Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

I think I can answer in the way I'm going to respond to this amendment. The government will be opposing this amendment. Retrospective validation of income apportionment is a central part of the government's resolution approach and is necessary to manage the legal resourcing and operational risks posed by income apportionment. Retrospective validation recognises that income apportionment, although not consistent with the legislation prior to this bill, was nonetheless a reasonable method for determining the extent to which someone's income affects their entitlements or a social security payment.

In the vast majority of cases, income apportionment only affected debts around the margins. The person did own a debt; the question was just how much. Without retrospective validation, millions of social security decisions, going back decades, will remain incorrect at law. Going back and recalculating millions of debts is not viable. Debts many years old would have to be reopened, which could cause distress and protracted uncertainty for the millions of current and former social security recipients affected. It could cost up to an estimated $9 billion, require thousands of officials working over many years and divert resources from frontline services.

Section 1117C in schedule 1 of the bill expressly preserves individuals' right to bring legal proceedings and pursue legal remedies in respect of any existing cause of action—for example, any common-law remedy, such as compensation, that may be available in relation to the use of income apportionment. Decisions affected by income apportionment can still be reviewed. If a decision affected by income apportionment is reviewed in future, it will be reviewed in line with the method in this bill.