An analysis of the Commonwealth Ombudsman report finding more than 100,000 Centrelink files are affected by 'income apportionment' -- an unlawful method of calculating debts -- from 2003 to 2020.
Is income apportionment something that only affected those with (accused) debts and/or those under some sort of review? The thing I'm wondering is if their practice and understanding involved an incorrect way of calculating entitlements, that may have extended to people that were not accused of a debt, or not under review, and so other groups of people may have been underpaid. You may have covered this somewhere and I missed it.
Apologies for delays in responding. I have discussed this matter today, coincidentally, with stakeholders in social security. My opinion is that even those payments that did not result in debts may have been subject to unlawful apportionment under s 1073B. That opinion was echoed by the person I spoke to, who works in the social security space (an NGO). The Ombo's report seems to acknowledge that underpayments may have occurred; I am not sure whether that is identified to be a possibility only for
(a) those who have debts and who may have, upon recalculation, not just have a reduced or zeroed debt, but may have been underpaid; or
(b) those who may have been underpaid merely because they were a Centrelink recipient subject to apportionment.
However, as noted, I think all recipients are candidates for review, because apportionment was applied so frequently. The first step i would suggest any concerned past or current recipient should do is request their full Centrelink file under FOI and then look at the EAT sheet. If multiple fortnights in the calculator are the same amount successively, that would, in my view, be something to take up with the agencies or other relevant advisors (ie, notmydebt, Economic Justice Australia, ACOSS, etc).
Is income apportionment something that only affected those with (accused) debts and/or those under some sort of review? The thing I'm wondering is if their practice and understanding involved an incorrect way of calculating entitlements, that may have extended to people that were not accused of a debt, or not under review, and so other groups of people may have been underpaid. You may have covered this somewhere and I missed it.
Hi Bob
Apologies for delays in responding. I have discussed this matter today, coincidentally, with stakeholders in social security. My opinion is that even those payments that did not result in debts may have been subject to unlawful apportionment under s 1073B. That opinion was echoed by the person I spoke to, who works in the social security space (an NGO). The Ombo's report seems to acknowledge that underpayments may have occurred; I am not sure whether that is identified to be a possibility only for
(a) those who have debts and who may have, upon recalculation, not just have a reduced or zeroed debt, but may have been underpaid; or
(b) those who may have been underpaid merely because they were a Centrelink recipient subject to apportionment.
However, as noted, I think all recipients are candidates for review, because apportionment was applied so frequently. The first step i would suggest any concerned past or current recipient should do is request their full Centrelink file under FOI and then look at the EAT sheet. If multiple fortnights in the calculator are the same amount successively, that would, in my view, be something to take up with the agencies or other relevant advisors (ie, notmydebt, Economic Justice Australia, ACOSS, etc).