Additional Comments - Australian Greens
1.1The Australian Greens thank all participants in the inquiry process, particularly the advocates who have supported individuals affected by the unlawful income apportionment method. Their continued advocacy for fairness and justice in the social security system has been invaluable.
1.2The Greens welcome aspects of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 that improve access to debt waivers. The introduction of special circumstances provisions is essential for people facing complex challenges such as financial coercion, family and domestic violence, mental ill-health, natural disasters, substance dependence, and homelessness.
1.3We also welcome the increase in the small debt waiver threshold to $250, with future annual indexation. However, this increase is insufficient.
1.4As ACOSS highlighted:
We also welcome indexation of the amount that constitutes a small debt, which ensures the new threshold maintains its value over time. We do note, however, that had CPI indexation of the $200 threshold been in place when it was introduced, it would be over $440 now. We believe there is a case to be made to lift the small-debt threshold higher than $250 recognising the loss in value of this threshold over time.[1]
1.5The Greens share the concerns raised by many inquiry participants about key aspects of this bill. These include:
Retrospective validation of the income apportionment method
Implications of retrospective validation for criminal convictions
The limited duration of the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme
The inadequate level of compensation available under the scheme
The government’s failure to reinstate a six-year limit on debt recovery
1.6The retrospective validation of the income apportionment method is deeply troubling. It risks denying justice and compensation to people affected by the unlawful practice.
1.7The Department of Social Services and Services Australia justified this retrospective change on the grounds that recalculating all debts would:
…involve significant administrative and operational cost and require the diversion of substantial expert resources from elsewhere in Services Australia.[2]
1.8This justification is inadequate. Individuals can still request merit reviews that involve recalculations, meaning the proposed retrospective change merely limits access to justice, not administrative burden.
1.9Economic Justice Australia proposed a fairer alternative:
...the most fair way of approaching this would be to waive all potentially impacted debts as a class of debt, and we still think that that would be a much fairer and much more adequate way of resolving this.[3]
1.10As legal expert Dr Christopher Rudge noted:
Retrospective validation of past unlawful action is a poor way of regulating or ‘regularising’ wrongful past actions. If permitted at all, retrospective validation should be an absolute exception...retrospective laws intrinsically represent an encroachment on the rights and freedoms of citizens they affect.[4]
1.11The application of retrospective validation of the income apportionment raises concerns in relation to criminal convictions. The government has been unable to provide clarity regarding support for individuals who have been subject to a conviction as a result of income apportionment.
1.12As Dr Rudge observed:
Indeed the implications of a person accepting the resolution payment are of great concern. It does not appear clear to me whether the person forfeits their rights to appeal the income apportioned debt or to appeal any criminal conviction that may have arisen in respect of the income apportioned debt. This should be clarified and no such forfeiture should be the consequence of the resolution payment scheme created by this Bill.[5]
1.13The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has confirmed that at least 159 criminal prosecutions involved debts calculated using the unlawful income apportionment method.[6] However, this figure covers only those with active court orders since 2018, meaning the true number is likely higher.
1.14The Greens are concerned that the proposed 12-month timeframe for the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme is insufficient. Impacted individuals must have adequate time to be notified, to understand their rights, and to access independent advice and support.
1.15As ACOSS stated:
ACOSS also recommends that the time limit to claim a payment under the scheme be expanded beyond 12 months to ensure that those eligible who would like to claim a resolution payment have sufficient time to do so. We note that Robodebt refunds have taken far longer than 12 months (and indeed some are still outstanding) highlighting that people need sufficient time and information about the scheme to access it.[7]
1.16The proposed cap on compensation—$600 per individual—is inadequate, especially for people who incurred significant debts or experienced serious hardship.
1.17Anglicare Australia noted:
The proposed scheme places strict limits on what people can recover, with the compensation capped at $600, regardless of the size of the debt or the losses people experienced.[8]
1.18Working with Women Alliance echoed similar concerns, providing evidence that:
While a new resolution scheme exists, the compensation it provides, capped at $200 to $600, is non-individualised and modest. It may pressure survivors to waive broader legal rights. With some refinement, this scheme could become a meaningful pathway to redress, but, as it stands, there is a risk that many survivors will be left with little real remedy.[9]
1.19The Greens strongly support the implementation of Recommendation 18.2 of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, which calls for reinstating a six-year limitation period on debt recovery proceedings:
The Commonwealth should repeal s 1234B of the Social Security Act and reinstate the effective limitation period of six years for the bringing of proceedings to recover debts under Part 5.2 of the Act formerly contained in s 1232 and s 1236 of that Act, before repeal of the relevant sub-sections by the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act (No 55) 2016 (Cth). There is no reason that current and former social security recipients should be on any different footing from other debtors.[10]
1.20This bill continues to allow the collection of $636 million in debts affecting 76,000 people, and an additional $14 million in debts from 1991–2003.[11] The Greens urge the government to give serious consideration to waiving debts older than six years, as recommended by Economic Justice Australia:
EJA notes that the current draft of this Bill does not include the reintroduction of a limitation period on debt recovery. We consider this to be the perfect opportunity to reintroduce this provision, thereby giving effect to Recommendation 18.2 of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.[12]
1.21The Australian Greens continue to hold significant concerns about this bill. While some amendments improve access to debt waivers, much more must be done to ensure genuine justice for people harmed by unlawful government practices.
1.22No amount of compensation can undo the harm caused by decades of unlawful income apportionment. However, this bill represents a vital opportunity for the government to right those wrongs—by rejecting retrospective validation, expanding access to redress, and reinstating basic legal protections.
Senator Penny Allman-Payne
Deputy Chair
Greens Senator for Queensland
Footnotes
[1]Australian Council of Social Services, Submission 8, p. 4.
[2]Department of Social Services and Services Australia, Submission 5, p. 7.
[3]Ms Veronica Williams, Senior Lawyer, Economic Justice Australia, Committee Hansard, 3 October 2025, p. 11.
[4]Dr Christopher Rudge, Submission 9, pp. 1–2.
[5]Dr Christopher Rudge, Submission 9, p. 14.
[6]Dr Christopher Rudge, Submission 9, pp. 13 and 14.
[7]Australian Council of Social Services, Submission 8, p. 8.
[8]Ms Kasy Chambers, Executive Director, Anglicare Australia, Committee Hansard, 3 October 2025, p. 2.
[9]Ms Katherine Berney, Executive Director, Working with Women Alliance, Committee Hansard, 3 October 2025, p. 3.
[10]Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, p. xvii.
[11]Department of Social Services, answer to written question on notice IQ25-000023 (received 16 October 2025).
[12]Economic Justice Australia, Submission 4, p. 5.
Senate
House of Representatives
Get informed
Bills
Committees
Get involved
Visit Parliament
Website features
Parliamentary Departments