Mr JOYCE (New England) (16:11): It appears that we agree on one point, and that is that the money should be retrieved. I don't think anybody's saying that it shouldn't be retrieved. So it's really now a question about how you retrieve it. It should be retrieved because governments don't actually have money; taxpayers have money, and taxpayers' generosity is the reason we have a social welfare system. For it to be sustainable, there has to be prudence in how it operates. The issue, of course, now is that we've got 900,000 Australians who have social welfare debts of around about $5 billion. Now, there's always an opportunity cost in that—$5 billion is $5 billion that could go to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or that could go towards the construction of essential infrastructure that we need, such as dams, which I talk about incessantly because I think this nation needs them. Five billion dollars can go towards the construction of roads—making our roads safer—but $5 billion is going to go nowhere unless you collect it. I heard the issue that people believe there's an automated algorithm. There's not. What is used in this compliance process is also human checks and balances throughout its entire process. Services Australia has received data that indicates someone may not have received the correct payment in the past, and then the person is sent a letter asking them to check and update their information. The program does not target specific people. It looks at income discrepancies based on what a customer has declared to Services Australia and income data received from the ATO. As a former accountant, I know that it is always part and parcel of what you do, and I've been there right at the coalface. I remember at one stage with a client having to basically go through the reality check of saying to them, 'You owe a substantial amount of money.' Unfortunately, this lady thought that it was just a rudimentary process, and I had to say, 'No, this is super serious. This is basically seen as you're stealing the money, and you're going to have to answer for it as such. It's really important that you get a solicitor and have this properly dealt with, because it comes with a criminal conviction.' With this issue, there have been claims that the onus is on Centrelink to establish that a debt exists. As always has been the case, people have the obligation to let Services Australia know a change in their personal circumstances whilst they're receiving income payments so they can assure that they're being paid the right amount. It's incumbent upon you and it's explained to you that whilst you're receiving a payment from the taxpayer, via the government, you have a duty, an obligation, out of respect to the people who go to work to deliver that money to tell if your circumstances change. The best way to think of tax is this: the vast majority of Australians work all of Monday and Tuesday to around 11 o'clock just to pay their taxes. They're not working for themselves. And, when we think of it like that, it shows that you've got to be absolutely respectful of the fact someone is going to work all of Monday and Tuesday to about 11 o'clock for no other purpose than to pay taxes. So they're working for you or they're working for someone else. If they go back to work on Saturday to try and make it up, they'll work till around 11 o'clock before they start working for themselves. In dealing with 900,000 cases, of course you're going to require a form of automation to try to get across that dataset. What we have here is a process where the Labor Party are putting forward the idea that if we ditch that we're going to have a better prospect of trying to get back the $5 billion which the taxpayers paid. And we agree—the Labor Party side, that side of the House, and this side of the House—that this debt exists and agree that it's got to be repaid. You've stated that in the speeches, okay? That being the case, we're talking about the efficiency and efficacy of getting this money back. You've agreed that this money—you have agreed in these speeches; read the Hansard—isowed and it's got to be repaid. That is your position, unless you now disagree with one of your colleagues. In doing so, we have to go forward with this process. We're always open, if there are issues that need to be remedied, but this is how we must deal with it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The time for the discussion has concluded.