The murderous disaster of Robodebt

[Pies4shaw]

[Culprit]

As far as Dole Bludgers go, there is and always will be a very small percentage of people who are unemployable. That doesn't stop the media and the Liberal party creating a frenzy about Dole cheats. It's like people posting that all welfare recipients be drug tested. Once again do the maths. This is all about getting votes from the lowest common denominator. Similar to Trumps attacks. We will not get the budget back in the black by getting drip fed money back from over payments or the Pensioner adjustments. As I said before this is about grabbing votes, mainly those back from that smole Hanson.

[Dave The Man]

^^^ Dave, I don't think it is actually about saving $$$$ - it's an ideological campaign directed to making poor people who are dependent upon benefits feel worthless. I doubt that they would much care if it cost them $600M to recover $300M - the ritual humiliation and scape-goating is its own reward.

Then that will lead to more:

-Drugs
-Crime
-Sucides
-Making Society even Worse

[Pies4shaw]

Yes, Dave, we are in heated agreement.

[Pies4shaw]

Here is a very interesting first-hand account of the process written by someone who was accused of having a debt of over $3,000 in circumstances where Centrelink already had (and acknowledged that it already had) all of the data necessary to show that there was no such debt. The fellow concerned is part of the subject-matter of the article from which David drew his OP. The issue appears to have arisen because of an income-averaging algorithm that gets applied indiscriminately and inappropriately (there is a link in the article from which David quoted that goes so far as to show the screenshots that Mr Griffin took demonstrating the error in the Centrelink "debt-calculation" processing of his income), irrespective of information that Centrelink already has on its files. I'm really appalled (but, sadly, neither shocked nor remotely surprised) that this level of apparent deception and wickedness could be routinely practised by my government against its own citizens:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... accusation

The author, Michael Griffin, is described on the Guardian website in the following way:

"Michael Griffin is a filmmaker and comedian from Brisbane, Australia. An Emmy and BAFTA winner as part of the Hoodlum team, he currently works as a freelance editor and writer. He's performed sketch, standup and improv across Australia, and his show Sex Nation is playing Melbourne International Comedy Festival 2017."

I look forward, of course, to someone explaining to me that that is actually code for "dole bludger". Arty types - you know, "that ain't workin', that's the way to do it" .... there may be a song in that, somewhere.

[Dave The Man]

https://twitter.com/GovGoogles/status/8 ... 9675629568

[mandy]

I would rather live in a country that makes welfare available to all, including the odd lazy bludger, than not have it at all.

[Dave The Man]

I would rather live in a country that makes welfare available to all, including the odd lazy bludger, than not have it at all.

True. Though IF Liberals had there way there be no Welfare at all

[Mugwump]

I would rather live in a country that makes welfare available to all, including the odd lazy bludger, than not have it at all.

Except that is not really the choice on offer or the issue here. It is like saying that "I'd rather have pharmaceutical drugs with side effects than no drugs at all". That should not stop us trying to remove the side effects (ie catching and sanctioning cheats and wastrels).

And that, I should add, does not defend the type of bureaucratic bullying that seems to be taking place with these letters.

[think positive]

Exactly

[Culprit]

This is Turdbull

[Tannin]

[think positive]

You mean the legal loopholes they take advantage of

[Mugwump]

You mean the legal loopholes they take advantage of

^ Yes, that is the point, TP.

An action may be undesirable without being unlawful. I find a lot of corporate tax behavior immoral, and a lot of private tax avoidance through lawful means unproductive for society, but benefit fraud is different - it is unlawful. The responsibility of government is to enforce the law. If it finds tax behaviour undesirable then it needs to legislate against it. Mixing up fraud and lawful tax minimization is like reacting to a leak by demanding more water is put in the cistern.

[partypie]

What they are doing is saying with minimum investigation that there is a debt and its up to the person to prove there is not. I can't imagine any other organisation being able to do this, with the possible exception of the tax office. If this method becomes acceptable the you can bet the tax office is going to do it if it's not already. It does not gel with the concept of procedural fairness and it will affect those least able to defend themselves.
Yes, there are some people rorting the system but it does not mean that some mad experiment in reducing the deficit aimed at the most vulnerable should be pursued.
If you know someone you think is rorting the system or you hear them boasting about it, dob them in.