One hundred and seventy thousand Australians have received a letter from Centrelink accusing them of receiving some form of overpayment, and according to Social Services Minister Christian Porter, one in every five does not owe any money.
It seems that some bright mind thought up the idea of cross checking the records of the Social Services department with that of other government entities - such as the taxation office. Unfortunately in this age of the computer this cross check is an automated system which fails to take into account the various anomalies between different forms of record keeping. The end result is an automatic declaration of guilt and a demand that the excess be repaid.
It is quite possible that the shock of receiving such a demand may push some people to suicide. In some households it has generated absolute panic and it is not helpful that the phone lines to the Social Security Rights hotline have been jammed with callers trying to get basic information to help them sort out this mess.
Typical of interactions between government departments a row is brewing over conflicting demands. Centrelink is checking back over a six year period while the tax office requires taxpayers to retain their records for just five years. The number of citizens who lack any form of retained records will be legendary - and the onus of proof is always on the citizen to refute the claimed debt.
Social security is money that comes from the public purse and the authorities certainly have a duty to see that it is distributed legally and according to the prescribed formula but we have so many interpretations that apply to individual benefits that simply running them through a computer is almost guaranteed to produce errors. In this case, the error is always against the claimant and the department is demanding the return of that money.
Sadly, it is the tone of these demanding letters that strike fear. Communications from social security that requires some sort of action on the part of the beneficiary always comes with a veiled threat. It usually suggests that failure to comply within time guidelines may see benefits cease. The threat of no further payments is implicit on compliance.
No doubt vast numbers of people will find themselves undergoing harrowing interviews in Centrelink offices as they try to sort out these alleged over payments. Where a genuine error has occurred and there is money owing the recovery process may vary. Centrelink may simply withdraw funds from a debtors bank account but usually seeks repayment by instalment.
No doubt the bad publicity and public anguish will have political repercussions that will see this over payment crisis swiftly resolved. Where payments are actually stopped and the restoration takes place by settling the perceived problem the correspondence from Centrelink offices often leaves beneficiaries seething.
When the stoppage was not the fault of the beneficiary but was a Centrelink interpretation there is never an apology. Resumption of the benefit is signalled with a message that states " You have been granted ...... ". An occasional tone of contrition would go a long way in repairing ruptured relationships !
No comments:
Post a Comment