Services Australia is actively chasing $4.9 billion in unpaid welfare debts from more than 829,000 individuals, with some debts dating back as far as 1979. Recent revelations indicate that a portion of these debts may have been calculated using a controversial method known as income apportionment, leading to concerns about the validity of these claims.
Controversy
Income apportionment, a calculation method used from the 1990s until its cessation in December 2020, involved creating a “daily average” of income when payslips lacked detailed information such as hours or days worked. This often led to inaccurate debt assessments, as some welfare recipients were overpaid and later required to repay funds despite reporting their income accurately.
A federal court appeal is currently pending to determine whether this practice resulted in illegitimate debt recovery. The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s 2023 review identified around 100,000 debts as being potentially affected by income apportionment, and subsequent investigations have increased this figure to 147,773 questionable debts linked to over 100,000 customers.
Government Response
Services Australia paused recovery of income apportionment debts last year and assigned 150 staff members to resolve these matters. Spokesperson Hank Jongen emphasized that no decision has been made regarding waiving or refunding these debts, as such action would require government approval.
The government has also signaled its intent to improve debt recovery processes and agreed in principle with a royal commission’s recommendation to reinstate a six-year limitation on debt recovery. However, it has yet to implement this change or confirm if it will apply to existing debts.
Calls for Reform
Critics argue that pursuing decades-old debts, especially those potentially calculated unlawfully, unfairly targets vulnerable individuals relying on social security.
- Penny Allman-Payne, Greens social services spokesperson, condemned the effort, stating:”It’s unconscionable that [the government] invests so much effort in pursuing debts that didn’t even exist.”
She urged the government to act on the royal commission’s recommendation to enforce a six-year limit on debt recovery. - Kristin O’Connell, spokesperson for the Antipoverty Centre, called for an immediate pause on all debt recovery activities, citing the harm caused by aggressive collection practices:”Extracting billions from people in poverty is the policy outcome they wanted, even though hundreds of thousands of these debts are not legitimate.”
Lessons from Robodebt
The Robodebt scandal, which saw the government unlawfully raise billions in automated debt claims, serves as a cautionary tale. The fallout from Robodebt emphasized the importance of fairness and accuracy in welfare debt systems. Critics argue that lessons from Robodebt have not been fully implemented, and vulnerable citizens remain at risk of unjust treatment.
Path Forward
The Department of Social Services has stated its commitment to ensuring fairness in debt recovery processes, emphasizing the need for systematic reform. While steps are being taken to improve the system, advocacy groups continue to push for greater protections for welfare recipients.
The outcome of the pending federal court appeal on income apportionment debts may play a crucial role in shaping future policies. For now, the government faces mounting pressure to deliver a fairer, more transparent approach to social security debt recovery.
SOURCE – LINK
FAQs
What is income apportionment?
A method averaging income for debt calculation, often inaccurately.
How much unpaid debt is Services Australia pursuing?
$4.9 billion across 829,266 individuals.
Why is income apportionment controversial?
It led to inaccurate debts, with some recipients overcharged.
What is the six-year debt recovery limit?
A proposed cap on recovering debts older than six years.
What changes are being proposed?
Fairer debt systems and a six-year recovery limit are under review.
