Extract from The Guardian
Jan Raabe says it’s ‘highly immoral’ large companies who got the subsidy and turned a profit are not being chased by Centrelink
Last modified on Fri 13 Aug 2021 03.31 AEST
An age pensioner slugged $1,000 by Centrelink over jobkeeper payments has accused the Morrison government of double standards for its failure to clamp down on businesses who got the subsidy and then turned a profit.
Jan Raabe, 70, said she did not realise that the jobkeeper payments she was receiving through her job as an emergency primary school teacher would cause her to be overpaid for her part age pension.
In May, Raabe received a letter from Centrelink telling her she had been overpaid $1,049.85. She is now paying $15 a fortnight out of her $650 part pension.
“I didn’t have enough money to pay them upfront,” said Raabe, who lives alone in Melbourne’s south-east and is still paying off her mortgage.
Raabe is one of the nearly 12,000 people who have been issued welfare debts worth a total of almost $33m due to jobkeeper payments, as revealed by Guardian Australia this week.
Raabe said she had acted in good faith, but accepted she would have to pay back the money.
What she did not understand, however, was why large companies and non-profits who had projected a loss to claim jobkeeper but then turned a profit, and in some cases paid out dividends or executive bonuses, were not being chased by the government in the same way.
Raabe said this was “highly immoral”.
“I’m just a little person, I don’t have a very large income,” she said. “I don’t own my house. When I heard that certain churches and Harvey Norman and many other people pocketed millions, I feel it is disgusting they just won’t pay it back.
“Why are they allowed to get away with it? Why don’t they have to pay it back?”
The government has argued there is no double standard because the tax office has sought to recover about $290m in jobkeeper payments from firms that misreported against the eligibility criteria.
Under the jobkeeper program, businesses had to demonstrate either an actual or projected drop in revenue to qualify for the payment, but many did not experience these forecast losses.
There is no legal requirement for these companies to repay the money and the government has ruled out passing a law that would require them to do so.
The finance minister, Simon Birmingham, said this week the federal government would not “vilify those who were acting in accordance with the rules of the program at the time”.
Critics argue those on lower incomes have not been given the same benefit of the doubt. In some cases, debts have been referred to external collectors, and Guardian Australia is aware of one case where a person had a $2,000 garnisheed from their tax return.
The Labor MP Andrew Leigh, who has campaigned for firms who turned a profit to return the money, said the government had given $13bn in jobkeeper payments to firms that increased their revenue during the pandemic.
“The prime minister describes calls for them to repay ‘the politics of envy’,” he said. “His government is happy sending jobkeeper debt notices to pensioners, though.”
Large companies, religious organisations and private schools are among those who have been criticised for refusing to return the money after turning a profit.
In one high-profile case, Harvey Norman, which raked in $22m and then saw the company’s profits more than double, has consistently defied pressure to repay the funds.
On Wednesday, Guardian Australia revealed the pentecostal church run by Margaret Court, Victory Life Centre, received more than $280,000 for a period its revenue ultimately barely decreased.
The government has argued that people have received Centrelink debts because they did not report their jobkeeper income to the agency as required.
But some welfare recipients who did were still caught out.
Nikki Crogan, 26, who works in the music industry, applied for jobseeker payments after she was stood down in March last year.
At the time she was receiving no other income so she reported this to Centrelink.
While the jobkeeper program was announced at the end of March, payments did not flow until the first week of May.
It meant when Crogan did begin receiving the subsidy, her first payment included backpay over several weeks.
“Once I got jobkeeper, I called up [Centrelink] and said that I had jobkeeper as well, and that I had been back paid, and to change my reporting for that period,” Crogan said.
“And then the next correspondence was March this year.”
It was a debt letter saying she owed about $1,000.
“I cried,” Crogan said. “Because jobkeeper had just ended for me. I’ve done a few back to business things but I’m still not doing normal work. Income is quite a lot shorter than what it was with jobkeeper.
“I actually called up to contest it and ask if they were sure that was actually what I owed. They got back to me and said I owed another $500.”
While the Greens this week called for welfare debts caused by jobkeeper to be waived, the government has remained steadfast.
“As always, if clients are in financial distress or have other problems, they can always talk to Services Australia to seek some relief,” the government services minister, Linda Reynolds, told parliament this week.
Like Raabe, Crogan’s main frustration was the double standard.
“It’s just the little guy that always gets stepped on, isn’t it?” she said. “Other people have completely lost jobs, had to change careers.
“At that moment in time to be doing what you thought was right, and then end up with a debt is just so frustrating when there’s these businesses that are making a profit. I just ended up with a debt, and they get to keep it all. It just makes no sense in my mind.”
No comments:
Post a Comment