What a set of unfortunate circumstances. How could so many things go wrong? One must wonder if the carer is on top of the situation rather than just palming it off on the government and hoping they get it right.

I have a close relative in similar medical circumstances but have had none of the Centrelink problems described here.

In fact, because Simon says the family home was sold to pay the bond indicates to me the person with the Enduring Power of Attorney ( or other responsible family member) has been completely sleeping at the switch. We found a wealth of information on the Federal Dept of Aging web site that guided us through the process, including the significant bit explaining that home operators could not charge a bond if it required the sale of the family home.

In going through this process we have had the complete support of ACAT and Centrelink. This is not to say they didn't always get everything right as it is a rather complex process, but we did follow up and insure all forms were correctly processed and all the various players in the process were in the loop and communicating.

This blog is nothing more than an anti-Howard rant. I am sure the author using his PhD candidate research skills would have seen and been able to use all the information if he had been looking for it.

Hey there Simon, we need to take responsibility for our own (in) actions

Hey Bruce, you have had no troubles with Centrelink therefore you conclude Simon Schooneveld must be doing an anti-Howard rant. My family can match Schooneveldt's nightmare story of Centrelink's bungling (not to mention the great cost to the taxpayer in the end). So the score against Centrelink is two-one. What name-blame-game will you now produce? Or could it be that your experience of Centrelink is just different from ours?

FrankGol - Simon's experience (and probably yours too if I knew the details) sound about par for the Centrelink course. I and other members of my family have met with pretty much uniform hostility, rudeness and incompetence, in a number of matters to do with pensions and unemployment benefits. Having worked for the old DSS, (and not been too impressed with its efficiency), I thought I'd have some chance of knowing the ropes with its successor, but Centrelink is orders of magnitude worse.

One reason is that, even in the DSS days, computer record updates were too time-consuming to be done regularly in a busy office, and it's bound to be worse now, with reduced staffing. And the culture of contempt for the recipients of welfare, sickening even when I worked there in the early 90s, is unlikely to have changed for the better.

Its not just a Centerlink thing. Its the way the system deals with issues and complaints. They send letters to the wrong address, or they dont even send it, they just put a copy on their records and say that they did. They threaten, they discredit, they intimidate, they harrass and they bully in the hope that you will just become full of despair and give up. That way the problem and issue is solved in their books.

So long as their records tell the story that they want to present, then they are covered as nobody is required to actually believe or listen to the General Public.

It doesn't surprise me, its just such a shame that humans can be treated like that and those responsible not have to answer to anyone.

As a first time contributer I would like to commend this site for the opportuinity,in the Australian tradition, " To have a say." As an aged welfare recipient, 68 years young, my experience is a mixture of the good and bad, firstly, all correspondance and communication with C/L, must at all times be recorded, and if possible stamped by C/L staff, this is a major priority, as due to the blunders and ineffeciency of the system the client must be able to maintain a fallback position.All those dealing with C/L need to educate themselves as to their rights,unfortunatly many people are not able to do this, young people and older people who may lack the ability or interest. A positive side to C/L is that the F.I.S service that is available is very helpful to any one that needs assistance,another thing I need to say is that I give thanks to live in a country that does support the needy even though a lot of mistakes are made.

I think Centrelink should be in charge of overseas sales of wheat, taking over the AWB's role, because they would have picked up the alleged overpayments.

The AWB should therefore take over Centrelinks job because they wouldn't insist on families calculating their incomes to the exact dollar. I mean the AWB can't even do that.

Last year the Treasury was out by 50% in it's budget estimates and yet battling Aussie families and pensioners with few or minimal resources have to be exact to the dollar in their calculations.

Seems we expect more from people without the financial ability to get things exactly right and allow organisations who have the staff and skills necessary to do correct calculations to get things wrong.

Does this seem strange to anyone else?

I wonder if Centrelink budgets itself to the exact dollar? If not why not? It expects it of everyone else.

As a past carer of a demented parent (since deceased) I've had mixed responses from Centrelink staff. A strong unionist myself, I always managed to find out whether my 'customer service officers' were also in their union. I found out a lot from this. Like all organisations dealing with (generally) highly dependent and vulnerable 'customers', Centrelink has a strong mix of staff members who are there to help and do so to the best of their ability. There are also those who, like prison officers, believe that their institution backs them to bludgeon 'cheats' and 'bludgers'. These 'god's police' will stop at nothing to humiliate and degrade those they consider unworthy. I have an honest face (I've been told this by innumerable people of diverse cultures and classes)and I learnt to look these bullies in the eye and innocently ask them whether they've had 'many wealthfare cheats in lately'. As you can imagine, the initial response was to treat me as if I had a lisp but my clear, well-articulated and modulated voice usually carried the message to every 'customer' and staff member. Today's wealthfare cheats are probably AWB directors and private employment service providers...and (as always)retired politicians working as government consultants and... when you get a chance to make a similar speech, always acknowledge the local wealthfare bludgers that other Centrelink 'customers' as clearly and vocally recognise.

diri

Centrelink is nasty and bullying to its frontline workers. A relative of mine experienced harrassment, bullying, threats, and racism from her team leader. Senior management do nothing but reward the bullies. It is no wonder that the quality of the work and attitude of the staff has slipped. People who care for the centrelink clients are bullied out as my family member was

I don't believe this is a fair go for Cenrelink, they are an equal opportunity service. They treat all customers equally badly.

Shonga - you are right Centrelink does treat all customers equally badly. I have had to deal with them over a residency sponsorship issue - all they had to do was allow us to put a substantial amount of our own money into a bank account that we had to set up ourselves -should be simple you would think. But no they insist on making the whole thing as complicated as possible, required us to take two days off work, actually set up a second bank account so that we could transfer money into the first one, wouldn't answer my calls, were exceptionally rude when I did get through which is a bit rich as they weren't paying us anything, managed to lose all the paperwork and delayed the whole visa application by six months. Why Centrelink had to be involved at all is beyond me - a complete waste of taxpayers money and everyones time. Surely they could have spent the time more efficiently bungling something more important. And that is just Centrelinks contribution - I won't even start on DIMIA! The only good thing to come out of it is that I will do whatever it takes never to have anything to do with them again.

I can well believe that anyone who is depending on Centrelink for basic needs must be really pulling their hair out and quite possibly going hungry too. At least mine only went grey!

A close friend of mine had 26 years continuous service with the one company and then bang! Corporate raider takes over the company and my gentle friend is made redundant. Family grown up, wife recently died, in a rural area 50 ks from town and my friend goes to Centrelink after his employment service providers had exhausted short-term, casual,low-paid employment 'options'for him (he'd formerly worked his way to middle management level in his 'lifetime employment'). He won't be paid unemployment benefits until he (thriftfully) uses up his self-funded superannuation. He dutifully follows the dictates of Centrelink and his private 'service provider', does several useless 'training courses'(self-funded back and forth to town) to make him more 'job ready', pursues every 'suitable' employment 'option'.

Four years on and this true-blue Aussie worker who'd never taken a recreational 'sickie' in his life and is not 'into drugs' - is on Prozac. According to doctors who indiscriminately prescribe it to the Long-term Unemployed, it 'makes you feel good, but we don't know why'. At 60 years old, this intelligent, diligent and until recently - fit and healthy, extremely worthy human being is struggling to keep his dignity together. When his hard-fought for 'nest egg' funds are exhausted, he'll be old enough for the Aged Pension - if he's still alive.

Beazley apparently believes himself to be as 'socially conservative as Howard'. Have they ever tried middle-to-old-age on the Centrelink Pill (as Prozac is now called)?

Gives a whole new dimension to 'welfare dependency', doesn't it?

And - there are still some bloody good and caring Centrelink workers hanging in there , angry and fighting for fair and equitable social security (non-capitalised) just as a lot on the 'outside' do. But they're definitely fast burning-out and a highly-vulnerable minority in the 'god's police' structured violence of Howard's (and probably Beazley's) welfare vision for the world.

diri

Having heard of a few cases where people had to pay back a full years Centrelink payments for understating their incomes accidentally by some tiny amount the Treasury example I gave earlier should be worrying to the Govt.

See http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1516400.htm see Saul Eslake Chief Economist ANZ BANK first comments.

The Govt underestimated their income by around $4 billion several years running no small mistake! So as we are all equal under the law shouldn't the Govt (leading by example) pay back the whole years extra income to those who paid it? US! Haven't they misled us on their earnings?

If the Govt accidently understated their incomes by $4 billion should they get a criminal record like the Centrelink ads say?

Or is this another case of Govt's saying do as we say not as we do?

In 1984, I received a debt from Centrelink for overpayment. Between 1984, and 1998, I paid the debt. In June, 1998, I received a letter from Centrelink, telling me that the debt had been fully recovered. Almost 2 years later, May, 2000, I received another letter from Centrelink, advising me that I still owed $ 8,500.oo on that debt. I protested that debt at every opportunity. Twice I was threatened with arrest for attending Offices and refusing to leave until they had someone look at my proof. They continued to withold over $ 1,500 a year from my Pension, which forced us to sell assets, and withdraw money from our Super. Finally, in 2004, I managed to get the debt looked at properly, and the conclusion reached was that Centrelink COULD NOT, in fact, PROVE the debt existed. They then refunded me over $ 5,600.oo, with NO apology.

I have the following documentation :

1. A letter from Mr. Joe Hockey, stating that .." the debt was re-raised due to Administrative Error...and you were incorrectly advised on a number of occasions.."

2. A Centrelink Internal Memo, where a Debt Research Officer states " ...we are saying that he paid $ 40.oo in a 4 year period. This I find hard to believe....I recommend that we refund the witholdings.."

3. Letters from Centrelink, stating that on various occasions they have " thoroughly and conclusively researched this debt, yet find no error"

4. Letter from Centrelink's CDDA investigator, claiming that "...although the debt should not have been re-raised, what Centrelink did was in fact, proper in law..".
My question is this : How can a debt raised by Administrative Error be " proper in law " ??
I have just accessed my Centrelink file under FOI....what a disaster ! I am on a disability pension for a fall suffered years ago, and while that is recognised on my file, so is the entry made that I have Coronary Heart Disease. Is Centrelink clairvoyant now ?

This has GOT to be stopped: and Joe Hockey seems unable or unwilling to do so.

watchdoggie1951. What a nightmare. It seems like the system has set up the Law so that no matter what they do they are not responsible and they dont have to answer or admit thier mistakes. You must remember that the Governments main aim is to protect the reputation and position of the Government and to protect them from being sued. So if they dont admit anything and they dont address the issues and the paper work is set up to cover up, then you will go around and around in circles until you either give up or go mad.

That is where all the money is going - to cover up - instead of fixing up.

Funny how the general public doesn't get the level of "protection" that public servants get. Far out, so much is expected from us, yet so little from them. As for Ministers, they are just spokespeople, they are not worth the money that we pay them. A total waste of resources and funding.

My friend's 80 year old mother has recently become victim to Centrelink/government habit of changing the rules. She is the widow of a veteran, who when alive built their home and also built a small holiday house to which his widow likes to move in the heat of a Qld summer. The house is nothing special and would need a ;ot of work done before it would be saleable. Once upon a time pensions were assessed on income but now the income test is replaced by the assets test. the asset test inolves the valuation of property by a tame Centrelink assessor. In C's case this assessor valued the holiday home as if it was a brand new house in A1 condition in a new Sunshine Coast estate, instead of and old fibro home in a back street, several blocks from the beach. This valuation would have resulted in the total loss of C's pension. She was told that if she sold the house she would lose the pension as well. She cannot gift it to her 4 sons. To sell it she would need to have $1000's of work done to realise about two thirds of the Centrelink valuation at best given the market value of similar houses in the area. Fortunately she was able to appeal and produce an alternative, more realistic valuation but next year she will have to undergo the same thing.

It seems to me that Centrelink is only interested in cutting as many people (mainly those who are NOT bludgers) off from the benefits they have paid taxes for all their lives.

Since Centrelink was created to replace the old DSS they have an unwritten policy of not replying to or acknowledging corresspondce sent to them. My policy is to send everything by Registered Mail, and this has paid off. Some five years ago Centrelink's Swan Hill office claimed that they had not received a copy of my annual income tax return. Ten minutes after phoning Aust Post, Centrelink phoned back saying it had just been delivered - three months late! (By the way, they'd signed for it the day after it was posted.) The situation got that bad that four years ago the federal member Sarman Stone (a Lib, by the way) sent out a flyer with the direct phone numbers to all the Centrelink office's in her electorate. I've since moved to the big smoke - wonder if Andrew Robb will do the same? Not holding my breath!

Centerlink likes to do things by phone and not in writing. I had trouble getting Centerlink to deal with an issue in writing, they didn't want to do it that way. Even when they did write to me they about the matter they just photocopied something out of a book and sent it with a with compliements slip. I had to formerly request that the matter be dealt with properly by correspondence, in the end they did but they didn't want to as it wasnt' the way things were done.

The way that they operate, they can write their version of what happened on the file, who can argue with them when it is your word against them, and the papers will present the story that they want to present when and if questions are ever asked.

Just with sending Registered Mail items. Pretty much all mail that is Registered is collected first and it is checked to see what it's about before it is processed, prepared and sent on to the relevant persons at the Departments.

The whole system is set up to cover up incompetence and misconduct in order to protect the reputation of the Government.

Rules for dealing with Centrelink
1. Always have documents photocopied by them after they have stamped the receipt date
2. Don't be afraid to go higher up the food chain to get satisfaction
3. Refferring a matter to your local federal member often results in an about face by Centrelink
4. writing to the minister gets things done 500% faster. (email addresses of ministers are in the public domain)

I was recently informed in a phone call to Centrelink that i could do something about the constant duplication of information being requested about me and for my 2 adult children who live at home. I had been asked yet again to fill in a family means test form and had only just done this for one child when it was requested for the other. Attendance at the office did not help. they refused to let me see the form I had submitted for my daughter and stated they could not use that information for her brother! The officer we had spoken to by phone had told us that this information could be used if I gave my consent but the branch denied this was the case. I promptly walked over the road to my local member's office, told them the story and within 5 minutes was informed that all I needed was a note giving permission and voila!

Thankfully now that I am no longer self-employed I won't have to go through this palava again (incidentally this incident occured 6 months AFTER I had closed my business down! Of course that does depend on whether they have updated my and my children's files to that effect!

why is it u send a replied envelope to them and it takes a week or more to get the thing should be 3days or is it them? and then you get the blame