 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| ^ Robodebt doesn't matter. It only affected other people. |
|
|
|
 |
eddiesmith 
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | eddiesmith wrote: | It’s not the only failure of WPTs hero and dear leader that has lead to people’s deaths.
Morrison got the ass.
Brumby got the ass.
Andrews got an increased majority 🤷♂️ |
And Morrison and the federal Liberal Party also deserve some of the blame for the deaths caused by offshore detention centres, the costly delays caused by stuffing up the distribution of vaccines during the pandemic, and the bushfires (which Howard and his allies' decades-long stonewalling on climate change and frustration of international efforts to combat it have played a small but key role in helping to intensify).
But none of that has anything to do with Robodebt, and shifting the conversation to a debate about which major party is worse is a good way of ensuring that that specifically disastrous policy doesn't get discussed. |
Well we know the attention for the bushfires was all on the Federal Government for the lack of funding given to the state’s firefighting services because social media can’t blame a state Premier for anything… |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Are you incapable of staying on topic or just some kind of slightly simple LNP bot? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Seems increasingly likely that this will be the major legacy of the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison governments: a repellently inhuman domestic policy to match the repellently inhuman policies that they carried out on our borders.
Completely agree that all involved should never set foot in Parliament House ever again. |
The principle seems fair, cross check ATO data to make sure people receiving centrelink payments are being honest in disclosing their earnings, and seek repayments where they aren't.
I'm unclear on what the apparent Illegal part of it was. The income averaging, which is a bad way to do it?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
doriswilgus
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: the great southern land
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Without a doubt the biggest scandal in modern Australian political history.Hundreds of thousands of people were unfairly targeted and harassed by this scheme,resulting in lives being ruined and people even committing suicide.Just a shocking example of a system that was unaccountable and out of control. |
|
|
|
|
blackmissionary 
Lurker King
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | Seems increasingly likely that this will be the major legacy of the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison governments: a repellently inhuman domestic policy to match the repellently inhuman policies that they carried out on our borders.
Completely agree that all involved should never set foot in Parliament House ever again. |
The principle seems fair, cross check ATO data to make sure people receiving centrelink payments are being honest in disclosing their earnings, and seek repayments where they aren't.
I'm unclear on what the apparent Illegal part of it was. The income averaging, which is a bad way to do it? |
Robodebt was the government literally making up debts, using a simplistic and unreliable formula to do so, with little to no human oversight, on a massive scale. Instances of using income averaging to investigate discrepancies went up from 20,000 cases checked manually on an annual basis, to 20,000 debt notices being automatically issued per week. It switched the onus from Centrelink having to prove that a debt existed, to the welfare recipient having to prove that it didn't, without Centrelink providing any evidence as to how they came up with that debt or its total.
When threatened with court action to prove how they came up with the existence of a debt and its total, the relevant departments would often just negate or recalculate the debt to avoid having the matter being tested in court. High ranking public servants from several departments - DSS, DHS, and even the Ombudsman's office - went out of their way to ignore or redact internal and external advice that the scheme was unlawful to please their ministerial masters, who could then plead ignorance on the matter by claiming that they weren't told that operation of the scheme would require legislative change to make it lawful. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well said, blackmissionary. Stui, government departments have to follow the law too; they couldn’t just send you a debt notice because somebody there doesn’t like you, or because they’re running out of money, or because your name was drawn from a lucky dip. In this case, they were asking people for repayments that they weren’t legally entitled to ask for because the debts didn’t exist in the first place. It was a shocking failure of bureaucracy made in the name of efficiency, and one that was made by the government of the day in full knowledge of its legal dodginess and what consequences it might have for the people targeted.
All that to me puts it on an entirely different level and scope of misjudgement than, say, something like Rudd’s pink batts scheme. The nicest word for it is callous, though some might prefer evil.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I thought evil didn’t exist!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That’s what I thought, but the Liberal Party seems determined to prove otherwise to me. 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The legacy of Robodebt:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/08/it-was-so-shocking-why-robodebts-dark-legacy-will-linger-long-after-royal-commission-report
People need to read this in full – particularly those who defended the government when reports first came out about the failures of this process (buying the lies about it being a useful means of tracking down dole bludgers), and who in some cases continued to do so for years afterwards.
This was a catastrophic failure of governance that damaged lives (being associated with at least three suicides) and was done deliberately despite prior knowledge that it was unlawful. It makes most other government scandals pale in comparison.
Full list of recommendations here:
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/07/07/robodebt-royal-commission-recommends-prosecutions-reform/
| Quote: | The report’s 57 recommendations aim at “strengthening the public service”, improving processes at Services Australia and the Department of Social Services (DSS), and “reinforcing the capability of oversight agencies”, Holmes wrote.
The recommendations were grouped under 13 headlines in the report:
Effects of robodebt on individuals
• Services Australia should focus on the people it’s meant to serve, including by not stigmatising individuals who require government support. It should also use plain language, make sure it’s easy to deal with the agency, and be sensitive to financial stress experienced by welfare recipients.
The concept of vulnerability
• Services Australia should make sure to identify vulnerabilities that would mean a person isn’t capable of engaging with compliance activities.
• It should make sure staff engage with a recipient before removing a vulnerability indicator from their file, and not do so until the person confirms that vulnerability is no longer relevant.
• It should consider the categories of vulnerable recipients who may be affected by a program while designing it.
• And it should ensure there is clear documentation of criteria for people meant to be excluded from a compliance process.
The roles of advocacy groups and legal services
• The government should make it easier for advocacy groups to engage with Centrelink, consider creating a customer experience reference group, and consult peak advocacy bodies before modifying the social security system.
• When the government reviews the National Legal Assistance Partnership, it should consider the importance of community legal centres and legal aid commissions.
Experiences of Human Services employees
• Services Australia should create processes for genuine consultation with frontline staff when designing new programs, and put in place better feedback processes.
• It should also create more options for “face-to-face” customer service support options. There should also be increased social worker support for both recipients and staff.
Failures in budget process
• The rules for the budget process should require all new policy proposals to state whether they require legislative changes in order to be legal. The rules should also require any legal advice to be included in all versions of the portfolio budget submission circulated to other agencies and ministers.
• In those cases the policy proposals should include a statement as to whether the Australian government solicitor has reviewed and agreed with the advice. The checklist for new policy proposals should make clear what advice is being provided, and by whom.
• When developing compliance budget measures, Services Australia and the DSS should document the basis for the assumptions used, and what sources are being relied upon. When seeking agreement from the Department of Finance for the costing of those measures, Services Australia and the DSS should make those assumptions and sources available so that they can be properly investigated and tested.
Data-matching and exchanges
• The government should seek legal advice as to whether the current data exchange processes between Services Australia and the tax office (ATO) are lawful. The ATO and the Human Services Department (DHS) should take “immediate steps” to review governance practices that apply to joint data-matching programs, including making sure all operations are properly documented and legally compliant.
• The existing framework documents for current or proposed data-matching programs, the operations of the ATO/DHS consultative forum and the ATO/DHS data management forum, and the existing head agreement/s, memoranda of understanding and services schedule should all be reviewed.
Automated decision-making
• The government should consider legislative reform to make sure all automation in government services follows a consistent legal framework. When making automatic decisions, there should be a clear way for affected people to seek review, government websites should plainly explain how the process works, and the algorithms used should be made available for independent expert scrutiny.
• The government should also consider creating a body to monitor and audit automatic decision-making processes to make sure they avoid bias, are usable by clients, and so on.
Debt recovery and debt collectors
• Services Australia should develop a comprehensive debt recovery management policy, which should incorporate guidelines from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The policy should also ensure any debt recovery action is ethical and transparent, treat all recipients fairly and with dignity, avoid clawing back money while a debt is being reviewed, and respond appropriately to cases of hardship.
• The government should reinstate an effective limitation period of six years for bringing proceedings to recover debts.
Lawyers and legal services
• The selection panel for appointing chief counsels for Services Australia and DSS should include the Australian government solicitor. Services Australia should regularly train its lawyers on its legal practice standards. The DSS should develop its own legal practice standards, and regularly train its lawyers in following those. The DSS should always document the reasons for deciding draft advice doesn’t need to be provided in final form.
• Services Australia should only leave legal advice in draft form if there are remaining questions to be answered. The Legal Services Directions 2017 should be simplified. The Office of Legal Services Coordination (OLSC) should offer more extensive feedback to help agencies navigate the significant legal issues process.
• The OLSC should keep records of inquiries made and responses given by agencies, issue guidance material on obligations to consult on and disclose advice, and be properly resourced to deliver those functions.
• The charter governing the OLSC should place a positive obligation on chief counsel to ensure the Legal Services Directions 2017 are complied with. A revised bilateral management agreement should set out a requirement to consult on and disclose legal advice between the agencies.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)
• Services Australia should have a system for identifying AAT cases that raise significant legal and policy issues and bring those to the attention of senior bureaucrats. Services Australia legal officers who are responsible for preparing advice in relation to AAT decisions should be trained in the requirements of the standing operational statements in regards to referral to DSS, and other obligations.
• DSS should establish a system for identifying all significant AAT decisions and make sure the secretary is aware of them. The new body that will replace the AAT should create a system for publishing significant decisions on a readily accessible platform. A body similar to the Administrative Review Council should be reinstated to review government administrative decision-making processes.
The Commonwealth ombudsman
• Top department and agency bosses should have to ensure the bodies they represent assist the ombudsman in any investigations. The Ombudsman Act should be amended to give that office equivalent power to those in the Auditor-General Act.
• Department responses to ombudsman investigations should be overseen by the legal services division of the department. The ombudsman should maintain a log of communications with departments for the purposes of own motion investigations.
• The Ombudsman Act should be amended to make sure the office has the power to refer cases to the new body replacing the AAT.
Improving the Australian Public Service (APS)
• The Australian government should review the existing structure of the social services portfolio and make sure it, and the “status of Services Australia as an entity”, are both optimal.
• The Australian Public Service Commission should deliver a whole-of-service induction on knowledge that’s essential for public servants. Services Australia and DSS should have a “fresh focus” on customer service. The Administrative Review Council, if reinstated, should train APS staff in the Commonwealth administrative law system.
• The government should explore whether it’s feasible to establish an “internal college” within Services Australia to train staff. Senior executive service staff at Services Australia should spend time in frontline service delivery roles.
• The Public Service Act should be amended to make clear the APS commissioner can inquire into the conduct of ex-agency heads and to allow for disciplinary declarations to be made against them. The APS Commission should also develop standards for documenting important decisions and discussions.
‘Closing observations’
• The Commonwealth Cabinet Handbook should be changed so that a description of a document as a “cabinet document” is “no longer itself justification for maintaining the confidentiality of the document”. Confidentiality should only be maintained over cabinet documents when “it is reasonably justified for an identifiable public interest reason”. |
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| My perception of sacking a Public Servant is extremely hard. I have seen many despite incompetence and discretions that they don't get dismissed, they get moved sideways. I am hoping Kathryn Campbell is booted out of Defence. In saying that I feel she may have the evidence to take out others and a deal may be done. |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | That’s what I thought, but the Liberal Party seems determined to prove otherwise to me. |
Not just the Liberal party is evil.
All the Liberal politicians responsible for this scheme should be facing criminal charges.
Instead, Shorten and Albanese are politely saying to Morrisson that whether or not he leaves Parliament is a choice for him. This, to a man who is responsible for the criminal extortion of money from the most vulnerable layers in society!!
Same as the executives at PwC, who still face no criminal charges under the Labor government's watch.
Albanese and the entire Labor Party is complicit in shielding the entire political elite from any accountability. This is because they have no differences at all with their policies. Just as much as the LNP, the Labor Party aims to rip money away from those dependent upon any kind of government assistance. Take the example of the NDIS, which Albanese plans to eviscerate. Or the public health expenditure, which his government will cut by $2.4 billion over the next 4 years. Or the contemptuous ''increase'' of $50 per fortnight in unemployment benefits during a cost of living crisis. Afterall, it was Graeme Richardson in 2004 who declared that welfare recipients are "cheats'' from whom it is necessary to protect taxpayers' money. Morrison was simply following Richardson's advice.
_________________
Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
