A pilot scheme by the Department of Social Security for covert optical surveillance of people who receive social-security benefits carries with it some dangers. The department appears concerned about people getting cash payments for work that should disentitle them for benefits and people getting disability allowances when they do not have the level of incapacity claimed. The impetus for the pilot plan apparently came for departmental staff who felt frustrated that non-covert means are not enough to catch cheats.
It is fine and commendable for the department to be careful about taxpayers’ money. It is also understandable that non-covert means are often not enough to catch cheats. The department cited examples of anonymous tip-offs about cheating that required further evidence, particularly video evidence.
However, there are several important issues. The first is privacy. Before outside contractors are given the job of spying on social security recipients, presumably there must be a trigger of suspicion. If that were not the case, the department would be talking about engaging in very dangerous random acts of surveillance. But if there is a trigger of suspicion, surely that should be enough to call in the Australian Federal Police to investigate. Deliberately taking social security while knowing one is not entitled is a criminal offence. If the department is after these sort of cheats it must first explain how and why ordinary police investigation is inadequate before bringing in private contractors.
The other question is cost-effectiveness. The department is aware of this one. Covert surveillance is inordinately expensive and unlikely to yield the returns case by case. It is true that public prosecution is equally expensive but at least it is a deterrent for others which must help its cost effectiveness.