|
Post by Banjo on Jan 5, 2017 7:54:16 GMT 7
Centrelink's robo-debacle is a litany of inhuman errorsThese days the butt of jokes, the Leyland P76 started out as a good car. The only one specifically designed for Australia, it had a roomy interior, good stability, excellent fuel economy for a car of its size and excellent prospects. In 1973 Wheels magazine named it car of the year. In part that was because of the fanatical devotion of its quality control team. Nothing left the yard unless it was perfect. But then its parent, British Leyland, ran into financial troubles. It sent over a new Australian chief who over-ruled the quality control team and released onto the market a flood of cars with faults. British Leyland got the cash, destroyed the car's reputation, and wound up the entire operation, costing 5000 jobs. Government's robo debt recoveryThe machine relied on by the government to recover welfare overpayments has actually misapplied the law. The Age's Economics Editor Peter Martin explains. The Centrelink robo-debt debacle won't cost as many jobs, but its impact will be worse. It'll dwarf that of the bungled census, for which the Prime Minister declared that heads would roll. In the lead-up to Christmas tens of thousands of Australians received notes embossed with the Centrelink logo telling them the income their employer had reported to the Tax Office was different to the income they had reported to Centrelink. Unless they explained why within 14 to 21 days, they would have an assessment made against them and be hit by a 10 per cent recovery fee. Some of the letters dealt with Newstart, sickness and other payments going back six years, beyond when most people keep records, and way beyond the six months the Centrelink website asks people to keep pay slips. If they could get on to the right part of my.gov.au (which was difficult in the lead-up to Christmas) and if they entered the correct information, they were often still told they owed money, and sometimes told to pay it even if they disputed it in order to avoid debt collection. In a reversal of the usual onus of proof, they were guilty and sentenced until later proven innocent. Many are entirely innocent. An internal Centrelink check is said to have found that only 20 out of hundreds of cases reviewed are genuine debts. Social Services Minister Christian Porter uses a different metric to say that eight in every 10 letters has uncovered a legitimate debt. But they've done it by the equivalent of spamming, by sending out thousands of obviously wrong assessments in the hope of getting money while they are contested. They are assessments that never would have got past quality control had humans been in charge of the process, as they used to be until Centrelink put it in the hands of robots mid last year. One of their stupidest mistakes is to calculate fortnightly income by dividing annual income by 26. If the figure is too high the robots say someone wasn't entitled to benefits during the weeks they received them, even if during those weeks the person earned nothing. In other words, they misapply the law. Another is that they are not too bright. If the name of an employer is spelt one way by the Tax Office and another way by Centrelink, the robots assume it's a different employer and that it's undeclared income. In other words, they shouldn't have been let loose. How they came to be let loose, how they were allowed to shake down vulnerable people in the lead-up to Christmas, will doubtless be the subject of a Senate inquiry and probably an Audit Office inquiry. There were clues on the Tuesday before the election. That's when Porter and Treasurer Scott Morrison said they had found billions to pay for their promises. Through "the smarter use of technology" they were going to "improve the capability for the identification and recovery of debt owed to taxpayers". Automated compliance systems would "minimise red tape, and avoid mistakes that may adversely affect a recipient's payments". It was a worthwhile aim. None of us should want either overpayments or underpayments. But the delivery was appalling. Morrison and Porter had promised all the P76 promised and somehow delivered what the P76 delivered. One of the wilder theories is that they intended to. By inflicting a faulty debt recovery system on the public, they wanted to persuade ignorant, scared and busy people to hand over money they didn't owe and dissuade others from ever applying for benefits again. A more likely explanation is that they didn't know what they were doing. Asked about the letters sent out by his department threatening a 10 per cent recovery fee, a surprised Human Services Minister Alan Tudge told the ABC: "A 10 per cent recovery fee is new to me, and I don't believe that does occur." But they might not have reckoned on the extent to which people can fight back. Many of those wrongly hit up have in the intervening years qualified as lawyers. They are talking about a class action. They are going to use the freedom of information process to document how robo-debt was set up and to get the medical and other records that the department already had but chose not to share with robo-debt. Tudge, Morrison and Porter could do worse than look beyond our shores to Michigan in the US. It backed down after sending out tens of thousands of robo-debt notices in error and announced that in future assessments would be overseen by human beings. Peter Martin is economics editor of The Age. www.theage.com.au/comment/centrelinks-robodebacle-is-a-litany-of-inhuman-errors-20170103-gtl77k
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jan 5, 2017 7:56:57 GMT 7
What you should do if you get a Centrelink debt letterFor the past few weeks, their phone lines have been jammed almost constantly. Graham Wells, principal lawyer at Social Security Rights Victoria, which provides legal advice and help for people battling various Centrelink complaints, says the organisation has been run off its feet in the wake of the debt-recovery saga plaguing the agency over the summer break. Centrelink has faced a storm of criticism over its automated data-matching system, which has hit almost 170,000 people with notices that they owe the agency money. On Tuesday, Social Services Minister Christian Porter admitted one in five people who received one of those letters did not owe a debt. "In 80 per cent of instances the debt is repayable to the Commonwealth, in the final 20 per cent of instances the matter is resolved, generally speaking, by people simply providing information online," Mr Porter said. But Mr Porter defended the system, saying it was working well and the complaint rate was running at just 0.16 per cent. "[There have been] only 276 complaints out of 169,000 letters, and that process has raised $300 million worth of money back to the taxpayer," he told ABC Radio on Tuesday. He has not said how many were disputed. Independent MP Andrew Wilkie on Wednesday referred the matter to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Mr Wells said his organisation, which provides free assistance to social security recipients thanks to a small army of volunteers, had been "incredibly busy" fielding calls from people distressed at being told they owed the government money. While he said he didn't have access to the data relied on by the department, Mr Wells said, "anecdotally, I'd have to say, most of them [the letters] have got problems". So what should you do if you get a letter saying you owe the department money? Mr Wells says in the first instance, people suspecting their debt assessment is incorrect should go to their nearest Centrelink office, the MyGov website or, "if you're willing to chance it, on the phone", and ask to have their debt reviewed. Delegated decision makers within Centrelink, called Authorised Review Officers, are authorised to review department decisions on behalf of the minister. They might decide the debt does not exist, is correct, is too low, or is too high. This can take between two and six months but Mr Wells suggested that, to speed things up, people could regularly call Centrelink to check on the matter, or go to their local MP and make regular representations there. Mr Wells said if people were still not happy with Centrelink's internal decision-making processes, they could make an application under Freedom of Information laws for the department to release the documents it holds on their supposed debt to them. "You want to be as specific as possible," he said. "Ask for all documents it holds relating to this debt between this and that date." Debt collection agencies employed by Centrelink to recover debts have been applying a 10 per cent fee to recover debts related in inaccurate reporting. "I think it's wrong; I think it's very entrepreneurial on their part," Mr Wells said. It is, however, legal - although Mr Wells said consumers challenging their debts often had the 10 per cent fee set aside. Mr Wells suggests that anyone faced with demands from a third-party for repayments go to their local post office and make the smallest repayment they can afford directly to Centrelink, to cut debt recovery agencies out of the loop. He said if it was later found their debt was invalid, Centrelink should return the money. Finally, people can apply to the social services and child support division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which can review Centrelink decisions that have first been reviewed internally. Victoria Legal Aid executive director of civil justice Dan Nicholson urged anyone who received a letter from Centrelink they believed to be incorrect to get free legal advice from Legal Aid or other organisations across the country. "Even if you don't have all the information Centrelink asks of you, we advise you to respond to the letter, so you are able to push your side of the story," he said. "If Centrelink does make a decision that you disagree with, such as you have a debt, I encourage you to challenge the decision – and you have a very good chance of success." Internal Centrelink figures show that before the agency introduced its debt recovery system, 37.5 per cent of its decisions were revised after internal reviews. www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/what-should-you-do-if-you-get-a-centrelink-debt-letter-20170104-gtlmgl.html
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jan 5, 2017 8:09:43 GMT 7
"...will doubtless be the subject of a Senate inquiry and probably an Audit Office inquiry."
I bloody hope so.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jan 5, 2017 8:18:56 GMT 7
Porter's Press Release.
Centrelink Debt 4 January 2017
E&OE
MINISTER PORTER:
… recovery system inside Centrelink, we have the first results available from that system. And they do show that we have had a very solid success in recouping monies owed to the taxpayer.
The exact nature of that success can be measured very quickly. There have been 169,000 completed reviews, and they are initiated by a letter, there is a follow up letter and then after that a third and final letter.
Of those 169,000 completed reviews, there has been a complaint rate as low as 0.16 per cent – so 276 complaints.
We have raised monies owed back, and payable back to the taxpayer of $300 million. We are well and truly on track to reach the estimated amount of repayments of $4 billion over four years.
And of those result matters, in 80 per cent of the instances, the compliance letter resulted in a debt being raised for repayment to the Commonwealth. In 80 per cent of instances the debt is repayable to the Commonwealth.
In the final 20 per cent of instances, the matter is resolved, generally speaking, by people simply providing information online. That’s it.
Only in 2.2 per cent of occasions was documentary evidence, of any type, required.
So what this shows is THAT there has been overwhelming success in terms of the new debt recovery system. Monies are being identified and being paid back to the taxpayer – indeed, $300 million so far, with a tiny complaint rate, and only in a very rare and few instances, indeed 2.2 per cent, has there even been the requirement for documentary evidence to be provided.
So we’re very, very pleased with the results, and I would have thought all Australian taxpayers would be pleased with that kind of result.
QUESTION:
So are you saying that the particular concerns that have been raised, particularly over the last couple of weeks, are the minority of people?
MINISTER PORTER:
A tiny minority.
This is a three stage system. A letter, a very, I think, polite and fairly well drafted letter is sent out. It notes to the individual concerns that the information that they provided from Centrelink is different from the information that was provided to the ATO for the same period of time.
We simply say that there’s a 21-odd day period which they can go online and correct the information that we have if it’s incorrect, or accept the information that we have if it is correct.
So they simply go online and update their details. And as I say, in 80 per cent of the instances where those compliance letters have gone out, the information which indicates an overpayment is correct. In the other 20 per cent of occasions, the matter is essentially resolved by the person providing the correct explanation.
And only in a tiny number of those compliance letter instances is there actually a requirement for any documentary evidence.
QUESTION:
So it puts the onus of proof back on the recipient and given the time frame that may have passed, that documentation may not even exist.
MINISTER PORTER:
Well as I say, it’s only in a tiny number of instances – 2.2 per cent – where there is actually a requirement for documentation.
But when you talk about the onus being put on the recipient – the welfare system is a system based on mutual obligation. The basic mutual obligation, the basic responsibility of the recipient of welfare, is to provide information to the government to ensure that taxpayer’ monies has been properly spent.
We require that information of first instance – that’s a fundamental condition of receiving welfare payments. And there’s an ongoing responsibility to ensure that that information is accurate.
So that onus, to provide proper information, so that taxpayer money is accurately and properly spent has always been there.
And we’re a government who is checking that information.
The real issue here is; how did we get to a point where the previous government was so sloppy with this kind of thing, that there is $4 billion that we think we can recoup for the hardworking taxpayer over the next four years?
QUESTION:
Is there an issue with the system though, given that it’s looking at annual income, when people are actually reporting fortnightly income? So then the automated system is breaking down someone’s annual income into exact fortnight payments, when that’s not actually the case when people are reporting?
MINISTER PORTER:
As I’ve noted, in 80 per cent of the instances of compliance letters going out – we’ve had 169,000 matters so far – there has been a debt raised for the Commonwealth. There has been an overpayment.
There have been some issues that have arisen, whereby the information that we have has been easily explained by the person online. And if an issue arises where, what we think is an anomaly or a discrepancy actually is easily explained – you go online and explain it in a very easy, fairly convenient way.
But we have an ongoing responsibility to check on the best information that we have available, that a person’s payment has been received properly and in accordance with the rules.
QUESTION:
[INAUDIBLE] people are trying to go online and they can’t, and they’re missing timeframes?
MINISTER PORTER:
There was a very short period of time where there was a difficulty getting online. It was a very short period of time. That was fixed very quickly.
This system, as I say, is generating, so far, these 169,000 resolved compliance matters – there will be 1.7 million of these matters over the next four years. What is evident after the first six months, on all of the statistical information we have available, is that it is working exceptionally well.
If I can say with some of the comments that have come from the Labor shadow spokesperson, Ms Burney, she is saying that we should halt this system
Is the Labor Party position actually that we should not go out and successfully recover $4 billion worth of overpayments? Because the information that we have after the first six months of operation of this new system, is that it’s working exceptionally well. We’ve recovered $300 million so far, we’re on track to recover $4 billion over the next four years.
Is Ms Burney actually seriously saying that we should not recover that money? I mean that is absolutely absurd.
And I might say that that’s a relatively inexperienced member of parliament, what does Bill Shorten or Chris Bowen say? Do they say that we should stop this and not recover $4 billion worth of taxpayer money? That would be a very interesting question to put to someone who actually knows how these things work.
QUESTION:
So you make no apology to people who might be wrongly caught up, even though it might be a very small minority, and have payments suspended and then to have them reinstated later?
MINISTER PORTER:
Every government has an obligation to check the information it has and make sure that people have been properly paid.
We are doing this in an organised, fair and procedural way where if there is an explanation for a discrepancy that has arisen, you can go online very simply and sort that explanation out.
And in 97.8 per cent of instances, you can do that without providing any documents whatsoever.
Now if that is a fair and reasonable process that has to be measured against the result. The result here is $300 million worth of taxpayers’ money being returned to the taxpayer, and down the track we estimate $4 billion worth of taxpayers’ money being returned to the taxpayer. And that’s being achieved in a procedurally fair way, with the lowest possible impact.
But there will always be a requirement for anyone in Australia who receives welfare to continually provide information to the government so that we can check that the welfare is being properly applied.
QUESTION:
Is this fair warning then for people who might have been wrongly reporting their income in the past? That it will catch up with them?
MINISTER PORTER:
I think it’s a warning to people that there is a very strong responsibility on the person who receives welfare to ensure that the information that they provide to government is accurate, and it’s consistent.
So that where you have a situation arise where the information that a person has provided, through their employer, to the ATO is different from what is provided by the person directly to Centrelink – yes, we will check that information.
The fact is the Labor Party should have been checking that information at the rates that the government is now presently checking it, and then this problem wouldn’t have arisen in the first place.
QUESTION:
How important is this debt recovery to the budget bottom line?
MINISTER PORTER:
It’s very significant. $4 billion dollars over four years is evidently a very significant amount of money.
That is helping us get back to surplus.
So when I see Linda Burney out there saying that we should stop this process, what she is effectively saying is that we should forgo $4 billion worth of taxpayers money, that was incorrectly paid out to people on welfare, which can be recovered, which can be paid back.
That’s why I say, what are people who are actually in control of finances, or allegedly in control of finances in the Labor Party really saying about this? Are they seriously saying, is Chris Bowen seriously saying, is Bill Shorten seriously saying, that they want to stop what now appears to be an exceptionally successful debt recovery system, which is on track to recover $4 billion worth of debt owed to the Australian taxpayer.
QUESTION:
Ms Burney is saying that you should stop the system altogether. Is it perhaps time the government reassessed the effectiveness of the data matching system?
MINISTER PORTER:
How much more effective can you get than $300 million repaid in six months, with a complaint rate of 0.16 per cent – 276 persons out of 169,000 compliance actions. Where in 80 per cent of the instances of there being a discrepancy being identified by the Commonwealth, a debt has been raised, and in the other 20 per cent there being a relatively painless way for people to explain why the discrepancy arose.
How much better a system can there be than a system that has such a high rate of recovery with such a low and modest impact on the people whose information we’re checking?
QUESTION:
Is it perhaps time for the Minister, Alan Tudge, to break his leave and come back and deal with the situation?
MINISTER PORTER:
All Ministers have short periods of leave, I’m the Minister for Social Services, and I think quite well adapted to deal with the issue.
But the issue is a success story.
Anyone who says that this is not a success story needs to explain why they say that. On what possible basis can you say that $300 million of taxpayer money already recovered – on track to meet the estimated $4 billion, in a way that has a tiny proportion of complaint and a very high proportion of success, is anything other than a success? It’s a beat up frankly. And why would you come back and deal with a beat up? I’m very happy to deal with it, and I think we’ve dealt with it pretty accurately today.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jan 5, 2017 8:35:41 GMT 7
"We are doing this in an organised, fair and procedural way..."
The process by no means meets the legal standard of procedural fairness/natural justice. I'll note just one aspect of many that stand out: Satanlink has, until now, required retention of pay slips for three months. Now the goal posts have shifted, without notice, to retrospectively require six year retention.
Go back to law school, Porter: you must have been absent the day procedural fairness was taught. You seem to have transplanted entrepreneurial principles in their place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2017 8:45:34 GMT 7
Porter is likely lying through its teeth...
Look how much he's getting paid for doing this, it's being funded from the taxpayers.
The $4 billion is most likely an invented grossly inflated figure.
They can make up any statistics as they see fit.
|
|
|
Post by krystal on Jan 5, 2017 13:32:15 GMT 7
Correct me if I'm wrong but these letters (all 169,000 of them) have only started being sent out for a relatively short time.
Given the length of time these letter have been going out how the hell could they "have re-couped raised monies owed back, and payable back to the taxpayer of $300 million".
Does he mean people have already paid back this money or that a debt collection firm is holding that amount of debt that they will endeavor to get back?
Seems very quick for people to received the letters (all three of them), accept the fact that they have a debt, and be willing to pay it back without a payment plan or something else in place.
I want to so believe that the whole $300 million was in response to one letter being sent to Rupert Murdoch for over-payment of $300 million dollars and that payment had to be made from the $800 million tax refund he got.
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Jan 5, 2017 14:53:17 GMT 7
QUESTION: Is there an issue with the system though, given that it’s looking at annual income, when people are actually reporting fortnightly income? So then the automated system is breaking down someone’s annual income into exact fortnight payments, when that’s not actually the case when people are reporting? MINISTER PORTER: As I’ve noted, in 80 per cent of the instances of compliance letters going out – we’ve had 169,000 matters so far – there has been a debt raised for the Commonwealth. There has been an overpayment. There have been some issues that have arisen, whereby the information that we have has been easily explained by the person online. And if an issue arises where, what we think is an anomaly or a discrepancy actually is easily explained – you go online and explain it in a very easy, fairly convenient way. But we have an ongoing responsibility to check on the best information that we have available, that a person’s payment has been received properly and in accordance with the rules. It's always fascinating to see how politicians answer questions....never directly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2017 15:40:17 GMT 7
Government cannot defend Centrelink debacle Media Release Peter Whish-Wilson 5 Jan 2017 Family, Ageing, Community and Disability ServicesEmployment and Workplace RelationsTreasury Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, Treasury spokesperson for the Australian Greens, says the Turnbull Government has significant questions to answer over the bungled mess created by its obsession with demonising Australia’s poorest people. He said the Australian Greens also support increased resourcing for Centrelink services so that ‘customers’ can be treated with the dignity they deserve. “This Government’s focus on ‘fraud crackdown’ as one their main savings items is nothing more than the vilification of income support recipients. Of course the Greens agree that addressing genuine instances of fraud is important, but this current round of data matching is causing needless stress to vulnerable Australians. “When one in five of these requests for re-payments to Centrelink are wrong, you have to conclude that the fraud recovery program has problems. “The Centrelink system is fundamentally broken and urgently needs repairing. “It’s not tenable for the Minister to say that people with incorrect requests for repayment can easily fix this by contacting Centrelink when we are hearing that you often can’t get through to Centrelink. “The Government has failed to significantly increase funding for fixing the broken Centrelink system. For instance, the number of calls to Centrelink that hit a busy signal has ballooned out to nearly 29 million for 2015-16, up from 22 million the previous year. (1) “There is clearly a need for the Department of Human Services to have a large injection of staff funding, but this failed to materialise in MYEFO. “If the Government is so hell-bent on catching out ‘frauds’, then it’s time they turned their attention to those extremely wealthy individuals and businesses, who we know are using tax loopholes to cost the budget bottom line to the tune of millions and millions. “This government’s debt recovery assault, on recipients who are already in poverty, is a diversion away from the entrenched problems of economic fairness and employment opportunities caused by successive Liberal and Labor governments – the truth of the matter is that the Minister would rather be defending his government’s fraud recovery program than explaining why the poorest Australians are being treated as the scapegoats for failed policy. “ (1) Source: www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/centrelink-hangs-up-on-29-million-calls-senate-estimates-hears-20161020-gs7ecj.htmlpeter-whish-wilson.greensmps.org.au/articles/government-cannot-defend-centrelink-debacle
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jan 5, 2017 17:23:32 GMT 7
There has never been a better opportunity for mass civil disobedience. Everyone who received a letter should refuse to acknowledge it.
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Jan 5, 2017 19:28:42 GMT 7
Correct me if I'm wrong but these letters (all 169,000 of them) have only started being sent out for a relatively short time. Given the length of time these letter have been going out how the hell could they "have re-couped raised monies owed back, and payable back to the taxpayer of $300 million". Does he mean people have already paid back this money or that a debt collection firm is holding that amount of debt that they will endeavor to get back? Seems very quick for people to received the letters (all three of them), accept the fact that they have a debt, and be willing to pay it back without a payment plan or something else in place. krystalSomewhere in all of the press releases they 'reckon' this started in July(?) and they have been sending out 20,000 letters per month. But 20,000 per month is 120,000 for 6 months to end of December yet they are saying 169,000 sent. Somewhere there is a lie in there! In Porter's statement, above, in the last paragraph he states Given the blow back that has occurred since Christmas I would think that they sent the entire 169,000 letters out about late November, early December (be interesting to know what date some of these letters have) because you then had 21 days to reply. So I think that it is also a lie to say they have already recovered $300million. And I think the biggest lie is that they reckon they will recover $4,000million ($4billion) over the next 4 years!
|
|
|
Post by krystal on Jan 5, 2017 23:50:45 GMT 7
Even if they had received monies from the each one of the 169,000 letters, to have already collected $300 million would mean each and every letter has made a payment of
... um ... let me do the math ....
300,000,000/169,000 = $1,775.15c
I called bull droppings Mr Porter!!!!
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jan 6, 2017 3:11:33 GMT 7
Porter is successfully counting on the media not doing the maths. I bet Rachel Siewert has done the sums.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2017 4:23:10 GMT 7
Banjo whatever happened to that ex-journo member? I reckon it's time someone leaked this thread to one of his working colleagues. Cheers bear
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2017 6:40:39 GMT 7
Labor's Linda Burney requests Auditor-General investigate Centrelink debt clawback Linda Burney, Labor's human services spokeswoman, has written to the Australian National Audit Office requesting they investigate Centrelink's controversial $4.5 billion debt clawback project amid ongoing accusations that it is unfairly targeting people and miscalculating bills. The opposition and community groups are maintaining pressure on the government as the new system, enabled by data-matching with Australian Taxation Office information, causes consternation by handing out mistakenly oversized debts and contacting some social security recipients who don't owe Centrelink any money. Letters are being wrongly sent by Centrelink to people saying they owe the Government money and it's so frightening to some, they're even suicidal according to Independent MP Andrew Wilkie. Courtesy ABC News 24. Ms Burney's letter to Auditor-General Grant Hehir requests that, in light of "overwhelming" constituent complaints about the contentious process, the ANAO examine the effectiveness, risk management and planning of the system and the actual value of the resulting budget savings, including analysis of whether falsely calculated debts have already been banked. "There is considerable public concern over the administration of this program as well as a lack of clarity around the value of 'savings' derived from the program to date," she said in the letter, provided to Fairfax Media. "Recently the acting Minister for Human Services, Hon Christian Porter MP, stated that since the beginning of the financial year the program had made savings of $300 million but Mr Hank Jongan, General Manager of [the Department of Human Services], later claimed that this number represented the identified debts," she wrote. "This discrepancy requires investigation given that the program has a failure rate of at least 20 per cent." Advertisement According to Mr Porter, Centrelink has been sending out 20,000 discrepancy notice letters a week - up from 20,000 a year - and 80 per cent of cases have resulted in actual debts owed, meaning that one fifth have been cleared of owing anything. On Thursday, Centrelink's Twitter account was directing customers to Lifeline, responding with concern to distraught complaints. This came after independent MP Andrew Wilkie said constituents had visited his office terrified after being contacted by Centrelink and brought "to the brink of suicide". Labor's human services spokeswoman Linda Burney. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen Mr Wilkie also requested the Commonwealth Ombudsman look into the matter and they have requested more information from Centrelink. Defending the system, Mr Porter has said that the total debt recovery target is $4.5 billion and dismissed that people were being unfairly targeted. He has argued that the resolution of incorrect discrepancy notices was very easy. Social Services Minister Christian Porter says only 276 complaints have been received and the system is working "incredibly well". Photo: Andrew Meares Speaking on the ABC's 7.30 program on Wednesday night, Mr Porter said they would continue data-matching even though it may make some people "upset". "I don't think [it] is an unfair or unreasonable system," Mr Porter said. "We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to make sure that welfare recipients are not overpaid. Where there is an information which is available to us as a government, which suggests that the earnings reported to Centrelink are different to the earnings reported by the employer to the ATO, we have a responsibility to check and to seek further information." Ms Burney told Fairfax Media: "A program that's working well doesn't send 4000 false debt letters a week - that should be clear to anyone with any common sense." She contended that, while recouping overpayments and debts was legitimate, innocent and honest people should not be made to feel they have misled the government - "that isn't just unfair, it's plain nasty". After receiving the initial letter saying that a discrepancy has been detected, people are given 21 days to confirm or update information, after which any resulting debts are pursued. Some people have been required to provide supporting documentation like pay slips and bank statements. The main issues raised with the system are that it retrospectively miscalculates eligibility for payments by averaging out income across the year, in line with ATO protocol, whereas Centrelink relies on regular income reporting that shows the often fluctuating levels of fortnightly income. It has also counted some income twice because the names of employers have been different in the ATO and Centrelink systems. On top of this, some people have complained that - up to six years on from when they were receiving payments - they have not kept the necessary documentation to contest decisions. For help or information call Lifeline 131 114 or beyondblue 1300 224 636. Follow Fergus Hunter on Facebook www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labors-linda-burney-requests-auditorgeneral-investigate-centrelink-debt-clawback-20170105-gtmkqd.htmlBrowse UploadSign inJoin Linda Burney letter to Auditor-General Grant Hehir Uploaded by Fergus Hunter (0 ratings) 8.5K views Download This Document Add to library Other library actions Embed Description: Linda Burney letter to Auditor-General Grant Hehir See More Linda Burney letter to Auditor-General Grant Hehir Copyright: © All Rights Reserved Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
|
|