Yesterday the Commonwealth Ombudsman released a report of his office's investigation into the application of penalties under Welfare to Work legislation.
"The report was critical of the practice of stopping a person's welfare payment before a decision was made about whether or not a penalty should apply. Under the Welfare to Work reforms, a jobseeker who does not comply with an activity (such as attending an interview) can face an eight-week non-payment period for a third or subsequent participation failure (or breach) in any 12-month period. Before a decision is made to stop payment, the suspected breaches must be reviewed by a specialist Centrelink officer to check if the person had a reasonable excuse for not completing the activity.
The Ombudsman's investigation queried whether the practice of stopping a payment before a decision is formally made was supported by the social security law. Timeliness in decision making was also raised as an issue.
The practices criticised in the Ombudsman's report could adversely disadvantage Centrelink customers, by depriving them of the following options:
* arranging their financial affairs in anticipation of a penalty being imposed
* applying for a review of Centrelink's decision (because no formal decision had yet been made)
* accessing the Financial Case Management scheme administered by Centrelink, which can assist a customer to meet the costs of essential household and living expenses."
Commonwealth Ombudsman media release 19 December:
What is fascinating in all this is that Centrelink had been acting in breach of legislation for at least a 15 month period and there was apparently no oversight by any federal government department as to how this outsourced service was implementing the Welfare to Work penalty provisions.
Miraculously government bureaucrats and Centrelink management began to develop a conscience after being contacted by the Ombudsman and benefit payment is no longer stopped before the suspected breach is reviewed.
However, I have to wonder if the imminent federal election made them all more amenable to the draft report.
The Howard era of blame-the-victim and all-the-unemployed-are-worthless-bludgers was obviously in full swing up to that point.
Practically everyone on the North Coast has their favourite Centrelink story about a local trying to avoid being 'breached' when on unemployment benefits. This one was relayed to me a few years back by someone living in Iluka, a small town at the mouth of one of the largest rivers on the east coast of Australia.
It goes something like this.
ILUKA: I'm phoning to ask if I can fax in my lodgment papers today instead of attending the office in person, as the town where I live is cut-off by flood water at present.
CENTRELINK: Which office do you usually attend?
ILUKA: I usually drop off at the agency in Maclean, but Grafton is the main office.
CENTRELINK: You can't get into Maclean or Grafton at all?
ILUKA: No, the only road out of town is cut.
CENTRELINK: Yamba has a Centrelink agency and it's close to you, why can't you go there?
ILUKA: Yamba is on the other side of the Clarence River.
CENTRELINK: Can't you take a boat or something across the river and hand in your papers?
ILUKA: You want me to get in a dingy and row across a mile-wide river in full flood just so that I can lodge my papers? There are whole trees whizzing down that river right now. If the flood didn't wash a small boat out to sea, one of those tree trunks smashing into the boat would demolish it and kill anyone onboard.
CENTRELINK: Well OK, but you can only fax your papers this once.
Commonwealth Ombudsman's full December 2007 report:
