Page 996 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
double dipping where multiple requests for vouchers are made to welfare agencies for the same account; inconsistent application of hardship criteria by different welfare agencies; the need for people seeking assistance to approach welfare agencies, with consequent effects on their dignity and self-image; and the cost to agencies to administer the scheme.
While some of these problems can be overcome, the voucher scheme is expensive to operate and does not address underlying issues. If we introduced a voucher system here, community welfare agencies handling the vouchers could find a whole new group of people approaching them. This would place additional strain and cost on those agencies. It would also introduce a new group of people into the cycle of welfare dependency.
The Community Law Reform Committee recommended the establishment of an independent review body, the Essential Services Review Committee. This is, in effect, the second option. People in financial difficulty faced with disconnection of a domestic service could seek relief from this committee. It is important to note that this would not occur until after the service provider has exhausted normal avenues of obtaining payment from a customer and writes to the customer threatening disconnection. The Community Law Reform Committee believes that the review process will lead to greater equity in providing relief, as the review body will be able to assess substantial hardship more consistently than would welfare agencies or employees of various service providers applying different policies. It will be available to all people affected by disconnection and not simply the person in whose name the account is held. It will significantly reduce the possibility of abuse. It is financially viable, and it will encourage individual service providers to improve their own debt recovery processes.
The Bill before the Assembly proposes the establishment of an Essential Services Review Committee which would be able to provide relief to a person threatened with the disconnection of an essential service. Let me give members three simple cases of how this scheme would work in practice. In case one we consider a household receiving an account from a provider of an essential service but which cannot pay it because of serious financial hardship. If the household is unable to negotiate time to pay or other appropriate relief, eventually the service provider will threaten disconnection. Under the proposed legislation the letter threatening disconnection must clearly state that, if the account cannot be paid because of substantial financial hardship, an application for relief can be made to the Essential Services Review Committee. Any household member may contact the Essential Services Review Committee and apply for relief. Action to disconnect the service will stop until the Essential Services Review Committee considers the issue. The Essential Services Review Committee can reduce the debt or make it payable by instalment.
In case two we consider a rogue not suffering financial hardship who receives an account and attempts to avoid paying it by contacting the Essential Services Review Committee and applying for relief. Action to disconnect the service stops until the Essential Services Review Committee considers the issue. If the Essential Services Review Committee finds that this is a try-on, it can impose a penalty charge of $50 on the person making the frivolous application and can let disconnection action proceed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .