Welfare recipients caught up in Centrelink’s automated debt recovery system have spoken of feeling powerless, afraid, stressed and overwhelmed.

The Senate inquiry into Centrelink’s debt recovery system, commonly referred to as “robo-debt”, has now received 66 submissions.



The majority are from community groups, welfare rights organisations and individual welfare recipients who continue to hold serious concerns about the way Centrelink is pursuing debts from the most vulnerable sections of Australian society.

The inquiry is considering a range of complaints about the system, which has prompted criticism of inaccuracy and unfairness since it began in mid-2016.

The system has recovered $24m in overpayments so far, although it has raised, or identified, $300m that Centrelink wants to claw back.

It sent about 217,000 initial letters demanding explanations for discrepancies in reported income between July and December, 36,305 of which did not result in a debt.

In one submission, a welfare recipient who was issued what appears to be a debt of more than $2,000 speaks of feeling powerless and afraid.

“You feel powerless to challenge Centrelink, you just put your head down and go along with every time-wasting resume writing course they put you in, so that you can still have a roof over your head,” the submission said.

“They have the power of destroying your life, actually and literally. Receiving an automated debt notice from Centrelink reinforces the punitive culture of the department, and shows their attitude that people who need income support are guilty until they prove their own innocence.”

The debt notice arrived two days before Christmas, according to the submission, and the welfare recipient was unable to contact their employer to track down old payslips to disprove the debt.

The welfare recipient knew the debt was wrong, but was struggling to find a way to prove it to the department.

“I knew the alleged debt had to be wrong, but I had no information about how they worked it out and arrived at that decision, so I had no way of checking it,” the submission said.

“I tried to contact my main employer for the time in question, to get payslips, but they are a small employment agency and were closed for the school holidays.

“I had a depressing, stressful Christmas and was scared to spend any money. I did not buy presents for my extended family and spent a good part of our Christmas meal together discussing my Centrelink case.”

The debt has since been reduced, and is still undergoing manual review.

In another submission, a welfare recipient spoke of being “pressured and stressed” after Centrelink began chasing alleged overpayments.

“It was time-consuming to request the information from my employers and it was very stressful to relive a very hard time of my life; however the collection of data was easier than reporting it to human services,” the submission said.



“The data matching in my case was incorrect and resulted in a fraudulent claim being laid against me. Under the current scheme, had I not provided my own evidence, I would have received a debt notice.”



A third submission spoke of the difficulty in reaching Centrelink staff over the Christmas period. The recipient said they had a debt reduced to zero, only for it to later be increase back to $1,300, and then removed again.

The submitter cited a commonly reported problem with the Centrelink system: its tendency to average out an annual income over 26 fortnights, and then deem a welfare recipient ineligible for benefits at any point during the year.

“Centerlink had just divided my total earnings by 26 and decided I reported incorrectly,” the submission said.

“If they had checked when I change my estimated income for the family tax benefit, this would have been clear, instead it was up to me to chase my employer for pay slips that were up to five years old.”

The Department of Human Services also made a submission to the Senate inquiry.

It said little had changed in the way it matched income data with the tax office. The department said it only averaged out annual income when a welfare recipient failed to provide details.

The department outlined a series of improvements made to the system since complaints were received late last year.

It also said it had conducted a pilot of the system, which had helped it refine its processes before a broader rollout.

The department rejected assertions that less staff were now working in compliance than before, and said almost 1,000 had been trained ahead of the new system’s rollout.

The department has referred some former recipients to external debt collection agencies. There have been complaints about the practices of those debt collection agencies.

The department said the debt collection agencies were subject to consumer law.

Shadow human services minister, Linda Burney, who has led Labor’s opposition to the system, said the submissions show a human side to the problems with robo debt.

“There is a human side to Mr Tudge’s robo-debt disaster – the submissions to the Senate inquiry make it all to clear that this system is hurting the community,” she said.

“The inquiry has more work to do exposing the truth but it is already clear from these submissions that this system is far from ‘working well’.”

Greens senator Rachel Siewert said the submissions evidenced the level of distress felt by those caught in the debt recovery system. She said individuals clearly felt afraid of coming forward.

“A lot of the submissions are either confidential or have their name withheld, which I think demonstrates that people feel intimidated about speaking out,” Siewert said.

“I am glad that people are still submitting so we can hear personal experiences to help understand the impact of this process. Evidence given at the hearings will deepen that understanding.”