On 9 December 2015 the Tenterfield
Star reported that Federal Nationals Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce had been spending big on electoral offices and travel:
BARNABY Joyce has gone
on the defensive after he skyrocketed to the top of the pile for claimed
expenditure.
The Member for New
England has registered $1,073,991.45 in expenses over the first six months of
2015, new documents have revealed.
A year later and, in addition to another hefty bill for office facilities, from January to June 2016 Joyce received the following payments from the Dept. of Finance:
$76,459.42 air travel costs for self & family members
$23,668 accommodation in Canberra & when travelling
$17,907.20 private car costs
$12,123.98 chauffeured car for self & family members.
So it comes as no surprise that this meme appeared in March 2017:
Figures provided to the department
today show Human Services launched more than 103,000 assessments into overpaid
welfare recipients in November and December alone.
The department ramped up its recovery
efforts in September with the number of assessments increasing from 844 in
August to more than 62,000 the next month.
Overall, about 216,000 investigations
were launched from September to December and 133,078 debts were recovered.
More than 97,000 people were charged a
“recovery fee”as they had not provided information about their income or a
reasonable explanation for the lack of information.
Five and a half thousand people had
their debts waived as they were under $50 and were not cost effective to pursue
or because there was an administration error or unusual circumstances.
Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, chair
of the senate inquiry, said the government “should be ashamed” of calling in
debt notices over Christmas.
“A large portion of those had a
recovery fee applied, meaning struggling Australians are paying debts they may
not owe as well as additional recovery fees,” she said.
“I continue to hold deep concerns that
people are complying and paying debts off that don’t exist - 2875 people so far
have had their debts reduced to zero since the program began but I suspect many
people are still in the process of reassessment and review.
“Unfortunately the Department couldn’t
provide these figures and took that question on notice.
“I fear far more people did not
challenge the debt so the figure could be far worse.
“It is a shame the Department has
steadfastly supported the system with some adjustments despite overwhelming
evidence that it is causing great distress to struggling Australians.”
Centrelink’s “aggressive” debt
collection tactics came under fire at the Senate inquiry.
The inquiry heard elderly welfare
recipients have received inaccurate debt notices of thousands of dollars,
generated by the automated system, before it was confirmed they owed just $50.
Senators also heard private debt
collectors, engaged by Centrelink to recover debts, have threatened to seize
clients’ assets or take them to court if they failed to pay what was owed to
the agency.
The Community and Public Sector Union
raised concerns Centrelink staff have faced increased aggression from welfare
recipients since the scheme launched.
Staff have dealt with swearing,
threats, physical aggression and spitting as clients faced increased financial
stress from debt recovery notices, CPSU national deputy president Lisa Newman
said.
The union is pushing for the scheme to
be suspended while the government reviews it.
Australian Council of Social Services
bosses raised concerns that Centrelink was not subject to consumer protection
laws.
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
editorial excerpt, 11 March 2017:
More than 36,000 of those letters did
not result in any debt to Centrelink. What's more, about 6600 welfare
recipients first learnt of their alleged debt from debt collectors.
Mr Tudge blamed those people for
failing to update addresses on their Centrelink files.
While his department head Kathryn
Campbell claims the system has been adjusted to reduce that risk, she
also blamed welfare recipients – for not replying to the initiating
letters.
Worse, Ms Campbell said she would
not discuss potential solutions to systemic flaws with the Australian Council
of Social Service or unions representing staff who have to handle the backlash.
The justification Ms Campbell gave for
not meeting with unions or ACOSS was that the media was interested in the
issue. The justification Mr Tudge gave on ABC radio was that unions and ACOSS
"frankly have a philosophical objection" to widespread compliance
checks.
The Herald suspects Mr
Tudge and his department have a philosophical objection to legitimate public
scrutiny.
Thank goodness the media
are holding the department and the minister to account because, failing
that, thousands of people would be demonised in secret and there would be no
Senate committee inquiry exposing the flawed process.
The committee began public hearings
this week into the error rates of debt notices; the government's response to
concerns raised by affected individuals; whether the debt recovery scheme
complies with Australian privacy and consumer laws; and the adequacy of the
data matching of Centrelink and ATO information.
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation Greg
Williams told the inquiry the ATO had "reached out" to the Human
Services Department as flaws emerged in the robo-debt system, but was told its
help was not required.
"We are involved in identity
matching and the provision of data, but we are not involved in the
data-matching that occurs on the DSS/DHS side," Mr Williams said. "We
are trying to maintain the level of integrity in the role of the ATO in this
exercise."
The Senate inquiry is also accepting
submissions from people who have been forced to deal with the system.
The first submission on the
committee's website comes from a "a teacher, university lecturer and
single mother who has been working part-time since my son was nine months
old". She tells how the system "impacted my mental health and caused
significant stress over the Christmas period. Not only did I suffer, but my
inability to fully engage with family at this time also impacted
them." She spent eight hours on the phone with Centrelink only to
find that her debt was $0. "Apparently this was a mistake and a day later
… it was up to over $1300," the submission says. "On receipt of the
second letter I broke down in tears again ... it turned out I had been overpaid
by Centrelink less than $1.80 a week. I am hard-working, smart and determined
to fight this because I knew I reported my income to the best of my ability.
There will be a lot of people who are not in the mental headspace, or have the
ability to work out that Centrelink are wrong."
The price of a system with
insufficient human oversight and flawed safeguards is too great. The Senate
committee should propose alternatives that offer taxpayers value for their
welfare dollar without demonising innocent people.
