Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Stuart Robert should of ‘lost his place’ in the ministry over robodebt" video.

  1. What an absolute disgrace to Australia those ministers and public servants and LNP policy advisors who over saw this scheme. How do they sleep at night?
    6
  2. Just a straight out lie or total ignorance. Robodebt commenced operation in July of 2016.
    5
  3. All you are doing is repeating an already debunked claim by Peter Dutton. Yes under Shorten Labor increased some automation and matching, however the LNP took it to a new level and more importantly introduced income averaging making it fundamentally different from the Labor government efficiencies making it LNP illegal activity.
    5
  4.  @Neil-yg5gm  Thankyou for confirmation of your obvious lie. This was not Robodebt just the normal Centrelink business practice refinement or adjustments. Robodebt commenced operation under the LNP government in 2016. You are factually and demonstrably wrong.
    3
  5.  @Neil-yg5gm  Like I said we will see what the Final report of the Commission says. There was a significant policy change in 2016. That was under a LNP government. Governments set policy public servants implement it. Public servants under a Labor government didn’t implement an illegal scheme.
    3
  6.  @travstar5447  As explained previously your comment is nonsensical.
    2
  7. I might point out that I fully support any scheme or system that reduces welfare fraud. Robodebt however was the exact opposite of this.
    2
  8.  @Neil-yg5gm  Your terminology is just factually wrong. Robodebt as a policy initiative started in 2016. What you are describing is not Robodebt. The evidence before the Royal Commission so far suggests it was exactly LNP ministers influencing department staff, however I will wait and see what the final report says.
    2
  9.  @Neil-yg5gm  I am of no doubt that's what Peter Costello said.
    2
  10. Except it didn’t catch free loading scabs it initiated non existent debt recovery from people who didn’t owe the government a cent. It actually cost the government money. Why would you love a scheme that cost you money. Seems completely nonsensical to me.
    1
  11.  @Neil-yg5gm  No that is a either a deliberate lie, an attempt at misinformation or ignorance. In July 2016 the LNP initiated changes that made it illegal. You are factually and demonstratively wrong. The final report from the Royal Commission will emphasise this point.
    1
  12.  @Neil-yg5gm  Right, we are now in complete agreement. Hopefully the final report from the Royal Commission will explain this.
    1
  13. Also I apologise for some of my more stringent language as I honestly believed you were just parroting LNP talking points.
    1
  14. Having said that public servants under a Labor government certainly set up faulty schemes. Roof installation scheme as evidence.
    1
  15.  @Neil-yg5gm  That is at odds to the Royal Commission in home insulations findings, that found the scheme was instigated by the government and poorly advised by the PS.
    1
  16.  @Neil-yg5gm  Yes I understand that. I on the other hand refuse point blank to allow elected politicians who make the decisions off the hook. LNP policy on social welfare was fundamentally corrupt. Both public servants and politicians need to be held to account no matter what side of politics they are on. There are intellectually disabled adults on welfare payments who were preyed on by a LNP government bereft of any sort of moral compass. Scotty from marketing at the top of the list.
    1
  17.  @Neil-yg5gm  I'm not disagreeing with you. The refugee policies from both sides has been appalling. I spent 9 months on border protection. Nobody got in on my watch.
    1
  18.  @Neil-yg5gm  It's certainly a tricky balance. There is no doubt some are economic however many are in acute danger of losing thier lives. Not everyone has the "luxury" of sitting in a refugee camp for 10 years
    1
  19.  @Neil-yg5gm  As I said appalling. Offshore detention was bad policy. I am not disagreeing with you.
    1
  20.  @Neil-yg5gm  What you seem to be missing in this discussion is intent. What was the intent of these decisions. The practical result is one thing however if the original intent was to do good then that is different to a decision that was to inflict pain in the first place.
    1