Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:01): As both sides have articulated their respective views on this matter I think most of the key points have been made. If you want to attenuate this whole debate, you could read what the Commonwealth Ombudsman decided when he looked into this matter. The Ombudsman quite simply said, 'It's entirely reasonable and appropriate for the department to ask customers to explain discrepancies.' The Ombudsman has said, 'The system of calculation comprehensively and accurately captures the legislative and policy requirements.' We can all go home because that's the verdict. You can talk about whether this process is something out of Dante's Inferno or just an attempt to make sure that, if you're honest about your earnings, then your payments will be accurate. Somewhere in the middle there has to be some truth. The reality is that there are 900,000 Australians who have discrepancies. This is not about debt; it's about discrepancies. It's utterly right for the payer, who trusts that the data upon which the amounts are calculated is correct, to ask if there is a discrepancy. I think everyone in the gallery would agree with that. Just because one asks about a discrepancy doesn't immediately make it the cruel and horrific process that's being painted by the other side. I have found today this new category of Australians. They're called, as the member for Bean said, sensitive Australians. Let's explore who the sensitive Australians are. These are people who are old, people who live in remote areas or people who have unusual or unique needs. This is a new category now of individuals for whom we can do payments by robo but we can't do discrepancy checks in an automated way. Mr Burns: What is this? Mr LAMING: Well, try to think a little more broadly and listen. The reality is that we robo pay these amounts but we can't robo check for discrepancies. It's fabulous that you can keep paying to your new sensitive Australians—whoever these people are— Ms Thwaites: Who are you talking to? Mr LAMING: I'm talking to Australians, and you should listen. We are able to pay but we can't check the amount. You can have seven years of data that has been collected. If there's a discrepancy, one side of politics says, 'No, you can't check a discrepancy.' Honourable members interjecting— Mr LAMING: Correction. You're happy to do it, but you want it done manually, right? You're not prepared to use the very automated systems that have made the Public Service work effectively. You can't possibly check by hand 900,000 Australians. I challenge you to fund a department, and how many floors in high-rise buildings you would need to do this process, if there were not some form of basic automation. This is a Luddite opposition that is happy to pay by robo but not check for discrepancies by robo. This is not saying any Australian individual owes a debt. It's asking about discrepancies. It's basic matching that has been done for three decades. It's ATO data that we've been matching since 2011. For the first time we're having correspondence that's automated in the search for truth. Just for a moment think about if we were to decide to forgive all these debts, because we can't use a robo system and it's impossible to employ enough public servants to do it manually, and how fair that would be for people who don't benefit from overpayment. Ultimately, doesn't the valuable welfare dollar in the welfare system that's the most targeted in the world because of its needs based approach deserve to be paid to the person who needs it most? If you have two identical people otherwise living in equivalent circumstances and one is the beneficiary of an overpayment then how is it fair on the neighbour to say: 'Sorry, it was all too hard; there were not enough bureaucrats to check everyone, and we couldn't do 'robo' because the Labor Party didn't like it'? Let's cut back to the truth. I've got a minute left and I might as well use it. This is an opposition that could never brook Work for the Dole. Twenty years ago, this mob couldn't countenance the idea that a jobseeker might do mutual activity, might go out and pick up a shovel, in the search for work and in the maintenance of skills. This is a party that, five years ago, wouldn't countenance that we would put money for those needing income management onto a welfare card to make sure those addicted couldn't make wholesale payments with their welfare money to drug dealers. Australians expect better. What we have is a Labor Party perennially resisting improvements to the welfare system. They're stuck in '75 with Medicare and stuck in 1985 with unconditional welfare payments. We need a modern-day, cutting-edge welfare system. Automated correspondence asking recipients to check the veracity of an identified discrepancy with the ATO is utterly legitimate and supported absolutely by mainstream Australia.