Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill as amended and amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 3499, moved by Senator Allman-Payne. The question is that division 2 in item 2 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that amendments (1), (2), (4) and (6) be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert:

(2) Schedule 2, page 29 (after line 23), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4 — Time limit on debt recovery

Division 1 — Amendments

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999

15 Section 93B

Repeal the section, substitute:

93B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Paid Parental Leave Act 2010

16 Section 192A

Repeal the section, substitute:

192A Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Social Security Act 1991

17 Section 1234B

Repeal the section, substitute:

1234B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Chapter, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Chapter, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Student Assistance Act 1973

18 Section 42B

Repeal the section, substitute:

42B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Division 2 — Application of amendments

19 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to a debt that is raised, before, on or after this item commences.

One of the most significant and impactful recommendations made in the robodebt royal commission was recommendation 18.2. That recommendation called for the government to reinstate the limitation of six years on debt recovery. Further details of the recommendation in the royal commission's report note that the six-year limit on debt recovery was caused by a repeal of the relevant subsections by the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016, and that I quote:

There is no reason that current and former social security recipients should be on any different footing from other debtors.

We know that there are people who have received income support, sometimes decades ago, who live in fear that at some point in their future, they will receive a debt notice because there is no limitation on debt recovery. They live in fear that they're going to receive a debt notice from a department that we know has a history of unlawfully raising debts. The government says that it needs to further consider the implementation of this recommendation, but it's now been two years since the release of the robodebt royal commission, which begs the question: how much more time does the government require to consider these changes? We have a situation where we were told yesterday that the government has recently received advice that means it needs to rush through schedule 5 without inquiry and yet the government has had over two years to introduce a six-year limitation on debt recovery, which was a key recommendation of the robodebt royal commission. Minister, how much more time does the government require to implement this very important recommendation of the robodebt royal commission?

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

The government has acted on 75 per cent of the recommendations made by the robodebt royal commission, with a broad range of measures introduced to restore trust across the social security system. I remind the chamber that it was the government that commissioned the royal commission into robodebt, so that we could understand very clearly what went on there and make sure it never, ever happens again. We've also invested millions to ensure that a failure like robodebt will never happen again. We've accepted or accepted in principle all 56 recommendations made by the robodebt royal commission, and we remain committed to implementing them all. Some of them are complex, and we need time to work through them. This package is a step towards systemic social security debt reform.

In terms of recommendation 18.2, we won't be supporting Senator Allman-Payne's amendment. It seeks to reinstate the statute of limitations. The government has agreed in principle to this recommendation, and we know it is an important area of work that needs to be completed. The Minister for Social Services is leading this process to examine how an effective statute of limitations would operate in practice. The old six-year statute of limitations was not as effective as it could have been and did not provide a meaningful limit on the raising and recovery of historic debts. For this measure to be effective, the government does believe it needs to be designed properly and consulted on—a process that the government intends to carry out thoroughly. They do come with significant budget impacts and so we need to consider that through the budget process. The government will work across government to ensure that, as this work is completed, we fully understand all of the impacts.

I should also note that increasing the small debt waiver to $250 and waiving 1.2 million undetermined debts this financial year alone—as this bill does, if it's allowed to pass—will remove more debts from the backlog than reinstating the old statute of limitations would, so can we please pass the bill.

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

I'm struggling to understand why, on the one hand, the government wants to take such an extended period of time to work on a recommendation to put back in place something that previously existed but doesn't require any consultation or time whatsoever to remove people's human rights and go against the rule of law with schedule 5. That seems to be somewhat hypocritical. My understanding is that the last Minister for Social Services had amendments or legislation drafted to reinstate the six-year debt limit on debt recovery but it wasn't brought to the parliament. Minister, how much longer is the government going to require people on income support to wait before this recommendation of the royal commission is implemented? I know you've said that debts are going to be waived, but we still have a situation where, again, people on welfare are being treated differently to everyone else in our community. There is no other area of law where people can recover debts beyond six years. We have a statute of limitation for a reason, and yet the most vulnerable in our community, people on income support, are being told to wait. How much longer, Minister, will they have to wait?

Progress reported.