|
|
Post by spaceyone on Sept 8, 2011 9:06:50 GMT 7
Here is some information from the latest Ombudsman's Report, regarding complaints about Centrelink.
I am not a fan of the Ombudsman's Office, as in my case, they sought to protect the guilty, instead of investigating anything. However, they must help some people, to retain their jobs and department.
Centrelink
In 2009–10 the ombudsman’s office received 5,199 approaches and complaints about Centrelink compared to 7,226 in 2008–09. This is a 28% decrease over the previous year and the lowest number in 10 years. the figure also includes 49 cases relating to the northern territory emergency Response (NTER).
Despite the decrease, Centrelink continues to be the agency about which the ombudsman receives the highest number of complaints. This is not unexpected given the high volume of transactions, the breadth and complexity of the services and payments that Centrelink delivers on behalf of australian Government agencies.
Complaint themes although a number of factors are likely to have contributed to the reduction in Centrelink complaints, the absence of any stimulus or bonus payments (which generated large numbers of complaints in recent years) and the implementation of a more flexible social security compliance framework, appear to have contributed to the significantly lower figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Sept 8, 2011 9:07:55 GMT 7
Procedural fairness
Over the years, the ombudsman’s office has received complaints from customers about payments being suspended and/or debts being raised on the basis of wrong information.
In many cases, Centrelink has not told these customers about the information it relied upon in deciding to suspend a payment or raise a debt, and therefore has not given them a chance to correct or provide more complete information. An example of this can be seen in the case study, Procedural fairness in decision making:
Procedural fairness in decision making
Centrelink suspended mrs e’s parenting payment because it had identified that mr e was transferring large sums of money through his bank accounts. Centrelink intended to investigate why these amounts had not been declared as income. mrs e complained to this office about the suspension of her payment without warning or an opportunity to explain their circumstances.
Centrelink subsequently learned that mr e’s accounts were being used as holding accounts for funds that were being transferred internationally for aid reasons, and that mr and mrs e derived no benefit from these transactions. as a result, Centrelink restored mrs e’s payments with arrears. our office formed the view that mr and mrs e had been denied procedural fairness.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Sept 8, 2011 9:10:52 GMT 7
Transfer to more suitable payment
Previous ombudsman reports have highlighted the effectiveness of analysing complaints from individuals to identify whether the same issue affects a larger number of existing or potential customers. our focus on identifying systemic problems has continued this year. an example of this approach can be seen in the case study, Transfer to age pension.
Transfer to age pension
We received a complaint from ms F that Centrelink had not transferred her to the age pension (ap) when she reached age pension age in 1998. Ms F was on a lower payment until transferring to ap in 2009 and asked for a review of the start date of her ap (back to 1998).
Centrelink decided that it could treat ms F as having transferred to ap when she originally reached age pension age, and paid her arrears for the amount she had missed out on.
While investigating ms F’s complaint, we asked Centrelink about whether other customers had remained on a lesser payment despite reaching age pension age. We were advised that approximately 1,800 other customers had been identified as receiving another income support payment despite having reached age pension age and that Centrelink had subsequently invited those customers to apply for ap. We will continue monitoring this issue during 2010–11 to ensure that these customers are not disadvantaged.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Sept 8, 2011 9:13:29 GMT 7
Cross-agency issues
Many complaints to our office require us to make enquiries of more than one agency. this is particularly the case where one agency is responsible for delivering a product or service, while another has responsibility for the relevant policy or law.
Complaints that involve more than one agency can be particularly difficult to resolve. this challenge is evident in the case study Medicare or Centrelink FAO service?
Medicare or Centrelink Fao service?
Both Centrelink and Medicare Australia deliver services on behalf of the Family assistance office (Fao). ms G complained to our office that the wording used in an Fao letter had caused her offence and confusion. Our investigation confirmed that the letter appeared to be inaccurate and confusing, and we suggested that Centrelink apologise to ms G.
Centrelink advised that the letter in question had been issued by medicare and, as such, it would be more appropriate for that agency to apologise. We contacted medicare to seek an apology and, following protracted discussions with both medicare and Centrelink, eventually medicare apologised to ms G. It took nine months for the two agencies to agree who was responsible and take action to resolve ms G’s concerns.
What a waste of tax payers dollars! Not on the victims part, but the fact that an agency had to mediate between two other agencies, for so long, just to sort out one person's minor grievance.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Sept 8, 2011 9:14:55 GMT 7
Compensation for detriment caused by defective administration
In august 2009 the ombudsman’s office released its own motion investigation report into the administration of the Compensation for detriment caused by defective administration (CDDA) scheme. Under the scheme, the ombudsman has a specific capacity to make recommendations that agencies reconsider cases where compensation has been refused.
The report focused on the handling of CDDA claims by Centrelink, the ato and the Child support agency, but made recommendations relevant to all agencies handling CDDA matters. Since the publication of the report, the assessment of CDDA cases by Centrelink has improved. However, the office continues to be concerned about the lack of awareness of the scheme generally, particularly amongst non-government organisations representing people who are vulnerable to the effects of poor government administration.
Compensation for advice or actions of contracted providers
During 2009–10 our office received a number of complaints from people who believed they had been financially disadvantaged as a result of advice given or actions taken (or not taken) by providers contracted to deliver services on behalf of DEEWR.
If the complainant had dealt directly with DEEWR on these matters, it would have been open to them to lodge a claim for compensation under the Compensation for detriment caused by defective administration (CDDA) scheme. However, they had no such avenue of redress when dealing with contracted providers. our office provided DEEWR with an issues paper on this topic in June 2010, suggesting that it consider implementing some CDDA-type means of compensating victims of defective administration under existing contracts and incorporating this process into new contracts.
Hmmmmm, that's funny. The Ombudsman had told Centrelink to provide avenues for compensation against employment agencies a month before I told them I wanted to sue mine for same. They never told me that it was an option I had open to me.
I notice that the Ombudsman did receive many complaints about DEEWR themselves, and as it does every year.
In response DEEWR acknowledged that the suggestion raised in the issues paper was worthy of further consideration, however, the matter raised broader issues that should be canvassed at a whole-of-government level. deewR further noted that consideration might be given to revisiting the issue after the senate legal and Constitutional affairs Committee issues their report on government compensation payments.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Sept 8, 2011 9:26:38 GMT 7
Acute and terminal illness
In march 2009 the ombudsman’s office released an own motion investigation report into the assessment of claims for disability support pension (dsp) from people with acute or terminal illnesses.
Following our report, the government announced that from march 2010 customers with a serious illness receiving an activity tested payment could be granted a long-term exemption from activity testing. It also means that there are fewer reporting requirements that involve a job capacity assessment or repeated medical certificates.
Given the short time frame in which the new policy has been in place, we have not yet had an opportunity to assess the impact on customers.
|
|
