Pensions and Benefits

Senator VAN (18:32): I rise to take note of the answer given in question time. As I said in my first speech earlier this year, we are the party of good government. Of that, there can be no doubt.

Good government means good governance, and that means good stewardship of public moneys—something those on the other side know little about.

Good stewardship of public moneys is the hallmark of good government, and, as was just raised, Australian taxpayers foot for the bill for around $111 billion in social security payments each year. The citizens of Australia, those taxpayers who contribute all that money, deserve nothing less than to have that money looked after in the best way that this government can. I remind those senators here and those listening that the social security component of the budget is the largest by an enormous amount. We spend more on that than anything else.

Just to correct something that was said opposite, welfare beneficiaries are not a burden to Australia. They are not a burden to Australia. When Australians need it, Australians deserve a hand up, as has been said many times by our Prime Minister. And that's what social security is for. It remains there for Australians who need it to get a hand up, to help them in times of need, to help them through those difficult periods that any Australian can have at some point in their life.

We need to reflect on that and why it's there, why we collect so much in taxpayers' funds—to be there as a safety net, and that safety net is there to help them back onto their feet, to help them back into work or to help them get the rest and recuperation they need. It's there to help people. It's not a handout. It's not a wage replacement. So, when there are times—and there are—when there is a miscalculation, the government has a responsibility to collect back any of those overpayments. Compliance activity will continue for past and future welfare payment recipients where there is a reasonable belief—and I reiterate a 'reasonable belief'—that they have been overpaid.

Refinements have been made a number of times to the income compliance program, and the government has an ongoing commitment to refine the program. We remain responsive to community feedback and have listened to the concerns around the current system. That much has been made clear in question time many, many times.

We will continue to use income averaging as part of the range of options to ask a welfare recipient to engage with DHS if there is a discrepancy. That's all we're asking them to do here—to engage with the department if there is a discrepancy.

This is central to having community trust in the administration of the safety net. I think you will all agree that good government means that government must maintain a concerted focus on returning overpayment to taxpayers. We balance this with fairness and transparency in our compliance activities. People can ask the department to review decisions or to provide new information at any stage of the process, which the government ombudsman reflects as a reassessment process functioning as it should.