Centrelink’s “deserving” and “undeserving” poor

The Robodebt Royal Commission has heard that the former LNP government had a strong view of “deserving” and “undeserving” poor when it came to Centrelink. Exactly what this means is unclear, but it sounds very ominous.

It seems to want to create division between those that the government see as worthy, and those they see as unworthy. This appears to have been based on the socioeconomic backgrounds of Centrelink recipients, and the demographic groups they belonged to.

What is clear is that they saw themselves as welfare cops, and had little, if any, empathy for Centrelink recipients.

They had identified 860,000 payments they had considered likely to be incorrect, without any evidence, and relentlessly pursued 430,000 people, showing no mercy or consideration for their circumstances or the law.

Serena Wilson, former deputy secretary to the Department of Human Services, told the Commission that Scott Morrison had called himself a “welfare cop” and appeared to be looking for a problem to justify his position.

This will hardly come as a surprise to anybody who has been following the proceedings of the Commission. It will also hardly come as a surprise to anybody who has even the faintest inkling about Scott Morrison’s career in politics.

What has also become very clear is that Centrelink is totally dysfunctional, and no longer serves the needs of those it is supposed to be helping. It was destroyed by the former LNP government, and Scott Morrison in particular.

The toxic culture in Centrelink is worse than it has ever been in the history of the agency, and unrecognisable from that of it’s predecessor, the Department of Social Security.

Staff have been bullied into accepting that all Centrelink recipients are potential welfare cheats, spurred on by Morrison’s insistence that this is so. Like Morrison, they now look for problems that confirm this belief, even if there is no real evidence that there is a problem.

The way the system is set up is that Centrelink staff can simply make a decision to support this belief, and there is virtually nothing the Centrelink recipient can do about it. Centrelink staff make a decision of who is deserving or undeserving, usually based on whims or personal prejudices.

Once a decision is made, it has to be “reviewed” by an authorised review officer internally, and they rarely change the original decision.

Then it goes through various Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) conferences and hearings, and again the decisions are rarely changed. The current Labor government have found that the AAT are no longer fit for purpose, and will begin dismantling it in August this year.

Then it has to go to the Federal Court – if the person appealing Centrelink’s decision has tens of thousands of dollars to pay Centrelink’s legal costs should Centrelink win in court.

It is a no win situation for the Centrelink recipient. The process takes many months, or even years, and is extremely traumatic. It can also bankrupt the person appealing the decision.

There is no fairness in this process, and no legal equity. Centrelink can employ a team of lawyers to fight the appeal, whereas the Centrelink recipient has to prepare all the appeal themselves.

Yes, they can get advice from free community legal advice organisations, but that’s all they get – advice. These organisations do not have the resources in terms of staff or time to represent anybody at the AAT or Federal Court. Nor do they have the resources to prepare the multitude of documents that need to be prepared.

The Social Security laws are extremely complex, and even Centrelink staff and the ministers responsible for their administration don’t know what they are. The Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 each have over a thousand sections, each linking to other sections which in turn link to other Acts.

There are over a thousand sections between the two acts that are designed to deny people payments. If the staff administering these Acts don’t know what they are, how can the recipients be meant to know?

What is needed is a simplification of these complex and archaic laws so both staff and recipients can understand them.

As for the toxic culture and dysfunction in Centrelink, any incoming CEO of any company that has been charged with repairing such an organisation will tell you that it is virtually impossible.

The best bet is that, like the AAT, the government simply starts dismantling it and implementing a new fit-for-purpose organisation. Employ new staff on a merit’s basis, rather than just continuing on the way things are, hoping it will miraculously get better.

The views within Centrelink of “deserving” and “undeserving” need to be eradicated, and that can only be achieved by eradicating Centrelink.

Craig Hill is a Brisbane-based Social Justice Campaigner, Writer, Teacher and Business Consultant. He has campaigned for social justice in Australia, promoted human rights in China and worked with the homeless in Honolulu. He holds a Graduate Certificate in Education and a degree in Management.