Sign in / up

back to article Oz government on its Centrelink debacle: 'This is fine'

Australia's Human Services Minister Alan Tudge has finally weighed in on the country's Centrelink debacle, having returned from holidays with a sheet full of talking points. Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the minister denied there was any problem, said he wasn't aware of the system creating any false …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. dan1980

    Last year I got such a notice from 'Roads and Maritime', stating I had an outstanding debt (not a chance*) and that I would not be able to conduct any business with them until it was cleared. Some time later, I received another letter to say that I was again able to conduct business with them.

    No mention of what had happened but I ignored the first one - I had no need to do business with them and I couldn't be bothered dealing with it at the time. I suspect they realised their mistake but still have no idea what happened.

    I suspect this kind of thing happens rather more frequently than any of them would care to admit.

    * - I don't receive or claim any benefits and I haven't even had a Medicare reimbursement in years so it couldn't even have been another government department.

    5 0 Reply
  2. Vid

    Plausible deniability?

    When the Minister says that he is "not aware" of any of the problems, it seems that he is determined to keep it that way...

    16 0 Reply
    1. Mark 65
      Reply Icon

      Re: Plausible deniability?

      My thoughts exactly. The statement is simply empty rhetoric. You don't claim it hasn't happened, just that you are not aware of any occurrences. Makes you look an ignorant prick if you're the Minister in charge, but that's just confirmation of an opinion the public already held.

      7 0 Reply
      1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Plausible deniability?

        It really is damning isn't it.

        He's the minister. It's his job to know these things.

        He's lying, most probably, but if we take him at his word, how can his position possibly be tenable?

        4 0 Reply
        1. Mark 65
          Reply Icon

          Re: Plausible deniability?

          He's lying, most probably, but if we take him at his word, how can his position possibly be tenable?

          Because, almost without exception, they are all duplicitous lying little expenses rorting weasels and we expect little more of them?

          3 0 Reply
    2. DownUndaRob
      Reply Icon

      Re: Plausible deniability?

      I solved this problem, I emailed Mr Tudge to introduce myself as one who is being told he has a debt that I believe doesnt exist..

      No response...

      0 0 Reply
  3. Vid

    Communication

    Unfortunately, the reason that the Minister is unaware of any problems is that the system has been designed to prevent questioning or reporting any problems. None of the call centres can help (I have spent many hours trying), and there is no means of obtaining clarity or disputing the debt notices.

    We have been told that we must just pay the money listed in the notice (which are invariably incorrect according to most folks I have spoken to), and then some sort of dispute is available after that (though the dispute process appears to be a mystery still)...no exceptions.

    Will the Government then reimburse us for interest or business losses from this process?

    7 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Communication

      So your business gets centerlink?

      Boohoo some welfare recipients aren't comfortable with scrutiny over their self declared information and reconciliation with the ATO.

      Feeling's do not come before facts. Sorry.

      1 14 Reply
      1. Trixr
        Reply Icon

        Re: Communication

        Except the purported "facts" are not actually facts, for many of the people who have received speculative invoices. Which, the last I heard, is illegal in this country.

        Not to mention that the principle of the presumption of innocence (and thereby, the burden of proof residing with the accuser) is a legal principle going back to Roman law as codified by Justinian in the 6th century. Modern legislation and case law is based on this principle, with additional definitions around standards like "preponderance of evidence" or "more probable than not" required for civil cases.

        The supposition that a yearly figure provided by the ATO equates to a fortnightly income spread equally across 26 fortnights over the year is patently false for probably most of us, including those of us who have never in their lives received a Centrelink payment. Nor can it be determined from the ATO data that anyone received X income in any specific fortnight over that period. It certainly doesn't meet a test of "more probable than not" that someone double-dipped during any fortnight they received payments.

        Also, that supposition is known and has always been known to be false by staff on the ground, which is why the review process (once a (former) Centrelink client's income was flagged by matching with the ATO data) was manual prior to this govt's budget-boosting exercise based on entirely false figures.

        11 0 Reply
        1. Mark 65
          Reply Icon

          Re: Communication

          The guilty until proven innocent invoicing from a frankly retarded algorithm is yet more proof of how Government bodies in Australia regularly break the law with little recourse offered to the victims. State Governments are even worse as they are essentially Judge, Jury, and Executioner (and Appeal Court, Ombudsman and Regulator) and simply do whatever the fuck they like and should be abolished. They are just abhorrent ticket clippers.

          6 0 Reply
        2. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Communication

          They are as factual as the accuracy of the information provided to the ATO and centerlink which is the responsibility of the citizen. It's not an invoice as there was no goods or services provided, it is asking for the return of money that was provided based on information that does not reconcile. It also provides methods to correct the information if it was wrong.

          One fact is that if you provided truthful and honest information you would not have received a letter.

          So yes all the woo-hah is about some feelings which are not really applicable in the face of facts.

          1 9 Reply
          1. Diogenes
            Reply Icon
            Headmaster

            Re: Communication

            One fact is that if you provided truthful and honest information you would not have received a letter.

            In one word bovine excretment !

            1. Say you are on Newstart for all of January and you have not worked at all during January and have correctly declared $0 income.

            2. You are then employed as say a teacher on Feb 1, at say a a salary of 52k and all your income is correctly declared.

            3. On 31 Jan you inform Satanlink you no longer require Newstart and receive no more payments from them..

            So far you have met ALL obligations placed upon you by both Satanlink and the ATO and have done absolutely nothing wrong

            Now 12 months later Satanlink performs the worst data match evah (divides 52k by 26 and comes up with an averaged 2k income per fortnight) - and thinks you have defrauded them and sends you a letter in which you are invited to 'correct' the problem. Which you then do - you go to aus.gov.au and you confirm that yes you did indeed earn 52k that year (the only number you are allowed to enter) then its THIEF THIEF THIEF ! YOU OWE US 1,570.40 !!!!!!!!!

            At what point have YOU done anything wrong ? Only once have you given the government an interest free loan of 1570 are you allowed to appeal .

            9 0 Reply
          2. Adam 1
            Reply Icon

            Re: Communication

            > They are as factual as the accuracy of the information provided to the ATO and centerlink

            No. You are either ignorant of the issue or trolling. They are not using the information provided to the ATO. The ATO doesn't hold income per fortnight. Centrelink have inferred that fortnightly ATO figure through a patently flawed algorithm.

            It is outrageous to falsely accuse a person of fraud, send in the debt collectors (oh hi there credit ratings) and not have sufficient resources to deal with challenges from people who have evidence to show they were indeed entitled to those benefits.

            It's not just 'dole bludgers' who should be worried by this crazy math shoot first ask questions later behaviour. Should we apply this logic to pension asset tests or family tax benefit?

            A few years ago I lost elegibility to part b after a pay rise in one of those perverse getting a rise leaves you worse off cases that makes living wage an interesting idea. The same 'logic' applied here would have seen me being asked to repay a debt I didn't owe.

            If they are moving into speculative invoicing, then here's a thought. Anyone found to have been incorrectly accused should be paid at minimum wage for their reasonable time in producing the evidence and their refunded amount should be returned at government bond interest rates.

            5 0 Reply
      2. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Headmaster

        Re: Communication

        Feeling's do not come before facts.

        And apostrophes do not always come before an s.

        13 1 Reply
      3. Vid
        Reply Icon

        Re: Communication

        @coward

        "some welfare recipients aren't comfortable with scrutiny"

        I have no problem with scrutiny...I am pedantic in following Centrelink's direction and advice and I can document everything.

        You are apparently ignorant of the procedure here, so you are speaking as a political pundit instead of as a human being, so let me help you out...

        Firstly, there is no method of correcting the assumptions in the letter, no matter what kind of proof or documentation you have. Calling Centrelink results in a frustrating few hours of finding out this rather astonishing problem...nor is there any way to email, post, courier, or visit any office or person that can accept your documentation on the subject. In my own case, 5 years ago I received income as a Director of a company (Directors Fees) that was actually at a loss compared to my business expenses. I was instructed by Centrelink at the time to file quarterly P/L statements and balance sheets (which I did). I left the company, but it was a difficult period to pay rent and food after having most of my assets wiped out after the GFC. Being close to retirement age, it is near impossible to get any sort of paid work...but I do volunteer work rather than sit around, so I have actually worked a good week in exchange for my Centrelink payment (I think it earns me about $4/hour if you calculated it out).

        These are the actual facts instead of what you imagine the facts are...

        2 0 Reply
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    How long before scammers get wise on this??

    And start sending out their own fake "you owe Australia X, but you can settle your debt to society for .5X if you send your payment to..." notices. Sounds like it could be a plausible scam to me, because the government departments concerned don't seem to be able to track what is a valid debt to the state and what was concocted by Centrelink, so calling them to validate that the scam offer is valid is going to result in a shrug and "I guess that could be us".

    5 0 Reply
    1. GrumpyOldBloke
      Reply Icon

      Re: How long before scammers get wise on this??

      Those notices would be identified as fake straight away. The Australian government would never settle for half when it has its boot on your neck. The notices would be better written demanding full payment and promising additional ruinous penalties if proof is not offered as to innocence in some impossibly short time frame. That is the way Australian governments work. The daily tele reported this morning that there is now a whole new faux security apparatus to pay for modelled on the highly successful US DHS. Bring on the debt collectors!

      5 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Headmaster

        Re: How long before scammers get wise on this??

        That would have been a better comment if you had used quotation marks around the description of the DHS as highly successful.

        1 0 Reply
    2. BlackKnight(markb)
      Reply Icon

      Re: How long before scammers get wise on this??

      And they can just use the centrelink number. for if the poor soul actually gets through, the staff there will help confirm the "you need to pay this or else" part of the scam.

      0 0 Reply
  5. Rattus Rattus

    What do you think you're doing, questioning the wise and great Minister? He's smarter than you, not to mention better looking than you. Now stop supporting the terrorists and be thankful they haven't cancelled your citizenship. Yet.

    2 0 Reply
    1. Oengus
      Reply Icon

      be thankful they haven't cancelled your citizenship. Yet.

      They can't cancel something I don't have... I work with lots of people who have a piece of paper to "prove" their citizenship. I was born here and I don't have anything to demonstrate my citizenship... what is there to cancel?

      0 0 Reply
      1. MrDamage Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        > "I was born here and I don't have anything to demonstrate my citizenship... what is there to cancel."

        It's called a Birth Certificate. If you don't have one of them, or a citizenship certificate then you have no proof of citizenship.

        The process of cancelling is called "issuing a death certificate". Normally after you've been found by cleaning staff, apparently after suffering a "heart attack", with a nose-full of blow, and some prostitutes knickers on your head.

        */tinfoil hat*

        5 0 Reply
  6. Phil Kingston

    I'd guess at one of two things going on here. Either

    a) the culture within the departments involved in the project means that individuals got so excited at the shiny-shiny of claiming some genuine debt back that they decided to overlook the gobsmackingly obvious issues that poorly-matching poor-quality data would inevitably bring.

    or

    b) they're totally incompetent and neither understood nor cared.

    2 1 Reply
    1. Rattus Rattus
      Reply Icon

      As I understand it, nobody in the department is happy about this and they all think it's a terrible idea. But the minister and his colleagues are happy, because they get to take money away from the poor to fund their desired tax cuts for business and the wealthy. As a bonus, they get to further demonise the poor along with it.

      8 0 Reply
  7. Winkypop Silver badge
    Trollface

    Alan "Chemical" Trudge

    Problem?

    There is no problem.

    \

    Image

    3 0 Reply
  8. mathew42

    Solution: Universal Income

    This makes a good argument for Universal Income. The bureaucracy could be removed, the bulk of the 30,000+ public servants in the Department of Human Services would no longer be required and hopefully the ATO workforce could also be cut significantly.

    2 0 Reply
  9. Medixstiff

    It appears the Minister and Centrelink are digging themselves even deeper in the doo-doo:

    Leaked Centrelink memo shows staff told not to process debt disputes in person

    The memo appears to contradict Human Services Minister Alan Tudge's claim yesterday that people having problems with online and telephone services could go into a Centrelink office and see someone "in 10 minutes".

    I've had to be on Centrelink twice before and my mum currently deals with them whilst going through trying to get disability pension, I can tell you right now, there's is no way in any of the Western Australian offices that someone will see you in 10 minutes, you have to go to a kiosk, print a ticket for what you think is the right area and anywhere from 45 minutes plus later, you MIGHT just get served, I don;t blame the staff for it, I blame the STUPID amount of red tape and BS people need to go through, taking up time.

    I remember a few years ago a politician being asked to live off the pension for a month, of course they declined, surprise, surprise.

    0 0 Reply
  10. Colin Tree

    ≠

    The minister isn't a mathematician, and is not qualified to understand that

    ATO ≠ Centrelink

    0 0 Reply
  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't have a problem with people being asked to explain discrepancies, I'm a tax payer after all. If they are catching cheats, good work.

    I think the problem is people are expected to pay an amount back immediately, before any review has taken place, which is wrong. The administrators also have to be reasonable people, unlike the SDRO who are complete bastards with no conscience or soul. :)

    0 1 Reply
    1. rtb61
      Reply Icon

      Obvious Stupidity

      Basically every person who spent part of the year working before they got retrenched would have a claim against them, even if they did not work the rest of that year. Every single one, that is how stupid the system is. Just make sure you get fired on July the 1st, that is the only way to be safe.

      I would have bet, this scam has some corporation collecting a percentage of the claims which is exactly why is was designed so badly in the first place.

      0 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon