BY JONATHAN STRAUSS
It seems that the federal government believes some apparent abuses of government expenditure should be public knowledge, while others should not.
The provision by Peter Reith, now employment and workplace relations minister, of his parliamentary telephone card to his son was kept secret as long as possible. The cancellation or reduction of more than 250,000 social security payments in 1999-2000, following Centrelink compliance reviews, is another matter.
Minister for community services Larry Anthony has loudly stated that while "most" social security recipients are in genuine need, "however, there are those who abuse the system or fail to fulfil their obligations to report changes in circumstances".
Two years ago, the federal government was running large advertisements in the daily newspapers advertising 570,000 payment reductions and cancellations in the two years from July 1996.
The government's publicity around "fraud" and "compliance" has been an important weapon in its campaign to increase the obligations of social security recipients for their below-poverty line payments. At the same time, these obligations create major difficulties for recipients in complying with social security law. When recipients are found to have failed to comply with the conditions imposed, they are penalised with reduced or cancelled payments.
Notably, very few of the hundreds of thousands of "breaches" are fraudulent. In the 1996-98 period, there were just 4500 convictions for the fraudulent receipt of social security payments; in 1999-2000, there were only 2881. This was less than 0.05% of social security clients — a level of honesty unknown among federal parliamentarians.
Most overpayments, according to the September 1998 Rights Review, published by the NSW Welfare Rights Centre, result from the complexity of the social security system. A major cause is the constant changes to the system carried out by governments. Administrative errors by Centrelink, such as poorly designed forms and assessment mistakes, and inadvertent errors by clients, are common as a result.
Rights Review reported that "about 35% of people who appeal against Centrelink decisions are successful". A recent decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in relation to a Family Allowance debt could overturn thousands of similar debts as well.
The federal government is unhappy with the messengers of such tidings. The September Rights Review reports that Canberra has introduced a bill to change the administrative review process. If passed, the legislation would eliminate one of the two levels for external review of social security decisions (the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the AAT would be replaced by an Administrative Review Tribunal), reduce the independence of the review tribunals, allow greater government intervention in tribunal considerations and restricting client representation.
Requirements for receiving social security payments are continually increasing. For example, some claims for family payments are based on estimates of income for the coming year. Previously, estimates could be out by 10% before an overpayment would arise. From July, estimates must be exact.
The increasing requirements are the basis for a rapidly increasing number of "breaches" that result in basic benefit payments being reduced for failing to meet activity test requirements, such as completion of the "dole diary" and correctly declaring income, without "reasonable excuse", or "administrative breaches", such as not attending interviews or providing information when asked for it.
For activity test breaches, payments are cut by 18% for 26 weeks for the first breach in any two-year period, 24% for the second, and totally for eight weeks, for the third. For administrative breaches, the penalty is a 16% cut for 13 weeks. This is in addition to the recovery of any overpayment. These penalties are in effect fines, and range from $364 to more than $1400 for a single unemployed adult who remains on social security. They are comparable to, or exceed, many sanctions for criminal convictions.
In 1998, according to the June 1999 Rights Review, more than 128,000 breaches were imposed, 1340 of these being eight week cancellations. The regime for the recovery of overpayments is also harsh. Centrelink initially demands repayment of debts within 21 days. Centrelink may negotiate longer repayment periods, but its powers to reduce social security payments, to garnishee funds from wages, bank accounts and other government payments such as tax refunds, and to impose interest penalties if clients refuse to negotiate, give it in a strong hand.
It appears that Reith's squandering of more than $50,000 does not warrant the strictures that people on social security must face for tiny amounts. He has already avoided any follow-up to the 1998 finding of the Federal Court of a prima facie case of involvement in an unlawful conspiracy to sack workers for belonging to a union in the dispute between the Maritime Union of Australia and the Patrick stevedoring company.
The remark of Anatole France, the radical liberal historian of the French Revolution, that the law in its wisdom equally prohibits rich and poor to sleep under bridges is called to mind.