|
Post by bear on May 7, 2021 20:06:27 GMT 7
The federal court has heard that the total estimate of unlawful debts raised by the government has increased to $1.5bn.
Robodebt responsible for $1.5bn unlawful debts in ‘very sorry chapter’, court hears Hundreds of welfare recipients argue a settlement with the government does not reflect the ‘stress and anxiety’ caused by robodebt
A judge has described the botched robodebt scheme as a “very sorry chapter in Australian public administration”, as a court hears the total estimate of unlawful debts raised by the government has increased to $1.5bn.
Federal court justice Bernard Murphy made the comment after victims’ stories were aired by the court-appointed contradictor, Fiona Forsyth QC, who represents the interests of 600,000 members of a Gordon Legal class action. Forsyth read from some of the more than 600 submissions objecting to what they considered an inadequate settlement reached between Gordon Legal and the government last year. The court is currently considering whether to approve the settlement, which includes $112m in interest payments and a guarantee all unlawful debts worth about $1.5bn will be refunded or “zeroed”. Robodebt victims referred to debt collectors even after government admitted scheme was unlawful Forsyth said objectors argued the “stress and anxiety” caused by robodebt was not reflected in the settlement, which only covers economic loss. Objectors described the “shame and anger” of being “treated like a welfare cheat”, including one woman who said she couldn’t eat or sleep when she received her debt, the court heard. Forsyth quoted another person who argued that the government had not been held to account for its mistakes. “The government is once again getting away with being shysters, while making the little people feel like it is they that did wrong,” she quoted the person as saying. When Forsyth finished reading from the submissions, Murphy said: “You don’t need to persuade me this is a very sorry chapter in Australian public administration.” About 200,000 people are set to miss out on compensation because their debts – which were initially invalid – were later substantiated by pay information welfare recipients provided in response to Centrelink’s debt letters. The court has heard the legal case for these class members to be included is considered “weak”. Bernie Quinn QC, for Gordon Legal, argued on Thursday that while these members will not get any financial benefit, they have been given clarity through the court process. He argued the class action had forced the government to announce it would refund the other 400,000 victims. Forsyth said: “It is a good settlement for those who receive money, but it’s not a good settlement for those who receive nothing.” Murphy has generally described the settlement as “good”, but said he had some difficulty with it. One of his concerns is those who would not get any financial benefit are being asked to sign away their rights to bring a future legal claim against the government. He has also noted the prospects of such a claim succeeding were not high. Michael Hodge QC, for the commonwealth, on Friday questioned $4.4m in costs that Gordon Legal has asked to be deducted from the settlement to administer the compensation scheme. The court heard Gordon Legal has said much of those costs will be eaten up by communications with people who won’t receive anything from the settlement, which Hodge described as “troubling”. Hodge singled out “$14,000 for video production” he told the court was contained in a costs report, and noted one of these videos posted to YouTube saw Gordon Legal promote legal arguments for people now excluded from the settlement. Hodge said those people “should never have been included to begin with” – and thus Gordon Legal would be being paid for “promoting an unmeritorious claim”. The firm’s total costs have previously been estimated at $14m. In general, Murphy has not taken issue with the total sum of costs so far. The court also heard the total figure of unlawful debts raised by the government is now estimated about $1.5bn, an increase from an early estimate of about $1.1bn in November 2020. It confirms an exclusive report in Guardian Australia from July 2020, months before the settlement had even been reached. On Thursday, Murphy criticised the government for failing to tell Jennifer Miller whether her son Rhys, who took his own life in 2017, had been caught up in the robodebt scheme. Murphy is expected to rule on the settlement at a later date. amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/07/robodebt-responsible-for-15bn-unlawful-debts-in-very-sorry-chapter-court-hears
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jun 11, 2021 18:24:46 GMT 7
Robodebt condemned as 'shameful chapter' by Federal Court judge amid $1.2 billion settlement.
A judge has approved a $1.2 billion settlement between robodebt victims and the federal government while blasting the scheme for being a "shameful chapter" in public administration.
Justice Bernard Murphy on Friday said the use of flawed income averaging tools to raise debts caused vulnerable people financial hardship, distress and anxiety.Many felt shame and hurt at being wrongly branded "welfare cheats", he said, with some driven to take their own lives. The settlement distribution scheme had also resulted in a "huge waste of public money". "The proceeding has exposed a shameful chapter in the administration of the Commonwealth social security system and a massive failure of public administration," Justice Murphy told the Federal Court. It should have been "obvious" to the government that many welfare recipients do not earn a stable or constant income, he said, and may only be employed on a part-time, casual or intermittent basis. However, Justice Murphy was not convinced the federal government knew the robodebt scheme was unlawful from the start. "I am reminded of the aphorism that, given a choice between a stuff-up and a conspiracy, one should usually choose a stuff-up," he said. The 648,000-strong class action was led by Gordon Legal. Justice Murphy approved $8.4 million in costs to the firm and said the 680 people who objected to the settlement would be given the opportunity to opt out. Gordon Legal partner Andrew Grech said the settlement approval would bring closure to the victims of the robodebt scheme. "We hope this outcome brings peace of mind and some certainty to all class action members and acts as a strong deterrent against similar callous welfare practices for both present and future governments," Mr Grech said. The automated matching of tax and Centrelink data to raise debts against welfare recipients the government claimed to have overpaid was ruled unlawful in 2019. The Commonwealth subsequently settled the case without admitting legal liability. Jennifer Miller in May said robodebt played a "very prominent" role in her son Rhys Cauzzo taking his own life about four years ago after he was pursued by Centrelink and debt collectors. Ms Miller objected to the settlement in a previous Federal Court hearing, arguing that no one in power had been held accountable. "The only thing I've ever had is platitudes - I've been shown no respect," she told the court. "There has been no accountability. This was proven to be an illegal process early in the piece." Ms Miller said Centrelink pursued her son despite knowing he had mental health issues and also gave private information about him to the media. Another person who objected to the settlement, Jeremy Lee, detailed his experience with the "targeted, punitive" program. He also raised concerns the settlement offered by the Commonwealth allowed politicians to avoid admitting publicly that robodebt was unlawful. "The government will have used state power to persecute the weakest members of society and then used public funds to stop them being held accountable," Mr Lee said. Under the settlement, victims will receive $112 million in compensation, be repaid $720 million and have $400 million in unlawful debts wiped. Justice Murphy earlier described it as a "good settlement", but also questioned how fair the ultimate distribution of funds would be among the group members. "You've got a series of people with strong claims and weaker claims," he said. "And rather than apportioning them, the strong claims get everything and weak claims get nothing." 1. Robodebt was an automated debt collection system used between July 2015 and November 2019 to detect the overpayment of social security benefits. Source: AAP The Federal Court heard that as part of the Robodebt scheme, the federal government unlawfully raised $1.73 billion in debts from 433,000 people. m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=323205562711135&id=100181508346876
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jun 11, 2021 20:32:03 GMT 7
Surely all their other crimes will come out now. This is only one of their numerous Centrelink crimes. No UP for the disabled. Disabled on the dole and Indue making $millions from this Nazi card that at best tortures those on it. Surely jail awaits. Even Malaysia arrested their previous P.M. for corruption and he got 12 years. Morrison is gone for sure also. And all his little helpers.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jun 12, 2021 7:15:20 GMT 7
Royal commission calls grow in wake of $1.8 billion settlement for ‘shameful’ robo-debt
A $1.8 billion settlement of the government’s broken robo-debt scheme has re-invigorated calls from Labor and the Greens for a royal commission to hold ministers accountable for the program that a judge on Friday declared a “shameful chapter” in the country’s treatment of the poor.
The Federal Court’s approval of the settlement, which includes $112 million in compensation, also allows 680 people unhappy with the settlement to opt out and bring their own claims in court, which could extend the governments legal woes despite it making no admission of liability.About $11,500 was taken out of Felicity De Sommerville’s account without warning. Justice Bernard Michael Murphy lashed the government as he approved the settlement on Friday, saying ministers and senior public servants should have known the welfare debt recovery scheme was unlawful. “The proceeding has exposed a shameful chapter in the administration of the Commonwealth social security system and a massive failure in public administration,” Justice Murphy said. Government Services Minister Linda Reynolds welcomed the settlement and said $725 million had already been refunded to 418,000 people. The government has also dropped outstanding debts it claimed were owed under the scheme. “I welcome the Court’s decision to approve the settlement,” Senator Reynolds said. “Clearly this has been a very difficult process for all involved and we apologise for the way aspects of this program were administered.” Justice Murphy’s judgment laid bare the size of robo-debt, which relied on flawed income calculations to assert the debts. During the scheme’s operation, its calculations claimed that welfare recipients had been overpaid $1.76 billion and demanded that money back. Some of the 433,000 victims of the scheme were chased by debt collectors and hit with additional penalties. More than $750 million was taken by the government from 381,000 people. About $11,000 of that came from Felicity De Somerville, a 33-year-old mother and nursing teacher from Frankston in Melbourne’s south-east. In 2017, she realised Centrelink had taken what was then six months wages out of her account without warning when she tried to pay for her one-year-old daughter’s antibiotics. “If they can do this to someone who can stick up for themselves, what are they going to do to the underdog?” said Ms De Sommerville, a lead plaintiff in the case. The Federal Court has handed down its judgement on the bungled robodebt scheme. Though Ms De Sommerville is not owed a debt repayment and is uncertain whether she will share in the settlement’s $112 million in compensation, she said Friday’s judgment was a win because it would prepare the legal system to challenge future government failures. Ministers, including Energy Minister Angus Taylor, emphasised on Friday that the government had not admitted liability and said it was important that people were not cheating the welfare system. Justice Murphy had said many of the stories of financial hardship, anxiety, distress, thoughts of suicide and suicide told by victims of the scheme and people close to them were heartbreaking. Others felt ashamed and hurt by being wrongly branded welfare cheats. “One could not help but be touched by them,” Justice Murphy said. Labor’s government services spokesman Bill Shorten, who was instrumental in starting the class action run by Gordon Legal, a Melbourne firm, called for a Royal Commission to ensure accountability and to let the public learned the truth of how robo-debt started. “No senior public servant has lost their job, no minister has lost their job,” Mr Shorten said outside the Federal Court building in Melbourne. “In January this year, the entire Dutch government stood itself down after thousands of families were incorrectly accused of child welfare fraud.” Gordon Legal’s Peter Gordon (right) led the class action against the government on behalf of welfare recipients who were unlawfully forced to repay money. Labor’s Bill Shorten led his party’s charge against it. Ministers including Stuart Robert, Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Anne Ruston have been in the social and government services portfolios during the scheme’s operation. Prime Minister Scott Morison announced part of what became robo-debt when he was treasurer in 2016. About 202,000 people who were affected by robo-debt will not get anything from the settlement. That includes people who had not paid anything towards the claimed debts or whose debts held up when calculated by more reliable methods. Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said the government should release legal advice it has previously refused to disclose about the scheme. “This chapter is still open,” Senator Siewert said. Gordon Legal will earn $8.4 million for its work to date and was set to take in $4.2 million more for finalising the settlement, but Justice Murphy held off on that figure, saying he wanted more evidence on the work to be done. “For those perpetual critics of the … class action regime, the present case is one more example where the regime has provided real, practical access to justice,” Justice Murphy said. www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/shameful-chapter-judge-blasts-government-as-he-approves-robo-debt-settlement-20210611-p5807c.html
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jun 12, 2021 20:12:19 GMT 7
No growls here. But they still wont admit liability. Neither will most criminals. What a total bunch of tosssers. HHHHHHAAAAAAAAA HHHHHAAAA HHHHHHHHAAAAA. Stay tuned as far more to follow. GRIN GRIN GRIN.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jun 24, 2021 8:14:47 GMT 7
Robodebt: government fights to keep secret documents that may show ‘what went wrong’
IT expert Justin Warren seeks documents using FOI but government lawyer tells tribunal confidentiality in ‘public interest’
The Morrison government is fighting to keep under wraps documents that a former public servant says could show “what went wrong” with Centrelink’s botched robodebt program.
The man seeking the documents, IT expert Justin Warren, argues they should be released so the public could learn lessons from the scandal. Lawyers for Warren, who has sought the documents under freedom of information laws, argued in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on Wednesday that it was “difficult to conceive of a stronger case for the most robust accountability”. But the government says cabinet confidentiality would be undermined if the documents were released, and its counsel, Andrew Berger QC, flagged this week the case may yet head to the federal court if government agency Services Australia loses the case. The three-day sitting is the latest development in a four-year freedom of information battle between the government and Warren, who has requested the “business case” documents for what became the robodebt program. Officially known as the income compliance program, robodebt led to 443,000 victims being issued unlawful welfare debts in what a federal court judge this month labelled a “shameful chapter” in public administration. Labor and the Greens are among those who have called for a royal commission, pointing to the estimated $1.7bn in unlawful debts and the serious mental health and financial distress experienced by some victims. Robodebt: court approves $1.8bn settlement for victims of government’s ‘shameful’ failure The information commissioner granted Warren access to 10 of the 13 documents in 2019 but the government appealed to the AAT. The tribunal this week heard the documents contained “detailed costings”, requests for these costings, and other financial data about the proposed Centrelink debt recovery system. They include what are known as draft “new policy proposal” documents and purported attachments about what was a massive ramp-up of compliance against welfare recipients using increased automation. At issue is whether the documents in question were prepared for the cabinet process or were simply being worked on internally by the Department of Human Services which later became Services Australia. Under cross-examination from Warren’s lawyer Tom Brennan SC, a former human services official, Scott Britton, agreed some of the documents could help to ascertain “what went wrong” with the program. That included knowing what particular ministers had been told about the proposal at the time. Judge criticises government for allegedly refusing to tell grieving mother about son’s robodebt Senior ministers between 2015-16 included the former social services ministers, Scott Morrison and Christian Porter, who were members of cabinet, and the former human services ministers, Marise Payne and Alan Tudge, who were not. Despite the court case, ministers have so far escaped scrutiny about what they were told about the risks of the program. Britton, a former manager of compliance at the Department of Human Services, was shown a risk management plan, previously reported by the Guardian, that said possible severe risks of the proposal included “national public outrage” and a “significant breach of legislation and/or judicial inquiry”. Britton left the department in 2016, a year into the robodebt program’s operation, to join the National Disability Insurance Scheme. He told the tribunal on Wednesday he was not the author of the documents sought by Warren, meaning he could not give evidence as to what happened to them up the chain. Brennan said keeping the documents secret would create a risk that “we as a country fail to learn the lessons of robodebt”. There was likely “granular detail” in the documents and there was “great public interest” in ensuring that “everybody is able to understand” what went wrong, he said. Robodebt wrongly issued debts to thousands of victims, including Nathan Kearney, who was forced to move back in with his parents for two years. Photograph: David Kelly/The Guardian Brennan pointed to the federal court judgment – which noted the government’s debt recovery method was “unlawful” – and said the public ought to be able to learn more about what led to the “disaster that occurred”. He also questioned why the government had not called more senior officials, such as Kathryn Campbell, then boss of human services and now the secretary of the Department of Social Services, to give evidence showing a link between the documents and the cabinet process. Berger told the tribunal there was “extremely strong public interest” in keeping the documents secret to avoid an “intrusion into … confidentiality”. He said releasing them could have a chilling effect on public servants who may be less frank in their advice to ministers due to the fear it could be made public. Berger also played down the significance of the content of the documents, saying they would would “reveal little if anything” about the income compliance program. Robodebt: this is my list of who should be held to account The government also called Leonie McGregor, a top official of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who gave evidence that she believed the documents had been prepared as part of the cabinet process. Some were “well advanced” drafts of policy proposals, and others contained information that fed into that proposal, the tribunal heard. This meant they should be considered part of the cabinet process, McGregor said. McGregor said her expert view was based on the appearance of the documents, her experience of the cabinet process, and searches of the cabinet portal. She did not work in either of the departments in question at the time. Warren’s case is being run pro bono by Maurice Blackburn and the Grata Fund’s FOI Project. The AAT deputy president, Peter Britten-Jones, will consider further written submissions from the parties before a possible final hearing at a later date. www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/23/robodebt-government-fights-to-keep-secret-documents-that-may-show-what-went-wrong?fbclid=IwAR009e4xVuv8bvACUxvt8yWsR_6REFNs3LJLaEchRwsvCjyndgfJKgnH7sQ
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jun 30, 2021 16:19:14 GMT 7
Info on getting a refund.
Past customersInformation for past customers who had an income compliance debt raised using averaged Australian Taxation Office income information. On this pageWhat you need to do What you need to know about your refund Where to find more information If you made repayments, you may be able to get a refund. If you didn’t pay any money towards this debt, you don’t need to do anything. We’ll reduce your debt to zero, this means the debt no longer exists. If you currently get a regular payment from us, read our information for current customers. What you need to doIf you aren’t getting a regular payment from us, you’ll need to update your details with us. To do this: Sign in to myGov and go to Centrelink Select the Refund pending task Select Start task and follow the prompts to complete and submit your updated details. If you can’t see a Refund pending task, you haven’t been identified as eligible for a refund. If you don’t have a Centrelink online account, register for one through myGov. Read about Centrelink online accounts and how to register. If you have a Centrelink online account linked to your myGov, we’ll send a letter to your myGov account. This is if you’re eligible and you need to complete the online task. You don’t need to wait for the letter to complete the online task. Once you complete and submit the task, we’ll process your refund. If you don’t update your details through this task, we can’t process your refund. We’ll confirm your refund amount after we process it. You’ll see it in your Centrelink online account and you’ll get your refund within 5 business days. We’ll also send you a letter letting you know how much we refunded you. What to do if you disagree with a decisionif you disagree with a decision we’ve made, you have the right to ask for a review. Customers who have other Centrelink debts We won’t use your refund to repay other Centrelink debts you might have. However, if you don’t have a current payment arrangement on a Child Support debt, contact us to set one up. If you don’t, we may garnishee your bank account or tax return. Refund instalmentsWe’ll pay a small number of refunds in large instalments over consecutive business days. TaxThe Australian Taxation Office (ATO) won’t tax your refund. You don’t need to do anything further in relation to your tax. Read more about the tax treatment of refunds on the Australian Taxation Office website. Where to find more informationIf you need further information, read more about refunds for the income compliance program. If you can’t find the information you need or need help, call our compliance helpdesk on 1800 171 846. www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/subjects/information-about-refunds-income-compliance-program/past-customers?fbclid=IwAR1LKdiKRcO-XmUuD5uTKLzbU7AXN_XKhZ-sIxc7571M_Lxb3F3kt1S_778
|
|
|
Post by agonydan on Jul 20, 2021 13:12:43 GMT 7
www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/news/last-chance-opt-out-income-compliance-class-actionHilarious. "We’re contacting group members who lodged an objection to the Income Compliance class action settlement. You may know this as the robodebt class action. The Federal Court ruled that those who lodged an objection must have another chance to leave the class action. If you’re one of the objecting group members, we’ll send you a Notice to Objecting Group Members. We’ll send it before 6 August 2021 either by post or to your myGov inbox. If you want to leave the class action, complete your opt out notice and return it to the Federal Court. The Court must receive your notice by 4 pm AEST on 17 September 2021. The notice includes information about how to submit it. There won’t be another chance to leave the class action. If you didn’t lodge an objection to the settlement with the Court, you won’t get this opt out notice." Governments wet dream for people to opt out of this!
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jul 20, 2021 21:02:52 GMT 7
Can we get the number of people in it and how many opt out. No one in their right mind will opt out? How sick is this government? Hilarious indeed. All bluff like everything illegal they do.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jul 20, 2021 21:41:49 GMT 7
I think we might need clarification, because there may be two issues involved. The Government folded on repayments before going to trial and this is about the class action. I'm not sure what it all means, but opening agonydan's link and following the yellow brick road through about 3 more links, for me would require consultation with the lawyers. There's 4 tables relating to who is eligible, who's not eligible etc; a proper lawyers picnic it would seem. Just an uninformed observation; cheers bear.
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Aug 7, 2021 6:23:19 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by bear on Aug 21, 2021 7:20:51 GMT 7
Robodebt inquiry: Adelaide couple say year-long Centrelink battle made them feel like ‘criminals’
Robodebt victims have told a Senate committee they suffered sleepless nights as their lives were turned into a nightmare over debt notices from Centrelink.
David Mundy, a relief teacher and his wife Kathy, a retired nurse, told the Senate community affairs references committee on Thursday they spent an entire year debating with Centrelink after being told in 2017 Mrs Munday had incurred a debt for failing to report income five years earlier.
“When we tried to find out how they discovered this debt we had no answers,” Mr Mundy told the hearing on Thursday. Another woman who battled Centrelink over a similar debt told the hearing it was like “someone gaslighting me on the phone”. Adelaide couple Mr and Mrs Mundy ended up fighting their debt at a tribunal, where Mrs Mundy “ended up outside in tears”. “We were made to feel like criminals,” she said. “I just thought, is this all worth it? It was horrible.” The couple said they had been in contact with Centrelink about 40 times during 2017, speaking to numerous people, retelling their story each time. “There were times they could not find documents and they could not find us at all. They said we’ve received documents back in 2011, which I had no record of. I keep every bit of paper,” Mr Mundy said. The couple eventually handed over $3800 but are now seeking resolution from the recent “robodebt” class action. Victims of the scheme won a major victory against the Australian government when the Federal Court approved the settlement in June. It meant $112 million in government compensation would flow to people who it claimed owed them money based on the flawed automated debt recovery scheme. Mrs Mundy said she and her husband “felt threatened” fighting the debt, but stood up for themselves on principle. “That’s the hurtful part — we have done the right thing all our life and we feel like, why do you get treated like this?” she told the hearing. Education worker Belinda Cole told the committee her experience was “nasty” and “unnecessary”. Ms Cole worked three casual jobs and was contacted by Centrelink in the 2018/19 financial year about discrepancies in her income four years earlier. She said she had over-declared her income with one employer and under-declared for another. But when she wanted to make changes to the income she had under-declared “the problem started”. She received a letter from Centrelink saying she owed a $630 debt, of which they would take out $131. “I thought let them take the money. But they didn’t — they took three times as much as that without sending me another letter, without giving me any notice at all,” she said. When she called Centrelink to question why, they told her her circumstances had changed. “Circumstances haven’t changed,” she said. “I work for the same employer, I work the same amount of hours, I work the same shifts. So it was like someone was gaslighting me on the phone. “It was just so nasty and unnecessary. I was going to pay them the money anyway.” Robodebt victim Belinda Cole said the experience was “nasty” and “unnecessary”. She said the experience has damaged people’s trust in government. “When they’re saying to me on the phone, your circumstances have changed — my circumstances haven’t changed. How do you fight that, how do you trust the system?” South Australian Richard Winzor had just finished teacher training and was working casually when Centrelink claimed he owed the government $5000-6000. When he attended Centrelink to query it, he said they halved the debt, making him “instantly suspicious”. He spent the next five years fighting it, causing a “massive loss of time and money”. “Up until the last couple of months, I was never able to get an answer as to how my debt was calculated,” he told the hearing. “It’s thrown my family’s ability to plan into absolute chaos. “It got taxing until it got farcical.” His debt was revised down several times before it was wiped as part of the class action. “The thing I would like the most is for someone to actually be held accountable for this,” Mr Winzor said. Robodebt victim Richard Winzor wants someone held accountable. Source: News Corp Australia The Australian Council of Social Service has called for a royal commission into robodebt, to get to the bottom of what happened and who was accountable for the scheme. “433,000 people who have received or will receive robodebt refunds or who have had the unlawful debts that were charged against them dropped will not receive compensation to the hurt and anguish that this horrific scheme caused over many years,” ACOSS social security senior adviser, Charmaine Crowe, said. She said there was no guarantee the federal government wouldn’t try to undertake this kind of debt recovery again. The automated commonwealth scheme dubbed robodebt matched tax and Centrelink data to claw back welfare benefits the federal government claimed had been overpaid between 2015 and 2019. In his judgment in June, Federal Court Justice Bernard Murphy said the proceeding exposed a “shameful chapter” in the administration of the commonwealth social security system and a massive failure in public administration. The scheme wrongly hounded more than 433,000 people for $1.7m in welfare debts most never owed after the government switched to the flawed system. www.news.com.au/finance/money/robodebt-inquiry-adelaide-couple-say-yearlong-centrelink-battle-made-them-feel-like-criminals/news-story/134d1971d0c0ef7782d8c0d6800239d1
|
|
|
Post by bear on May 15, 2022 20:35:02 GMT 7
A failure as shameful as robodebt leaves questions only a royal commission can examine
Without an understanding of how this unlawful scheme occurred, what’s to stop something similar happening again?
In December 2016, Channel nine’s A Current Affair ran a quintessentially A Current Affair story about a welfare crackdown.After the throw from Tracy Grimshaw, Alan Tudge, then human services minister, appeared on screen with a startling message: “We’ll find you, we’ll track you down and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.” This was the government pushback to what was becoming known as the “robodebt” scandal, a mammoth Centrelink debt recovery system established by the Coalition government a year earlier. “Whereas we used to have a manual process of checking people’s income records on Centrelink with those on the taxation office’s database, now we have an automated system, so we can do that very quickly, very rapidly and be able to capture more people,” Tudge said. Three years later, after what can only be described as the gaslighting of anyone who complained or raised the alarm, the government admitted to the federal court that the whole thing was unlawful. Putting it very crudely, the calculations that the government used to assert hundreds of thousands of welfare debts were wrong. It later settled a class action for $1.8bn, which included the owed interest on the debts unlawfully issued to 443,000 people, some of whom were the most vulnerable in the country. This included people experiencing mental health challenges, some who were homeless or had disabilities. Many were poor, some desperately so. There were at least three reported suicides among those caught up in the scheme, and a broader mental health toll: the stress, depression and anxiety from those who suddenly owed the government thousands of dollars, who were hounded by private debt collectors, or had had their tax returns garnisheed without warning. For some people on the lowest incomes, such a financial hit changed the course of their lives. The origins of robodebt started before Tudge, in 2015. As a Senate inquiry report released on Friday afternoon said that the “income compliance program”, as it was officially known, was established as an expense measure in the 2015-16 budget and announced by then social services minister, Scott Morrison. The Labor-Greens majority inquiry report called for a royal commission into what the federal court described as “shameful” and a “massive failure of public administration”. Such a failure begs the question: how could the federal government have gotten it so wrong? Did it not get legal advice first? If so, what did it say? Were ministers warned of any risks? Who proposed the scheme? Was it pushed by executives at the then Department of Human Services, which runs Centrelink and ran the crackdown, or by the Department of Social Services, which runs social security policy? Did it come from bureaucrats or were they responding to requests from government ministers who wanted to bolster the budget bottom line? And what was the internal response when appeals tribunals, and then esteemed legal minds started questioning its legality? These are basic questions that we should be able to answer after what is believed to be largest settlement between the Australian government and its citizens in history. Yet two years after the courts stepped in, the public is none the wiser. No ministers lost their jobs. Only last month, in response to a call from Labor for a royal commission, Morrison said the problem had been “addressed”. “There have been numerous inquiries into this and there’s been court matters which we’ve fully cooperated in, and almost $750m in response to that,” he said. His claim there’s no need for a royal commission ignores the fact his government has blocked the inquiries he refers to at every turn. The Senate inquiry said the government refused to provide key documents, such as briefings it received during the scheme’s operation and any legal advice. One of the documents highlighted by the inquiry report is a February 2015 executive minute to the then social services minister, Morrison, which proposed a “new online approach to compliance”. All those documents remain secret, classified as legally privileged or cabinet-in-confidence, with the government saying it is against the public interest to release them. Many will focus on the role of the prime minister in the robodebt scandal. He appears to have been involved near the start, banked (and spruiked) the revenue from further expansions as treasurer (savings that never eventuated of course), and as prime minister oversaw a strategy that stonewalled until the courts said otherwise. And in settling the class action, the government accepted no wrongdoing. More important than blame, though, is an understanding of how this public policy disaster happened. There are failures in the government, but also beyond that. The commonwealth ombudsman failed to check the legality of the scheme when essentially finding its only problems were administrative in 2017. Administrative Appeals Tribunal members made wildly varying findings – some found the scheme was unlawful, others gave the debts the green light. The government oversees big programs – the NDIS, employment services and the welfare payments system – that are relied on by some of the most vulnerable people in the country. Morrison argued that now the money has been paid back and the program stopped, the matter is “addressed”. But without an understanding of how it occurred, what’s to stop something similar happening again? www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/14/a-failure-as-shameful-as-robodebt-leaves-questions-only-a-royal-commission-can-examine?CMP=share_btn_fb
|
|
|
Post by bear on May 15, 2022 20:43:34 GMT 7
I'm drowning; RC's one after the other!! If only governments would actually address the recommendations made, instead of Rd.2, Rd.3 etc. that provides legal eagles and RC staff with revolving door access to public funds resulting in no reconciliation of issues. Certainly nice work if you can get it...... Cheers 🐻
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jul 27, 2022 6:42:12 GMT 7
'Adding insult to injury': Robodebt victims still waiting for $112 million in settlement payments
Almost 400,000 victims of Centrelink's Robodebt scandal are still waiting to be paid money owed to them as a result of Gordon Legal's enormous class action against the Commonwealth Government.
Services Australia has repaid close to $1.73 billion in unlawful debts generated through its inaccurate income averaging system, which was used between 2015 and 2019.
A further $112 million - which equates to the interest owed on money unlawfully collected by the government - was awarded to the 394,000 class action members who paid a Robodebt as part of the class action settlement.
Services Australia originally promised to pay out the $112 million settlement to class action members in March this year. It later pushed back the expected dates for payments to June.
Gordon Legal partner Andrew Grech told 9news.com.au that Services Australia was yet to pay out any of the settlement amount despite both of those dates having come and gone.
"The process has been very delayed," Grech said.
"Services Australia told us that they would get the payments out in March and then they told us June and now they're not saying when they'll get them out - which is quite troubling."
"It's pretty unacceptable that it's taken this long."
Grech said his law firm had written to Services Australia asking for an explanation for the delays but had not received a response.
Staff at Gordon Legal were busy fielding queries from class action members asking when their share of the settlement would arrive in their bank accounts, Grech said.
"It's adding insult to injury for a lot of them because we can't tell them very much," he said.
Under the settlement deed approved by both parties in the Federal Court, Services Australia has until September 17 to pay the settlement sum. Grech said Gordon Legal would ask Services Australia to explain in court the reason for the delays if it was not paid by then. Services Australia is yet to send out letters to class action members telling them of how much their individual settlement will be.
So far, Service Australia has only informed class action members if they are entitled to a payment.
A spokesperson for Services Australia said: "There are a number of steps in the settlement distribution scheme process that need to be completed before we can start making payments. "We're working hard to provide payments as soon as possible."
How much will Robodebt victims get? Not a lot, is the short answer for most class action members.
Gordon Legal's fees - which total around $9.6 million - are included in the settlement amount and therefore will be taken from the pool available to class action members.
A crude average suggests a payment of about $200 per member, however individual settlements are expected to vary broadly. As the settlement relates to the amount owed in interest, members who paid the oldest and largest debts will receive the biggest payouts.
Centrelink has been using an unlawful averaging system since the 1990s, and possibly even as far back as the eighties. The class action settlement does not include compensation for the pain and suffering of people given the unlawful debts.
Federal Court documents, published earlier this month, have provided some insight into how the settlement payments are likely to be broken down. About 20,000 class action members are expected to get less than $100, the court document said. Just over 75,000 members will receive between $250 and $500, while almost 80,000 members will be paid between $2,500 and $5,000. About 275 members will fall into the top payout category, receiving an amount between $20,000 and $25,000.
Royal commission to probe unanswered questions The class action settlement does not include any compensation to members for the financial hardship as well as pain and mental suffering caused by Robodebt.
Robodebt victims have spoken about the financial and mental distress the unlawful debts caused. Many had their wages and tax refunds garnisheed to pay off the debts or were chased by debt collectors.
Some family members have linked the debts to suicides, including Queensland mum Kath Madgwick, whose son Jarrad took his own life after receiving a debt.
One of the lead applicants in the class action was Katherine, a Melbourne high school science teacher. Katherine first found out she had a Centrelink debt when her tax refund suddenly disappeared. "I was confused. I thought there must have been some sort of mistake," she previously told 9news.com.au. The debt dated back to 2012 when Katherine was briefly receiving Newstart payments while working as a casual at a university. Katherine said she asked Centrelink for a spreadsheet to show how they had calculated her debt, but no details were forthcoming. "They said it was based on an algorithm. I was told that it would be too complicated for me to understand."
The presiding judge over the class action, Justice Bernard Murphy, described Robodebt as "a shameful chapter" and "massive failure in public administration" . Government Services Minister Bill Shorten has reaffirmed Labor's commitment to holding a royal commission into Robodebt now the party is in government, telling the Herald Sun last week it would probe the mechanisms under which such a flawed scheme was delivered.
Grech said it would be important for the planned royal commission to look into whether it would be appropriate to compensate those who were severely disadvantaged by the scheme.
"Not all of the 400,000 people who had money effectively stolen from them by the government suffered in the same ways, but there are certainly some cases where the harm caused to them was quite egregious," Grech said. "We think those people are very deserving of being compensated."
The key questions of which government ministers knew what and when, as well as what legal advice they received, are also yet to be dealt with and are expected to form a key part of the planned royal commission.
"The royal commission may be a good opportunity to ask, particularly of the politicians involved, what they knew about the unlawfulness of this process, when they knew it was unlawful and why it took court proceedings to bring them to heel," Grech said.
"The government should not be allowed to hide behind legal professional privilege or parliamentary privilege in the way that it has in this case. "Not a single politician has been called to account, not a single senior public servant has lost their job over it."
|
|