Comments by "John Woodrow" (@johnwoodrow8769) on "Government reaches $1.2 billion Robodebt settlement" video.

As I understand it, Scott Morrison's statement that "this goes back two Governments, using income averaging" is technically correct, but HIGHLY misleading. And he knows it is. Yes the idea of incoming averaging as a tool for Center-link investigators to identify possible problems and then look into the matter, may go back a decade. By that was changed by some 'bright spark' into a highly automated process of using the computer to simply mass select people, and then send everyone of them a letter saying you owe the Government $X, unless YOU can prove otherwise. The very basis of that approach was highly flawed. Anyone who has spent some time in a center-link office will understand why it is extremely difficult for many, near impossible for some, to prove their name, let alone what they may have earned in some part-time job working for a now gone small business 3+ years ago.
6
@Neil-yg5gm From Wikipedia "In the system established in 2011, Centrelink staff manually checked customer records against data provided by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), generating debt notices at an estimated rate of about 20,000 a year. In July 2016, the manual system was replaced with the Online Compliance Intervention, an automated data-matching technique with less human oversight, capable of identifying and issuing computer-generated debt notices to welfare recipients who had potentially been overpaid. Announced to the public in December 2016, by then-Minister for Social Services Christian Porter, this new automated debt recovery scheme – given the colloquial name 'robodebt' by the media - was estimated to be capable of issuing debt notices at a rate of 20,000 a week."
1
@Neil-yg5gm No, its you who are wrong. You're clearly a political hack prepared to say anything to try and deflect criticism from your 'team'. The Libs are 100% responsible for the 'robo-debt' disaster.
1
@Neil-yg5gm See, that's the problem when YOU view every issue through the lens of a one-eyed biased political operative. I'm actually a staunch conservative voter. I criticize the Liberals handling of robodebt because they need criticizing on it. I had first hand experience with it, sorting out issues for a family member, to realize what a disaster it was. Having said that thought, I still want to acknowledge the vast majority of Centerlink office staff. Once you were able to get past the 'attack dogs' they stick on the front counter as 'blockers' (the call center was virtually non existent such was the hours of waiting on the telephone) the office staff were nothing but helpful and caring to the situation as I explained to them. But to get to and work with this 'second level support' required a calm, educated, articulate, and persistent person. Something many of Centerlink's 'customers' are clearly not, which is obvious to anyone who has spent some time in a Centerlink office.
1
@Neil-yg5gm It was the changes in 2016 that caused ALL the problems. Anyone with half a brain and understanding of the 'process' (and in that I include the end 'customers') should have been able to anticipate the problems that would arise. The change was done for pure political 'grandstanding' by politicians without appropriately thinking it through (or not caring if they did). I have no doubt front line Centerlink personnel would have know it was going to be a disaster. I get a sense you don't actually understand what the major problem was with 'income averaging'. It can be HIGHLY inaccurate using someone's reported annual earnings from the ATO to 'validate' the amount paid to them by Centerlink. The whole basis of what someone is paid in benefits is based on what they may have earned each FORTNIGHT, based on a non linear adjustment scale for each addition dollar earned in the period. Not what they were reportedly paid each year. The two different basis of calculations can result in a major difference, only being somewhat the same if someone always earns the same amount each fortnight. Casual workers with variable hours and penalty rates will always have 'discrepancies'. Sending a letter to a vulnerable person saying you owe us this difference unless you can explain otherwise (and they have no understanding of why there is this discrepancy) was both illegal and morally irreprehensible.
1
@Neil-yg5gm That's what I said originally, Morrison was totally wrong (deliberately lying is a more accurate description) when he tries to deflect the issue back before 2016. It's a moot point if the practice was illegal or otherwise, it was definitely morally wrong. Go sit in a busy Centerlink office near the front desk for half an hour and just listen and observe. You'll hear many of the conversations from the whole office, lots of raised voices. That's all it takes to get a modest understanding of the many 'challenged' people the system has to cope with. Any system has to work for these people, it is no more than punishment trying to get these people to fit into a complex system that lacks transparency. There is a reason a lot of these people are in the situation they are in (and I say this with understanding and compassion, not criticism). P.S. And I have nothing but praise for the vast majority of Centerlink staff. I found most extremely helpful and understanding in the task I was helping someone with. I don't know how they can turn up everyday and deal with it all, I couldn't.
1
@Neil-yg5gm Your not 'listening'. Now listen carefully, again. Using ATO reported income as a GUIDE to see if someone may be ripping off the system was not the idea of a politician, and IS likely a useful tool if used correctly by investigators, as part of a broader approach. BUT .... it was the politicians in 2016 that took a useful analytical tool, and turned it into a complete system of its own, which was a really bad idea. It was turned into a fully automated system, mass mailing out letters to people, based on a highly questionable calculation, saying in effect to vulnerable and perhaps not the 'sharpest tools in the shed' .... "you own us this much unless YOU can prove otherwise". And to make matters even worse, as you can't prove it quickly we have passed to the debt over to an outsource debt collection agency staffed by people who can hardly speak English. And don't ask them anything about the debt when they call every week, because they can't help you. They just tell you if you have any question go back to sitting for HOURS waiting in a call center telephone queue. I must have spent possibly 40?? hours sitting in those queues if I add up it up. I NEVER got to actually speak to anyone, hence giving up and always going to the local Centerlink office, and basically refusing being told no one hear to help, ring the call center. If you were polite but forceful and held your ground, you did eventually get to see someone, and they were always helpful. You have to experienced it to properly appreciate what a disaster the whole thing was. A disaster from an idea, its execution, support, collection ..... everything.
1
@Neil-yg5gm Well it shouldn't be 'trial and error' when it involves some of societies most vulnerable people. And that is the reality for many of those who got caught up in this mess, people who struggle just to function. An imperfect system improved over time is one thing. A callous disregard for people done for no more than a 'get tough political theater' is another. They are quite happy to throw Billions of dollars down the drain if it suites them e.g. virus response, submarine deal, NBN, etc, etc, etc.
1
@cadaeishere8242 The very first major problem with the scheme is something you touched on, the requirement of those notified to respond appropriately to a notice. A large chunk of Centerlink 'customers' are in their situation because they don't know how to respond appropriately to anything complex or remotely difficult. So it just when downhill because they didn't know how to get on the 'front-foot'.
1
I wouldn't expect more than $100 'compensation' on top of money already paid to Centerlink which will be refunded. By the time the lawyers take their cut, from 1he $112 million 'compensation' component (the only bit they can take a cut) their won't be much left. So its basically money back for someone who has already paid a 'robodebt', plus a bit extra to allow you to take the family to McDonalds for the worry and stress you had to endure.
1