|
Post by bear on Jun 24, 2020 7:15:43 GMT 7
The ‘problem’ is not ‘fixed’. Why we need a royal commission into robodebt
Public pressure is growing for a royal commission into the controversial robodebt scheme.
After calls from the Greens this week, Labor also demanded an inquiry.
As Opposition leader Anthony Albanese said: “how can we ensure that a debacle like this never happens again?”Read more: Government to repay 470,000 unlawful robodebts in what might be Australia's biggest-ever financial backdown But Prime Minister Scott Morrison quickly shot down the idea, telling reporters it wasn’t necessary, “because we’re fixing the problem”. The tide has turned on robodebtIn the past few months, the campaign against robodebt has enjoyed a series of unprecedented wins. Last November, the Federal Court declared the robodebt of Melbourne woman Deanna Amato was “not validly made”. Then last month, the Morrison government announced it would repay $721 million worth of robodebts. Earlier this month, Morrison also told parliament I would apologise for any hurt or harm in the way that the government has dealt with that [robodebt] issue. Meanwhile, a class action, seeking interest and damages on behalf of about 600,000 Australians, is scheduled for trial on September 21. Given all that is happening, however, we still need the power of a royal commission. Unanswered questionsAs an administrative law researcher, myself and my colleauges have watched the robodebt scandal play out for four years now. In this time, we have seen blocked freedom of information requests and unanswered questions. I have sat with some of my own students devastated by life-changing, inaccurate debts. Only a royal commission can bring real change to Centrelink, as it could ensure every unlawful debt is accounted for and fixed. Read more: From robodebt to racism: what can go wrong when governments let algorithms make the decisions Importantly, any potential class action settlement may not account for everyone who had an unlawful debt. For one thing, we know debts prior to June 2015 are excluded from the class action due to legal time limits on suing for damages. Despite claims it is “fixing the problem”, the federal government is so far refusing to take any practical action to find, refund or compensate this unknown number of people. We have also yet to see due diligence applied to debts raised solely from people’s bank statements. These debts are raised by turning net received income amounts into gross fortnightly earnings. This is a complex process, which raises further legal questions. Again, a royal commission is needed to ensure everyone who was harmed by defective administration is recognised and compensated. History cannot repeatA royal commission is also needed because it has the capacity to make sure robodebt never happens again. Robodebt is an unprecedented failure of governance in an institution - Centrelink - that potentially touches the lives of every Australian. A royal commission is needed to prevent governance failures like the robodebt scheme from happening again. Mick Tsikas/AAP At the institutional level, what has been done to people and the federal budget and since the scheme began cannot go uninvestigated. For example, we do not know when the government first learned that the scheme was unlawful. It is also not clear why it did not challenge multiple adverse Administrative Appeal Tribunal decisions about the robodebt scheme. Questions about budgetary processesRobodebt also raises troubling questions about Australian government budget processes. In early 2015, the government proposed removing existing compliance safeguards, telling Centrelink staff to stop gathering payslips directly from employers before raising debts. Just four months later, more than one billion dollars in estimated savings had already made its way into the federal budget. The program eventually grew to a projected $3.7 billion. It may now result in a net cost to the taxpayer. On any objective measure, that requires an independent inquiry. Centrelink needs to learn by listeningRobodebt is a reminder for academics, the media and the public that where we focus our attention is a form of power. A royal commission would give a platform to people who are frequently talked over, talked about or placed on hold by those in government. It’s not just consultants and politicians who have ideas about the government, everyday Australians have ideas, too. For four years, the people who knew the truth about robodebt were not listened to. When they hear the word “robodebt”, Australians should not see politicians or even court victories. We need to reshape the system around the working mum or dad, on the phone, two kids at their feet - who tried to accurately report their earnings to the government, only to be told they owed a crudely averaged debt. No wonder an estimated 55% of Australians already support the idea of a royal commission into robodebt. theconversation.com/the-problem-is-not-fixed-why-we-need-a-royal-commission-into-robodebt-141273
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jul 2, 2020 4:18:48 GMT 7
Robodebt victims forced to wait for refunds from unlawful Centrelink debts
Services Australia says only a ‘small number of refunds’ will be made in early July
Thousands of robodebt victims will be kept waiting on refunds the federal government said it would start processing from 1 July, while those owed “larger” amounts after receiving an unlawful Centrelink debt will receive their money back in “instalments”.In a backdown announced in May, the government services minister, Stuart Robert, said Services Australia would pay “some 190,000 [people] from 1 July”, while the agency would seek to get in touch with the remainder of the 373,000 people it says are eligible for refunds. But in a statement published on Wednesday, Services Australia said only a “small number of refunds” would be made in “early July” to test the refund system, while “refunds will then be made from late July, with most expected to be paid by the end of November this year”. “Refunds will include repayment of any recovery fees and interest charges that we applied to your eligible debt,” the statement said. “If your refund is a larger amount, it will be paid in instalments.” Now that the government has conceded the money was unlawfully obtained from welfare recipients, the increasing delays have been a source of frustration among critics, including Labor, the Greens and Gordon Legal, the firm challenging the scheme through a class action. Andrew Grech, a partner at Gordon Legal, told Guardian Australia it was “outrageous” the government would pay back the larger refunds in instalments. “What’s happening here is the government has admitted it is unlawfully holding the money of other people, it shouldn’t take the position it gets to decide how and when it pays it back,” he said. “It seems outrageous to me, being the Commonwealth, they would want to pay it back in instalments. We’re not talking about millions dollars per claimant. “For most of these claimants, the average amount is around $1,500-$2,000 and it seems preposterous that the Commonwealth would need to do that in instalments.” On Wednesday morning, Guardian Australia approached the agency for comment about whether refunds would begin from 1 July on Wednesday. The agency published a statement on its website and did not respond to the Guardian. A spokeswoman declined to answer questions on how many refunds would be issued this month, or why the money would not be paid from 1 July, as announced by Robert in May. She did not immediately have any details on how the refunds would be paid when delivered in “instalments”. In the statement on its website, Services Australia said people who are currently receiving Centrelink payments and were eligible for a refund would receive a notification on their online account within five business days once the refund was processed. Those who are not receiving benefits would have to update their details with the agency from “late July”, the statement said. People would receive a letter confirming the refund amount, the agency said. “We’ll write to you if you’re eligible for a refund from mid-July,” it said. “In cases where no money has been paid towards an eligible debt, that debt will be reduced to zero.” Labor’s government services spokesman, Bill Shorten, said Robert had “once again” misled the public on robodebt, “this time reneging on a promise to repay money illegally taken from them”. “He previously said 190,000 Australians would be repaid from today but that has now been dramatically reduced to ‘a small number in July’,” Shorten said. “They are clearly stalling for time, treating robodebt victims like idiots.” The government’s robodebt program issued at least 470,000 unlawful debts to welfare recipients from 2015 using a flawed method known as “income averaging”. The government has only committed to repaying debts raised in this fashion. The program is currently the subject of a class action in the federal courtwhich argues that about 600,000 debts should be refunded, including those initially raised using this method but later substantiated using other evidence, such as payslips. The total value of all debts raised through the scheme is about $2bn. Gordon Legal has argued the court should have oversight over the refunds process. Guardian Australia revealed last month the government’s proactive decision to proactively announce refunds while the case was ongoing was in part aimed at discouraging people to take part in the class action, which is also seeking compensation and interest payment. Amid concerns over the tax treatment of refunds, the agency also confirmed robodebt refunds would not be taxable income and that recipients would not need to rectify past tax returns in anyway. A spokesman for Robert said the minister had been consistent, pointing the Guardian to a press release that said the refunds would begin from July. www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/01/robodebt-victims-forced-to-wait-for-refunds-from-unlawful-centrelink-debts
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jul 2, 2020 4:24:01 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jul 17, 2020 9:13:48 GMT 7
Robo-debt: Minister claims the government is not built for refunds
The federal government will begin issuing refunds next week, but in chunks due to tech restraints and only as individuals update their payment information.
With the federal government in May admitting its bungled robo-debt scheme incorrectly issued 470,000 debts to those in receipt of welfare, Services Australia has been gearing up to refund around AU$721 million to Australians.
But it isn't as easy as pressing a refund button, Minister for Government Services Stuart Robert said on Tuesday."The government is not geared to do refunds, it doesn't have a system for it, so we've actually built out that system," he said. He said Services Australia is waiting for Centrelink customers that were a victim of the Online Compliance Intervention (OCI) program to update their details. "[For] about a 190,00ish, we have all their details … so the other almost 200,000 … we'll reach out to say, 'Hey, come into myGov, update your bank details, and as soon as they're updated we'll pay you'," he explained. "So we suspect it'll take through to November for all those Australians to update their details. If they all updated their details in one go, great, we could pay them progressively over a number of weeks. Our experience indicates that won't be the case, but Australians will take time and update their details progressively." Services Australia will start issuing refunds from the 13th of this month through the end of November, but some refunds will be delivered in chunks. "So 373,000 Australians, the average repayment will be about AU$1,900," Robert said, answering a question following his address to the National Press Club. "One of the reasons there'll be some instalments, and about 7,000 give or take, Australians will have two instalments only because there is a check in the system where the system can't pay out any more than AU$6,999 in one instance." Robert said this failsafe was implemented after a Human Services staff member put over AU$4 million in the amount to be refunded field, believing it was a date field, a number of years ago. "That was considered by the government of the day to probably not be the right thing, so the Labor government of the day put in a check at that AU$6,999," he explained. "So that's still there as a check and sum, so that's why there'll be about AU$7,000 give or take that will be done in two instalments." On expanding the refund project to those in receipt of welfare prior to 2015, Robert said he knows "it's been going on for 10, 20, or 30 years" as the Ombudsman report made that clear. "We know that it started probably as early as 2007 ... as I said in Parliament, we've done a sample of 500 in 2009 and 16.6% -- or about 4,000 debts -- were raised wholly or partially with average ATO data," Robert said. "We did the same thing in 2011 and in 24.4% of those, debts were raised either solely or passing through averaged income data. So that's the only data sets we have at present in terms of where we sit, which just goes to show I guess the long history of the use of averaged ATO data that had been common practice for many, many years." www.zdnet.com/article/robo-debt-minister-claims-the-government-is-not-built-for-refunds/
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jul 18, 2020 8:51:00 GMT 7
Been a while. SO GGGGGGRRRRROOOOWWWLLL. He really is a despicable sub species of a human. Nothing but lies from his filthy mouth. GGGGRRRROOOOWWWLLLL again. YOU B.!
|
|
|
Post by quantumranger on Jul 27, 2020 0:26:47 GMT 7
You can check whether you are eligible for a refund if you haven't gotten a letter saying you will get a refund. By logging in to mygov then go to centrelink Select payments and claims then manage payments then income compliance refund query A lot of people like myself have logged in and it said we are not eligible. Really another kick in the guts So pissed off Scroll down: If you don't get a payment from us. www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/news/income-compliance-refunds
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jul 27, 2020 7:54:26 GMT 7
I thought everyone was getting a refund with no questions asked. Bring on the class action.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jul 31, 2020 22:30:19 GMT 7
‘Not correct’ that robodebt caused suicides, former head of Human Services says
In fiery Senate hearing Kathryn Campbell strenuously denies there have been deaths over welfare debt recovery scheme
It’s the dance of dead soul senior public servants obeying their masters to keep their luxurious lifestyles by denying responsibility for shitty policies that not only hurt people, but drive desperate and vulnerable people to kill themselves. Of course the LNP robodebt policy did not CAUSE any deaths – you could never prove that. However, the EFFECT of non-existent debt retrieval neoliberal policies is that some desperate and vulnerable people did kill themselves. Did the government envisage that that would happen? – who knows.It did happen, and it is inexcusable. Governments exist to protect people. Not this government. Not this most senior public servant. Imagine if Kathryn Campbell could feel the full brunt of the EFFECTS of what she carried out, on behalf of the LNP, to her fellow Australians? – she might have to kill herself... And the worst part, the really shitty part of this sad and sorry affair is that the federal government did not need the money. Money, they create every day through spending it into existence. There is no excuse. On with the strenuous and grotesque wilful ignorance. Excerpts: “Chair, I do not accept those assertions that are being made, they are not correct,” Campbell said”. “Campbell refused to say whether legal advice was sought following a last-minute public interest immunity claim brought by the government services minister, Stuart Robert. Robert’s letter, which was received in the middle of the hearing and infuriated Labor and Greens senators, claimed questions related to legal advice could prejudice the commonwealth’s case in the ongoing class action. The claim, the second made by Robert in a bid to avoid answering questions over the legality of the scheme in parliament, was not accepted by the committee. Asked by Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick whether she knew the answer to whether legal advice was sought and was simply declining to say, Campbell took the question on notice, saying she could not answer because she did not have “that material in front of me”. Read more:www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/31/not-correct-that-robodebt-caused-suicides-former-head-of-human-services-says?fbclid=IwAR3sA5vx5UW1x5E474mb87qBDdj4jGbME3zKfnR9lrezPvcVwBNYZqzahYsm.facebook.com/groups/363700444190840?view=permalink&id=722846324942915
|
|
|
Post by bear on Aug 1, 2020 8:28:43 GMT 7
Government argues Centrelink robodebt letter did not 'compel' recipients to provide documents
Defence against class action seeking refunds claims letter telling people they ‘must confirm or update’ details was only a request
Hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients who handed in Centrelink payslips or bank statements after getting a robodebt letter were never forced to hand over the information, the federal government says.In an updated defence to a federal court class action, the commonwealth says an “initial letter” sent to welfare recipients through the robodebt program was only a request and did not “compel” people to hand over the documents. The government has conceded 470,000 debts based on Australian Tax Office data were unlawful, but wants to deny refunds to a smaller group of people who provided payslips or bank statements after getting an initial letter or debt notice and were then found to owe money. Robodebt victims could face second round of pain – tax bills on refunds The argument, if accepted by the court, would allow the government to resist wiping or paying back about 200,000 debts, which are worth about $500m, according to confidential figures seen by Guardian Australia. “The respondent says that by sending an initial letter, it requested but did not compel group members to provide income information to the commonwealth,” the government says in court documents obtained by Guardian Australia. The defence adds that “no statutory power was or is required to request the provision of information to the commonwealth on a voluntary basis”. More than 1m of these “initial” letters were sent to welfare recipients through the robodebt program, which ran in its unlawful form from mid-2015 until November 2019. They generally stated that Centrelink had a detected a discrepancy between the fortnightly income a person declared to the agency while receiving welfare benefits and annual pay information held by the ATO. A version of the letter sent in 2017, after the scheme had already erupted into scandal, stated: “You must confirm or update the information within 28 days of receiving this letter. “Please note, if you don’t confirm or update the information within 28 days, we may apply the employment dates and income from the ATO to your record. This may result in a debt you will need to repay.” In November, the government conceded that the use of that ATO data to issue debts to welfare recipients was unlawful. Gordon Legal argues that there about 600,000 robodebt victims who received unlawful debts, compared to the 370,000 identified by the government for refunds. It argues that debts that were raised or substantiated using pay information provided by welfare recipients should also be invalidated by the court because they were tainted by a so-called “reverse onus of proof”. The firm says the program forced welfare recipients to provide old payslips, dating back as much as six years, under the threat of a debt being issued based on faulty calculations. With a trial date set for September, the parties have been engaged in a dispute over thousands of documents sought by Gordon Legal through the discovery process. Centrelink debts have been collected based on income-averaging for '20 to 30 years', minister reveals On Thursday, federal court justice Michael Lee denied a request from the commonwealth to strike out discovery orders of documents that could show whether or not senior managers or governments ministers knew the scheme was unlawful while it was operating. The government has made public interest immunity and legal professional privilege claims to resist handing over many of the documents. Gordon Legal has previously said it is mulling a potential misfeasance in public office claim, which could involve ministers hauled before the court. Separately, top bureaucrats responsible for the scheme were due to front a Senate inquiry hearing on Friday. www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/31/government-argues-centrelink-robodebt-letter-did-not-compel-recipients-to-provide-documents
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Aug 2, 2020 7:34:31 GMT 7
There is no bottom to the sewer of this government. When was the last time you got a request from Centrelink to do something then it said You do not have to provide this information if you don't want to? It is a discretionary request only. They have no limit to how evil they are to save their own skins. But skin them alive I say.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Aug 2, 2020 7:51:08 GMT 7
That would've been back in 2000-2003 nomadic . I kept getting these weird letters telling me to go to somewhere for something or other......possibly specialist job search or retraining. At the bottom of the letter it said to this effect; "If you do not wish to participate do nothing and/or please disregard this letter". Maybe it was after my two year review; but at some stage they stopped arriving. I did as the letter suggested, nothing; as I'd just been put on DSP. My attitude was if I'm disabled; how could I possibly participate. I looked upon it as a trick letter....... cheers bear P.S. In this particular instance above though, I think they're telling porkies to try and save their skins.......flay 'em alive.
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Aug 2, 2020 9:36:14 GMT 7
The lies and obfuscation will be continuing for a while. And they will be instructive...
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Aug 2, 2020 19:23:10 GMT 7
had to google it. so for others. perfect description.
Obfuscation is the obscuring of the intended meaning of communication by making the message difficult to understand, usually with confusing and ambiguous language
|
|
|
Post by mspurple on Aug 3, 2020 8:50:46 GMT 7
They would not have a clue how it affected people nor how responsible they are for it and even if they did have a clue they seriously would not give a crap. My mother did exactly what they told her to do and this is how she ended up with a debt from them that changed her life and the lives of myself and my children.
My whole life was turned upside down and is still suffering from the robodebt issue and I did not even have the debt. Every aspect of my life was changed and is still stuck in a crappy situation from the choices and changes we had to make to survive through the threats, accusations and financial hardship they caused. It snowballs and they seemed to enjoy the whole downfall they caused and continued to blame her for the things they told her she had to do then told her she was basically a criminal low life for getting the debt and threatened that they could and would send her to jail for following their advice on what she needed to do.
They all have no conscience and really seemed to enjoy the power they had over someones life- they affected more than just the people they accused of owing money. I hope they all die extremely slowly and alone so they can all have the freedom of time to fully comprehend how much their evil ways and behaviours affected and ruined people. Sorry for the nastiness but they all honestly deserve it. You think they were awful to deal with to get DSP?? That was seriously nothing to the accusations and threats they were throwing at my mother every day verbally and via letters over the debt they forced her into and refused to properly review.
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Aug 3, 2020 19:48:56 GMT 7
Well said. I feel just as nasty towards them also. Hopefully, you are part of the class action and tell the world your story. I would give my good right arm to reveal mine and all the other horror stories to the general public who have been trained to think we are all cheats. May the media who back them up end up where you/we want them also. I look forward to hearing from people who get refunded in the short term but even more so to the compensation from the class action later on.
|
|