Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (15:40): In my remarks on this matter of public importance, about Centrelink, I will address some of the points which the member for Barton has made, but in doing that I would like to explain exactly how the system works, because, if you were listening to the member for Barton today, you would think that certain things occur which in fact do not occur. So let me at least take you through how the system works and the history of this system, which very much originates within the Labor Party. How the system works is that, when a person is in receipt of Centrelink payments, they have to provide their income on a fortnightly basis in order to determine what sort of payment they receive. We look back at those Centrelink records and we compare them to the Australian Taxation Office records of the income that a person has received. So we compare the self-reported income that a person has given to Centrelink to what the employer has said that person earned, and that information is held at the Australian Taxation Office. Where there is a discrepancy between those two sets of data, a notice is sent to the recipient, and they are asked if they can explain that discrepancy. In some cases, the person can explain the discrepancy, because in some cases the employer, for example, has given incorrect dates of when that person was employed. They may have said the person was employed from June to December when in fact it was from June to September, and the person is able to clarify that and consequently the issue goes away. But on many occasions the individual is unable to clarify the situation. If they are unable to do so or do not do so, then a debt may be issued against that person. At any particular time along the way, if they have got concerns, they can call a dedicated 1800 number and talk to a Centrelink officer in relation to that. Ms Burney: Can't get through! Mr TUDGE: The member screeches at me that they cannot get through on that dedicated 1800 number. Actually I myself have been calling it very regularly, as have my staff, and on all occasions we have been able to get through quite quickly. I would encourage the member to test that dedicated number herself. How did this system come about? This is important. What are the origins of this system? This data-matching between Centrelink information and Australian Taxation Office information actually originated back in 1990, when Graham Richardson introduced what is called the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act. That is when the process started. Since that time, essentially the same methodology has been used, where that information is compared and, where there is a discrepancy, a request is made of the recipient to explain that discrepancy. If they can, that is the end of the story. If they cannot, a debt may be raised against that person. In 2011 it was actually the Labor Party, again, who introduced some sort of automation into the system. Indeed, the now Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were the two people in charge of introducing some form of automation into the system. Then in the 2015-16 budget we decided that we would expand the system to cover more people, and consequently my department has been implementing that system since. But I stress that the methodology which is being used to compare the Centrelink information with the Australian Taxation Office information is essentially the same that has always been the case. 'Why do we have to do such checks?' is a question that is frequently asked. Unfortunately, we have to do such checks because, despite the fact that the vast majority of people do the right thing, it is the case that some people do the wrong thing and deliberately defraud the system, while many people inadvertently do not update their income information correctly while they are on Centrelink benefits and, consequently, receive an overpayment. Even in some of the very high-profile examples, which the member for Barton has put up to the media, that is exactly the case. The member for Barton has admitted that many of those cases that have been in the media over summer she put up to the media, but she also admitted to the media that she did not know whether they were innocent or not. When you look through some of those cases it is quite clear that, in fact, those people do owe money, despite the member for Barton putting up their cases as being so-called victims of the system. For example, here is one of a Victorian woman—who has been in the media—who was on an income support payment for the entire year of 2015-16. That person declared income of less than $9,000, but the Australian Taxation Office record showed that she actually had a business of her own and that her business earned more than $48,000 during that time. Ms Burney: Is that the best you've got? Mr TUDGE: The member for Barton interjects and says, 'That's the best you've got.' Well, I can continue going through example after example, if the member would like, of cases she has put up to the media as being so-called victims of the system but where they have declared less than— Ms Burney: You're destroying lives! Mr TUDGE: Here is another one: they have declared less than $4,000 in employment income while on payments the entire time, while the Australian Taxation Office suggests they earned $26,000 for that time. We think it is quite right and proper that when there is such a discrepancy that person is, at least, inquired about that discrepancy and that they are given the opportunity to explain the discrepancy if they are able to do. An inquiry is worthy of being made in order to determine whether or not there has, in fact, been an overpayment. I should point out that the member for Barton put up more than 52 cases to the media over the summer period, but a full third of those cases had nothing to do with the new online compliance system. Even in her remarks this afternoon she mentioned a Miss Roxborough—another case that she had given to TheCanberra Times—but it had nothing to do with the online compliance system. She said that case was done through the system the Labor Party would revert to if they were back in office. It is worth asking, if Labor were back in office, what exactly they would do to some of these very egregious cases where there is such a stark discrepancy. We have looked at many cases and I have spoken to this chamber about a case, for example, back in the Labor years where the person earned $5,000 but where the employer reported to the Australian Taxation Office that they had, in fact, earned more than $100,000 during that same period. That occurred during the Labor years. It occurred when the member for Sydney was the Minister for Human Services, the member for McMahon was the Minister of Human Services, and the member for Gorton was the Minister for Human Services. They did not catch that particular case. They did not catch the case of $5,000 versus $100,000. They did not catch it then and now when they are asked what they would do if they were back in government today—and the member for Barton answered that question on ABC News Breakfast on 18 January. She was asked directly, 'What would you actually do to recover that money when there are genuine overpayments?' And she said, 'Well, Labor would do exactly what we've done in the past.' I will just talk about the implications of that. In the past there were cases where people self-reported $5,000 but their employers said they earned $100,000. And Labor did nothing. Now they are saying that if they were back in government they would again do that same system, where they do not pick up cases like that. We do not agree with that. We think there should be a fair and reasonable system of compliance that is fair to the welfare recipient. We have already made refinements to the system, and we will continue to make refinements to the system, to make it reasonable. But it also has to be fair to the taxpayer, and that means we will continue to do this important work of data matching to identify cases where there are discrepancies and we will recoup taxpayers money when it is overpaid. Ms Burney: Sticks and stones! The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will remind the member for Barton that the MPI works where speakers take turns to speak, and once you have taken your turn it is respectful to listen to the next speaker.