us can lose a job, become unwell or need help through a difficult period. People must be able to turn to their government at those moments. Robodebt shamefully instilled fear in people for doing so.

This bill, the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill, deals with the treatment of settlement payments, but its purpose reaches into people's daily lives. It protects compensation from rules that otherwise risk reducing income support or recovering money from the people the Commonwealth has harmed. I support this bill, and I want to begin with the people whose experiences explain why it's needed. Tory Burdett was 29 when he took his life in 2018. He had received a Centrelink demand for $7,000. His mother, Cherie, said it seemed like just a normal everyday day: 'He was ready to go to work in his work clothes. He'd gone to McDonald's that day.' Cherie remembers a loving son and a caring big brother. She estimated that more than 400 people attended his funeral. 'Everyone adored him,' said his mum. She said several pressures contributed to her son's death, and the debt was a large part of what he carried. Jarrad Madgwick died by suicide in 2019, three weeks before his 23rd birthday. His mother, Kath, said that he had spoken about his future shortly before his death and about a $2,000 Centrelink debt. She welcomed compensation for victims and called for change to prevent that cruelty from ever happening again.

These mothers—and the mother of Rhys, who we have just heard from—have shared experiences no parent should ever have to describe to a royal commission or to a journalist. They have asked the country to listen to their children's stories. We owe them the care to listen properly. I cannot know the grief of Kath or Cherie or Rhys's mother—the grief that they live with every single day—but I hear their determination that their sons be remembered as people who were loved, with lives that reached far beyond a debt notice. They should never have had to fight to make their children's humanity part of this debate. A settlement cannot return a son to his mother and cannot give a family the years together that they expected to share, but we can, as elected members of this place, accept our responsibility to act. We can recognise the harm and change the systems that inflicted this distress. That responsibility remains with us long after today's debate.

The damage from robodebt entered people's homes and affected their sense of safety. For someone already counting every dollar, a demand for thousands of dollars can make an ordinary week feel impossible. Rent is still due. There is still food to buy. The debt demand sits alongside expenses that cannot wait and the fear can follow a person through the day, making it harder to concentrate at work or be present with family. An accusation from government can make someone doubt their own integrity. It can leave them embarrassed to ask for help, worried that others will believe they have done something wrong. No-one should have to be made to carry the shame for an unlawful debt.

We must recognise the damage to trust, too. Telling someone that a scheme has ended does not automatically make the next government letter feel safe. The person receiving it still remembers what happened last time. They still have to decide whether to trust the information in front of them. Repairing that relationship takes time and consistent, respectful treatment. I want people harmed by robodebt to hear this clearly: there is no shame in needing support. You deserved lawful decisions and decent treatment. Your government failed in its responsibility to you.

Robodebt caused pain and trauma for more than 400,000 Australians. The former coalition government used the power of the Commonwealth against people who needed support, including people already facing severe financial and personal pressures. The scheme was illegal and immoral. The royal commission found that harm had been knowingly inflicted on economically and socially disadvantaged people. These were people entitled to fair treatment and lawful decisions. Their income did not diminish those rights. Their need for support did not make them less deserving of respect. A person seeking help after losing work should receive a fair assessment. A student relying on income support should be able to focus on their studies. Someone living with illness should be able to ask for assistance without feeling accused of wrongdoing.

Robodebt violated the basic understanding between government and the people it serves, and the language from the former government made that threat unmistakeable. After hearing what the member for Forde shared, this is even harder to read. Former minister Alan Tudge said, 'We will find you, we'll track you down, and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.' Consider the fear those words created for someone already struggling to understand a debt demand. Consider the imbalance of power between a minister delivering that threat and a person wondering how to challenge the Commonwealth. That person deserved an explanation grounded in law. They deserved a government willing to hear that it had made a mistake. Instead, they faced a scheme that caused illegal harm and left them carrying the consequences.

Those opposite claimed robodebt would save taxpayers $4.7 billion. It has cost the Commonwealth more than $2 billion. That financial cost is substantial, but it is the social cost that is unforgivable. I'm angry that people with so little financial security faced such an abuse of power. I am angry that families had to spend years asking their government to recognise the suffering it caused. Holding public office brings a duty of care in the exercise of power.

Labor committed to a royal commission into robodebt, and we established it after coming into government. Victims deserved answers about how this happened. Australians deserve to know how their government had allowed such harm to continue. The royal commission gave people an opportunity to describe experiences that had too often been dismissed. It examined the decisions behind the scheme and the failures that allowed it to operate. I thank the people who gave evidence, including those who spoke about some of the most painful periods of their lives, including the mother of Rhys, as the member for Forde shared, and the other mothers that I have mentioned. Giving that evidence required courage. It required people to return to events that they had every reason to want to put behind them. Their willingness to speak helped establish the truth.

The Albanese Labor government agreed or agreed in principle to all 56 recommendations. Fifty-two have now been fully implemented, and work is continuing on the other four. We have introduced a new debt-management program at Services Australia and ended its use of external debt-collection agencies. We have introduced processes that put the people affected by new programs at the centre of their development. We have strengthened consultation with recipients, advocates and frontline staff and improved processes for recognising and responding to vulnerability. We have strengthened ombudsman powers and improved administrative review, legal practice and Public Service accountability.

The practical test is straightforward. Government must understand how a decision will affect the person receiving it, including someone experiencing financial hardship or distress. A process can look orderly inside a department and feel impossible to the person trying to use it. Listening to that person must be part of the work from the beginning.

Our government has taken further steps to make social security debt arrangements fairer. Last year, we raised the small-debt waiver to $250, its first increase in 30 years. Annual indexation lifted that threshold to $260 on 1 July, and that amount will continue to rise. Around 1.2 million debts will be waived or no longer need to be raised in the last financial year. We've expanded the special circumstances debt waiver to better protect victim-survivors of family and domestic violence from coercive social security debt. A perpetrator's lies or statements made under coercion or duress should not prevent a victim-survivor from accessing that waiver. These changes recognise that debt recovery decisions have consequences inside people's homes. They can affect a person's financial independence and their ability to regain stability. Governments must take those consequences seriously.

The royal commission's work helped bring new evidence to light. The Knox class action appealed the earlier robodebt settlement, with the applicants bringing a further claim for misfeasance in public office. The Commonwealth reached agreement with the Knox class action in September 2025, which was approved by the Federal Court in June this year. Approximately 168,000 robodebt victims are expected to be eligible for payments, with $475 million available to compensate eligible group members. Payments can take the form of fixed amounts or individual assessments. They recognise economic and non-economic losses arising from robodebt.

For someone harmed by this scheme, compensation is an acknowledgement that the wrong was done to them. They should be able to receive their payment without Commonwealth recovering part of it under compensation recovery rules. For a survivor, that money can offer some room to recover financially and make decisions about their own needs. That choice belongs to them. They should not have to defend their entitlement to redress against the institution responsible for that harm.

Under the usual rules, a lump sum compensation payment can affect income support, recovery arrangements can require money to be returned to the Commonwealth, and tax can create a further problem. The usual tax treatment depends on what the payment compensates for. Compensation for lost income can be taxable. Compensation for personal injury is usually not taxable. Without a specific exemption, some recipients risk an unexpected tax bill. Without these protections, receiving compensation from robodebt can itself create a fresh financial pressure. That is unacceptable. Consider a person who relies on a pension to meet regular expenses. Their settlement payment recognises harm they suffered. Receiving that payment should not in itself count as income and reduce the pension they rely on for their everyday needs. Consider an NDIS participant. Compensation for robodebt should not reduce the funding for the reasonable and necessary supports in their plan. People have waited years for redress. They deserve clear information about how these protections work and the ordinary rules that still apply.

Passing this bill quickly will help put these protections in place and avoid unnecessary delays for compensation. For someone waiting for compensation, another delay means more uncertainty about the money that they are owed. We have an opportunity to give people greater certainty about the treatment of their compensation. The Albanese Labor government promised to investigate robodebt. We delivered the royal commission. We are acting on its recommendations and protecting compensation for the people harmed. There is more work to finish, and we will keep doing it. But no member of this House should lose sight of why we are here. People trusted their government to administer the law fairly. That trust was violated. Families have lived with the grief of an empty chair at family gatherings. Survivors have carried distress long after the scheme ended. They deserve justice expressed through the decisions we make and the decisions we put into law.

For Troy, for Jarrad, for Rhys and for every person harmed by robodebt, our responsibility is to act with the care they should have received from the beginning. The government that caused this harm cannot undo it. This parliament can ensure people receive the compensation they are owed and demand a system that treats every person with dignity. That is our duty, and this bill is part of fulfilling it.

I want to thank members who have spoken on this bill. I thank the member for Lindsay for informing us that the opposition will be supporting the bill, and I thank the members for Isaacs, Barton, Sturt, Melbourne, Forde, Pearce and Griffith for the extraordinary way they have spoken, with the compassion that they have spoken with, today, about the victims of robodebt and about the families of those victims, especially the mothers who have lost their children to robodebt related suicide. They are the constituents of these members. They are Australian citizens who have been impacted by robodebt. Today, this legislation is designed to, in a small way, right one of these most profound wrongs.

I want to thank members for their cooperation on the swift passage of this important bill through the House, which will ensure victims of the illegal and immoral robodebt scheme receive the compensation owed to them under the Knox class action settlement in full. It bears repeating that robodebt was a shocking and deliberate case of maladministration perpetrated knowingly by ministers of the former coalition government. It caused profound pain and trauma for more than 400,000 people. This must never happen again, and it's up to us to ensure that those who suffered because of robodebt are not retraumatised by the system that caused them harm in the first place.

In recognition of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding robodebt and the findings of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, the government has resolved to exempt Knox settlement payments from the tax income testing and statutory recovery arrangements that ordinarily apply to lump sum compensation payments. We could not accept a circumstance where someone loses their pension because they're being compensated as a robodebt victim. We also will not allow a situation where a robodebt victim has a debt raised against them because they have received a compensation payment through the settlement. The government will progress complementary exemptions relating to Medicare and aged care through regulations, and an exemption from income tax will be included in separate legislation before the end of the 2026-27 tax year. Together, these measures will ensure recipients receive the full benefit of the compensation intended for them under the Knox settlement and are not disadvantaged through interactions with other Commonwealth laws and programs.

This bill is another important step in the process to deliver justice for those affected by robodebt. I hope all parties will continue to demonstrate their commitment to the speedy passage of this bill, ensuring that robodebt victims get the compensation that they deserve.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.