Showing posts sorted by relevance for query centrelink. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query centrelink. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday 3 January 2017

Singing the Centrelink Blues - with lyrics straight from Looney Tunes


After more three years of an Abbott-Turnbull federal government there appears to be only a handful of ministerial portfolios which can be thought of as well managed and the Dept. of Human Services (operating Centrelink) is not amongst them......

AS IT UNFOLDED…..

Financial Review, 31 July 2016:

The Turnbull government will this week release a request for tender for one of the most significant spends on the machinery of government in years: the job of integrating the massive welfare and Australian Tax Office IT systems, as part of a $1 billion overhaul of ageing infrastructure.
The upgrading of the government's IT systems might not normally attract much wide interest, except that the question of who would run another massive payments system – for Medicare – became such a matter of political controversy in the recent federal election campaign.
But the welfare upgrade also holds the key to clearing the way for other major welfare reforms – from implementing the McClure Report recommendations to simplify the welfare system through to data matching that will produce big administration and compliance costs for both the government and its customers.

Australian Department of Human Services:


20 December 2016
If you do, we can ask you to pay off your Centrelink debts at any time.

If you don’t have a payment arrangement set up, from 1 January 2017 you could be charged interest and stopped from travelling overseas.

To pay back the money, use Money You Owe service in your Centrelink online account through myGov, or talk to us about setting up a payment arrangement.

If you set up a payment arrangement and make your repayments, you won’t be charged interest or stopped from travelling overseas.

To help you pay off your debt faster, we will ask the Australian Taxation Office to send us your tax refund to pay your debt. This will happen even if you have a payment arrangement in place.

To avoid a debt, tell us straight away if your circumstances change, or if you think you’ve been overpaid.

Next steps
Read more:
about how your payments could be affected when you owe us money

Guide to Social Security Law Version 1.227 - Released 7 November 2016:

6.7.1.45 Ten per cent Recovery Fee on Debts from False or Non-declaration of Income from Personal Exertion
Overview
A 10% recovery fee will be imposed on a debt incurred when a person has:
refused or failed, without reasonable excuse, to provide information, or
knowingly or recklessly provided false information,
when required under a provision of the social security law, to provide information in relation to the person's income from personal exertion.
The 10% debt recovery applies only to persons of working age on a social security benefit, DSPWPWidB or PPS at the time the debt occurred.
The fee is only applicable to that part of the debt that arose because the person refused or failed to provide information, or knowingly or recklessly provided false or misleading information about their income from personal exertion.
Act reference: SSAct section 23(1)-'social security payment'
Factors to consider
The decision to impose a 10% recovery fee is separate from the decision to raise a debt, and must be considered discretely. However, the decision to apply the recovery fee must be made at the same time the debt is raised and cannot be applied retrospectively……
Income from personal exertion includes any income received as an employee or for any services rendered. This includes income from earnings, salaries, wages, commissions, fees, bonuses, superannuation allowances, retiring allowances and retiring gratuities, allowances and gratuities.
It also includes proceeds of any business activity carried on by the person either alone or as a partner with any other person or profit received from holding an office or from any profit making undertaking or scheme.

The Guardian, 19 December 2016:

The data-matching system Centrelink is using to detect overpayments has also been experiencing problems, according to some welfare recipients. The new system compares data held by Centrelink with data from other government agencies, including the tax office, to determine whether a person has wrongly claimed welfare.

Last week, independent Andrew Wilkie called on the government to suspend the automated compliance system while reports of errors were investigated. Other welfare recipients have since spoken to Guardian Australia about claims for debts they say have been incorrectly issued.

One man, who asked not to be named, was told he owed $2,200 because the ATO’s information did not match the income he had reported to Centrelink. He said he claimed benefits for only part of the year, and believed the ATO’s information on his annual income had been mistakenly used to suggest he worked the entire year.

“I believe no government department could be so incompetent to not recognise the glaring problems with matching data that is on completely different scales (yearly vs fortnightly),” he said. “To me this means it has been purposely done.”

The department said last week it believed the automated system was working without error. It said there had been no increase in the rate of appeals received.

The Guardian, 23 December 2016:

A Centrelink compliance officer has broken ranks to describe the government’s crackdown on welfare debts as grossly unfair, saying its new automated compliance system is flawed and overly harsh on those on sickness benefits.

The government continues to insist there are no flaws with its compliance system, which is being used to retrieve debts from hundreds of thousands of Australia’slowest paid and most vulnerable.

The system relies on an automated data-matching process to detect discrepanciesbetween fortnightly income reported to Centrelink and annual pay information held by the tax office, a comparison that has been criticised as too crude.

Once a discrepancy is detected – currently occurring at a rate of about 20,000 cases a week, compared with 20,000 a year previously – welfare recipients must prove they were entitled to the welfare benefit, or pay the debt.

The Centrelink compliance officer, who asked for anonymity, told Guardian Australia the system was error-prone but that most customers were paying debts without checking them first. The source said of the hundreds of cases they had reviewed, only about 20 (at a “generous estimate”) turned out to be genuine debts.

The worker said the system was particularly harsh on those who received Centrelink’s sickness allowance – a benefit for employees who are unable to work temporarily due to serious illness but are not paid by their employer.

“The ATO matched data will show that they worked the entire financial year and will apportion the gross payments over that financial year without taking into account their time off,” the source said. “This means the system raises a debt for the entire sickness allowance they received. For many, that’s a debt of over $1,000.

“Although we may have documented evidence of their medical issues on the system, we as [compliance officers] are not allowed to look in the system to find any of that evidence. Instead customers must obtain all their pay information for that financial year.”

When a discrepancy between Centrelink and ATO data is detected, some individuals are being asked to track down pay slips that may be several years oldor obtain letters from their employers. That is particularly difficult where past employers have gone into liquidation or no longer exist.

The Centrelink source said their team was instructed to tell those people to contact the consumer affairs watchdog in their state or territory, which could then help them track down the necessary information. Colleagues had recently learned that those state and territory agencies did not hold such information.

“[We] were told to keep telling customers this false information until another way is found,” the source said.

The Department of Human Services said in a brief statement that it remained “confident in the online compliance system and associated checking process with customers”.

The department said more than 70% of those who had received a compliance letter since September had resolved the matter online and only 2.2% were requested to supply supporting documentation such as payslips.

Frustrations with the debt recovery process have been compounded by errors with Centrelink’s online customer portal, where individuals must go to lodge a dispute. The department said the errors with its online service had affected only a small number of people and had since been resolved.

But the compliance officer said that was untrue. They said they were “stunned” when the department stated the online system was working.

“This is completely false,” the source said. “Not only do customers, especially past customers, have access issues all the time but, since the compliance system was placed online, [compliance officers] have had many access issues.

“For the past two weeks we’ve had to turn customers away because we could not access [the system] and neither could they.”

Guardian Australia and other media, including the ABC and Crikey, continue to receive reports of incorrectly issued debts, which are causing stress and anxiety just before Christmas. 

This week the independent MP Andrew Wilkie asked the commonwealth ombudsman to investigate complaints about the automated system.

The Australian Council of Social Service (Acoss) wrote to the human services minister, Alan Tudge, on Thursday, urging him to investigate complaints about the system.
The Guardian, 30 December 2016:

The government’s automated compliance system, which began in July, has been the subject of repeated complaints, which stem from its comparison of income reported to Centrelink and information held by the Australian Taxation Office.

It has been accompanied by threats of jail for those who do not pay, a joint police-Centrelink campaign targeting geographic areas, the imposition of a 10% debt recovery fee and plans to charge interest on welfare debts and remove the six-year statutory limit on retrieving overpayments.

Legal Aid Victoria, the Australian privacy foundation, the Australian council for social service, and independent Andrew Wilkie have all raised serious concerns, urging the human services minister, Alan Tudge, to intervene. 

IT and data expert Justin Warren – who has worked for IBM, ANZ, Australia Post and Telstra, among others – said Centrelink’s system appeared to rest on the “idiotic” assumption that “big data was magic”.

“It’s not. It’s a messy, complex, statistical system that is wrong a lot,” Warren said. “All models are wrong, but some are useful. It’s the choice of how you deal with when the system is wrong that reveals how you view the world.”

The Guardian, 30 December 2016:

This week, Guardian Australia has continued to receive complaints about Centrelink’s new method of retrieving welfare debts, which relies on an automated data matching process criticised as crude and unfair.

Now, a handful of the thousands of Australians caught up in the government’s crackdown share their experience of being unfairly targeted.

Sally, Brisbane
I am the single mum of five and three year olds. I work part time and receive partial parenting payment and family tax benefits. This finances our simple lifestyle. I was shocked and dismayed to receive a letter from Centrelink Compliance department with a debt of $24,215.81 (including $2,110 debt recovery fee) to be paid by 9 January. I was able to talk with Centrelink Compliance and it appears the automated system “duplicated” my employer, so it appears I had a second undeclared job. Although this is Centrelink’s error, I need to provide two years of payslips and apply for a “manual reassessment” of my case. To stave off debt collectors, I had to start repaying my “debt” at a reduced rate.

Ryan, Melbourne
As a long-term full-time employed professional, tax payer and small business entrepreneur, I contribute to our economy in many positive and financial ways.
Centrelink have incorrectly alleged they overpaid me the government benefit Youth Allowance which financially assisted me to successfully complete a professional tertiary qualification in 2010-2011. This qualification is now used daily in my profession. This issue has been raised six years in retrospect, which appears now due to an erroneous automated computer “data match”.
Centrelink have repeatedly refused to provide written evidence of how the overpayment occurred. In addition to this, they have falsified my fortnightly income statement since I reported it in the 2010-2011 financial year. They have also requested I supply documented financial records I am not obliged to keep under ATO law. Centrelink has been grossly wasteful of my time and that of tax-funded government employed staff. My time is valuable and productive, both within full-time employment and small business development.
Throughout this ordeal, I’ve been subjected to personal distress, confusion and dismay and at a time of family grieving, my 66-year-old father passing away concurrently with receiving presumptive Centrelink letters of debt. The current data match regime appears to have a clear objective and obvious demographic: disrupt the disadvantaged, defenceless and vulnerable.
I now feel nothing more than inspired to stand up, fight for change and the protection of our basic civil liberties. We may feel small as individuals, but collectively we can stand tall and safeguard those around us, who deserve respect, dignity, equality and compassion in our free and democratic society.

James, Wollongong
A debt collector rang me on a Saturday morning and it ruined my weekend. I thought I was being scammed: they were asking for my personal details and demanding I identify myself. I had to wait until Monday to get an answer out of Centrelink, which was: I owed them $1,000 because their automated tax matching said so.
They wanted letters and payslips from employers proving I wasn’t a liar. When I did get the information, there has been no way to provide the Department of Human Services with it even after four weeks of trying. I feel as though I’ll have no choice but to pay when leaving for an overseas trip – extorted for the money I “owe” at the customs desk or miss my flight.

Dave, Sydney
I reported correctly while on youth allowance but was sent a letter from Centrelink demanding payment of a $2,500 “debt” based on alleged under reporting. The demand caused me stress and anxiety. I spent at least five hours contacting Centrelink and gathering my payslips to prove that I did not under report and that I did not owe a debt.
After phone calls and emails to and from Centrelink and a journalist from the ABC, Centrelink acknowledged that I did not owe any debt. There was no apology for the false accusation or the stress caused. I am concerned that most people would simply pay the “debt” on the assumption that Centrelink had a valid basis to their demand.


Click on image to enlarge




EXCERPT FROM A CENTRELINK LETTER……


REPLY TO CENTRELINK…..


WHO IS MAKING MONEY FROM THESE FALSE DEBTS?

Following a pilot in 1994, the Department of Social Security received funding in the 1995–96 Budget for a Flexible Debt Recovery measure, which would: 'refer certain social security debts owed by noncurrent customers to mercantile agents for recovery action'.  ECAs, acting as mercantile agents, have been contracted since 1996 to recover social security payment debts owing by noncurrent customers. The ECAs are paid a commission on the amount recovered for each debt.
DHS currently contracts two private sector ECAs to undertake debt recovery for Centrelink payment debts: Dun & Bradstreet and Recoveries Corporation. The current arrangement is a standing offer for debt recovery services from both suppliers for the period February 2011–February 2014.

Two external debt collection agencies received over $13 million in commissions for recovering Centrelink debts last financial year. The debt recovery bonanza follows a previous Audit office investigation which found private debt collection agencies recovered 10 per cent of Centrelink debts, but were the subject of more than a quarter of all complaints about debt recovery practices…..

[National Welfare Rights Network, Welfare Rights Review Vol 1 No 2]



WHAT NOW?

Now the Minister for Human Services and Liberal MP for Aston Alan Tudge would like to deliver all Centrelink services online in the future via software programs – including acceptance or denial of applications for pensions, benefits and allowances – without any human contact between the person applying and Centrelink. 
Probably with user access only allowed via a registered national digital identity

What could possibly go wrong?

WANT TO TELL THE MINISTER AND SENIOR PUBLIC SERVANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS EXACTLY HOW YOU FEEL?

Hon. Alan Trudge MP, Minister for Human Services, can be contacted at https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Contact_Senator_or_Member?MPID=M2Y

Hank Jongen, Department of Human Services General Manager, can be contacted at hank@humanservices.gov.au

* A hat tip to those mainstream journalists, social media activists, statisticians and IT people who have been covering this issue, a shout out to the whistleblowers and a big thank you to those Centrelink clients who have been telling their stories online.

UPDATE

Thursday 20 December 2007

Commonwealth Ombudsman's report into Welfare to Work and Centrelink tales

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.
 

Tuesday 4 October 2022

Royal Commission into the Robot Debt Scheme, Public Hearing 1, excerpt of that section of the transcript giving an outline of what is understood concerning the establishment, design and implementation of the Robodebt Scheme

 

In which Senior Counsel Assisting the Commissioner outlines what is understood concerning the establishment, design and implementation of the Robodebt Scheme at this point in the Royal Commission…...


Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, Public Hearing 1, Transcript of Proceedings, 27 September 2022, excerpt: 


MR GREGGERY: Commissioner, I appear today with Mr Angus Scott, Ms Renee Berry and Ms Salwa Marsh. The Attorney-General appointed each of us to assist this Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme as it is described in the Letters Patent.


Less than five weeks ago the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the Royal Commission, and an even shorter period of time has passed since the engagement of counsel assisting the Commission, our instructing solicitors and the appointment of Commission staff. The date by which the Commission is to report, as you have just identified, Commissioner, is 18 April 2023 and there is an obvious need for focus and efficiency to complete the task by the due date.


I will outline the broad context for the nature and scope of the inquiry before I address how the Commission will operate.


Turning firstly to the context for the inquiry, this Commission is not tasked with replicating the various inquiries and investigations into the Robodebt Scheme which have taken place, although much of the content of those inquiries is relevant to the scope of the Commission under the Letters Patent. The reports which have been produced from those inquiries and investigations are also relevant, at least to the history of the Robodebt Scheme and decisions to continue it.


The Letters Patent direct the Commissioner to inquire into the specific factual matters which are set out, with a focus on the “decisions and actions taken or not taken by those in positions of seniority”. The factual inquiry with its focus upon the role played by those in positions of seniority will be the basis upon which the Commission makes recommendations it considers appropriate. Those recommendations may include recommendations needed to prevent a recurrence of any failures of public administration which are identified in this inquiry.


The reference in the Letters Patent to the identification and prevention of the recurrence of any “failures of public administration” bears close similarity to a phrase which appears in the reasons of Justice Murphy of the Federal Court when his Honour approved the settlement of the class action brought in respect of the debts raised and collected by the Robodebt Scheme. His Honour's, reasons published on 11 June 2021, included the observation that those proceedings “… exposed a shameful chapter in the administration of 10 the Commonwealth's social security system and a massive failure of public administration”.


The reasons for judgment in the settlement of the class action are, as I indicated earlier, one of the many previous findings of others which are relevant to the Commission's task. The decision of Justice Murphy marked a significant occasion when the Australian Government 15 admitted that asserted debts based solely on income averaging from Australian Taxation Office data were not validly established.


In that context, the Commission is to enquire into a number of specific matters which were read out at the commencement of this initial hearing. In summary: the establishment, design and implementation of the Robodebt Scheme which raised and recovered debts for the Australian Government and which it later admitted it could not validly establish; who was responsible for the scheme and why they considered it necessary or desirable; the use of third party debt collectors in the scheme; the responses to concerns raised about the scheme, the systems implemented to address those concerns and what was known by persons in seniority as the basis for those responses; and the intended and actual outcomes of the scheme.


Can I turn now to what is known about the Robodebt Scheme. The Commission has already started its work and I will provide a brief overview of some of the relevant events which ultimately concluded with the admission made by the Australian Government to which I referred earlier.


The existence of Centrelink and its role is common knowledge amongst members of the public. It is the service delivery agency for a majority of Australia's social welfare payments.


In 1991 it gained the ability to crossmatch its data with data from the Australian Taxation Office. Crossmatching data enabled Centrelink to compare income declared to the ATO with income declared to Centrelink by persons who claim social welfare payments. The ATO continued to provide data to Centrelink since that time under various processes. For the purpose of this inquiry, the ATO disclosed income information to Centrelink which reflected the income information provided to the ATO by employers in the form of a PAYG summary. That summary often covered the whole of the financial year but in some cases the information related to a shorter period of time within the financial year. In contrast to the information provided to the ATO by an employer, Centrelink required information which usually related to a person's actual fortnightly income when it decided whether a person was entitled to social security payments.


Prior to the implementation of the Robodebt Scheme Centrelink's calculation of overpayments or debts by analysing the ATO data and the Centrelink records involved direct human oversight by compliance officers according to the processes established within Centrelink. That process included the requirement that “evidence was required to support the claim that a legally recoverable debt exists”.


Debts which were established according to Centrelink's processes were able to be recovered in a variety of ways, including withholding social security payments or a portion of those repayments, the garnishee of annual tax returns and orders made on successful criminal prosecution for debts which amounted to a fraud against the Commonwealth. Often the overpayment of social security resulting in a debt did not involve dishonesty, although the allegation of a debt can attract the stigma of fraud. The complexity of Australia's social welfare system was the subject of at least one report publicly released in February 2015. That report directly addressed the many types of social welfare payments, the related complexity of the claims and administration processes in respect of each payment.


On 1 July 2011 Centrelink was absorbed into the Department of Human Services. The Department of Human Services was responsible for the administration of the social welfare system through Centrelink. The Department was renamed Services Australia in May 2019, but its function of administering the social welfare system through Centrelink remained unchanged.


Going back to 2011, a Government initiative announced improvements to the debt recovery process which included the automation of crossmatched data between Centrelink and the ATO on a daily basis. That automation was expected to increase the ability of the Government to identify and then recover debts. The Commission understands that the identification of a debt continued to be subject to Centrelink's processes which involved compliance officers using Centrelink's statutory powers to obtain evidence from employers and other sources to sufficiently and therefore validly raise a debt. The decision to raise a debt turned on the assessment by a compliance officer after undertaking that investigation.


From 2011 the data matching program identified approximately 300,000 discrepancies annually between the ATO data and the Centrelink data, and of those approximately 20,000 were the subject of assessment and decisions by a compliance officer.


In 2013 the Department of Social Services was created. It replaced the majority of the functions of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.


The Department of Social Services worked closely with the Department of Human Services. Broadly speaking, the Department of Social Services was responsible for the development of social policy advice for the Australian Government, which was administered by the Department of Human Services through Centrelink.


On 12 February 2015, according to the report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman into the Robodebt Scheme dated April 2017, the Department of Human Services sent an executive minute to the Minister For Social Services which was copied to the Minister for Human Services. That Executive Minute proposed a new online approach to compliance with the social security system which would allow the Department of Human Services to review all discrepancies going back in time to the 2010-2011 financial year. The new online approach to compliance was soon described as the Online Compliance Intervention Scheme. It was the first form of the Robodebt Scheme. That Executive Minute must have been produced after some planning, but it has not yet been made public by the Australian Government. According to the Ombudsman's report, the intended main efficiencies of the Robodebt Scheme reflected in the executive minute by identifying discrepancies between the ATO data and the Centrelink data were as follows: The capacity to undertake hundreds of thousands of compliance interventions automatically generating letters to customers notifying them of the discrepancy in reported income; relieving Centrelink of its responsibility from obtaining information from employers and third parties pursuant to its statutory powers before raising a debt; transferring the responsibility of proving a debt from Centrelink to a customer who then had the responsibility of disproving a debt; and moving much of the debt management process to an online process in which customers had to enter information directly into the online system.


The scheme was foreshadowed in a press release in May 2015 by the then Minister for the Department of Social Services in conjunction with a budget release of the 2015-2016 Budget Measures by the then Treasurer. The scheme was projected to create savings of $1.7 billion over five years.


A small two-stage pilot program was carried out in 2015, and the scheme commenced on 1 July 2016. It was fully implemented two months later, on 1 September 2016.


There were a number of flaws in the system which, if not actually known at the commencement, were publicly identified soon after the implementation of the scheme. The flaws, including the fundamental flaw which was admitted by the Australian Government in the Federal Court, were specifically drawn to the attention of the then Minister for Human Services by the Australian Council of Social Service, ACOSS, in their letter of 21 December 2016. That letter identified consistent reports of debt creation by averaging annual income over 26 fortnights contrary to the actual fortnightly entitlement test with the consequence of “a false notice of overpayment”. In a follow-up letter to the Minister on 19 January 2017, ACOSS called for an immediate end to the automated debt recovery system and reiterated its deeply held concerns that the scheme involved the following: The reversal of the onus of proof onto people receiving payments; a failure to properly investigate the accuracy of automated data matching; a lack of human involvement in the detection of and calculation of overpayments; the requirement for people to gather evidence from up to six years earlier; an automated debt recovery and deduction of amounts from people's income support without human intervention; and practical difficulties for recipients speaking with a Centrelink staff member.


The Robodebt Scheme continued from that point in time for almost three years until November 2019. On 28 February 2017, the financial assumptions underlying the objectives of the Robodebt Scheme were questioned in a report produced by the Auditor-General. Questions too were raised about the budget assumptions on which the financial objectives of the scheme were based.


Those questions are relevant to the scope of the topic of the intended and actual outcomes of the scheme in a financial sense, and also to the questions of the process in which the scheme was developed.


The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, is the tribunal which decides appeals against Robodebt decisions amongst others. On 8 March 2017, a Member of the Tribunal decided an application to review an automatically generated debt under the Robodebt Scheme. The debt was set aside by the tribunal member on the basis that there was no evidence of a debt. The Decision was remitted to Centrelink to decide afresh according to further directions. Those directions were two-fold: No debt or debt component is able to be found on extrapolations from ATO records; and the earnings component of recalculated debts as may be raised must be based on and confined to any fortnightly salary records obtainable in the exercise of Centrelink's statutory powers.


In short, the legal framework for the AAT's decision on the merits of the debt was that the online compliance process involving income averaging did not provide evidence of a debt. That finding ought to have been of significance to the departments of social services and human services because of its pre-Robodebt policy which required evidence “to support the claim that a legally recoverable debt exists”.


More AAT decisions followed to the same effect. The Commission expects to receive evidence that more than twenty such decisions of the AAT were delivered up to 30 May 2017 in which it was found that income averaging based on ATO data did not validly establish a social security debt.


The Department of Human Services made changes to some aspects of the online compliance system to overcome other inadequacies in the transparency and usability of the online system, however, the fundamental flaw remained.


In the face of public questions about the process, Ministers and those in senior roles in the Australian Public Service asserted that the system worked well.


On 2 March 2018, the Robodebt Scheme alleged a debt against Deanna Amato who then applied for declarations in the Federal Court, including that the debt was not lawfully raised.


On 27 November 2019 orders were made with the consent of the Australian Government to the effect that the demand for payment of the alleged debt was not validly made to Ms Amato because the information relied upon was not capable of proving a debt. That is the declaration referred to in the Letters Patent. On 18 November 2019, that is less than two weeks before the Government consented to the order in Ms Amato's case, Services Australia - formally the Department of Human Services - announced that it would not raise debts in sole reliance of apportioned ATO data, that is averaged income.


On 20 November 2019, the class action was commenced in the Federal Court.


It was a further six months before Services Australia announced it would repay approximately $721 million in debts raised by the Robodebt Scheme against approximately 381,000 Australians and it was in July 2020 when it announced that it would withdraw all debts raised of approximately $398 million based on income averaging from Australian Taxation Office data.


The settlement of the class action involved the remaining claims for interest and costs which amounted to a further $112 million to be paid by the Australian Government. The reasons of the Court referred to evidence which showed that the Commonwealth Government asserted debts totalling at least $1.7 billion against 453,000 Australians during the life of the Robodebt Scheme.


That brief overview provides a sufficient factual context for the specific questions which are set out in the Letters Patent. That said, we are aware of the temptation to prejudge matters based on previous reports and inquiries and we will avoid doing so. Counsel assisting will consider the subjects of this inquiry with fresh eyes to assist the Commission to determine these matters according to your position of independence.

[my yellow highlighting]


Friday 20 January 2017

Centrelink's monumental clusterf*ck continues


As the Turnbull Government response grows more heavy-handed, community resistance grows......
Crikey, 19 January 2017:
Just as Australians were ringing in the new year and the public campaign against Centrelink's massively scaled-up debt recovery program was beginning to pick up steam, a legislative change removed a time limit that meant a certain number of welfare debts used to expire.
Previously, unlike other debts to the government, notably those owed to the Australian Taxation Office, welfare debts would lapse if no action was taken to recover them in six years.
Agencies like Centrelink could fairly easily restart the six-year limit, by taking a basic action like opening the client's record and doing a basic review, but nonetheless it resulted in some debts expiring because the agency did not have enough resources to pursue them all.
From January 1 it was removed entirely by the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act, shortly after the government asked Centrelink to identify and recover hundreds of thousands more debts than it ever has before by significantly decreasing the amount of administrative effort spent on each one.
The various pieces of legislation amended by the act now say welfare debt recovery actions can take place "at any time" and according to the act's explanatory memorandum:
"This will align social welfare debt recovery with the arrangements applied by other government agencies involved in the recovery of Commonwealth debts, where there is no such limitation.
" … Removing this limitation will prevent debts from 'ageing' out of recovery, and will improve the ability to recover old debts. Debt recovery will be able to commence at any time."
The Mandarin has heard a significant number of relatively senior Department of Human Services staff are under the impression that the removal of the six-year limit has opened up a very large number of potential debts to recovery action that were previously off-limits.
There's apparently a view in the agency that now there is nothing stopping the automated compliance program from going back through tax and welfare records "indefinitely" to find new debts to raise.
But an independent expert in social security law said this was not quite right; the six-year limit only ever applied to debts after they were raised. The clock started when the agency became aware of the debt (or when it reasonably should have — for example, if it was notified of an overpayment but failed to actually raise a debt for six years or more).
The legal interpretation was that Centrelink could always chase a debt from any time in the past — provided it could argue there was no reasonable way to have found out more than six years prior — but in practice it always raised more debts than it could recover, so it prioritised the biggest ones and did not go looking for new ones especially hard.
The Mandarin also understands that debts that expired after no action was taken for more than six years before the change on January 1 cannot be resurrected.
The further back Centrelink goes looking for past discrepancies between taxable income and support payments, the less chance there is that the people advised of potential debts will be able to produce payslips or other records to prove they were not overpaid.
The National Social Security Rights Network (previously the Welfare Rights Network) opposed the removal of the six-year expiry date. In a recent statement, it says a lot of people are contacting it in distress because they do not realise "the system does not necessarily require people to have documentation from many years ago" and think that "without it they cannot provide the information being sought" by Centrelink. The body recommends:
"If it continues, the system should be applied to the most recent financial years first. Many people would be able to readily check information against their recent records, reducing their distress and anxiety about the process. This would also give more time for Centrelink and other stakeholders to assess how the system is working and make a considered decision whether it is fair and reasonable to roll out for earlier years."
In any case, DHS spokesperson Hank Jongen told The Mandarin there are no plans to check the records any further back than six years ago:
"As part of the compliance measures announced in the 2015-16 budget, 2015-16 MYEFO and in the 2016-2017 MYEFO, compliance reviews will not be undertaken prior to 2010-11 financial year."

The Canberra Times, 19 January 2017:
Centrelink is deliberately ripping-off thousands of Australians caught up in its data matching "robo-debt" program, with managers telling public servants at the agency to enforce debts they know are bogus, according to explosive new claims…..
Pensioners and other struggling members of the community are being hounded for "recovery fees" unfairly added on top of their debts by Centrelink, according to the whistleblower's statement, published on Thursday by left leaning advocacy group Get-Up and Centrelink's main workplace union the CPSU.
The union says it has independently verified some, but not all, of the whistleblower's allegations.
The insider, who has defied public service bosses' threats on leaking against the program, also alleges that Centrelink managers are well aware that bogus debts are being pursued and are ignoring pleas from compliance staff to take a fair approach to the debt recovery process.
"We are struggling with our consciences and pushing back against our leaders daily," the whistleblower wrote.
"We are telling the...helpdesk that what we are doing is wrong.
"I see these reviews every day and I am horrified at what I am being directed to do."
Centrelink has been contacted for comment on Thursday morning.
The insiders alleges that the rip-offs operate in five main ways:
Doubling income​, where a person's entire income from the same employer is counted twice, creating an "overpayment".
Non-assessable Income, where​ money that should not be counted as assessable income by Centrelink is counted and overpayments raised against the victim.
Fictitious payments​; where system generates debts based on payments that Centrelink never made. The whistleblower alleges it is even possible to have a debt claim larger than a person's total Centrelink payment.
False recovery fees; recovery fees are being regularly applied when they shouldn't and can be much larger than the set fee of 10 per cent.  
Corrupted review​; compliance officers are directed not to fix these errors, even when there is evidence, and their work is rejected when they do.
But Centrelink media spokesman Hank Jongen denied the accusations in a statement posted online on Thursday, saying the claims about doubling income, non-assessable income, fictitious payments, false recovery fees and corrupted reviews were all incorrect.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 January 2017:
Public servants at Centrelink have been threatened with disciplinary action or even criminal prosecution as their bosses at the welfare agency try to stem the flow of internal leaks about the agency's "robo-debt" campaign.

Several workers have gone public about the debt recovery debacle since the controversy emerged last month and now Centrelink's parent department, Human Services, has issued a stark warning to its 36,000 staff about the consequences of leaking.

The department, which has gone to extraordinary lengths and expense in the past to track down and crush internal dissent, issued its latest warning on Tuesday after several media stories featuring insider accounts of the data matching program's failings.

Excerpt from whistleblower letter released by GetUp! on 19 January 2017:


The letter can be found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7cszry1mjjjsndj/2029-img-113185553-0001.pdf?dl=0

GetUp! creates FraudStop:
:
                        Click on image to enlarge

Get started here.