#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.

Tony Abbott MP: the man who lied about a carbon tax is preparing to lie to voters once again

The week former chief of staff to Tony Abbott, Peta Credlin, confirmed that he had deliberately lied when characterising the Gillard Government’s price on carbon as a "carbon tax", The Sydney Morning Herald reported this:

Tony Abbott has laid out a five-point plan for the Coalition to have a chance at the "winnable" next election, including cutting back immigration and scrapping the Human Rights Commission.

In a major speech in Sydney at the launch of a new book, Making Australia Right, on Thursday evening, Mr Abbott gave the clearest signal yet he believed the Turnbull government is failing to cut through with voters, and that the contest of ideas - and for the soul of the modern Liberal Party - between the current and former prime minister has a long way to run.

Mr Abbott noted nearly 40 per cent of Australians didn't vote for the Coalition or Labor in the 2016 election: "It's easy to see why".

In a sign a return to the leadership was on his radar, Mr Abbott set out ideas on how to take the fight to Labor and win back Coalition voters thinking of defecting to Pauline Hanson's One Nation.

"In short, why not say to the people of Australia: we'll cut the RET [renewable energy target] to help with your power bills; we'll cut immigration to make housing more affordable; we'll scrap the Human Rights Commission to stop official bullying; we'll stop all new spending to end ripping off our grandkids; and we'll reform the Senate to have government, not gridlock?"

He said the next election was winnable for the Coalition, however, "our challenge is to be worth voting for. It's to win back the people who are giving up on us". [my highlighting]

So let’s look at this jumble of potential three-word slogans being readied for the next Coalition federal election campaign.

RET –renewable energy target

In 2014 the Abbott Government ordered a review of RET. This review found that RET tends to lower wholesale electricity prices and that the RET would have almost no impact on consumer prices over the period 2015–2030.

Despite Abbott's downgrading of RET targets when he was prime minister, in 2017 the Turnbull Coalition Government (of which Abbott is a member) continues its support of these targets.

According to the Dept of Industry, Innovation and Science network costs are the biggest factor driving up the cost of electricity and  a large part of these higher costs has been the need to replace or upgrade ageing power infrastructure, as most electricity networks were built throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

Housing affordability

In December 2016 the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) recorded 11.3 million houses/units/flats purchased by investors for rent or resale by individuals and a further 1.3 million for rent or resale by others. [ABS 5609.0 Housing Finance]

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in June 2015 clearly indicated that purchase of housing stock by investors had increased to almost 23 per cent of all housing stock and, that increased investor activity and strong growth in housing prices were occurring along with an increase in negatively geared investment properties. [RBA, Submission to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics Inquiry into Home Ownership]

The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) put the matter bluntly in Fuel on the fire: negative gearing, capital gains tax & housing affordability - The tax system at both the federal and state level inflates housing costs, undermines affordability, and distorts the operation of housing markets. Tax settings are not the main reason for excessive growth in home prices, but they are an important part of the problem. They inflate demand for existing properties when the supply of new housing is insufficient to meet demand. Ironically, many public policies that are claimed to improve affordability - such as negative gearing arrangements, Capital Gains Tax breaks for investors, and first home owner grants for purchasers – make the problem worse.

Competition between investor-developers recently saw $1.3 million added to the sale price of an older house at a Sydney metropolitan auction.

Although population growth is a factor in competition for housing stock, nowhere in reputable studies or reports can I find mention of immigration levels significantly contributing to this competition.  Which is not surprising, given that natural population increase and increase through migration do not occur uniformly within Australian states & territories and natural increase will outstrip migration in some states and territories in a given year.

Human Rights Commission

On 26 December 1976 the Fraser Coalition Government announced its intention to establish a Human Rights Commission which would provide orderly and systematic procedures for the promotion of human rights and for ensuring that Australian laws were maintained in conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in order that citizens who felt they had been discriminated against under specific Commonwealth laws such as laws relating to discrimination on grounds of race or sex (but excluding laws in the employment area) would be able to have their complaints examined.

The Commission was created in 1981 by an act of the Australian Parliament and later rebirthed as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 1986 by another act of the Australian Parliament.

Whilst ever no Commonwealth statute exists which sets out the core rights of Australian citizenship the federal parliament continues to fail to guarantee protection against its own legislative or regulatory excesses.

The Human Rights Commission is one of the few points at which ordinary citizens without considerable financial means can seek redress of a wrong or harm done to them.

No new spending

I simply refer readers to Tony Abbott’s economic record in the slightly less than two years he spent as Australian prime minister, when on his watch economic growth was slowing and living standards were falling.

Senate reform

This is Section 57 of the Australian Constitution which would have to be amended and is required to be taken to a national referendum before reform can occur:

Disagreement between the Houses

                   If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

                   If after such dissolution the House of Representatives again passes the proposed law, with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.

                   The members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the proposed law as last proposed by the House of Representatives, and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House and not agreed to by the other, and any such amendments which are affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall be taken to have been carried, and if the proposed law, with the amendments, if any, so carried is affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of the Parliament, and shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent.

The last national referendum held in Australia was in 1999 and cost $66,820,894 according to the Australian Electoral Commission for a vote on two questions.

Like 34 of the 44 referendum questions before them these two questions did not carry. In fact the last referendum questions to be carried were in 1977.

Prospect of successful right-wing reform of the Senate? 

Company tax rate cuts in Australia and the banks that benefit

There has been some finger pointing in mainstream and social media of late over Labor’s use of $7.4 million as the amount banks would be able to retain under the Turnbull Government’s progressive cuts to the company tax rate included in the 2016-17 Budget.

According to the Australian Tax Office on 3 January 2016:

The government announced a reduction in the small business tax rate from 28.5 per cent to 27.5 per cent for the 2016–17 income year. The turnover threshold to qualify for the lower rate will start at $10 million and progressively rise until the 27.5 per cent rate applies to all corporate tax entities subject to the general company tax rate in the 2023–24 income year.

The corporate tax rate will then be cut to 27 per cent for the 2024–25 income year and by one percentage point in each subsequent year until it reaches 25 per cent for the 2026–27 income year.

Full report: Company tax cuts What the evidence shows

ABC News reported in May 2016 that Treasury Secretary John Fraser told Senate Estimates: The cost of these measures to 2026-27 is $48.2 billion in cash terms.

In the first four years it is estimated that these tax cuts will cost the Treasury bottom line an est. $5.3 billion.

So where did the $7.4 billion for banks come from?

Australia is thought to have four big banks – the National Australia Bank (NAB), Commonwealth Bank (CBA), Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) and Westpac (WBA) and it appears that this amount is based on projections done with regards to these banks by think tank, The Australia Institute.

The Australia Institute, media release 2016:

Big 4 banks $7.4 billion budget gift

The Coalition Government’s business tax plan would deliver $7.4B to the big 4 banks.

“Cutting company tax rates delivers a massive windfall to an already highly profitable banking sector,” Executive Director Australia Institute, Ben Oquist said.

“It makes no economic or budget sense to deliver the big 4 banks a multi-billion dollar tax break when Australia already has a revenue problem.

“If your agenda is jobs and growth, targeted industry assistance would deliver a much greater return on investment,” Oquist said.

The value of company tax provisions was derived from 2015 full year annual reports for the big four banks. That figure summed to $11,123 million. That figure was projected forward to 2026-27 to give the no change scenario.

The projection assumed bank profit and hence tax payable would increase in line with nominal GDP. The nominal GDP projections used the figures in the 2016-17 budget papers which give nominal increases of:

2.5 per cent in 2015-16,

4.25 per cent in 2016-17, and

5 per cent in 2017-18 and subsequent years.

Company tax cuts do not affect the big banks until 2024-25 when the current 30 per cent rate will fall to 27 per cent for all companies with further reductions of one per cent per annum until they reach 25 per cent in 2026-27.

The results of this are presented in the following table:

Table 1. Benefit of company tax cuts for big four banks, $million

	2024-25	2025-26	2026-27	Total
Savings on company tax	1,756	2,458	3,227	7,441

KPMG stated in Major Banks: Full Year Results 2015 that the Australian major banks reported another record earnings result in 2015 - a combined cash profit after tax of $30 billion.

By year’s end 2016 the major banks were reporting a combined cash profit after tax of $29.6 billion.

The Federal Government’s underlying cash balance for the 2016-17 financial year to 31 December 2016 was a deficit of $33,025 million and the fiscal balance was a deficit of $31,143 million. While net government debt for 2016-17 stood at an est. $326 billion.

In Major Banks: Full Year Results 2016 KPMG observed:

There is an increasing global perception that banks put shareholders’ and executives’ interests ahead of their customers and the community. This perception is more real for banks than for other corporates as they are seen to rely not only on compliance with strict regulation, but increasingly on the goodwill of the community and government to continue to operate in their current form.

We are seeing heightened scrutiny of Australian banks, including through the recent Standing Committee on Economics (the Committee) inquiry, becoming a regular feature of media and political commentary, notwithstanding eight separate inquiries since 2009. There are many reasons for this increased level of oversight, with terms such as “trust deficit” and “trust gap” often cited as the root cause.

It has been argued that the financial services industry has lost touch with the core proposition customers are seeking by forgetting its real purpose in society and becoming too inwardly focussed. These themes were repeated in testimony to the Committee.

Readers can make their own minds up as to whether banks have lived up to the historic social licence granted them by community (see bank scandals since 2009 and alleged superannuation owing in 2017) and, if they actually need any further tax relief or if that $7.4 billion would be much better in the hands of the Commonwealth Treasury.

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]

Thousands of jobs have gone from Dept Human Services & Centrelink in last five years and the headcount was down to 30,210 by May 2016

It is no accident that the post-September 2013 drive to slash public service numbers and funding was significantly impacting on the Dept. Of Human Services at the same time it sought to fully automate as much of Centrelink’s service delivery as possible.

Between its 2012-13 annual report and 2015-16 annual report the department had lost 5,628 staff due to budget cuts and make do measures were not meeting service delivery needs.

It was also foreseeable that Turnbull & Co would choose Centrelink clients as guinea pigs in an attempt at fully automating data matching with a view to further departmental cost-cutting – after all welfare clients are apparently considered the lowest of the low by a majority of Liberal and Nationals parliamentarians.

Given the fact that this federal government had also decided to be digitally ‘agile and innovative’ - which appears to be code for fast and sloppy - the debacle which followed was almost inevitable.

BACKGROUND

Government News, 2 May 2016:

Charities, welfare groups and unions have pleaded with Treasurer Scott Morrison to release the pressure on the Department of Human Services (DHS) by funding more staff and better IT systems in the federal Budget.

In a joint statement, 14 organisations: Carers Australia, St Vincent de Paul, the Welfare Rights Centre the Community and Public Sector Union, Australian Council of Social Services, Children and Young People with Disability Australia, ACT Council of Social Services, National Union of Students, Fair Go For Pensioners, Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association, People With Disability, the Consumer Action Law Centre and Financial Counselling Australia demanded the government “properly fund” the DHS to “provide the Australian public with the Medicare, Centrelink and Child Support services they need and deserve.”

DHS has fielded a range of allegations over the past year, including:

·         Centrelink bunging Youth Allowance and Austudy payments

·         Call waiting times of more than an hour to get through to Centrelink

·         One-quarter of all 57 million phone calls to Centrelink, Medicare and Child Support agencies last year going unanswered (Auditor General’s report 2015)Complaints up almost 19 per cent on last year, and customer satisfaction is down by per cent (DHS Annual Report)

·         An avalanche of customer complaints about online services, particularly myGov

·         A litany of complaints about mobile apps for child support, Medicare and Centrelink

In its statement, the coalition of not-for-profit groups said the federal Budget should:

·         Restore adequate funding to DHS

·         Invest in high quality, in-house IT systems so clients can access a reliable online service

·         Increase DHS permanent staff numbers so that claims and queries are processed quickly and clients who need over-the-phone or in-person services can get them

·         Ensure rural and regional Australia has fair access to government services.

The statement said:

“Millions of people in Australia rely on the Department of Human Services every day, for essential services including social security payments, Medicare, child support and aged care.

“Australia needs these essential services to be both accessible and of high quality, and employees of DHS resourced to do the best they can for everyone needing assistance.

“However, after years of budget cuts, DHS systems and staff are under extreme pressure.

“People who rely on Centrelink expect and deserve high quality public services. Employees in DHS must have the resources to deliver high quality public services. People are trying to do the right thing and reports changes as required, but the system is letting them down…….

The Canberra Times, 10 May 2016:

Department of Human Services officials have confirmed that 918 workers will be shed in 2016-17….

The federal government service-delivery workhorse, which runs Centrelink, Medicare and the Child Support Agency, will see also see its funding reduced by $100 million year-on-year, thanks in part to a "special" efficiency cut of $20 million a year….

Mr Jenkin also confirmed the budget papers got the department's headcount wrong, reporting 30,102 when it should have been 30,210.

The department's finance boss said the staff cuts were a direct result of the budget cuts.

In the Dept. of Human Services Annual Report 2015-16 overall staffing levels were shown as:

NOTE: It is likely that as many as est. 3,796 of these staff were “non-ongoing” at the start of the 2015-16 financial year.

The results of payment discrepancies released for action in the 2015-16 financial year were:

* 109,355,545 data matches undertaken by the department [DHS Annual Report 2015-16, p.241];

* cost of the data matching program (including departmental salaries) was $8,327,500 [ibid, 243];

* 4,904 payment discrepancy notices sent out to clients and 1,657 (or 33.78%) of these notices were later found to be false debts [op.cit., p.241]; and

* an unspecified number of debt notices were waived for reasons not stated.

Since Centrelink began sending out fully automated payment discrepancy/debt notices in mid-2016 there have been 169,000 initial letters sent.

Based on Dept. of Human Services 2015-16 admissions, this suggests that at least an est. 57,088 of these letters contained inaccurate payment discrepancies/false debts which can be verified as such by paperwork held by Centrelink clients and/or their previous employer (if the business holds such records indefinitely).

Centrelink clients telling their own stories can be found at www.not.mydebt.com.au.