Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Thank you very much, Mr President. My question is to Minister Birmingham representing the Treasurer. Minister, the Morrison government set up robodebt to pursue welfare recipients who had been overpaid. In May 2020 the scheme was scrapped and the PM apologised for the hurt, harm and hardship caused to people caught up in the automated debt assessment scheme. The total rolling issued debt sum was $1.2 billion. Minister, last week I questioned you about pursuing those companies and businesses who had been overpaid on JobKeeper claims. What investigation has the government undertaken to ensure taxpayers' moneys are accounted for?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Hanson for her question in relation to the JobKeeper program. In relation to the final component of Senator Hanson's question about the processes that the tax office undertakes, the tax office has a number of data-matching and other processes that it deploys to ensure that claims made are valid claims—in accordance with the operations and program guidelines of the JobKeeper scheme that they were administering at the time.

It's important to detach some of the public commentary that some have sought to peddle in relation to JobKeeper from what, actually, those rules and guidelines were. There's a perception that has been painted by some in their public commentary that suggests that any business that ultimately still made a positive financial return through the previous financial year was not eligible for JobKeeper. That's not true. There were different eligibility criteria, and the first phase of JobKeeper clearly outlined the eligibility criteria, built upon expectations of businesses at that time. At that time we were dealing with a nationwide lockdown approach, different businesses being forced to close their doors across the country and enormous fears that there could be massive levels of unemployment across the country. That's why JobKeeper was established, and it was established with easy-to-access criteria to deal with the concerns of business at that time. Over subsequent iterations, JobKeeper's criteria were tightened, and, of course, the ATO ensured that only those eligible against that tighter criteria received it. Now we have a different model, in terms of the COVID-19 disaster payment and the business-support models delivered with the states, which provides for even tighter program guidelines. But I can assure the Senate that the ATO enforced the rules at the relevant time. (Time expired)

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

Senator Hanson, a supplementary question?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] You said in your response to me last week:

The companies in question were not overpaid; they were eligible under the rules of the program as they operated at the time.

Are you aware that companies withheld invoices to receive JobKeeper payments? A lot of companies, in doing so, paid directors bonuses and shareholders profits at the expense of the taxpayer. Will you investigate?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anybody who has any evidence of any form of tax, program or grant fraud should obviously bring that forward. As I said in relation to the primary question, the Australian tax office used its range of powers and data and information to be able to determine eligibility at the different points of the JobKeeper scheme, which went through different stages as we tightened its eligibility criteria along the way.

In that first phase it was very much a program designed to be able to intervene, rapidly and quickly, across the Australian economy and to save jobs. According to the Reserve Bank's research, at least 700,000 jobs were saved just in the period of April to June last year, the period when the JobKeeper scheme was initially opened up and had the widest eligibility criteria to provide certainty in underpinning the Australian economy. It did that. It did that effectively, and it saved jobs as a result.

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

Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] As I said, you were willing to go after destitute people—people on welfare payments, dependent on welfare—to the tune of $1.2 billion. Why won't you go after big business for what could amount to tens of billions of dollars? If not, the people may assume they are your donors or benefactors.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reject the insinuation at the end there and point out the fact that the Australian tax office does go after—to use your words, Senator Hanson—businesses on a routine basis and, indeed, any other taxpayers on a routine basis, where there is any evidence of fraud. The tax office undertakes routine audit and compliance activity as well, and all of those sorts of activities have the potential not just to look at tax fraud but also, in instances, to look at the administration of the JobKeeper program. I want to assure Senator Hanson that enormous effort does occur there. As a result of their compliance activities, the tax office recoups many billions of dollars for the Australian taxpayer and, of course, where necessary, takes legal action against those businesses—no matter how big they may be—to ensure their compliance with tax rules, grant rules and other things that the ATO administers.