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

I present the second interim report of the Community Affairs References Committee on Centrelink's compliance program.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Throughout the operation of robodebt as the Centrelink compliance program is commonly known, hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to participate in the distressing and difficult process of reconfirming the earned income that they had already reported to Centrelink, in some cases from up to seven years earlier. The huge scale of the program's impact cannot be ignored, and there remain many questions about how income averaging was established and about how it was allowed to operate for so long before it was found to be unlawful. The Prime Minister's qualified apology in June did nothing—or very little—to fix the hurt and harm caused by robodebt.

The committee is tabling this second interim report today because we are not in a position to finalise our inquiry into the Centrelink compliance program. This is partly because the evidence sought by the committee relating to the legality of the income compliance program has not been provided by the government and department because of claims of public interest immunity. I will be reporting separately on those claims. We have also had trouble because of the COVID pandemic; we have been unable to hold face-to-face hearings. Because of the nature of the evidence to this inquiry, I think it's very important that we hear from people in person, and people are sometimes reluctant to give that very confronting evidence via video. But that is not to say that we haven't been having hearings with the agencies.

A lot of the evidence we sought from the government, particularly from Services Australia, is based on the concerns around the ongoing court case around robodebt and, as I said, I will report on that in a separate report. We have learnt that raising debts on the basis of income averaging is unlawful and never should have occurred in the first place. Throughout this inquiry, we have heard about the devastating human cost of the Centrelink compliance program, commonly known as 'robodebt'. Themes of disempowerment, overwhelming stress and emotional upheaval continue to be common in accounts and submissions from individuals and community organisations.

Robodebt has had an overwhelming and devastating impact on people's emotional and financial wellbeing and on their willingness to engage with and trust government services. For many people, repaying a robodebt they were alleged to owe has resulted in considerable financial hardship and pushed them further into poverty, making it difficult to make ends meet. Individuals felt powerless to dispute letters or debts from Centrelink, which wore people down. Even after changes were made to the robodebt initiation letters and debt notices, people still reported feeling confused and distressed by the debt correspondence from Centrelink and often still called the initiation letters 'debt letters', quite often leading to confusion, particularly when corresponding with the department. Under the program, the garnishing of tax refunds for the recovery of outstanding debts was commonplace. People had no notice that this was coming and felt blindsided. In some instances, where people had already arranged to repay the debt in instalments, the tax refund was still garnished. We heard from people who were pursued by external debt collection agencies. In some cases, they are living in fear of debt collectors and law enforcement agencies because of their compliance debt. It is extremely confronting to hear that people are faced with those realities.

Evidence heard by the committee so far has shown that the implementation of the income compliance program continues to have a disproportionately negative impact on people in vulnerable cohorts. Robodebt, as it is commonly known, has also had ongoing negative impacts on the community sector and on Centrelink staff. Despite significant criticisms from the start of this program, it has taken nearly five years for the government to admit that income averaging as it is used under the program is not sufficient legal evidence of the existence of a debt. It is unlawful. In that time, nearly half a million debts were raised against some of the most vulnerable members of our community without a proper legal foundation, and those debts were pursued. The committee will continue to monitor the repayment process. We are pleased to see, in fact, that there has been significant progress in repaying some of those debts. Some are yet to be repaid, and some people have not responded to the outreach by the department, and we make a recommendation about that.

The committee makes some recommendations in this interim report. These recommendations go towards ensuring that the hurt and harm from the income compliance program doesn't happen again and is addressed. Firstly, we recommend that we immediately terminate the income compliance program. The government is leaving the door open and has not ruled out further income compliance programs, which is causing further distress to many people. Secondly, it is critical that the government ensure that its communications strategy relating to the repayment of unlawfully raised compliance debts takes into consideration the additional needs of, and provides support to, vulnerable populations. Thirdly, the committee recommends that Centrelink immediately allocate more staff to focus on contacting customers who have not engaged with the refund process. We've heard that quite a large number of people are yet to respond. Fourthly, the committee recommends that Centrelink immediately review its evidentiary responsibilities for raising overpayment debts in all of its compliance programs. Fifthly, the committee recommends that an independent review be immediately initiated into the policy, design, administration and impact of Centrelink's compliance program. This chair's report states that the independent review is necessary, and I personally believe that we should be undertaking a forensic audit of these debts. This program undoubtedly caused incalculable harm, distress and anxiety to hundreds of thousands of Australians. The refund program, while now significantly progressed, is in fact causing some people additional trauma.

I would like to express my sincere thanks and admiration for everyone who has given evidence to the committee so far. Sharing your accounts has been invaluable to us. The committee is inviting new submissions to the inquiry, especially around the issues of legality, and the impact, of the reverse onus of proof, the impact of changes to the income compliance program on individuals, and the future of Centrelink compliance activities and programs. We are also always interested in receiving personal accounts of, and evidence about, the experience of people who have been impacted by the income compliance program or other Centrelink compliance activities that are based on averaged income. The committee, as always, would like to thank our secretariat, who do such important and valuable work, for the support that they have given us and their support in preparing this report.

We look forward to completing this inquiry. It is being slowed down by the claims of public interest immunity. That is unfortunate. This is the second inquiry into Centrelink's income compliance program, and I maintain that this issue would never have come to light without the significant and overwhelmingly strong community campaign and the work of so many people and organisations. They have worked to shine a spotlight on this unlawful program.

I would recommend having a look at this report and I look forward to completing this inquiry in the future. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Debate interrupted.