Welfare amnesty

Press, 29 June 1987, Page 20

Welfare amnesty

Sir,—The Minister of Social Welfare, Mrs Hercus, has explained clearly the background of the “clean slate campaign” (May 29). However, she has not answered Ms Christine Hickey’s real question — why people who have defrauded the system were given the opportunity to come clean while those who have “debts” because of overpayments by the department (i.e., without any fault of their own) are excluded from the amnesty. Could the Minister please enlighten us on this point?—Yours, etc., PIETER H. DE BRES, Honorary Co-ordinator, Welfare Rights Unit, Community Law Centre. June 1, 1987. [The Under-Secretary to the Minister of Social Welfare, Mr Peter Neilson, replies for Mrs Hercus, who is overseas: “The essential point about the campaign is that it is a means to the objective of reducing the amount of taxpayers’ money incorrectly paid out. The campaign is one of a number of methods which have recently been introduced by which the Department of Social Welfare can learn of these incorrect payments. The question of how to respond — whether to require a repayment or whether to attempt prosecution — is a different issue and, in a sense, a subsidiary one. Obviously this question does not arise unless the incorrect payment is detected in the first place. The ‘clean slate campaign’ had value because it was an efficient way of achieving this detection. This also explains why debts already established were not included within the terms of the campaign — the objective of detecting the incorrect payment had already been met. The Department of Social Welfare is now continuing with the job of detecting incorrect payments by other means. I believe that most taxpayers will be ail in favour of this action.”]