Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. It's now been two years since the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission were handed down, yet several still remain unactioned—including reinstating a six-year limit on debt recovery. I'm deeply concerned that over 100,000 income support recipients whose debts were levied using the department's ruthless and dubious method of income apportionment may yet again be pursued by the government for historical debt notices, once more placing vulnerable people at risk of financial and personal crisis. The pursuit of years old, sometimes decades old, debts was one of the features of the social security system that underpinned the robodebt scheme. Will this government finally act on the royal commission's recommendation to legislate a six-year limitation on debt recovery and ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society are not being chased for debts that can date back decades?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Allman-Payne for the question. I can assure you, Senator, that, between the Minister for Social Services and myself, we have had a number of discussions around how we respond to the Federal Court case that considered income apportionment. Just to be clear, because parallels are often drawn between robodebt and income apportionment, robodebt was bad policy dreamt up by those opposite to pursue vulnerable people to provide a budget saving and to threaten them with jail if they didn't pay back debts they didn't owe. That's that. Income apportionment was not designed to punish welfare recipients or to claw back revenue; it was about making life easier for people. Let's be clear about the difference between income apportionment and what happened under their watch—the biggest failure of public administration in our country's history, a decision by them over there to pursue vulnerable Australians for billions of dollars they didn't owe, as it turned out.

We are considering our response to that. Debt, the length of time for debt and low-level debts are all part of the work currently before the Minister for Social Services. She has had a number of discussions with me about that and we will resolve them shortly. I'm not in a position to advise you at the moment about any changes to debt waivers or our policy in relation to that, but we are working through the detail and the judgement of the Federal Court and we will provide a response once those discussions are complete.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allman-Payne, first supplementary?

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The robodebt tragedy was only possible because income support recipients were and still are trapped on poverty payments. This made them acutely vulnerable to the actions of the government. I've personally been contacted by constituents on JobSeeker who cannot afford to eat, pay for essential medications or medical treatment, or keep a roof over their heads. Minister, will Labor finally act to raise the rate of all income support payments above the poverty line?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, we review payments through every budget cycle. You will note, Senator Allman-Payne, that we have provided additional above-indexation support for those on JobSeeker and indeed for those on other income support payments, like the single parenting payment, and changed the length of time people can take those payments when it comes to the single parenting payment.

Again, on income apportionment and robodebt, robodebt was designed to raise revenue by clawing back debt from people who never owed that money. Income apportionment was about reducing the reporting burden to try and make it easier for people, and about a third of people benefited from income apportionment over time, whereas, as we know, robodebt indiscriminately made people worse off. But we will continue to look at payments, as we do through every budget cycle. That's what we did last term, and we'll continue to do it this term.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allman-Payne, second supplementary?

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that, if one-third benefited, that means two-thirds didn't, and it was found to be unlawful. I'll move to my second supplementary, Minister. Why is it that your government can always find money, billions of dollars, in fact, for American submarines but never for struggling Australians?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that's simply not true. A government has to do a lot of things.

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know those over there find it hilarious. The party of robodebt find this question hilarious. That is how disrespectful you are about people on income support payments. We saw it when you were in government. We saw it when you threatened people with jail for debts they didn't earn.

Senator Cash, do you remember that? You would have been sitting around the cabinet table. On the issue of allocation of budget funding, a significant proportion is, as appropriate, provided in income support payments through Services Australia, whether it be JobSeeker, the family tax payment, the single parenting payment or the age pension—all of those. The allocation for the Defence budget is smaller than that. Our priority is the Australian people.