This is what appears to be the problem…one data set (Commonwealth vaccination record system) not talking to Centrelink system (or corruption of data transfer).
On ABC radio this morning it suggested only a handful of Centrelink subsidies recipients were caught up with the IT bug rather than being widespread. They also indicated Centrelink will be back paying and missed subsidies because of the IT fault. Such is a reasonable outcome as any IT system isn’t perfect.
I don’t know that you should blame the staff (or at least, the ones on the front line) for the policy.
There is quite a difference between a ‘handful’ and ‘thousands of families’. I wonder how that is figured - and what we will hear at the next Senate Estimates hearing to front Centrelink.
It was the Australian Childcare Alliance which came up with the 1000s number and their spokesperson said that this could be the number it may potentially affect…but hadn’t confirmed this with DSS/Centrelink…it was their guess as a worst case scenario.
Centrelink indicated a handful of clients, but wouldn’t give exact numbers.
Centrelink strikes again.
Looks like the boot is now on the other foot.
Centrelink’s day of reckoning approaches.
Centrelink’s disgusting robodebt scam bites the dust.
Robodebt scam victims want an apology and compensation.
I’d forgotten how the circumstance of CentreLink issuing so many erroneous debt notices began. The SMH had this to say at the time.
The SMH in particular raised concerns over whether the accountability was a ministerial one or that of Hank Jongen, a manager with CentreLink. The discussion has moved on as has the minister. There is a powerful precedent from the commonly labelled “Pink bats program” for government accountability. The government of the day committed to significant additional expenditures towards remedy. Sadly some failings were beyond remedy!
Is this itself a “multi-million dollar scam” though?
It’s “never about the money” but it always is.
Sadly in this day and age there is almost no other remedy for pain and suffering than recompense with money. The effects of paying back an illegally raised debt can compound other financial issues in a person’s/family’s life. Then even if the original is repaid to the affected there remains the after effects of the prior shortage. Plus there is no real apology for the damage caused, distress and loss of life. There is no apology for the manner in which the affected were treated and having Debt collectors launched onto them. It would seem that money being taken in payment for these problems is the almost only way to get that recognition. Sadly it will mean that all Taxpayers will pay for the errors of a few politicians.
Idiot claims that there is nothing for the Government to apologise for.
Pity about the victims who were driven to commit suicide.
And the latest article.
That’s fine. So if I give a genuine apology to every last affected person, they will all drop the class action and save me some money?
Everyone knows that an apology given with a gun to your head is not a genuine apology.
In some respects, I would like to see this practice made illegal i.e. debt factoring. Nothing to do with debt to the government. Made illegal in all cases of debt. (To be honest, I don’t know that debt factoring was involved here.)
Yes. Exactly. It is coming out of your pocket and my pocket, not from the pockets of those in the public service at senior levels and those in the parliament who were actually responsible.
An apology will not stop the action but there are still those who haven’t joined the Class Action, and regardless of if they have or not a real genuine apology for the distress caused and efforts to never repeat it are something those responsible should undertake.
I don’t know if the debt was sold or if the company/companies involved were paid to carry out the debt recovery. It doesn’t really matter, the fact is that money was recovered that was an illegal debt to start with. The Govt were told multiple times that it was unlawful to raise these debts but they carried on regardless. This is what they (and I do mean they not us) need to be held accountable for, I would even think in some cases Criminal law action should be possible in light of the threats, deaths and distress this robodebt caused.
That raises a more substantive question though. Why should they not repeat it?
It makes sense to cross-match tax information with welfare information. Doesn’t it? It just has to be done in such a way that any claim of debt is 100% correct.
Better would be that a complaint is raised and the welfare recipient is given the chance to explain / correct the record / whatever. Only after that process completes would a debt be claimed, where appropriate.
However I suspect that this kind of experience will infuse itself into the DNA of the public service and any future government that proposes such a thing will be warned off with the ghost of robodebt. 
It does if the debt is correct.
In light of the fact that the debt was raised illegally it doesn’t matter how the debt recovery was paid, it was illegal regardless.
Cross matching continues and has gone on for at least 20 years to my certain knowledge (I worked in that section). A client would have a debt raised, receive a letter and then they would either accept the debt or contest it. If they asked for the calculations of how the debt was raise it was provided. However averaging like in Robodebt was never undertaken, each payment was assessed against the relevant pay period, if it couldn’t be proven that way the debt was not raised.
This will continue, Tax records etc will still be cross matched to ensure accurate payments are made.
Exactly, data matching has been going on for decades and will continue. The problem with robodebt was not that, nor the use of software (or AI as some have dubbed it - I doubt it was anything more than straightforward determinative software algorithms) but the wrong interpretation of the law and the very dangerous policies associated with it.
The court has interpreted the Act that income averaging is not permitted, for calculation of entitlements each payment interval has to be assessed separately. Many decades past I knew the Act and that was the interpretation then. So unless it has been changed, and then changed back, again I am mystified how the system was ever allowed to operate that way because it was clearly wrong. Where are the audit reports? The reviews of debts in the early stages demonstrated this, for those who could produced pay slips the correct method was applied which in many cases reduced or eliminated the debt. Why did the government double down and keep issuing debt notices?
The scheme never did produce the savings that were touted at the start. The only way you could miscalculate so badly would be to assume that many clients would not be able to get the correct assessment method applied and so the incorrect calculated method would be applied by default.
This was the truly evil and unprincipled part, to demand that the client prove that they did not receive the averaged amount in each period. The court struck that down too. Aside from the public anger at this travesty I will bet there were many insiders incensed by it too - but they are not allowed to speak, they have to do as they are told and shut up.
If we had proper whistleblower protection you would see those responsible, whether they are politicians or officers, exposed. Now it may never happen as the Minister having signed off in the first place, for whatever reason, will bring down the shutters unless some authority like a royal commission demands an explanation.
An open question. Will CentreLink reassesses the individuals issued with unlawfully determined debts? Does the court outcome preclude new notices based on the legally correct method?
Is one of the issues for CentreLink that the level of detail held by the ATO is insufficient to reliably determine the debts in many instances? Or more broadly determine fairly who may be required to refund an over payment?
IE Is it possible one person may owe a debt and is not able to be assessed reliably due to the nature of their tax records, hence no debt determined. While others due to how they were employed have a tax record that can be properly assessed, hence any debt will be recoverable. Surely it is not that uncertain?
Something those who work on the other side of the CentreLink service desks or end of phone might be able to clarify. But are restricted from commenting on publicly.
No but politics might.
