Former employees who worked for Centrelink in executing its controversial robo-debt scheme have claimed they were publicly ranked against each other on staffroom whiteboards according to how many debts they raised.

The pressure of daily targets meant compliance officers often bent the rules regarding contacting customers before debts were raised, former staff members claimed.

9News has spoken to three former compliance officers who have blown the whistle on what it was like to work as contractors for Centrelink in their debt recovery teams across the country.

Robo-debt is Centrelink's automated debt-raising system, which matches yearly income data from the Australian Tax Office (ATO) with welfare payments made in fortnightly periods, often, critics say, with inaccurate results.

When the system was rolled out by the Department of Human Services in 2016, it faced a huge public backlash.

After recommendations from an ombudsman's review, the department was forced to add another "human" step in the debt raising process where staff attempt to make contact with the customer and give them an opportunity to prove they don't owe the debt with payslips or bank statements.

The department hires contractors through two main recruitment companies – Chandler MacLeod and Adecco – to carry out this part of the debt-raising process.

STAFFROOM WHITEBOARDS 'SHAMED' STAFF DAILY

Jessica* was a compliance officer hired by Chandler MacLeod last year to work in one of Melbourne's Centrelink branches.

"It was a horrible job. The department is just a debt-raising machine, and that's all they care about. They say that they care about the customer, but they don't," she told 9News.com.au.

A whiteboard in one of Centrelink's debt recovery offices. The names of staff members have been redacted from the dark blue column to protect their privacy. Alongside the names are figures showing how many debts the staff member had raised and how long it took them to do it. (Supplied)

The sole focus of management was the measurement of key performance metrics, which showed how many debts were raised each day, Jessica said.

A photograph given exclusive to 9News.com.au shows a whiteboard inside one of Centrelink's debt recovery offices.

Individual staff are named on the board, alongside figures which show how many debts they had raised, and how long it took them to do it.

Written across the top of the board a motto declares: "Building trust in the welfare system through ensuring quality outcomes for customers and ensuring an open supporting environment."

In reaction to the photo, Labor's human services spokesperson Bill Shorten told 9News: "This is the whiteboard of shame the government did not want you to see."

"The department has repeatedly said there were no targets. The government and the department have lied to the Australian people."

When questioned about the photo of the whiteboard and the staff targets, Department of Human Services General Manager Hank Jongen said in a statement: "Staff working on income reviews are not required to finalise a prescribed number each week.

"Like any service delivery organisation, we review performance to meet government priorities, but always put people at the centre of our work."

Three former compliance officers have told 9News what it was like to work as contractors for Centrelink in their debt recovery teams (Supplied)

However, two of the former staff 9News talked to claimed employees who did not meet targets were "performance managed out" and they also had a similar whiteboard in their offices.

"My stats were up there on the board, for everyone to see, every morning. It was public, everyone could see it. They were publicly shaming the officers who weren't performing," Jessica said.

"Half an hour every morning, the team got together and had what they called a 'stand up'. They would go through the stats and the people who raised a lot of debts would get a clap. It was like canned enthusiasm.

"It was very inhumane. It was all about the money, and we have to get those finalisations."

The target-based approach was part of a management system known as "BOOST", which was implemented by the Department of Human Services on the paid advice of external consultants.

Mike* was employed by recruitment company Adecco to work in a NSW Centrelink office.

As well as the whiteboard with their daily figures, Mike said his team leader would often go to ridiculous extremes to make sure their weekly targets were never far from mind.

"They would print out whatever number of finalisations we would need for that week as a team.

"If there was a spare desk, there would be a gigantic placard with the number 20 or 40 or whatever on it. There were signs on poles, on walls, on the backs of computers and on the backs of chairs.

"They even got to the point of running string between some of the load-bearing pylons. It was like a Merry Christmas banner with the sag in the middle, only it was just the sign with the number 26, or whatever it was that they were after."

Despite the motto on the whiteboard, the focus was on anything but the customer, and it was far from an open supportive environment, Mike said.

"It was all about the numbers. They would constantly say we are trying to adhere to the estimates that were provided to the Senate estimates hearing in relation to how many finalisations would be completed within a given period for the sake of trying to recoup revenue.

"That's what determined how many finalisations each division needed to achieve. That's all that mattered, meeting those benchmarks. It was toxic."

'YOU DON'T WANT ANYONE TO ANSWER'

During the course of 9News.com.au's investigation into robo-debt, hundreds of people have written in to tell their stories of debts they believe were unjust.

A continual source of outrage was that they said they were not even contacted by Centrelink before their alleged debt was raised. Often money was garnished from their tax returns to repay the debt before they even realised they had one.

Or, in some cases, their first point of contact was an external debt collector hired by Centrelink to chase the money.

Under the current robo-debt system, Centrelink staff are required to send out two letters and make two phone calls to customers before a debt is raised.

This is supposed to give customers a chance to prove they don't owe any money with payslips or bank statements before the ATO data is applied.

However, the extreme focus on targets meant that compliance officers would sometimes try to avoid speaking to customers because it would slow the process down, former staff said.

The two letters were sent by registered mail to customers, but because of the historical nature of the debts – many go back as far as seven years – often the addresses in the system would be out of date, Mike explained.

"You would go in to review if those written correspondences had gone out. It didn't matter or not if the letters had been signed for. You would just look for two occasions that correspondence had been sent out."

The management system focusing on staff targets was known as 'Boost'. (Supplied)

If the letters had been sent, the compliance officers' job was then to make two phone calls, 24 hours apart.

Due to most people's natural aversion to answering private numbers, the vast majority of phone calls went unanswered, Mike said.

However, there were other ways compliance officers tipped the scale in their favour, Jessica claimed.

"I know a lot of compliance officers would just let the phone ring one or two times and hang up," she said.

"Some even would say they made (the phone calls) but they don't."

"There is a text service that you can use that sends the customer a message saying someone from Centrelink is going to call you in 15 mins and it's going to be a private number. But no-one uses that.

"You don't want anyone to answer because then you are not going to get your finalisations for the day."

When 9News.com.au put the claims of staff skirting the rules to avoid contacting customers to the Department of Human Services, Mr Jongen said, "Quality customer experience is an important part of our approach and we have a quality framework designed to ensure our approach is followed.

"We've used contractors for many years for specialist services and to support day-to-day operations of the department.

"They receive the same technical training and manage work in the same way as (departmental) staff.

"Departmental staff work closely with our contractors to assist them build their expertise and help them become proficient."

Robo-debt is Centrelink's controversial automated debt-raising system. (AAP)

MATHEMATICS OF DEBT A MYSTERY

When a customer could not be contacted, the ATO "match data" could then be applied, a methodology that was well-known to be inaccurate, Mike claimed.

"It was an inaccurate way of doing it. Because it may evenly apportion earnings into period in which they were not working at all. And that's how a debt could be falsely generated," he said.

Although a compliance officer may suspect a debt to be inaccurate, it was not in their remit to question it, he said.

(Supplied)

"The way that it was painted to us, we needed concrete evidence to ascertain exactly when they did or did not receive whatever earnings they earned throughout the year. The only way to do that was with bank statements and payslips.

"So even though you may have had a hunch that it was (inaccurate), you couldn't really take that into consideration, because without that concrete evidence, you had nothing to go on.

"Again, you didn't also want to go down that line because then you would go from having one simple finalisation that would get your team leader off your back to something that was going to last over a month."

According to Jessica, staff had little-to-no understanding of the algorithm used to calculate the debts, and it often produced puzzling results.

In some cases, Jessica said she had applied an ATO data match to get an idea of how large the debt would be. She had then done the same thing, for the same case, on a different day, and had gotten a completely different result.

"It would be exactly the same case, everything was identical, but I would get a different result.

"There is no manual imputing where you can get the numbers wrong, it's all in the system, but depending on what day you did it, you would get a different result.

"It could $100 up or down, sometimes $700 up or down, and I have just thought that is really weird, nothing has changed except the date.

"The team leader would say, I don't know why, just put it through. There is no questioning what algorithm is behind the system."

'I HAD PEOPLE ON THE PHONE TO ME IN TEARS'

Compliance officers who spoke to nine.com.au told of their disquiet over the effect the debt raising was having on Centrelink customers, who are among society's most vulnerable.

"Some of the people I spoke to were shocked (about the debt). And because the debt could be seven years old, it was like, what were you thinking? Why did it take you so long?" another former compliance officer, Sally*, told nine.com.au.

"I had people on the phone to me in tears. Because they were saying to me, 'I have done the right thing, I have always reported my income, why are you doing this to me now?'"

Last week, 9News.com.au reported on the tragic death of 22-year-old Jarrad Madgwick from Queensland.

Mr Madgwick's mother Kath Madgwick told how her son had taken his own life just hours after finding out about a Centrelink debt.

Jarrad Madgwick took his own life hours after finding out he had a Centrelink debt notice of $2000, his mother Kath Madgwick said. (Supplied)

The staff 9News.com.au spoke to said they were trained on what to do in a situation where a customer threatened self-harm. But getting hold of a social worker through the department's priority internal system to diffuse a situation could be difficult, they said.

"I recall on one such occasion, in a phone call where a person I was dealing with made threats of self-harm. I spent the better part of 15-20 minutes attempting to reach the social workers through the internal referral system," Mike said.

Mike said he ended up "talking the person down" himself, when he could not contact the social worker, and was given a reprimand for his efforts.

In order for a social worker to respond to a request for help from a compliance officer, specific phrases needed to be used to determine the urgency of the request, Mike said.

"Unless they actually (said a specific phrase) … they really didn't want anything to do with it," he said.

In response to the claims that social workers were not always available to help in the situation of a customer threatening self-harm, Mr Jongen said: "Our national network of 673 social workers do a fantastic job supporting customers through a wide variety of difficult situations.

"We prioritise support for people at risk of suicide and self-harm, family and domestic violence and unsupported young people."

"The average speed of answer for the main social work line was 14 minutes 58 seconds for the 2018-19 financial year.

"We also operate an internal priority social work line for staff to refer customers when they believe they are at serious and imminent risk of suicide and self-harm.

"The average wait time for the priority line for the 2018-19 financial year was 3 minutes and 14 seconds."

9News.com.au has approached Chandler MacLeod and Adecco for comment.

* Names have been changed to protect the former employees' identities.

If you or someone you know is in need of support contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 46 36