E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS FIRST EDITION
MONDAY 1ST JUNE 2020

SUBJECTS: Robodebt repayments; NDIS underspend; Construction stimulus package

PETER STEFANOVIC, HOST: Attorney General Christian Porter concedes the Robodebt system is flawed, but says he will not apologise over his handling of the Centrelink debt debacle. The government will refund $721 million worth of debt to almost 400,000 people from the beginning of July. The Robodebt scheme is now the subject of a class action after the Federal Court found it had used flawed calculations to recoup the debts. The Attorney General admitted the computer driven income averaging system was insufficient, but said he wouldn't apologise while litigation is ongoing. Well, joining me live now is the Shadow Minister for Government Services, Bill Shorten. Bill, good morning to you. Thanks so much for joining us. So it was a couple of days ago that this was announced. It was buried with the Friday trash, but still, what was your reaction to it?

BILL SHORTEN, MEMBER FOR MARIBYRNONG: The Government's just admitted that they've been unlawfully, unjustly enriching themselves with people's money. Now we use the word outrage a lot. But this is pretty, pretty bloody outrageous what the Government's done. $721 million is their first refund. $721 million to 377,000 people. This is not another day at the office and it's caused a lot of hardship to ordinary people who are vulnerable.

STEFANOVIC: $721 million dollars, could it get higher than that?

SHORTEN: Probably, I mean the court action hasn’t resolved yet. And one of the, you know, for example, one of the reasons why it might get higher is, did you know, Peter, that if you owed the Government money at a certain point, if you haven't paid the debt, they charge you a general interest charge of 7.5%, on the theory that you've got the Government's money, and so they've lost the use of it, so you have to pay interest penalties. But the Government's held people's money for four and a half years and they haven't said anything about the interest charge that they should recompense people with. So that's just one example of how this is going to go higher, I suspect.

STEFANOVIC: Christian Porter said that he can't apologise because of the litigation that's taking place at the moment. Do you accept that?

SHORTEN: No they’re just weasel words. Listen he says that, he can probably say on legal grounds if I say sorry, that's the admission of some wrongdoing. Well, I don't know what he thinks paying back $721 million is. I don’t know what he thinks he was doing when he said yesterday to David Speers, yes, it is unlawful. But an apology would show empathy. An apology would show that this is a problem. I mean, the real challenge in all of this is not just what's already being done wrong, but, you know, there's 2.5 million plus people now receiving government payments. How do we know the Government's learnt anything from their unjust enrichment and unlawful conduct over the last four and a half years, a lot of other people should be worried.

STEFANOVIC: Well, I mean, he also says that many governments over the years have used average data. Is it time to come up with a new system? Do you still back that system?

SHORTEN: Well, again, I think the Government Minister was being a bit selective. When there was data averaging in the past, what would happen is that would raise a red flag. Person A says they’ve earned this, but the computer says maybe they’ve earned a bit more. Then what you would do is that you would have a human checker. Someone in the Department of Human Services would go and check with the employer to check if the person was, you know, benefits were all appropriate. This Government, not anyone else, not the man on the moon, not someone else. It was this Government who took out the human oversight, and they announced in their 2016 budget how they were going to ramp up compliance against welfare cheats on steroids. Always good for a headline, you know, we must stop the welfare cheats. Well, no one wants to see someone getting money they're not entitled to. But in this case, the people who were cheating were the Government, they were getting $721 million dollars they weren't entitled to.

STEFANOVIC: Well, the Government has also been accused in the past of a big underspend when it comes to the NDIS. Do you think this will mean that won't change because of this extra billion dollars or whatever it ends up being, that the Government will have to pay back because of Robodebt?

SHORTEN: Look, I understand the question, but to be clear, what the Government's doing is they're paying back money that weren't entitled to. So this is money they weren't entitled to, which they've taken off ordinary people. And then after four and a half years, you know, it's been a lot of community campaigning with this class action, the government was afraid that they’ve been caught and look stupid for unlawful conduct. Now they've paid it back. But this isn't taxpayer money. This is money, which was originally other people's which this Government took. In terms of the NDIS underspend, I'm concerned that the Government will try and rob the accounts, and make NDIS harder for people to access. But I think that's a more general concern. In this matter this is just about the Government's returning what was never theirs to begin with.

STEFANOVIC: Okay, just finally today, a multi billion dollar stimulus package, I know it's a bit of a sidestep here. The stimulus package on its way for the construction industry and what it involves, amongst other things, is direct cash grants for home renovations, amongst other things. What are your thoughts on this rescue package for tradies?

SHORTEN: Well, at one level, it's good to see plans being put in place to stimulate the economy. I’m worried around September, construction is going to fall off a cliff. So that's good, and Labor, has been calling for this. Jason Clare and Anthony Albanese were out on the weekend calling for some of this. Just one note of caution with the home reno package. We don't know all the details, so with that caveat, but one thing I found in the past, is if you offer a free grant for the price of, say, $5000 dollars, then normally what happens is the cost of whatever you’re providing the grant for goes up by $5000 dollars. So what I don't want to see is a system that gets rorted where, you know, the analogy is, if you get a grant for a car, the price of cars goes up by the amount of the grant, it doesn't change anything. Still, let's wait and see. It’s just something we’ve got to be on our guard about.

STEFANOVIC: Okay, alright. Bill Shorten, I appreciate your time this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.

SHORTEN: Thank you.