Pam
Content Warning: These stories are about violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation and may include references to suicide or self-harming behaviours. They may contain graphic descriptions and strong language and may be distressing. Some narratives may be about First Nations people who have passed away. If you need support, please see Contact & support.
Pam is in her 50s, lives with a learning disability, and is thousands of dollars in debt.
‘My pension just isn’t cutting it anymore,’ Pam told the Royal Commission. ‘My problems with Centrelink have had a severe and ongoing impact on my already precarious financial situation.’
Pam said her debts mounted when she moved house and was involved in a car accident.
‘It is not that I have not tried to pay my bills. I have just never had the funds to pay them, and when I try to get help to do so I am continually let down.’
Pam relies on advance payments from Centrelink to pay her bills. She said Centrelink’s practice of splitting a six-monthly advance payment into two uneven amounts makes budgeting difficult.
‘Not only does this mean that I am required to make twice as many applications to receive these two separate payments, but it also means that the support I receive is unevenly distributed.’
If the payments were more consistent, she said she could ‘get on top of these mounting bills’ rather than ‘falling further and further behind’.
Pam said she’s been unable to complain because the Centrelink telephone lines are busy when she calls. She tried the Centrelink phone app, but it was ‘difficult to use and does not offer any ease of access for users with a disability’.
‘I am finding myself slipping further and further into debt, without them able to offer any real help to stop this.’
Pam said Centrelink was ‘supposed to help’, but instead had made her anxiety and depression ‘worse and worse’.
Disclaimer: This is the story of a person who shared their personal experience with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability through a submission or private session. The names in this story are pseudonyms. The person who shared this experience was not a witness and their account is not evidence. They did not take an oath or affirmation before providing the story. Nothing in this story constitutes a finding of the Royal Commission. Any views expressed are those of the person who shared their experience, not of the Royal Commission.