Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. The Morrison government has sent more than 11,000 debt notices for $32 million to social welfare recipients who received JobKeeper. How much of the $13 billion in JobKeeper payments it paid to companies who saw an increase in profit has the Morrison government sought to recover?

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

I thank Senator Bilyk for the question. It's important, as always, that, where programs are operated and claims have been made against the guidelines, conditions or eligibility of those programs, steps are made to recover those funds. That's the case in relation to JobKeeper, like any other program. Whilst, Senator Bilyk, you have chosen to highlight one component of the recovery activity and that is in relation to individuals who may have been in receipt of other payments, such as JobSeeker, whilst also receiving JobKeeper, it is also the case that the Australian Taxation Office has been pursuing significant instances of over-claims, over-payments or inappropriate claims with businesses. In fact, as at August, some $296.6 million has been identified by the Australian Taxation Office with Australian businesses, and the government takes very seriously recovering those funds as well. Approximately $185.5 million of those funds have been recovered to date.

So, on all of these fronts, what we're assessing against is the eligibility of businesses or individuals for the payments they received according to the guidelines at the time. It shouldn't be confused at all, of course, with some of the claims people make about receipt of JobKeeper, which was entirely within the guidelines as they existed at the time. That program in particular has been identified by the Reserve Bank as having saved around 700,000 Australian jobs. It was a crucial program in terms of keeping businesses afloat during a time when, right across Australia, they were having their doors shut and, in having their doors shut, facing the proposition of having to stand down their staff. JobKeeper avoided that, and it helped to ensure that Australians kept their jobs and that our economy was in the strongest possible position for recovery.

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

Senator Bilyk, a supplementary question?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Will the Morrison government seek to compulsorily recover a single dollar of the $13 billion of taxpayer money paid to companies despite them seeing an increase in earnings during the pandemic?

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

I'm hoping that I heard all of Senator Bilyk's question correctly there. Part of the reason why I'm not sure if I did is that I think I answered Senator Bilyk's question in my primary answer: that, in terms of the government seeking to recover funds from Australian businesses—

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

Order! I have 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

It's on direct relevance, but perhaps I could assist. It was 'compulsorily recover'.

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

Senator Birmingham to continue.

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

In terms of recovering funds from Australian businesses, and of compulsorily recovering funds from any Australian businesses that made inappropriate claims, the Australian Taxation Office has the power to pursue and to recover funds where necessary. As always, we use the powers judiciously, be they for individuals or businesses, and, where possible, repayment plans are negotiated or agreed between parties. I said, in response to the primary question, that some $296.6 million in overpayments has been identified. Many of these overpayments were honest mistakes, but nonetheless $185.5 million has been recovered and the government will continue to pursue the recovery of the residual amount.

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

Senator Bilyk, a final supplementary question?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] While it's hounding social welfare recipients for $32 million, the Morrison government is happy to leave $13 billion in the pockets of companies that saw an increase in earnings and is happy to use $660 million of taxpayers' money for car park rorts as though it were Liberal Party money. When it comes to spending taxpayers' money, why it is one rule for those struggling on social welfare and another for everybody else?

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

I note Senator Bilyk is saying, 'Why is it one rule for some and another for others?' I can't help but think: why is it that the Labor Party pick on some but not others? Why is it, of course, that they're after businesses or after religious organisations but overlook the millions of dollars that trade unions received? Why is it that they're so selective in who it is that they hate and who it is that they wish to vilify?

The simple facts are that Australian businesses were having their doors slammed shut last year, right across the country—in every state and territory—as lockdowns and shutdowns occurred. JobKeeper was born with the simplest of eligibility criteria: to seek to make it easy to save those jobs. It worked: it saved 700,000 jobs. We're not going to vilify the businesses that were legitimately able to claim it, but I do note the hypocrisy of those who seem to overlook the trade unions that were happy to take the cash.