Showing posts with label #notmydebt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #notmydebt. Show all posts
Sunday 9 April 2017
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]
Labels:
#notmydebt,
#TurnbullGovernmentFAIL,
Centrelink
Wednesday 5 April 2017
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…..
Monday 13 March 2017
The optics are bad for the Turnbull Government in 2017
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.
Wednesday 8 March 2017
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
Friday 3 March 2017
#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
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
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.
Labels:
#notmydebt,
big data,
Centrelink,
data retention,
debt,
privacy,
safety,
welfare payments
Monday 6 February 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@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:
Note
Centrelink direct freecall numbers:
Debt recovery - 1800 076 072
Payment Integrity - 1800 194 053
Customer Compliance - 1800 086 400
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)