Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

 

[Hyacyinth Bucket]

Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

View attachment 26596

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

View attachment 26597

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

I don’t trust Centrelink. The whole system is a rort.

 

[Sheenagh]

Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

View attachment 26596

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

View attachment 26597

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

When our mum passed away in 2010 our dad had dealings with Centrelink, he came away with having been advised he would receive funds far in advance of anything he thought he should get. His situation did not need a huge amount of assistance. In the 2 months after his 1st appointment to question the initial outcome he came away with the same over calculated advice. On making another appointment at another Centrelink Office and requesting a further review, the issue was sorted but not before him being totally stressed which was all totally unnecessary.
I am really happy to know that the dealings of Centrelink are being investigated. They are there to help and for the most part, the Centrelink Staff dont have a particularly happy job but isnt this just another example of how the bigger the company - the bigger the mistakes. Policies and Procedures can be easily misconstrued, and misinterpreted. additions and changes to these documents need to be done with a certain expertise, and kept on top of.

 

[KiwiTrish]

Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

View attachment 26596

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

View attachment 26597

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

I’d be interested as 2 of my family got debts that we believed were centrelink’s fault and 1 still paying it off

 

[ChristyMahon]

These problems arise less because of mathematical complexity and disregard for legal compliance, but more for the jealousy that covers payments to those citizens who are deemed unworthy by those who deem themselves more worthy. No one vets Richard Marles exploitation of treasury funds when he walzes his photoshoot crew first class around. the world. No one with a property portfolio considers their negative gearing subsidies to be an abuse of the nations finances. No one with a share portfolio is troubled by their franking credits. But wobetide the poor bugger and his family, who loses his job when the CEO figures a cost saving innovation to enlarge executive bonuses. Wobetide the old man who needs a pension because the Family Court relieved him of his super. Wobetide the old lady who has no super because housewives had no income.
In other words, it is the cruel conceit of wide Australia and its contempt towards battlers that Morrison, Tudge, Campbell and Porter exploited. A pox on the country too jealous to be a real Nation. A pox on those whose pride and ignorance is too large to wear their brothers moccasins. A pox on the divas who design and implement abusive policies for political theatre.

 

[StephenNikita]

Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

View attachment 26596

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

View attachment 26597

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

I was made to pay back money on several occasions with no explanation

 

[Monica Sheppard]

Yes l am paying an overpayment for 10 years and am still waiting for a review in person for two years .it was when l was having cancer treatment.l don't even have any written paperwork .last week they put mypayment up from $25 a fortnight to $125 a fortnight because my husband has some money in the bank left to him after his mother died.this comes out of my fortnightly pension.the stress this has caused me is so upsetting because you can't speak to anyone .you have to ring the debt line .

 

[Monica Sheppard]

Yes l have been paying a so called over payment for 10 years. You can't talk to anyone to resolve the issue.its in review for 2 years .l don't even have original paperwork.l am so surprised this has finally come to the people involved.but knowing this government there will be NO COMMENT

 

[Aussie all the Way]

Definitely watching this as I've had 2 debts that I've paid off and I am sure they were WRONG because I reported everything religiously for fear of this exact outcome, yet still got request for overpayments, and when asked for proof a big fat 0.

 

[Trudi]

These problems arise less because of mathematical complexity and disregard for legal compliance, but more for the jealousy that covers payments to those citizens who are deemed unworthy by those who deem themselves more worthy. No one vets Richard Marles exploitation of treasury funds when he walzes his photoshoot crew first class around. the world. No one with a property portfolio considers their negative gearing subsidies to be an abuse of the nations finances. No one with a share portfolio is troubled by their franking credits. But wobetide the poor bugger and his family, who loses his job when the CEO figures a cost saving innovation to enlarge executive bonuses. Wobetide the old man who needs a pension because the Family Court relieved him of his super. Wobetide the old lady who has no super because housewives had no income.
In other words, it is the cruel conceit of wide Australia and its contempt towards battlers that Morrison, Tudge, Campbell and Porter exploited. A pox on the country too jealous to be a real Nation. A pox on those whose pride and ignorance is too large to wear their brothers moccasins. A pox on the divas who design and implement abusive policies for political theatre.

"No one with a property portfolio considers their negative gearing subsidies to be an abuse of the nations finances. No one with a share portfolio is troubled by their franking credits."

As an accountant, I can assure you that "negative gearing" is NOT a benefit! As the owner of a couple of rental properties, I very much prefer to have a sufficiently high rental income to cover the expenses, rather than having to dip into my income from other sources - these days those other sources are a smallish superannuation pension and dividends from a few shares.

This brings me to franking credits. If you are a small business owner, you pay tax on the business income. When it comes to companies, regardless of whether they are listed and unlisted companies, they too have owners, many of whom are individuals. As the company has already paid income tax on net earnings before dividend distributions, it would be double taxation to hit shareholders for tax on already taxed income. The ATO could just say that since tax was already paid on dividend income, the income is tax free in the hands of the shareholder, except of course, most shareholders are in higher tax brackets than the company tax of 30%. For simplification, let us say that you receive a $70 dividend, on which the company has paid $30 tax. Rather than declaring $70 in your tax return, you must add the tax component (franking credits) to arrive at a gross inome of $100. Even if you are in the 32.5% tax bracket, you will have to pay and additional 2.5% (plus 2% Medicare levy) in your dividend income after being credited for the franking credit.

 

[Robbo3006]

Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

View attachment 26596

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

View attachment 26597

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

Minister for everything scummo reckons he's got nothing to answer for, royal commission reckons he does, who do I believe? Our governments screw us all the time. Drain the swamp, they're all in bed together, no difference between the scumbag corrupt self serving cronies.

 

[20Mysenior23]

Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

View attachment 26596

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

View attachment 26597

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

I too was stung. When I applied for rental assistance the person who took my information put my rent as weekly payment instead of fortnightly. Due to her error this overpayment by them was picked up a few years later. I am now paying them back for their typo error. I was told I should have picked up this oversight myself, not knowing how they calculated rental assistance. Also I should have picked it up on my statements, which I never received and still don’t.

 

[Aussie D]

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.
This is not true. the deeming rate on even meagre savings in your account is calculated on what they deem you COULD make, not on what you ACTUALLY make. I queried this, saying my tax return proved I only made $8 interest in the last financial year, however they dock my fortnightly payment calculated as if I earned 7 times that amount simply because they say I COULD make the larger amount if invested better. I'm talking about my everyday savings account. So they are taking money off me that i haven't even earned. And we have no power to change this practice.

 

[Ashmenou]

These problems arise less because of mathematical complexity and disregard for legal compliance, but more for the jealousy that covers payments to those citizens who are deemed unworthy by those who deem themselves more worthy. No one vets Richard Marles exploitation of treasury funds when he walzes his photoshoot crew first class around. the world. No one with a property portfolio considers their negative gearing subsidies to be an abuse of the nations finances. No one with a share portfolio is troubled by their franking credits. But wobetide the poor bugger and his family, who loses his job when the CEO figures a cost saving innovation to enlarge executive bonuses. Wobetide the old man who needs a pension because the Family Court relieved him of his super. Wobetide the old lady who has no super because housewives had no income.
In other words, it is the cruel conceit of wide Australia and its contempt towards battlers that Morrison, Tudge, Campbell and Porter exploited. A pox on the country too jealous to be a real Nation. A pox on those whose pride and ignorance is too large to wear their brothers moccasins. A pox on the divas who design and implement abusive policies for political theatre.

Well said

 

[Nanamarree]

Centrelink cancelled my Disability Pension because people had told them that my estranged husband was living with me……We omly shared the house.
I appealed the decision but it was denied so I took it further and it was found that Centrelink owed me money….about 2 months after I received the payment, Centrelink contacted me saying that I still owed them $49000 which I am having to pay off

 

[Teseno]

We

Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

View attachment 26596

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

View attachment 26597

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

Had two children start work in January ( 200x) and notified Clink in that Jan. Come tax time Clink sent out paperwork to fill in and we dutifully did same. There was a section that asked what they earned. We asked them and filled it in . Next thing we know was a Clink bill for 3.5k. Protested and ended up still paying. The woman there told us we should have left it blank because Clink had no right to ask us for their tax details.

 

[Jenniw]

Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

View attachment 26596

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

View attachment 26597

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

I have one of the debts from years ago that has sat ‘under review’ for o

Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

View attachment 26596

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

View attachment 26597

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

View attachment 26596

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

View attachment 26597

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

Yes, I am one of those with a debt going back years. I demanded a review and the debt has now been ‘under review’ for over a year. Good on Senator Patrick for fighting this through. Definitely an old style ‘representative’ who is there for his constituents. Thank you. Hopefully will be resolved soon in light of this finding.

 

[michpen]

Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

View attachment 26596

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

View attachment 26597

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

 

[michpen]

Going through a debt problem , Their fault . Had them check , did make a repayment for over payment . they told me then after recheck im good . 2 weeke later for same debt im told i still owe . I will go as high as i have too , its them not me . Need some big changes made at that place , it stinks

 

[kevinwoodtufftyke52@gmail]

Could you be one of the 100,000 potentially affected by Centrelink's miscalculated debt system?

In a shocking revelation, a report has unearthed that an error in the state welfare system might have led to the incorrect calculation of up to 100,000 debts or potential debts over the past twenty years.

These miscalculations were allegedly conducted by ‘unlawfully apportioning’ welfare recipients’ income.

The report released found that from at least 2003 to December 2020, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia miscalculated debts due to an ‘incorrect’ understanding of social security law.

Ombudsman Iain Anderson stated that this was due to a 'genuinely' held belief that their calculation method was accurate, unlike the infamous Robodebt scandal that caught so many Australians off guard.

Robodebt ‘initiated and continued without legislative changes the agencies knew were required’, Anderson pointed out.

View attachment 26596

Up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts miscalculated over two decades, ombudsman finds. Credit: Shutterstock

​

The issue was first brought to light by the brave efforts of then-senator Rex Patrick after a $1,600 debt was drawn into suspicion.

Patrick’s tenacity led to an administrative appeals tribunal ruling that this purported debt had ‘not been proved’.

The mechanisms behind these debt calculations are anything but straightforward. Centrelink, being the chief provider of Australia's welfare payments, often relies on employment payslips for its debt calculations.

However, this doesn't account for cases where payslips don't align with the fortnightly income reporting periods.

In such situations, the agency has been found to create a ‘daily’ average.

View attachment 26597

In some cases, payslips don't always match up with the fortnightly income-reporting periods that can be used by Services Australia to calculate welfare debts. Credit: Shutterstock

The Ombudsman found that a process of ‘apportionment’ was used to spread welfare recipients’ employment income across two or more fortnightly periods, which were then used to calculate entitlement to government payments such as JobSeeker.

‘This was not permitted by section 1037B of the Social Security Act as it was in force prior to 7 December 2020,’ the report stated.

‘Apportioning income across multiple Centrelink fortnights caused problems with calculations, as customers could be over- or under-paid if employment income were apportioned into Centrelink fortnights when it was not earned, derived or received,’ it continued.

Ombudsman Anderson also reassured that the practice is ‘not related’ to Robodebt, where recipients’ yearly income was averaged across 26-fortnight payments.

According to the report, the ‘Robodebt calculation methodology frequently switched the burden of proof away from Centrelink to prove a debt existed, and onto the customer to prove a debt did not exist’.

Despite this, the upshot remains troubling for thousands of Australians, with the Ombudsman concluding that the apportionment ‘likely affected social security payment rates and may have [led] to unfair debts against customers’.

With this issue exposed, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia are taking steady steps towards a resolution.

The exact scope of the debts affected remains unclear. Services Australia has paused roughly 13,000 debt reviews, while an additional 87,000 cases could potentially be affected.

Meanwhile, Rex Patrick's comments on the issue are particularly noteworthy: ‘Whilst technically different to Robodebt, the effect it had on those who received debt notices was the same.’

‘It left many already struggling people in great distress,’ he stressed.

Now here's the most important part what's being done about it? The Ombudsman has recommended the agencies seek counsel from the Solicitor-General and, as a last resort, suggested a federal court test case.

This was only ‘partially’ accepted by Services Australia, and a warning was, in turn, issued, stating that the resolution process could take up to two years.

The ministers of social services and government services, Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten, have pledged their commitment to resolving this complex issue.

‘The practice of income apportionment has not been used to calculate social security payments since July 2021,’ Rishworth said.

‘Agencies have confirmed this has not happened under the Albanese Labor government’s watch. However, there may be potential debts or overpayments that remain unresolved.’

We urge all of you at the Seniors Discount Club who may be affected to keep an eye on this development.

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman found up to 100,000 debts or potential debts were miscalculated over two decades due to an 'incorrect' understanding of social security law.
• The 'apportionment' method, spreading employment income across multiple fortnightly periods, may have led to unfair debts against welfare recipients.
• It is still unclear how many debts are affected, and the Ombudsman has recommended seeking advice from the solicitor general.
• The social services minister, the government services minister, and agencies welcomed the report, confirming they stopped using this method of income apportionment in July 2021. However, potential debts and overpayments may still remain unresolved.

If you’d like to share your story to raise awareness and help others, then please get in touch in the comments section below.

More Centrelink disasters! Heads must roll. The quality of management is a shambles and should be sacked! People have been badly treated by Centrelink.