Q&A: Laughter as George Brandis says debt recovery notices can be fixed by contacting Centrelink
Updated
Attorney-General George Brandis has engaged in a heated discussion about offshore detention centres on Q&A, but it was the senator's suggestion wrongly issued debt recovery notices could be resolved by contacting Centrelink that drew one of the biggest audience responses.
How the debt recovery system works:
- The system sends you a letter advising you of a potential welfare debt and asks you to review its figures online. It also sends an SMS
- When you log on you can update the information. You have 21 days from the date of the letter to go online and update
- If you don't log on, Centrelink will make a default judgement its information is accurate. You will then be issued with a debt notice
- If you do update the information, Centrelink may ask you to provide supporting documentation. This can include bank statements, letters from an employer, or payslips
- If you think the decision is wrong you can ask for a review
- If you or someone you know needs help, call Lifeline on 13 11 14
The program had heard from Lyndsey Jackson, the creator of a website for people who had wrongly received letters as part of the debt recovery scheme, who said hundreds of people were suffering anxiety as they were forced to disprove the claims.
If you or anyone you know needs help:
- Lifeline on 13 11 14
- Kids Helpline on 1800 551 800
- MensLine Australia on 1300 789 978
- Suicide Call Back Service on 1300 659 467
- Beyond Blue on 1300 22 46 36
- Headspace on 1800 650 890
"Tragically on the weekend we heard that a young man had taken his own life, in part attributed to the stress of having a $10,000 Centrelink debt issued to him from many years earlier," she said.
Senator Brandis said there was a simple solution to remedy an incorrectly issued notice.
"When a notice is issued and it appears to the person to whom the notice is issued a mistake has been made, they can contact Centrelink and sort out the problem," he said to laughter from the audience.
Deputy Labor Leader Tanya Plibersek, who was also on the panel, was quick to respond.
"What's the average call waiting time now George?" she said.
She then asked one of the audience members — a mother of three and former teacher now on a $22,000 disability support pension that was under review — how long she had spent on hold to Centrelink during her last call to the organisation.
"It took me a few weeks every day for 1.5 hours a day to make that call," Fred Thorpe replied.
Senator Brandis moved to shift the blame for the bungled automated debt collection scheme, pointing out the data matching methodology used for the scheme was introduced in 2011 when Ms Plibersek was the minister for human services.
"I didn't stuff it up the way you have stuffed it up, George," Ms Plibersek responded.
However, Senator Brandis, backed up by political commentator Piers Akerman, said welfare payment reviews were fundamental for ensuring support was going to those who needed it most.
"People who are not entitled to the benefits they claim do need to be identified, and because there are millions and millions of claimants of various forms of transfer payments under the welfare system in Australia, that is going to have to be done by various techniques, including automated techniques," Senator Brandis said.
Barrister and human rights advocate Julian Burnside weighed in on the matter, disagreeing and saying it was "inevitable" some people would take too much and it was better to avoid reviews that placed people under undue anxiety.
"When a system of social support is being set up, you can either make it lean or you can make it slightly generous. Either way, problems will emerge," he said.
"Make it too thin, some people will suffer. Make it too generous, some people will rort it.
"…We need to decide as a matter of social policy that we would prefer to be generous and be taken advantage of on occasions than be mean and have catastrophic outcomes."
Refugees commit 'offences against our migration laws'
Mr Burnside and Senator Brandis later traded blows after a member of the audience asked what could happen to asylum seekers on Manus Island and Nauru who would be subject to extreme vetting under the deal to have them resettled in the US.
Senator Brandis said the deal, made under the Obama administration, always included a plan for extreme vetting.
However, Mr Burnside took the Attorney-General to task over why they were in detention, asking what offences he believed the refugees committed by seeking to come to Australia.
Senator Brandis said they committed "offences against our migration laws" but when pressed on which ones, said he would not "quote them".
Mr Burnside: Tell me why is it that none of them were ever prosecuted for having arrived the way they did? Instead we just punished them.
Senator Brandis: We don't punish them.
Mr Burnside: Yes, we do.
Senator Brandis: We don't.
Mr Burnside: Three years in a hellhole — that is punishment.
Senator Brandis: We didn't institute Manus Island.
Mr Burnside: But you didn't close it either.
Akerman warned that if the asylum seekers were allowed into Australia it would open the floodgates to others, saying "if you put the sugar on the table, the ants will come".
Ms Plibersek said she "bizarrely" agreed with Akerman that the refugees should be resettled in another country, saying she did want to avoid encouraging people smuggling.
However, Michele Levine, the chief executive of survey company Roy Morgan, said a poll showed of the approximately 50 per cent of Australians who did not want the asylum seekers settled in Australia, it was not due to concerns about border security or "hordes of people coming".
"It is really concerns about do we have enough housing, will we be able the fit them in, what about our own poor," she said.
"Those are the sorts of issues that are concerning people."
Topics: welfare, refugees, human, immigration, government-and-politics, australia
First posted
