Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Clark. And I acknowledge what the minister has just said to us and thank her for her careful consideration of the recommendations of the royal commission into Robodebt’s final report and acknowledge that it was established by the Albanese Labor government.

I am heartened that this amendment and the argument put by the member for Clark is in consideration more broadly by the Minister and her department because it is tremendously important that at all times we do act with fairness and humanity, as the Minister just pointed out and. As the member for Clark has so eloquently described.

It’s critical that the recommendations of the royal commission, which the government have agreed to, are enacted because we can never forget, we must not forget, as parliamentarians, as legislators that, we cannot allow them ever to be repeated because we simply can’t allow our most vulnerable in our community to come up again against the might of an automated and dispassionate government system set up deliberately, let’s not forget, deliberately, to target them.

This amendment would place a 6-year time limit on debt recovery actions. It is effectively a statute of limitations and I thank the Minister for explaining, because it’s useful. I think this is what we see, the public seeks more broadly, nuanced understanding of the rationale for government to act or not act, to act immediately or to delay and consider. So really useful to have that explanation.

I still think that in light of what the Minister’s said but in addition to it, that ultimately recovering social security debts with a time limit is a fair approach, that there should be some limitation on the length of time. And it’s practical that this be brought in line with ordinary law because ordinary law has such a thing. I think there is actually ultimately no reason why social debts should be treated differently to any other kind of debt.

In 2016 the former coalition government removed the previous 6-year limit, it allowed debts to be pursued at any time and we have seen the consequences of that, devastating consequences, and I would argue there’s probably not a member of this House of Representatives who cannot site devastating stories from their own electorate of the impact of this. I know I have countless. The decision by the coalition government in 2016 opened the door to chasing very, very old debts, years after the fact, and debts that the member for Clark has said people would not even know that they had, and, worse still, debts that were often the result of government errors, not their own. This is serious.

The bill before the House today recognises that government’s make mistakes and this bill and the intention with which the Minister puts it demonstrates, as clearly as you could possibly demonstrate, that thousands of people never even knew that they were being overpaid due to income apportion them – apportionment, and we know that chasing people for these unknown and often minor debts, years down the track, is not only unfair, it’s actually unconscionable. It’s why I ultimately welcome so many parts of this bill na will provide some justice and recourse for victims of income apportionment including the small debt waiver and the resolution scheme. It was really useful again to hear the minister talk about what that will ultimately do. Even the mere existence of limitless debt recovery powers is ultimately though a failure of fairness in our social security system and it’s not how a trustworthy system should work and it hasn’t been rectified in the almost 10 years since the coalition government enacted this.

The Robodebt Royal Commission recommended restoring the 6-year limit by repealing section 1234B of the Social Security Act. I back that recommendation in full. The government has accepted it in principle, and I understand that you’re working towards this, so I really encourage you to continue to do so and I thank you for the courage in what you’ve done so far and I ask you to continue that courage and adopt this recommendation as quickly as you possibly can. Reinstating the time limit will encourage Services Australia to act promptly to keep proper records and to fix errors early rather than pursuing people years later. Ultimately, that will reduce harm and that’s what we’re all seeking to do. I thank the member for Clark for raising in a debate and I the minister to continue to act with haste to sort out this last problem.