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?