Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, the fact that some people, due to income apportionment, would have paid a debt that was less than what was owed is often referred to in giving the reasons for why this scheme needs to be limited. But sampling has shown that at least two-thirds of people actually paid more than was required. That was the evidence we heard in the inquiry.

The second point I want to make is about this idea that it's going to be at significant administrative cost. Why it is that every single time we talk about welfare and income support, we're always prioritising cost to the government over the cost to people who are subject to unlawful practices? We know that some people have paid thousands more than they should have and that has catastrophic impacts on people, and it's unlawful. So why is it that the government continually uses the excuse that it's a cost to government when it is people on income support, the most vulnerable people in our communities, who continually pay the price for government and department unlawful conduct?