Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, Senator Ruston. In the face of two Federal Court actions and a national class action, the government last week announced that it was no longer pursuing robodebt where the only information relied upon is the department's own averaging of ATO income data. Can the minister confirm the number of people affected by this backdown?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator O'Neill, for your question. Obviously the government has a responsibility to continuously improve the protection and integrity of our welfare system.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In providing some context to the question that's just been asked by Senator O'Neill, I would just like to say that the federal government spends in excess of $110 billion a year on our welfare system, and obviously there's the absolutely essential—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, on a point of order?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a matter of relevance: there are hundreds of thousands of Australians who are hanging on the minister's answer. They very much understand the context. I draw her attention to answering the question on the number of Australians affected by the government's backdown with regard to robodebt last week.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, if I may provide some advice to the chamber, the term 'direct relevance' has narrowed the meaning that was previously allowed, where broad context was allowed in response to an answer. My interpretation of the term 'direct relevance' adopted by the Senate is that that has been narrowed. However, Senator O'Neill, you did restate the last part of the question. I do consider it to be directly relevant for the minister to be talking about the first part of your question, which was the change in government policy, as well. I do consider that to be directly relevant. That answer can be debated after question time if appropriate. Senator Ruston.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In direct response to your question, Services Australia is currently in the process of identifying those people who may be impacted by this particular change in measure for ensuring the integrity of our social welfare system. I see there is no value whatsoever in pre-empting that process. But it is very important for people to understand that income averaging does not occur in all debt determinations. In past cases where we identified the debts or part-debts involved were solely the case of income averaging, we are in the process of identifying those people and giving them the opportunity to have a review of their particular cases.

It is also very important to note that, generally, the people that we're referring to here are people who have chosen—actively chosen—not to engage in the process of the Australian government seeking to recover debts that have been incurred by Australians. I think the average Australian would be very concerned to think that the Australian government was not meeting its responsibility for reducing debt and making sure that, when people receive payments to which they are not entitled, we continue to recover those debts. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her answer. The minister responsible, Minister Robert, has insisted this fundamental revision would only affect 'a small cohort'. The Department of Human Services staff believe about 600,000 robodebts that have been raised using income averaging will need to be reassessed. Does the minister agree that 600,000 robodebts represents a 'small cohort'?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know where you got the number of 600,000 from, but, obviously, the process under which Services Australia will undertake the review to identify those people who may be eligible for a review of how a debt has been determined will be a matter for them. Once we do that, we'll be in a better position to understand how many people may well be impacted on by this particular measure. But I would once again draw to the attention of this chamber that, right now, as of 31 October 2019, over 950,000 Australians currently have 1.6 million debts with the government, and those social welfare debts total $5.3 billion—$5.3 billion of money that the Australian government currently has outstanding, to people who have been identified as not being eligible to have it.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Ruston. Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, how many innocent Australians have had a debt raised against them that will now be withdrawn? And how many have already repaid faulty debts?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator O'Neill. Can I just absolutely be clear here: if anybody receives a letter from Centrelink that alleges that there possibly could be a discrepancy between the amount of money that they have notified to the Australian tax office and Centrelink, they should contact Centrelink to determine whether that debt even exists. In the majority of cases when people actually contact Centrelink, and there is no debt, it is very easy for that to be determined. The problem we have here with the cohort of people that you're talking about is that they refuse to engage with Centrelink—they refuse to come forward so that the matter can be dealt with. So I think the Australian public has every reasonable expectation that people who may have a debt owing to the Commonwealth should come forward and have that assessed or reviewed, which is something that this government is quite happy to do and has offered to do with anybody who believes they don't have a debt. We will review it.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Ruston.