Background and context

1. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has responsibility for administering Australia’s tax and superannuation systems, and seeks to build confidence in its administration through helping people to understand their rights and obligations, improve ease of compliance and access to benefits, and manage non-compliance with the law.¹ A key factor in maintaining community confidence in the fairness and equity of Australia’s tax and superannuation systems is the efficient and effective management of debt.

2. In 2010–11 the ATO collected $273 billion in net revenue, and at 30 June 2011 managed collectable debt arrears of $14 billion – that is, debt that is not subject to objection or appeal, or some form of insolvency administration. Prior to 2010–11, the ATO had reported an upward trend in the value of collectable debt in every financial year following the introduction of A New Tax System in 2001–02.² Between 2003–04 and 2004–05, collectable debt increased from $7.5 billion to $9.6 billion, representing almost 28 per cent growth over the period. This increase was the subject of discussion in the Senate Economics Legislative Committee in June 2004³ and again in February 2005, when the ATO was asked if there were any new strategies to address debt levels.⁴

In response, during 2005–06, the ATO restructured its administrative arrangements for the management of debt, establishing the Debt Business Line (DBL) and introduced a number of new approaches to contain and reduce debt levels. The ATO also conducted three short pilot programs trialling different approaches to collecting debt, including the use of external collection agencies (ECAs).

The three pilot programs were:

• using advanced dialler technology, allowing the ATO to engage with a greater number of taxpayers more efficiently⁵;
• phoning taxpayers after-hours, where previous attempts to contact them had been unsuccessful; and
• between April and May 2006, referring approximately 11 000 selected lower value and aged debt cases to an ECA for collection action.

3. Using advanced dialler technology and contacting clients after hours reflected enhancements to debt management techniques the ATO already used, but referring debts to an ECA was a new approach for the ATO. The ATO considered that the referral of selected debt cases to an external collection agency would provide an effective response to the management of large numbers of low value debts. Collectively these debts represented significant revenue, but individually were low in value and unlikely to be actioned by the ATO.

4. The contact strategy employed by the ECA during the pilot program was a correspondence and telephone based campaign, consisting of an initial demand letter to the taxpayer, and subsequent follow-up letters if the initial correspondence was not answered. Where contact through correspondence was ineffective, taxpayers were then contacted by telephone. The payment arrangement for the ECA consisted of a flat fee per debt case referred, irrespective of the outcome achieved.

5. In September 2006, the ATO completed a post implementation review of the pilot program. The review highlighted challenges for the ATO in expanding the outsourcing⁶ of debt collection beyond the small pilot program, but found that an ECA could effectively operate on behalf of the ATO and collect outstanding debt.

6. The ATO subsequently conducted a procurement process, and finalised contract negotiations with four ECAs in October 2007, for the provision of debt collection services from 2007–08 to 2010–11. Known as the referral program, debt cases referred to ECAs are those related to income tax, activity statement and superannuation guarantee charge debts, classified by the ATO as lower value, non complex debts.⁷ In September 2011, following a second procurement process, the ATO established a panel of four ECAs under a Deed of Standing Offer (DoSO)⁸, for the period 2011–12 to 2014–15.

7. The contact strategy set out in the ECAs’ contracts and DoSOs was similar to that employed during the pilot program, with a set number of phone calls and letters.⁹ Payment arrangements during the first four year period were based on a flat fee per debt case referred, subject to the type and value of the debt. Under the DoSO, a flat fee arrangement has been retained, although based on the volume of cases referred (rather than the type or value of the case) with lower rates for greater volumes of referred cases.

The ATO’s debt management framework

8. The ATO’s framework for managing debt focuses on early intervention as aged debt is more difficult and more expensive to follow-up.¹⁰ Firmer action is taken against those taxpayers who make no effort to manage their debt, or who deliberately and consistently engage in behaviours to avoid their tax obligations. In instances where there is greater risk of a debt not being recovered—for example, a business may be considered not to be viable in the longer term—the ATO may take strategic recovery action, including initiating bankruptcy or business wind-up proceedings. The structure of the DBL reflects those three elements of the debt management framework: early collections, firmer action, and strategic recovery.

9. During 2011, over 70 per cent of activity statement and superannuation guarantee charge debt cases referred to ECAs had been outstanding for less than six months. This is consistent with the ATO’s early collections approach to debt, but reflects a significant change in the age profile of debts from those referred during the pilot program, and since commencement of the contracts with ECAs in 2007. Over time, the value of referred debts has also changed. During the pilot program, the ATO trialled the referral of low value debts (less than $7500), but within the first year of the ECA contracts (2007–08), higher value debts were also referred. Debts to a maximum value of $75 000 are now routinely referred for ECA action, and these may increase to $150 000 as further liabilities are accrued by taxpayers while debts are being managed by ECAs.

10. As at December 2011, just under 1.8 million debt cases with a combined value of approximately $7 billion have been referred to ECAs. Of this amount, the ECAs have collected just over $2 billion, or 29.1 per cent of the total debt referred¹¹, at a cost of $54 million in ECA fees (not including the pilot program).

11. Responsibility for the administration of the ATO’s arrangements with ECAs is undertaken by teams within the early collections branch of the DBL, with input from other areas across the ATO. The Trusted Access (TA) and Security Policy and Services (SPS) branches provide specific services in relation to the secure management of ATO data by external contractors.

International comparisons

12. In examining the debt management practices of comparable revenue administrations of Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries, a number of different positions are evident. The United Kingdom Government announced, in June 2010, that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) would continue to use private sector debt collection agencies, following a successful small-scale trial. In contrast, the United States of America Inland Revenue Service (IRS) announced in March 2009 that it would not renew its contracts with private collection agencies (three years after it started referring federal taxation accounts in debt). The IRS Commissioner commented that he believed this work was best done by IRS employees. In the same year, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) ceased the outsourcing of the collection of defaulted student loans to private collection agencies, an arrangement that had been in place for some 20 years. The CRA decided to action all collection activities in-house as it had the necessary infrastructure in place to collect debts, including a call centre using dialler technology, and considered that it could undertake these activities more cost effectively.

Audit objectives and criteria

13. The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the ATO’s administration of external debt collection arrangements.

14. The ANAO examined whether:

• contractual and administrative arrangements were appropriately planned and executed, and support the ATO’s objectives in using the services of external collection agencies;
• the operational strategy for selecting and referring debt cases to external agencies was effective; and
• appropriate performance measures have been developed to monitor and report the services provided by the external agencies.

15. The outsourcing of tax debt collection by the ATO had been raised in two previous ANAO audit reports.¹² In 1999–2000, the ATO had agreed with an ANAO recommendation that the ATO outsource the collection of some tax debt if the evaluation of outsourcing showed that it was cost effective and that compliance with the Taxpayers’ Charter would be maintained. ANAO Audit Report No.42 2006–07 noted the ATO’s 2006 debt initiatives, including the debt referral pilot, and the ATO’s assessment that it had partially implemented the 1999 report’s recommendation through the pilot and subsequent evaluation. The ATO sought, and received, funding in the 2007 Budget to pursue the initiative.

Overall conclusion

16. The referral of collectable debt to ECAs was trialled through a pilot program in April 2006, and subsequently fully implemented by the ATO through the establishment of contracts with four ECAs in October 2007. It was one of several new measures to contain and reduce the amount of outstanding collectable debt, which had increased yearly since 2001–02, with the annual rate of increase peaking in 2004–05 at almost 28 per cent. Individually the debt cases referred to ECAs are low in value and unlikely to be actioned by the ATO, but collectively represent significant revenue.

17. The ATO is now in the fifth year of referring lower value, non complex income tax, activity statement and superannuation guarantee charge debt cases to ECAs for collection action, employing a correspondence and telephone based approach. The initiative provides the ATO with a flexible mechanism to action a workload that would otherwise remain unactioned. During the period of the outsourced arrangements (from October 2007 to 31 December 2011), the ATO has referred just under 1.8 million debt cases, with a combined value of approximately $7 billion, to the ECAs for collection action. Of this amount, the ECAs have collected just over $2 billion, or 29.1 per cent of the total debt referred, at a cost of $54 million in ECA fees.¹³ In approximately 50 per cent of referred cases, ECAs achieve either payment in full, or negotiate payment arrangements with taxpayers.

18. The ECAs have collected a significant amount of debt, generating very few taxpayer complaints and there have been no known breaches in the security of taxpayers’ data. At the operational level, the ATO has successfully implemented a comprehensive arrangement that was, at the time, a new approach to collecting tax and superannuation guarantee charge debt. However, at the strategic level, the ATO could more effectively set out how the referral program is integrated with the ATO’s broader approach to debt management, and the comparative advantages that underpin the use of ECAs.

19. The ATO has effectively established an outsourcing arrangement that ensures taxpayers are treated in the same way whether contacted by the ECA or the ATO (the ATO refers to the ‘seamlessness’ between taxpayers’ engagement with an ECA agent or ATO employee). The ATO has developed administrative processes and systems to support the referral of debt cases to ECAs, and continues to develop elements of the program. These elements include options to provide more timely and accurate updates to ECAs where taxpayers’ details have changed since the case was referred; and, of critical importance to the ATO’s continued use of ECA services, ensuring measures are fully in place to safeguard the security of taxpayers’ data. The ATO had developed a data security framework, but lack of clearly defined roles and responsibilities of key ATO staff in implementing the requirements of the framework reduced the assurance that taxpayers’ data was being appropriately managed. Documentation supporting the selection and referral of debts from the ATO’s business systems also requires review and updating, to maintain the integrity and consistency of the processes.

20. Since commencement of the outsourced arrangements, the strategy underpinning the referral of debt to ECAs has changed. Initially, the ATO’s strategy for the referral program was to target lower value, aged debts, aiming to engage with taxpayers with long outstanding obligations. However, within the first year of the outsourced arrangements, the value of debts selected for referral had increased tenfold, and newer debts, some of them less than three months old, are now routinely referred. This supports the ATO’s early intervention approach to debt management, but does not align with the earlier strategy of targeting aged debt, for which the ECAs were initially engaged.

21. The ATO has not clearly defined how the referral program is integrated within the ATO’s broader approach to debt management. The ATO’s in–house capacity for actioning outstanding debt has significantly improved since 2006, and it now uses many of the modern approaches, including advanced dialler technology, used by private debt collection agencies. The ATO has recognised the need to assess the relative cost comparisons between ECAs and the ATO’s equivalent processes, but to date has not established the costs of the outsourcing arrangement and undertaken this comparison.

22. Understanding the comparative costs of the referral program and the ATO’s internal processes would support better selection of debt cases for referral, and the management of those that are unresolved by ECA action. The ATO undertakes little analysis on the characteristics of the debt and of the taxpayer that would indicate those cases that:

• are more likely to respond to an ECA;
• finalise as a result of a reminder or demand letter, without the need for telephone follow-up; and
• may self-finalise without any follow up collection action.

ECAs are paid a fee per debt case referred and, in around 50 per cent of all debt cases there is no reduction in the level of debt, irrespective of the age, value or category of debt. These cases remain, essentially, lower value cases that the ATO has found it difficult to resource and does not routinely follow–up; and they do not readily fit within the ATO’s parameters for firmer action or strategic recovery. While the ATO is now developing a more comprehensive approach to dealing with these cases, they could have been more effectively managed.¹⁴

23. The ATO does not assess the impact of the referral program on broader debt management measures, namely the reduction in the overall level of debt holdings and changes in taxpayers’ compliance behaviour. Both of these measures were identified as part of the ATO’s original intent in using outsourced debt collection services. In 2010–11 the level of collectable debt reduced by 4.0 per cent from the previous year (from $14.7 billion to $14.1 billion), the first reduction in 10 years.¹⁵ The concerted effort to reduce debt holdings also involved the ATO writing off a total of $3.8 billion in outstanding debt, compared with $1.7 billion the previous year.¹⁶ The ATO considers the referral program has contributed to the 2010–11 reduction, but there is no direct measure to assess this. Additionally, the ATO does not measure changes in taxpayers’ behaviour as a result of contact by an ECA, or survey the broader community’s sentiment about the strategy of engaging ECAs.

24. The ANAO has made three recommendations aimed at improving key aspects of the ATO’s administration of the referral program. The first two recommendations are aimed at providing assurance in relation to the secure management of taxpayers’ information, and the integrity of the ATO’s systems and processes for selecting and referring debt cases to ECAs. The third recommendation relates to the better integration of the referral program into the ATO’s broader debt management strategy.

Key findings

Establishing the outsourcing arrangements (Chapter 2)

25. The ATO conducted a short pilot program in 2005–06, trialling the referral of a small number of debt cases to an ECA. The main intent of the pilot program was to collect sufficient information to assess the effectiveness of using ECAs to supplement the ATO’s debt collection activities. Secondary intentions were to:

• reduce the value of debt holdings within the ATO;
• improve ongoing taxpayer compliance; and
• engage taxpayers who had not responded to previous initiatives.

26. The results achieved in the pilot indicated that an ECA could collect taxation debt, but an evaluation of the pilot program identified some risks to the ATO in expanding the arrangements. Specifically, these risks included that there was no available infrastructure to support the secure transfer of large volumes of debt cases, with taxpayers’ details, between the ATO and selected ECAs.¹⁷

27. Additionally, the relatively small scale of the pilot program (11 000 cases) supported some measurement of the results achieved by the outsourcing of debt that have not been captured or reported by the ATO following the expansion of the referral program. These include:

• the assessment of any reduction in outstanding debt. The review of the pilot program included that there was a 17.9 per cent reduction in outstanding debt, but this reduction referred only to the total value of the debt cases referred during the pilot; and
• the overall impact of the outsourcing arrangement on taxpayers’ compliance behaviour. The review of the pilot program included that 56 per cent of taxpayers remained compliant after their debt case was finalised (noting however, that the review was completed just three months after the end of the pilot program).

These measures were identified as intended outcomes from the ATO’s use of ECAs, but to date, the ATO has no arrangements in place that would indicate, even at a general level, any impact the referral program has had on these measures.

28. The piloting and implementation of the outsourcing of debt was undertaken within relatively short timeframes, and many aspects of contract management were not in place at the start of the program, including collection guidelines and performance measures for ECA services. Both the ATO and ECAs commented that the first two years of the program reflected a period of learning, with the ECAs reviewing every aspect of their operations to meet ATO requirements; and the ATO better understanding the services ECAs could deliver.

29. Payment arrangements set out in the ATO’s contracts with ECAs reflected a flat fee per debt case referred for the first three months of the contract, before converting to a commission based structure. However, as a general principle, the ATO advised that it does not pay commission for debt collection. Consistent with this principle, the ATO later decided against the commission based approach set out in the ECAs’ contracts, and it was not implemented. The ATO did not consider all possible options for paying ECA fees; ECAs are paid a flat fee for each debt referred, irrespective of the outcome achieved. While the ATO did negotiate a reduction in the overall level of fees across the four providers, variations in the prices charged by each provider for delivering essentially the same services continued throughout the four years of the contracts. Price variations are even more pronounced under the new DoSOs, with one provider offering significantly lower prices than the other three.

30. During the first contract, debt cases were allocated fairly evenly between the ECAs, irrespective of any differences in their fees as there was little variation in their performance. The overall amount of work allocated to the ECAs was driven primarily by the funding available to pay those fees. The specific program funding received by the ATO was supplemented by the transfer of funds from other areas in the DBL, often towards the end of the financial year.

31. In recognition of the fluctuating nature of the funding and the consequences for the amount of work referred to ECAs, the ATO decided to engage providers under a DoSO for the period 2011–12 to 2014–15. These new arrangements will reduce the administrative burden on the ATO as the amount and type of work for ECAs varies—contract variations are more complex than the issuing of official work orders. However, the ATO has not determined an allocation method for sharing work across the panel. Weighing providers’ performance and costs (while ensuring the more expensive providers receive enough work to remain viable as panel providers to the ATO), and the overall amount of work that may be available, will require appropriate planning.

32. The management of risks to the secure transfer and management of taxpayer data is fundamental to the success of the debt referral program. While the ATO has final accountability for the security of taxpayers’ data, each ECA has contractual responsibilities for implementing appropriate arrangements. Within the ATO, staff managing the referral program utilise the services of two specialised branches:

• the Trusted Access branch that deals with information and communication technology arrangements; and
• the Security Policy and Services branch that has responsibility for the development of strategic and physical security policy.

33. The ATO had developed a framework to safeguard the management of ATO data. However, key elements of the framework have not been fully implemented, including the contractual requirements that ECAs would participate in an annual security review. There was no internal agreement as to where responsibility lay for initiating assurance activity, such as a security review, or for addressing identified issues within an agreed timeframe. The roles and responsibilities between the relevant branches evolved over the contract, and would benefit from further definition so that the required assurance regarding the security and management of taxpayers’ information is provided.

Operational strategy (Chapter 3)

34. The ATO transfers debt cases to and from ECAs on a weekly cycle, and with the transmission, includes updates to cases already under ECA management. However, for a range of reasons, the information may be out-of-date when ECAs contact taxpayers, reducing taxpayers’ confidence in the authenticity of the call, and the standard of the service provided by the ECA. To assist in this regard, the ATO maintains a team of around six staff to respond to in bound calls from ECAs. Referred to as the Debt Referral Support Team (DRST), it has been in place since the commencement of the contracts with ECAs in 2007–08. However, data on the number and nature of inbound calls is only available from July 2009. The ANAO’s analysis of this data indicates that four enquiry categories¹⁸, generally relating to account balance and other account detail issues, comprise the majority of inbound calls to the DRST. The ATO estimates that approximately 80 per cent are routine enquiries for information that is necessary to undertake debt collection activity. The DBL has developed several options to address this inefficiency, but these have not been progressed.

35. The profile of debt cases referred to ECAs has changed since commencement of the referral program, but they remain predominantly lower value cases that the ATO would not otherwise action. Cases that are still outstanding when they are retrieved by the ATO often remain in this category, and do not fall within the parameters for other debt treatments, including firmer action or strategic recovery. The ATO has taken an intermittent approach to the management of retrieved cases, and may refer the cases to another ECA for replication of the collection action, where no result has been achieved from the first referral. The ATO continues to explore different ways to deal with these cases, but could have better planned for their management in the original design of the program.

36. The ATO selects debt cases for referral from two business systems: activity statement and superannuation guarantee charge debt cases from the Legacy system, and income tax cases from the Enterprise system. The processes supporting the selection and referral of cases for ECAs from these systems are different: those for the Enterprise system are relatively simple in comparison to the requirements for the older Legacy system. Documentation setting out the processes for both systems is incomplete, and further work is required to develop comprehensive documentation to support consistency and the integrity of the referral program.

Performance management (Chapter 4)

37. Over the term of the referral program the ATO has refined and implemented a range of performance measures and reporting requirements to assess the performance of contracted ECAs. The ATO, in co-operation with the contracted ECAs, has developed and implemented a scorecard to assess ECA performance. The scorecard is based on requirements set out in ECA contracts and collection guidelines and is prepared on a quarterly basis. The scorecard results for 2009–10 to 2010–11 show marginal differences in ECA performance, with specific scores being extended by up to three decimal points to differentiate between ECAs. The purpose of each of the performance categories in the scorecard is not clearly defined, and undertaking the quarterly performance process involves considerable time and effort by both ECA and ATO staff. There would be merit in the ATO reviewing the scorecard to provide assurance that it is an effective mechanism for measuring ECA performance.

38. The ATO advised that one of the main reasons for using the scorecard to monitor ECA performance is to drive competition between ECAs. However, the contractual arrangement effectively positions ECAs as an extension of the ATO’s operations; all ECAs provide the same services as the ATO. This ‘seamlessness’ may impact on performance outcomes by limiting any specific expertise the ECAs could apply to the collection of tax and superannuation debt.

39. The ATO does not set out specific objectives for the referral program. The success of the outsourcing initiative is based on the projected number of debt cases that may be referred to the ECAs each year, and the estimated amount of debt they could be expected to collect. The expected number of cases to be referred to ECAs, and the amounts collected, were overtaken within the first few months of the program’s operation. The figures were not revised throughout the first contract period (2007–08 to 2010–11) to reflect this situation. Over these four years, the original collection target for ECAs was $310 million, based on the referral of less than 700 000 cases. However, approximately 1.6 million cases were actually referred resulting in actual ECA collections of more than $1.1 billion¹⁹, exceeding the target by more than 290 per cent.

40. The ATO produces several reports on the results achieved by the ECAs, but none provide a comprehensive view of the broader impact of the referral program, or of its total costs. The high value of the reported collection results may mask and reduce the business imperative to do so, including to compare the costs of the program with in-house activities. Since the 2006 pilot program, the ATO has implemented a range of new debt collection approaches, including the use of dialler technology developed in the private sector. Evaluating the program in a comprehensive way could encourage achievement of further efficiencies in the ATO’s processes.

Summary of agency response

41. The ATO provided the following summary comment to the audit report:

The ATO welcomes the recognition by the ANAO of the evolving nature of the debt referral program. The ATO continues to pursue contemporary approaches in the management and collection of debt, providing support and assistance to taxpayers willing to work with us to manage their outstanding tax and superannuation debt. This support includes the earlier initiative to offer general interest charge free payment arrangements to assist taxpayers manage through the global financial crisis.

The ATO recognises that its ability to influence (and measure) payment compliance behaviour must be considered in the wider context of the many factors that impact on a taxpayer’s ability and willingness to meet tax and superannuation obligations in an ever-changing environment. We will continue to take a differentiated approach by considering individual taxpayer circumstances as this is consistent with the broader ATO approaches and underpins our enhanced collection program. This includes taking appropriate action where taxpayers are unwilling to work with us or are no longer viable. The ATO is committed to continuous improvement and recognises the review highlights several opportunities to strengthen and further improve the management of the program, with an emphasis on increased analysis and evaluation of costs to enhance our decision making processes.

The ATO agrees with the three recommendations contained in the review.

42. ATO’s full comments are included at Appendix 1 of the report.

Footnotes

[1]   ATO, Making a difference: The intent behind our strategic statement 2010–15 Booklet, June 2010, p. 3, available from < http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.aspx?doc=/content/00244655.htm> [accessed August 2011].

[2]   ANAO Audit Report No.42 2006–07, The ATO’s Administration of Debt Collection–Micro-business, June 2007, p. 38. The Report noted there are many more taxpayers in the new tax system than previously and thus many more taxpayers that could potentially fall into tax debt. It also noted the increase in the value of collectable debt coincided with an increase in the level of household and corporate debt in Australia.

[3]   Economics Legislation Committee, Budget Estimates, Committee Hansard, 3 June 2004, p. E172-3. In response to the Committee, the (then) Commissioner of Taxation signalled to the committee that the ATO would be getting firmer with people who were not paying their tax. 

[4]   Economics Legislation Committee, Additional Estimates, Committee Hansard, 17 February 2005,
p. E127-8. In response to the committee, the (then) Commissioner of Taxation indicated that one new strategy was that he had recently taken the decision to devote a substantial number of additional resources to enable the ATO to action more promptly a range of smaller debts.

[5]   Dialler technology is an automated dialling capability for the management of outbound phone calls. It automatically dials numbers from a pre-set list, filtering out numbers that are unanswered, busy or disconnected.

[6]   Outsourcing is the establishment of a contract or arrangement where a person or organisation, external to the participating Commonwealth organisation, performs tasks or provides services that could have been done by Commonwealth employees, regardless as to whether the external provider has undertaken the whole of the function or part thereof.

[7]   A non-complex debt is a debt arising from one type of tax, for example, income tax.

[8]   In a panel arrangement, a deed of standing offer or a contract exists between an agency and each supplier on the panel detailing: the type of property or service the supplier will provide; the set/indicative price for the property or service; and the manner in which in the agency will procure the property or service from the supplier, including any process for competition between panel members, where appropriate.

[9]   Under the first contract period, the ECAs’ service offer included a set number of telephone call and letters per debt case referred. Subject to the category and or value of the case and how quickly the taxpayer engaged with the ECA, ECAs would undertake between two and five telephone calls, and issue between three and five letters. Under the DoSOs, the number of telephone calls and letters issued per debt case has been standardised to three telephone calls and three letters, regardless of the value or category of the debt.

[10]   Aged debt is defined by the ATO as debt outstanding for more than two years.

[11]   Payments related to ECA actions are recognised by the use of specific payment codes. From 1 July 2011, following an account sampling exercise, 65.3 per cent of any other payments made to debt cases being managed by ECAs are attributed to ECA activity.

[12]   ANAO Audit Report No.23 1999–2000 The Management of Tax Debt Collection, Canberra 1999, and ANAO Audit Report No.42 2006–07, The ATO’s Administration of Debt Collection–Micro-business, June 2007.

[13]   The ATO’s contracts with ECAs are based exclusively on a flat fee payment structure. The ATO, as a general principle, does not link debt collection to employee remuneration, and has extended this principal to the arrangement with ECAs. Commission-based pricing has not been used at any stage of the outsourced arrangements.

[14]   Debt cases can remain with an ECA for up to 180 days, before they are retrieved by the ATO. This means that the management of the debt case returns to the ATO.

[15]   Commissioner of Taxation’s Annual Report, 2010–11, p. 51.

[16]   The $3.8 billion was composed of debts that are either irrecoverable at law (bankruptcy or wind-up) or uneconomical to pursue (where cost of recovery exceeds likely collections).

[17]   The transfer of debt cases during the pilot program had been undertaken by the manual uploading of taxpayers’ information on to optical disks, and delivering the disks by hand to the ECA.

[18]   The four enquiry categories that account for the majority of inbound calls to the DRST are: account balance enquiry–relating to the current balance that is owed, as well as the nature of the debt; account enquiry (other)–not related to the account balance, for example, bank details for the taxpayer; payment enquiry–relating to the last payment received by the ATO, and the method of payment; and contact details required–taxpayer’s contact details are incomplete or out of date.

[19]   The collection amount of $1.1 billion is for the period 2007–08 to 2010–11 only and excludes $200 million in collections achieved by the ECAs but assigned by the ATO to the ATO’s ‘dialler’ teams and $684 million in collections for the first six months of this financial year, 1 July to 31 December 2011.