Extract from The Guardian
Alan Tudge says he may attempt to change the law to ensure letters
being sent by Centrelink’s controversial automated debt system are
actually being received before a debt is imposed.
The human services minister, speaking with Guardian Australia on Wednesday, continued to defend the controversial debt recovery system, which has been the subject of repeated complaints accusing it of inaccuracy and unfairness.
But he said he was looking at changes to ensure initial letters demanding welfare recipients explain income discrepancies were actually being received before debts were imposed.
“One of the things which I am going to take a further look at, is whether or not we can be more assured that people are getting that initial letter which asks them for information to explain the discrepancy,” Tudge said.
“There’s a legal obligation to send that letter to their Centrelink address, but maybe there’s other ways as well, that we can, on top of sending that letter, other ways to ensure that they’re actually getting that information,” he said.
Asked why that had not been considered before the automated system’s rollout, Tudge said the changes would be looked at as part of an “ongoing process of improvement”.
The minister has justified the hardline approach to debt recovery by citing $300m in recovered taxpayer money. That is at odds with a statement from a Department of Human Services general manager, Hank Jongen, who said $300m had only been identified.
Tudge conceded he was not sure whether the $300m figure was the amount of debt recovered or simply the amount that had been identified. His office later confirmed that the $300m related to identified debt only, not debt that had been recovered.
Typically, Centrelink struggles to actually recover the debts that it has identified. Last financial year, for example, $2.8bn was noted but only $1.54bn was recovered.
Tudge said the data-matching methodology the system relied on was the same as had been used for many years. “The methodology is precisely the same as has been used for many years now, with the main difference being that we’ve automated more of the process,” he said.
The independent MP Andrew Wilkie has raised concerns that people are being pushed to the brink of suicide by the system. Tudge said his office had not been made aware of suicides or attempted suicides connected to the program. “Not that I’m aware of, that has certainly not been brought to my attention, and I believe it would be brought to my attention if such a report was made,” he said.
The minister continued to defend the system’s effectiveness, saying that just 1.6% of those issued with a debt had asked for a review.
He said Centrelink customers who had a “vulnerable indicator” on their file – people who were homeless or had a profound intellectual disability, for example – were not being targeted by the debt recovery system.
The system mainly focused on youth allowance or unemployment benefits, he said. “It’s only a very small proportion of people who were on a disability support pension who are subject to review, I think it’s 2% from memory. The vast majority are people on unemployment benefits or youth allowance.
“No one who has profound intellectual disabilities would be captured by this.”
The human services minister, speaking with Guardian Australia on Wednesday, continued to defend the controversial debt recovery system, which has been the subject of repeated complaints accusing it of inaccuracy and unfairness.
But he said he was looking at changes to ensure initial letters demanding welfare recipients explain income discrepancies were actually being received before debts were imposed.
“One of the things which I am going to take a further look at, is whether or not we can be more assured that people are getting that initial letter which asks them for information to explain the discrepancy,” Tudge said.
“There’s a legal obligation to send that letter to their Centrelink address, but maybe there’s other ways as well, that we can, on top of sending that letter, other ways to ensure that they’re actually getting that information,” he said.
Asked why that had not been considered before the automated system’s rollout, Tudge said the changes would be looked at as part of an “ongoing process of improvement”.
The minister has justified the hardline approach to debt recovery by citing $300m in recovered taxpayer money. That is at odds with a statement from a Department of Human Services general manager, Hank Jongen, who said $300m had only been identified.
Tudge conceded he was not sure whether the $300m figure was the amount of debt recovered or simply the amount that had been identified. His office later confirmed that the $300m related to identified debt only, not debt that had been recovered.
Typically, Centrelink struggles to actually recover the debts that it has identified. Last financial year, for example, $2.8bn was noted but only $1.54bn was recovered.
Tudge said the data-matching methodology the system relied on was the same as had been used for many years. “The methodology is precisely the same as has been used for many years now, with the main difference being that we’ve automated more of the process,” he said.
The independent MP Andrew Wilkie has raised concerns that people are being pushed to the brink of suicide by the system. Tudge said his office had not been made aware of suicides or attempted suicides connected to the program. “Not that I’m aware of, that has certainly not been brought to my attention, and I believe it would be brought to my attention if such a report was made,” he said.
The minister continued to defend the system’s effectiveness, saying that just 1.6% of those issued with a debt had asked for a review.
He said Centrelink customers who had a “vulnerable indicator” on their file – people who were homeless or had a profound intellectual disability, for example – were not being targeted by the debt recovery system.
The system mainly focused on youth allowance or unemployment benefits, he said. “It’s only a very small proportion of people who were on a disability support pension who are subject to review, I think it’s 2% from memory. The vast majority are people on unemployment benefits or youth allowance.
“No one who has profound intellectual disabilities would be captured by this.”
No comments:
Post a Comment