Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, Senator Ruston. In 2015, then social services minister Scott Morrison targeted vulnerable Australians through his illegal robodebt scheme in an attempt to achieve $4.7 billion in savings to bolster the budget bottom line. Why?

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

I thank Senator Gallagher for her question. Clearly, there were decisions of many previous governments to make sure that, where Australians had received money from the taxpayer to which they were not entitled, the government would seek to recover it. There is an expectation by the Australian public that the government will seek to recover that debt.

One of the measures which was put in place by the previous government and subsequently undertaken by the government of which I am now a member was to use a form of determination called income averaging. We subsequently know and acknowledge that that method by which we determined debts was deemed not to be valid. We acknowledge that it was determined not to be valid. I believe that the Prime Minister has actually apologised to those people who have been impacted by that form of debt collection.

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

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

Order, Senator Keneally! Order, Senator O'Neill!

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

However, as soon as we became aware that that method of debt collection was not valid, we immediately ceased collecting funds by that means and put in place a very, very quick and responsive program—

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

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

Order! Senator O'Neill, I have called you to order on numerous occasions.

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

by which we would pay back Australians who had received debt notices as a result of using income averaging as a means by which to determine that debt.

We are not the only government to have used income averaging as a means to determine debt. In fact, I can actually give you a number of quotes from people that still remain in this parliament that are members of the opposition party who made comments in relation to it. I might wait to give the examples after the next question so I have more time.

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

I am going to insist that when I call a senator to order they at least count to 10 before they completely disobey the standing orders again. It is the first day of the last fortnight. It is going to be a very long one if people continue to behave like this. It is going to make it hard for me to rule on points of order when I can't hear an answer. So I ask for a little bit of self-restraint on this first day. Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government was warned 76 times over a number of years by the AAT that its robodebt notices were not legally enforceable. Why did Mr Morrison and the government ignore these warnings?

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

Thank you, Senator Gallagher. First of all, the government does value the role that the AAT has in providing independent merits reviews for a wide range of administrative provisions but noting in each case that they are unique and they turn on the absolute facts of that case. There have been decisions by the AAT that have upheld decisions and there have been decisions of the AAT that have not upheld decisions. To suggest that every single case that goes before the AAT is the same as the last one fails to understand the process that exists at the AAT.

So I would draw to the attention of the senator who asked the question that, as I said in my answer to the previous question, as soon as this government became aware that using income averaging was not a valid means by which to collect a debt it ceased that program and immediately commenced a program of repaying that money to people— (Time expired)

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

Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As social services minister, Treasurer and then Prime Minister, Mr Morrison has continued to persist with this illegal scheme. Why did he just ignore not only the warnings but the painful consequences for so many Australians?

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

I would put on the record that the Prime Minister has expressed his regret to those people that have been impacted by this particular activity which we have acknowledged has been deemed as not being a valid means by which to collect debt. We don't shy away from the fact that it has been found that this is not a valid means by which to generate a debt. There is no argument, and we have apologised and shown regret for the consequences of doing that.

But let me remind everybody in this chamber that this method of determining debt is not something that we came up with. In fact, it was under the opposition's watch. A Minister for Human Services in their government, Tanya Plibersek, from the other place said:

… if people fail to come to an arrangement to settle their debts, the Government has a responsibility to taxpayers to recover that money.

We support Ms Plibersek's view on this 100 per cent. (Time expired)