Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the adjournment on a matter of some concern to me and my constituent Ms Brenda Hendricks of Carlisle. Today, after question time, Minister Hockey added to his answer to my question yesterday and suggested that she had in fact been treated appropriately by Centrelink. I am most concerned that the minister is being selective in his account to the House, and with Ms Hendricks’s approval I would like to read her letter into the record as it speaks for itself. It says:

Dear Sir

I wish to congratulate your actions to assist Matthew Pearce’s fight for a Centrelink Disability Support Pension (DSP), which I read about in the 8 August edition of the Southern Gazette. I am pleased that you have requested that The Hon Dr Stone conduct an immediate investigation into the matter, as I believe that the whole Centrelink system requires an overhaul. I would like you to know that the treatment of Matthew is despicable but, unfortunately, not an isolated incident. I have also had a difficult time with Centrelink.

In February of this year, I was diagnosed with a highly aggressive, incurable brain tumour, a grade IV glioblastoma multiforme. At 30 years of age, this tumour is rare and highly malignant. After surgery, I was faced with months of treatment, including radiotherapy and chemotherapy, all of which has left me with headaches, dizzy spells, an inability to concentrate, eyestrain, extreme tiredness and lethargy. I am also no longer able to drive as I am under constant threat of an epileptic seizure.

I contacted Centrelink for assistance and was informed that I was not eligible for the DSP, but may be entitled to a Newstart incapacitated allowance. I followed all of their procedures, but told them I could not go into the Victoria Park office as I was recovering from major brain surgery and suffered all the symptoms I listed above. They assured me that I would not be required to have an in-person assessment and that it could be conducted over the phone. However, I was then asked to go in to the office to sign all of the paper work and to complete a follow up interview. They would not concede that I was too unwell to leave home and assured me that by setting up an appointment time, I would not have to wait long. I waited for almost one hour. I could barely sit up in the waiting area and my father was so worried that he begged me to let him take me home and forfeit my application. I was offered a weak apology and then told that they were unaware of my medical condition. This was odd as I had disclosed my condition over the phone three times as well as in my application. I was then told that I would have to go into the office fortnightly to lodge my claim form. I told them again that this was impossible for me to do and after much argument they agreed to let me lodge it every 3 months as long as I provided them with a medical certificate saying that I was still sick.

My problems with Centrelink escalated from there, with letters threatening to recover payments as I had not lodged my fortnightly forms. When I rang to query this, they insisted that I still had to lodge fortnightly as I didn’t have a medical certificate, which was untrue. After 2 months of receiving the allowance, I was told to go for a work capacity assessment. I again argued that I had a medical certificate, but they insisted and threatened to stop my payments and recover previous payments if I did not go. I went. The work capacity assessor was surprised by the severity of my condition and that I had been requested to be assessed and told me that she would state in her report that I was unfit for work for at least 6-12 months.

Approximately two weeks later I was told that an appointment had been made for me with Centrecare to create a resume for me, go through possible job options and to enrol me on the jobsearch network. I was appalled and contacted Centrecare to inform them that I would not be attending the interview as I had a medical certificate and was not able to work. However, I also have two degrees in psychology and am due to complete a Masters in Psychology at the end of this year, so I do not need assistance in finding possible job options. I was so distraught with how I was treated and the amount of stress that they caused me that I felt that I was close to a breakdown. I was already under immense stress from dealing with my condition, the treatment and facing my mortality. I finally broke down in my oncologist’s office and the hospital’s welfare officer was called in to assist me. I was then told that I should be entitled to the DSP as my condition was permanent and incurable, so they began the paper work to apply for the DSP. With the assistance of the welfare officer, I received it.

However, my problems didn’t end there. The final straw came less than a month after I started receiving DSP payments. I was told that another interview had been made for me with Centrecare and that if I did not attend I would forfeit my pension and they would commence action to retrieve all of my payments. I rang Centrecare up again and was informed that I had to attend the interview under the new laws, which came into effect on 1 July this year. My interview was scheduled for 26 June and I argued that the laws weren’t in effect yet and that I had a treating Doctors report, but to no avail. In tears, I again contacted the welfare officer, who managed to sort the matter out and the interview was cancelled ...

I believe that the whole system is in desperate need for an overhaul. I can appreciate and understand that a small minority of people have defrauded the system resulting in measures being put into the place to ensure that recipients of allowances and payments are genuine. However, it is indicative of serious problems or flaws in a system when genuine applicants, like Matthew, are passed over because of generic and generalised assessment methods that do not take into account individual circumstances or needs. If I had a dollar for every time one of Centrelink’s staff members told me that it was a computer generated letter or form and out of their control, I wouldn’t need the DSP as I would be quite comfortably well-off. I know that there must be procedures and protocols in place in order to ensure that there is a fair system across the board, but there must also be a way of recognising applicants and recipients as more than just a reference number. Therefore, I again applaud your actions and encourage you to persist in fighting for your constituents rights. I hope your actions and the media attention that Matthew has received will not only benefit him, but others like us.

(Time expired)

See this speech in context