Complaints to Centrelink have jumped since first Abbott and then Turnbull became Australian prime minister

If the sharp rise in complaints shown on this graph from 2013-14 onwards is any indication, then neither Tony Abbott nor Malcolm Turnbull made wise decisions regarding which of their ministers should have charge of the portfolio which contains the Dept. of Human Services and Centrelink.

The odd spike in the percentage of “suggestions” in 2015–2016 seems to indicate this as a possibility and the real number may be higher. I doubt that suddenly in 2015–16 there was a jump in people suddenly having ideas to improve Centrelink’s service, and the will to communicate that directly to Centrelink’s feedback line. [Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Inquiry into Design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative, Submission 27]

And the Turnbull Government robo-debt debacle blunders on

The Canberra Times, 29 March 2017:

Centrelink hit at least 21,000 families with bogus Family Tax Benefit debts last year, the federal government has conceded.

The welfare agency sent 65,000 demands in November 2016 to repay money received through the family assistance payment but about 21,400 of the families hit with the debt notices were able to prove they owed Centrelink nothing.

Centrelink's parent department, Human Services, blames the error rate of at least 33 per cent on its clients' failure to "engage" and says it has already improved its efforts to get in touch with recipients.

But Labor is scathing of the latest debt recovery revelation, saying something is "terribly wrong" at Centrelink and "hardworking, honest Australians" have been "intimidated" into handing over their money.

The true rate of bogus debts could be higher than the official 33 per cent because the Human Services does not record or disclose how many families simply paid the money to get Centrelink off their backs or lacked the documentation to fight the debt notices.

The Family Tax Benefit recovery effort is a separate process to the controversial 'robo-debt' data-matching scheme which has mired Centrelink in controversy for several months….

…65,000 debt notices had to be raised in November 2016," Human Services said.

"Of these debt notices, 33 per cent were then changed to zero dollars as the individual responded with further information once they had received the debt notice and a reassessment was able to be undertaken."

The department also noted the rate of bogus FTB debts dwarfed that of robo-debt…..

Indue Limited, the Healthy Welfare Card and IBM

Image from Crikey.com.au

Indue Limited has been awarded at least $324 million in Dept. of Human Services and Centrelink contracts since 2009, including contracts to supply the infamous Basics Card and Healthy Welfare Card income management cards.

In it 2015-16 annual report it boasted a $5.1 million profit before tax.

According to Indue it exists to deliver financial payment products and settlement services that impress our clients and holds an Authorised Deposit-taking Institution (ADI) licence.

Its subsidiaries are:

Indue Securitisation Pty Ltd

Indue Aggregation Services Pty Ltd

Indue Data Services Pty Ltd Australia

Ivey Pty Ltd

Trinity Securities Pty Ltd

Lynx Financial Systems Pty Ltd

Although the company’s 2015-16 annual report lists director on pages 12-14 and key personnel elsewhere in the document, it is rather coy about the names of shareholders.

From 2008 to 2013 National Party member Larry Anthony sat on the Indue board and for much of that period he was also Senior Vice President Australia of the Nationals.

The company also remains coy about its future direction:

Information on likely developments in the operations of the Group and the expected results of operations have not been included in this annual financial report because the Directors believe it would be likely to result in unreasonable prejudice to the Group.

Indue Limited currently operates the Centrelink Cashless Debit Card Trial (CDCT).

The Indue cashless debit card hold 80% of a Centrelink client’s pension, benefit or allowance and can be used for purchases via eftpos or online, but cannot be used to buy alcohol or to gamble.

On 9 February 2017 Orima Research reported:

Participation in the Trial is mandatory for all working age ISP recipients in the selected Trial sites. In addition, wage earners, Age Pensioners and Veterans’ Affairs Pensioners who live in the Trial sites can opt in to the CDCT.

More participants said the CDCT had made their lives worse than made it better (49% compared to 22%). Family members of trial participants gave a similar pattern of answers….

participants and family members both felt that the overall level of humbugging had gone up since the Trial started….

The Turnbull Government is extending this trial and there is talk of eventually rolling the cashless debit card out nationally.

On 23 February 2017 Indue was delighted to announce a strategic partnership with IBM, and its intention to offer IBM Safer Payments for the protection of real-time payments on Australia’s New Payments Platform (NPP). IBM Safer Payments is the industry’s first true cognitive fraud detection solution, and will complement Indue’s Orion Financial Crimes NPP Service. This represents a significant step in Indue’s strategy of providing a multi-channel, fully outsourced, 24×7 fraud and financial crimes monitoring service.

International Business Machine Corp (IBM) is developing a global history of failure.

Currently IBM ‘expertise’ and software supports programs including the hapless myGov interface for the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink, Medicare and My Health Record.

Welfare payments and a company using yet more IMB software?

What could possibly go wrong for Centrelink clients?

A little Indue background

The company has its representatives on the following:

Boards

eftpos Payments Australia Limited (Indue has formed an alliance with Cuscal for representation on this board – Cuscal is representing both organisations until the October 2016 AGM)

ATM Access Australia Limited

APCA Committees

Australian Payments Forum

APCA Management Committee 2 (BECS)

Card not Present Fraud Implementation Steering Committee

APCA Fraud in Banking Forum

BPAY Committees

BPAY Management Committee

BPAY Fraud Sub-Committee

BPAY Marketing Sub-Committee

Visa Committees

Visa Client Operations Committee

Visa Regional Risk Executive Council

MasterCard Committees

MasterCard Advisory Council

New Payments Platform

Program Delivery Authority (PDA)

Design Authority (DA)

Planning and Reporting Working Group (PWG)

Testing Working Group (TWG)

Operational Procedures Working Group (OWG)

ICS Working Group (IWG)

Transition to Live Working (T2L)

Other Committees and Working Groups

Cashcard Network Advisory Council

Australasian Card and Risk Council

Cashcard Network Members Forum

Industry Security Steering Committee

eftpos Payments Australia Limited Member Advisory Council

Major partners

First Data International – Indue partners with First Data International for card switching and processing.

Visa – Indue is a principal member of Visa and licensed to issue all Visa card products including credit, debit, prepaid, commercial and premium cards. These cards can be used in ATMs and eftpos terminals throughout Visa’s global network of 24 million point-of-sale terminals and 2.1 million ATMs.

MasterCard – Indue is a principal member of MasterCard and licensed to issue MasterCard card products including credit, debit, prepaid, commercial and premium cards. These cards may be used in ATMs and eftpos terminals throughout MasterCard’s global network of 32 million acceptance locations, including 24 million point-of-sale terminals and in excess of one million ATMs.

eftpos – Indue is a member of eftpos and licensed to issue eftpos card products. These cards may be used in ATMs and eftpos terminals throughout the domestic Australian eftpos network.

Placard – We have partnered with Placard for the manufacturing and personalisation of all card products.

Computershare – Our statements and mail house services are provided by Computershare.

Westpac – Westpac provides clearing and settlement facilities to Indue as well as cheque reading services.

BPAY – Indue is a member of BPAY allowing us to offer both payer and biller facilities to our clients.

The real reason the Turnbull Government is seeking to intimidate Centrelink clients who speak out?

North Coast Voices readers may have noticed mainstream and social media debating the ethics of Turnbull Government Minister for Human Services, Alan Tudge, and a department in his portfolio releasing personal and perhaps sensitive protected information about a Centrelink client to journalists.

Readers may also have noticed that in Senate estimates last week Secretary of the Department of Human Services, Kathryn Campbell, told the Community Affairs Reference Committee that Centrelink undertook surveillance of social media to identify clients critical of its policies, procedures or specific actions and reported them to the minister.

One doesn't have to look hard for a likely reason why this was such an easy admission to make at a Senate hearing being covered by the media.

It could only have a chilling effect on sometimes already stressed individuals who have been victims of the flawed Centrelink automated debt recovery system, so that they would think twice about coming forward as witnesses during the current Senate inquiry into this same system.

Snapshots from the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee media release:

Click on image to enlarge

#NotMyDebt: it has spite writ large all over it

Despite any current or future ministerial or departmental denials, ‘explanations’ or excuses, I find it hard to believe that this 22 February 2017 end of business day release of a Centrelink client’s personal, sensitive, protected information to a journalist was accidental.

Particularly as this act was clearly repeated.

It has spite writ large all over it.

The Guardian, 2 March 2017:

The office of human services minister, Alan Tudge, mistakenly sent a journalist internal departmental briefings about a welfare recipient’s personal circumstances, which included additional detail on her relationship and tax history.

Senior departmental figures were grilled at Senate estimates on Thursday about the release of welfare recipient Andie Fox’s personal information last month.

Fox had written an opinion piece critical of Centrelink and its handling of her debt, which ran in Fairfax Media in February. The government released her personal details to Fairfax journalist Paul Malone, who subsequently published a piece attacking Fox and questioning the veracity of her claims.

Two responses were given to the journalist, one from the department of human services and the other from Tudge.

The department said its response – three dot points containing only minimal detail on Fox’s personal history – was cleared by lawyers and was lawful. The minister’s office then added two quotes from Tudge and sent its own response to Malone.

Guardian Australia can now reveal that the minister’s office also accidentally sent the journalist two internal briefing documents, marked “for official use only”, which had been prepared by the department.

Those documents contained additional information on Fox and her personal circumstances, which went beyond the dot points prepared by the department. They included further detail of her relationship history, including when she separated from her partner.

Those documents were then sent to Malone. The documents were also mistakenly sent to Guardian Australia when it raised questions about the disclosure of Fox’s personal information.

No mention of those documents was made in Senate estimates on Thursday, despite repeated questioning of what the minister had disclosed to Malone. Tudge’s office has now conceded the documents were sent to Malone in error. But the office says it was of no consequence, because all of their contents had been legally cleared by the department.

A welfare recipient’s personal details are considered protected information under social security law, and any unlawful disclosure is considered a criminal offence. Earlier, the department told estimates that social security law only allowed it to disclose the minimal amount of information needed to correct the public record. [my highlighting]

On 2 March 2017 Labor MP for Barton and Shadow Minister for Human Services, Linda Burney, wrote to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner requesting an investigation into the personal/sensitive information release by the minister and/or his staff:

Letter to Australian Federal Police Commissioner from Shadow Minister for Human Services Linda Burney MP by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/340678789/Letter-to-Australian-Federal-Police-Commissioner-from-Shadow-Minister-for-Human-Services-Linda-Burney-MP

BACKGROUND

DHS & Centrelink now threatening clients who expose unfair or inappropriate implementation of social security policy?

Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs’ Inquiry into Design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative

http://northcoastvoices.blogspot.com.au/search?q=centrelink

SocialSecurity (Administration) Act 1999 - Sect 202

Protection of personal information

Excerpt from Department of Human Services Privacy Policy:

Our obligations under the Privacy Act 

This policy sets out how we comply with our obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles which are set out in a Schedule to that Act. 

The Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) regulate how the department, as an APP entity, must collect, use, disclose and store personal information. The APP

What personal information and sensitive information is

The terms 'personal information' and ‘sensitive information’ come from section 6 of the Privacy Act.

References to personal information throughout the Privacy Policy include sensitive information unless otherwise indicated.

‘Personal information’ means: 

Information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable:

a) whether the information or opinion is true or not; and 

b) whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not.

‘Sensitive information’ means: 

a) information or an opinion about an individual’s:

i. racial or ethnic origin

ii. political opinions

iii. membership of a political association

iv. religious beliefs or affiliations v. philosophical beliefs

vi. membership of a professional or trade association

vii. membership of a trade union

viii. sexual orientation or practices

ix. criminal record. 

b) health information about an individual

c) genetic information about an individual that is not otherwise health information

d) biometric information that is to be used for the purpose of automated biometric verification or biometric identification e) biometric templates

Sky News, 2 March 2017:

It was also confirmed Centrelink staff trawl social media for complaints about the welfare agency and may refer serious gripes to the responsible minister.

Senior bureaucrats responsible for Centrelink say their workers sift through print, broadcast and social media for individual complaints.

Deciding on whether to report grievances to the human services minister depended on the circumstances of each case.

DHS & Centrelink now threatening clients who expose unfair or inappropriate implementation of social security policy?

Screenshot via @BernardKeane

Political reporter with @abcnews:

Henry Belot Verified account ‏@Henry_Belot

This Department of Human Services has just issued a pretty clear warning to Centrelink clients who want to public criticise #notmydebt.

6:03 PM - 27 Feb 2017

ABC News, 27 February 2017:

Those who publicly criticise Centrelink's automated debt recovery program could have their personal information released to correct the record, the Department of Human Services (DHS) has warned.

Blogger Andie Fox wrote an opinion piece for Fairfax Media earlier this month claiming Centrelink "terrorised" her while chasing her for a debt she believed she did not owe.

On the weekend, Fairfax published an article from the Government's perspective, raising the prospect of Centrelink being "unfairly castigated".

In the article a spokesman for Centrelink commented on Ms Fox's personal information including her history of claiming the Family Tax Benefit and relationship circumstances.

A DHS spokesman said personal information could be released by the Government to correct public statements of complaints.

"Such disclosures are made for the purposes of the social security law or the family assistance law, they do not need to be formally authorised by the secretary," the spokesman said.

"Unfounded allegations unnecessarily undermine confidence and takes staff effort away from dealing with other claims.

"We will continue to correct the record on such occasions."

Labor's Linda Burney accused DHS of "deeply unethical actions" and the Government of seeking "revenge".

"The disclosure has occurred deliberately to smear a private individual who has spoken out about the error prone robo-debt program and the deeply flawed Centrelink debt recovery process," she said.

"Correcting the record is one thing, attempting to smear and discredit opponents is entirely different and far more troubling."

Ms. Fox's response can be found at https://bluemilk.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/is-this-what-happens-when-you-criticise-government/.

However, neither Centrelink nor the Turnbull Government can stop criticism being aired during - the rather wordily titled - Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs’ Inquiry into Design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative and mainstream media reporting.

The Canberra Times, 28 February 2017:

People pursued by Centrelink over its controversial "robo-debts" are being denied the protection of Australian consumer law, a Parliamentary inquiry has been told.

The welfare agency is exempt from laws and guidelines covering debt collection by private businesses, "even the much maligned banks", according to the chief executive of Victorian community organisation Family Care, David Tennant.

But Centrelink says that is, and the private sector debt collectors hired to pursue its clients, are compliant with legal requirements.

Mr Tennant, who has a background in consumer law, says much of Centrelink's activities in pursuing its millions of dollars in "robo-debt" would be illegal if done by a non-government player.

The legal immunity enjoyed by Centrelink allows it to "pressure people for payment in ways that are objectively unfair," Mr Tennant says in his submission to the Parliamentary inquiry into the robo-debt crisis……

In his submission to the inquiry, Mr Tennant, a former chairman of the national peak body for financial counsellors, say he is surprised by the "lack of commentary about how Centrelink's conduct stacks up against the normal rules applying to the collection of debts in Australia".

"There are significant problems associated with a government department pursing a course of action that would likely be illegal if adopted by a body other than government," Mr Tennant wrote.

"It potentially erodes the confidence of those who rely on the benefit system to treat them fairly, or to recognise them as having the same rights as all citizens.

Although I suspect that one of the reasons behind Centrelink supplying personal and perhaps sensitive client information to the media may be in order to produce a chilling effect on submissions made to this particular Senate inquiry.

This inquiry is accepting written submissions until 22 March 2016.

The inquiry reporting date is 10 May 2017.

Too many Liberal and Nationals MPs keep quiet while this sort of stress is happening to people in their electorates

Yet more examples of the Turnbull Government’s Centrelink automated ‘debt’ recovery debacle made it into the media………

Penrith City Gazette, 27 January 2017:

A Glenmore Park woman has described being sick with stress after Centrelink slapped her with a $35,000 debt bill, only to have it reduced to $173 a week later.

The woman, who is known to the Gazette but wishes to remain anonymous, was caught up in the controversial Centrelink crackdown on alleged overpayments earlier this month after being informed she owed the government agency $2,795.87, but was not told why.

After providing further financial information, she then received a Centrelink letter claiming she owed a whopping $35,147.16 just one week later.

The woman described being in tears and shaking as she repeatedly called both Centrelink and the Commonwealth Ombudsman about the debt.

On January 17 the woman was contacted by Centrelink and told she had in fact only been overpaid on three days six years ago, and the new debt was just $173.51.

Lindsay Labor MP Emma Husar said her office had been contacted several times after receiving similar notices from the automated system, which compares Centrelink and Tax Office records, many around Christmas time.

“This particular case highlights the incompetence of the system – a $35,000 debt notice reduced to $170 after two weeks on the phone, worrying and stressing,” she said.

leisa‏@thisleisa

My daughter has been fighting #centrelink incorrect debt since Nov. Since that time her debt has changed from 4k to 6k & today it dropped to

     RETWEETS11

      LIKES7

     

7:08 PM - 27 Jan 2017

3 replies11 retweets7 likes

Reply

      leisa ‏@thisleisa  

         2k on completion of appeal. Guy she spoke to said 'he' dropped it significantly as it was 'obvious'   she had genuinely tried to report

4 replies 3 retweets 3 likes

      leisa ‏@thisleisa  

         correctly. So this amount is not based on any disparate figures. It's been at his discretion. I'm          trying to encourage her to keep fighting

1 reply 3 retweets 5 likes

      leisa ‏@thisleisa  

 but as she was already advised to start paying back debt ($10pf) before completion of appeal, she  just feels like this is the easy option.

1 reply 3 retweets 2 likes

      leisa ‏@thisleisa  

 She's been fighting it for months. Goes to work in tears everyday. The whole thing has been  designed to grind her down & I'm afraid its

1 reply 5 retweets 6 likes

      leisa ‏@thisleisa  

 succeeded. And I can understand. An incorrect debt of 2k is better than 6k. But on the same hand  it's not her debt. It's a dismal cockup.

1 reply 4 retweets 11 likes

      leisa ‏@thisleisa  

 And I've been gently encouraging her to keep fighting today. Got some good advice but it's not me  fighting. Hate seeing her in this position

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

      leisa ‏@thisleisa  

 She's a good girl, good mother who works hard. She also votes. And so does every member of her  family & we wont forget her pain.

1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes

leisa ‏@thisleisa  

 @janecat60 it's been a horrible shit show Jane. This kid has been back at work since O was not  even 1yo. So unfair.

And yes, Nationals Kevin Hogan MP I’m looking straight at you because these so-called payment discrepancy notices are also turning up in letter boxes across the Northern Rivers region and specifically in your electorate.

Note

Centrelink direct freecall numbers:

Debt recovery - 1800 076 072

Payment Integrity - 1800 194 053

Customer Compliance - 1800 086 400

[https://www.notmydebt.com.au/stories/notmydebt-stories/how-i-had-my-notmydebt-waived-apologies-long-story]