Would you be prepared to have a closer look at some of the relevant information around this? I ask because I've been keeping a close eye on this, and have been for years now, and what you say strikes me as not well informed.
Quite possibly. I honestly haven't followed it too closely.
I've been on Jobseeker in recent times, and the system (at least from what I can tell) is pretty infalliable.
You report each fortnight you and your partners earnings and hours, and that then reduces the amount you get from Centrelink.
They already know my partners income, so can check bank records if I'm lieing to them or misreporting.
That said I can certainly understand that people on Centrelink would be those struggling the most. I've literally had $20 in my bank account some weeks, and coupled with the fact I'm reporting my wifes pre tax income (which can be anything from $1000 - $1300 a week), there was one stage I went through an entire month without a cent from them. When you are putting in $600pw rent from that, plus other expenditures (like food, phone bills, internet, power bills, etc), it can get rather tight.
Many people just think that people on Jobseeker get the full $750 a fortnight (or whatever it is), and that's far from the truth.
But back to my point, in that if people are already financially struggling and have financial stress, then if Centrelink are saying they have an imaginary debt (and enforcing it), that could definitely break some people.
The question needs to be asked though, how did the debt (and subsequent chasing), end up on the system to begin with. Like was it information miskeyed, or a systems glitch that applied debt to a select number of customers, etc. That's what I meant by that debt doesn't just come from nowhere.
The KC and Commissioner have been brilliant and trying hard to get to the bottom of things.
www.theguardian.com
