Thread by @DarrenODonovan

So #centrelink phonelines, the importance of correcting errors&debt repayment have been in the headlines. Well, on cue comes an AAT decision that takes all those issues, adds in a computer fail & unproven attacks on the recipient's character: austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdo… #notmydebt

The decision relates to a FTB and Schoolkids bonus overpayment in a complex family situation. The debt at its centre was born from a computer malfunction, accepted as such by Centrelink. Just how far was the woman affected by it driven to clear her debt (and sadly, her name?)

The fact #centrelink or let's face it, Serco, make an error is not currently a defence to a debt being recoverable. The law is entirely compatible and facilitative of Centrelink's incompetence. Instead Australians have to show that the debt is "solely" attributable to the error

Generally Centrelink just need to have their systems down: send you one accurate statement of "your responsibilities", not actively mislead you. Then claim that you "contributed" to situation. Last year btw they faceplanted that lowest of hurdles canberratimes.com.au/national/publi…

Here centrelink's computer screwed up and spat out a debt. The Department however, decided to fight to make the debt stick. They argued that while the error was down to them, the applicant did not receive the money in "good faith": This applicant had called them about the error

Crucially (in a Serco debate context) the operator did not create a documentary record of the call. The Department led evidence that the non-existence of such a record was proof that the applicant did nothing about the debt. Plus they alleged the applicant was lying.

The Tribunal dismissed this line of argument using the CRAM call logging system which was put in evidence. This recipient was doing the right thing, and should not have been subjected to an onus to prove her "good faith" when Centrelink had not tracked her communications to it

This passage is particularly cutting about the culture of disbelief and reverse onus this person was met with. Her calls appear across the call logs, she was active in her communication to them. Yet the Department read in bad faith/dishonesty seeing only its files, no humility

The decision also highlights some issues around ARO appeal process and reconstructing what was visible on the computer screens and what the person was told.

The applicant should be celebrated as armed with a law which lays the table for centrelink, a system that did not record interactions, The tribunal held that the debt was to be waived. But inferring her bad faith must have been the final insult to accompany this debt

Apologies to my followers for my long thread with pictures, I know it annoys. Two reasons I do it 1. getting the record "correct" is important to this Department's media team - you can hold me accountable to the published decision 2. these cases need more attention