Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston: Minister, now that the government has finally agreed with recommendation 3 of the 2017 Senate inquiry into the robodebt debacle, which dealt with suspending the use of the income-averaging process, will the government now implement recommendation 1 of that inquiry, which is to put on hold the robodebt scheme until all the procedural fairness aspects of this program are dealt with?

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

Thank you very much, Senator Siewert. I acknowledge Senator Siewert's ongoing interest in this particular matter. As I mentioned in my response to Senator O'Neill when she asked me a similar question in relation to the recent improvements that we are proposing to implement in ensuring the fairness with which we approach making sure that the Australian social welfare system is sustainable, and as Senator Siewert would be well aware, one of the very fundamental tenets of our social welfare system is its ability to be sustainable. We have one of the most broad-ranging and comprehensive social welfare systems in the world, and part of that is to ensure that, of the over $110 billion that is spent annually on social welfare, people receive only that which they are entitled to—no more and no less.

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

Senator Siewert, on a point of order?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was pretty tight with my preamble and asked a very specific question: will the government now implement recommendation 1 of the 2017 Senate inquiry, which was to put this process on hold?

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

You've restated what was a tightly worded question. At this point, Senator Siewert, I actually believe Senator Ruston was being relevant—if making a point that you disagreed with. The minister is allowed to provide reasons for an answer, so I'll call the minister to continue, but I am listening very carefully.

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

As I said, recovering overpayments is absolutely fundamental to our welfare system. What we have continued to do, through the process of listening to the responses that we receive through Senate inquiries such as the one to which Senator Siewert refers and listening to the general public, is make sure that we constantly refine what we are doing to ensure that we have a balance between ensuring that we recover debts that are owed—money that is owed to the taxpayers of Australia—and making sure that the system of collection is fair and equitable but, equally, robust. That is something that I believe that the Australian public expect of their government. So the processing of debts has been a feature of our system—

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

I'll take the interjection from Senator O'Neill. I'd just like to quote this to Senator O'Neill: 'We want to make sure that people aren't receiving welfare to which they are not entitled, and no-one gets a leave pass on that.' I wonder who said that? I think it may have been your previous opposition leader, Mr Shorten.

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

Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the minister think it's fair that thousands of people over the last 2½ years that robodebt has been operating, since the Senate inquiry, have been traumatised, demonised and received debts under this process? Is that fair?

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

What is fair is that people receive the kind of support that they need and which they are entitled to. The fairness of our system is on the basis that people do receive that to which they are entitled. If people are receiving debt notices or receiving communications from Centrelink or from the department that allege there is a possibility that a debt is owed, I would suggest to them that they need to engage with the department to establish whether that debt actually exists. In many cases, a simple piece of information can actually reveal that that debt doesn't occur.

As I said, the people that we are generally talking about here are people who refuse to engage with the system. What other possible explanation can you have? People need to contact the department and put forward their case. As I said, in the majority of cases, if there is no debt, it's easy to identify and then the debt no longer exists. (Time expired)

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

Senator Siewert, final supplementary question?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the government apologise to and compensate those who have had false debt notices because the process used income averaging?

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

Senator Siewert would be well aware that anybody who can identify that a debt is not owed will have that debt waived. We provide people with every opportunity to come forward and provide additional information to determine whether a notice of matching exists or doesn't exist. So to come in here and suggest that every single person who has received a letter seeking additional information in relation to whether a debt is owed or not—

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

Senator Siewert, a point of order?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I asked a question about those who had received a debt notice in error. I asked: would the government apologise and compensate them?

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

I think, with respect, Senator Siewert, on a broadly worded question like that, the minister is entitled to some discretion in answering, and I think the minister is being directly relevant.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was not broad. I asked about where there'd been an error.

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

I think the minister is being directly relevant.

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

As I have been trying to explain to this chamber, and to Senator Siewert, if somebody believes that they have received a letter suggesting that they have a debt which they do not have, they should contact Centrelink so that that can be established. If it is established by additional information that the debt does not exist, then the debt is removed. Senator Siewert, there is a very adequate system in place to deal with the issue you're talking about. (Time expired)

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, Senator Ruston. In 2017, the Senate Community Affairs References Committee found that robodebt was 'so flawed that it was set up to fail' and recommended it be suspended immediately. That was in 2017. The then Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, refused to apologise for the trauma, stress and shame inflicted by robodebt on Australia's most vulnerable. Now the scheme is suspended, will the current minister apologise for the trauma, stress and shame inflicted by the government's deeply flawed and unfair scheme?

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

Thank you, Senator Kitching, for another question on the same subject. Recovering overpayment, as I've said, is an absolutely fundamental part of our welfare system. When somebody has a debt, the government is legally obliged to pursue that debt. As I said, if it's identified that that debt doesn't exist because they've provided additional information or they've engaged with the department, then of course there is an appropriate process through which that debt doesn't actually exist. We simply ask that people, if they receive a letter asking for additional information, engage with the Department of Human Services so that we can establish whether the debt does exist or not. If the debt does not exist, then of course there is never a debt raised. But, before the election, the government and the Labor opposition used to be on a unity ticket over this. As I said, it was actually your previous opposition leader who came out and said that this is a legitimate part of welfare. He actually said, 'No-one gets a leave pass.' Why is it that, all of a sudden—

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

Senator Kitching on a point of order?

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is on direct relevance, Mr President. I asked if the minister would apologise for the trauma, stress and shame inflicted by the government's deeply flawed and unfair scheme, especially given that only 1,000 people have ever been aided by Centrelink with their paperwork.

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

Order, Senator Kitching. You're now stretching a bit further beyond a point of direct relevance. The question contained a number of terms, and, with respect, the minister is allowed to not specifically answer the question you would prefer—which is, 'Will the minister apologise?'—and is entitled to be directly relevant to the other terms used in the question. I think the minister is, in this case, being directly relevant to the other parts of the question.

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

I refer to a press release that was released by the Minister for Human Services on 29 June 2011. I quote from that:

Beginning … this year, Centrelink and the ATO will automatically match data on a daily basis as a way of cross-checking former welfare recipients who have a debt with the Commonwealth.

…   …   …

Those … identified as having debts and who haven't made repayment arrangements ...

I underline my last point: 'those who haven't made repayment arrangements'. If you make a repayment arrangement or you engage with Centrelink, often the debts are not raised. The other thing I note is that Ms Plibersek made the following comment:

The Government prefers to work with people and provide them with flexible debt repayment options, rather than having to garnishee their tax refunds … But if people …

(Time expired)

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's faulty robodebt program was projected to meet a $2.1 billion budget savings target. With 600,000 potentially false debts no longer at the government's disposal, when will the government announce its revised budget position?

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

As I said in answer to a previous question on the very same thing, I actually do not accept the premise on which your question—

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

Senator Kitching, on a point of order?

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order goes to direct relevance. My first question was in relation to whether the minister would apologise. The second question is about the budget projection of the department. It's relying on $2.1 billion to make the budget target.

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

Order! Senator Kitching, please do not use the 'direct relevance' point of order to make an argument. In this case, the minister was speaking for six seconds. The minister is allowed to challenge or to reject a presumption outlined in the question. I didn't hear the minister finish that sentence, so I cannot rule on a point of direct relevance at this point at all. Senator Ruston, please continue.

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

Thank you very much, Mr President. As I said, I reject the premise of the question, because you're quoting a figure of 600,000 and I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it's actually an accurate figure. However, the thing that I find quite extraordinary is that, until you lost the election on 18 May this year, we were on a unity ticket about the importance of being able to collect debts to make sure that our welfare system is sustainable.

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

Order! Senator Wong on a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order goes to direct relevance. The question goes to a budget savings target—$2.1 billion—and the question is about whether there is a revision to that. I know she's been given press releases and has been asked to use them in defence—by her staff or someone else—but the reality is that talking about unity tickets is not directly relevant to a question about the revision of budget figures.

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

Senator Cormann on the point of order?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: Senator Wong did not actually completely relate the question that was asked. There was a particular aspect to that question which meant that the minister was quite right to say that she did not accept the premise of the question. The assumption in the question was that, just because a particular methodology was used, no debt was actually incurred, and that is wrong. And, in any event, Senator Kitching should know that any updates are always provided at the relevant budget update.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's the relevant minister!

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

I will take the interjection. I have allowed some discretion with points of order on my left. On the point of order, my notes reflect the question went to a projected saving, a claim about a number of debts and then seeking an announcement about a position from the government. To be directly relevant to that question, I do not consider the position of the opposition to be directly relevant, because that was quite a specific question. I call the minister to continue.

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

To absolutely clarify that position, I said that I rejected the premise of the 600,000 people on whom Senator Kitching was basing her question. As I said, it seems really interesting that, at one stage, we had the opposition saying, 'No-one gets a leave pass,' and now, post the election, when they have been unsuccessful in victory, we somehow seem to have a completely different thing—'everybody gets a leave pass.' It's like all debts are waived and we don't have to pursue the sustainability of our welfare system.

Senator Wong interjecting—

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

I am going to do something I have not done yet but which my colleague in the other place has done. I would ask ministers to listen to my rulings, because I just made a point that I did not think the position of the opposition was directly relevant to the terms of that question. Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question?

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the other place, when asked about the belated decision to suspend robodebt, the minister, Stuart Robert, began his response by declaring, 'The government does not apologise.' Is this the government's position and is the minister correct?

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

I have been so intently listening to the proceedings of this question time, I have absolutely no idea what was said in the other place during question time—and I have no intention of trying to channel the Minister for Government Services.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.