8 ms·

And yet we have RoboDebt and public drunkenness laws. We have a Pentecostal prime minister whose cabinet toes the line that poor people are bad and deserve to b

And yet we have RoboDebt and public drunkenness laws. We have a Pentecostal prime minister whose cabinet toes the line that poor people are bad and deserve to be punished. Your faith in the administration is sorely misplaced.

tomhoward 7y ago
I'm no supporter of the current federal government, leader or cabinet. But these points have little relevance. Public drunkenness laws are a state matter, nothing to do with the federal government, have been in place effectively forever, and these days are only ever enforced against people who are being violent or damaging property. They're hardly controversial. (If you're talking about recent NSW lockout laws, I can agree these are stupid, but they have been implemented and applied as they were designed). Your attack on the prime minister is grounded in religion, which is not cool. The robo-debt collection scheme was obviously poorly implemented, but was part of an effort that began several years ago to use technology to make government more efficient. It has since been reviewed and reformed, a process that continues. Regardless of which political party you prefer, or even which system of governance you prefer, governing is always a case of managing trade-offs and competing virtues, and can only ever be an effort to achieve the least-worst outcome, never an outcome that pleases everyone. Throughout the world and throughout history, seeking efficiency and fairness in the taxation and welfare systems is about the most difficult thing governments have to do. None of this means the tax laws under discussion can't be drafted in such a way that they accommodate the thing you're talking about.
- manicdee 7y ago
  My attack on the prime minister is based on his belief in prosperity theology, not just because he belongs to a particular faith. If you want to dismiss that as “not cool” then knock yourself out. In the meantime we have a ruling class who believe that poor people are bad people and God has punished them by making them poor. This is demonisation of the middle and lower classes institutionalised into a religion. The RoboDebt system has continually been refined but it is still broken, issuing debt claims that are wrong 20% of the time (where “wrong” is defined as “the recipient complained and upon review we found it to be an incorrect claim” rather than “we reviewed all claims and found that 80% of them were correct”). Nobody involved in the system believes it is fit for purpose, there is plenty of expert advice at all levels of government and welfare support stating that the system will lead to hardship and suicides. The government persists, so it can only be assumed that their intent is to cause hardship and drive people to suicide. This is not a matter of compromises being made, this is direction for the Minister that RoboDebt notices should be issued without review, knowing full well that doing so will have these outcomes. Nothing that this government does is about efficiency and fairness.
  - tomhoward 7y ago
    Seriously, HN is not the place for charged political rhetoric like this. Like I said, I'm no fan of this government or its leadership. For what it's worth I literally handed out how-to-vote cards for the other side in the last federal election, not that it should matter in this context. But partisan, ideologically charged venting like this makes it impossible to have constructive and/or interesting discussions about the way government works.
    - manicdee 7y ago
      Without understanding of the ideology behind RoboDebt there is no way to discuss either making it work or mitigating the damage it does. The ideology drives the definition of “working”.
      - tomhoward 7y ago
        It’s a simplistic and narrowly-judgemental take on a complex topic; exactly the kind of commentary that HN participants are asked to avoid.

tomhoward 7y ago

I'm no supporter of the current federal government, leader or cabinet. But these points have little relevance. Public drunkenness laws are a state matter, nothing to do with the federal government, have been in place effectively forever, and these days are only ever enforced against people who are being violent or damaging property. They're hardly controversial. (If you're talking about recent NSW lockout laws, I can agree these are stupid, but they have been implemented and applied as they were designed). Your attack on the prime minister is grounded in religion, which is not cool. The robo-debt collection scheme was obviously poorly implemented, but was part of an effort that began several years ago to use technology to make government more efficient. It has since been reviewed and reformed, a process that continues. Regardless of which political party you prefer, or even which system of governance you prefer, governing is always a case of managing trade-offs and competing virtues, and can only ever be an effort to achieve the least-worst outcome, never an outcome that pleases everyone. Throughout the world and throughout history, seeking efficiency and fairness in the taxation and welfare systems is about the most difficult thing governments have to do. None of this means the tax laws under discussion can't be drafted in such a way that they accommodate the thing you're talking about.

manicdee 7y ago
My attack on the prime minister is based on his belief in prosperity theology, not just because he belongs to a particular faith. If you want to dismiss that as “not cool” then knock yourself out. In the meantime we have a ruling class who believe that poor people are bad people and God has punished them by making them poor. This is demonisation of the middle and lower classes institutionalised into a religion. The RoboDebt system has continually been refined but it is still broken, issuing debt claims that are wrong 20% of the time (where “wrong” is defined as “the recipient complained and upon review we found it to be an incorrect claim” rather than “we reviewed all claims and found that 80% of them were correct”). Nobody involved in the system believes it is fit for purpose, there is plenty of expert advice at all levels of government and welfare support stating that the system will lead to hardship and suicides. The government persists, so it can only be assumed that their intent is to cause hardship and drive people to suicide. This is not a matter of compromises being made, this is direction for the Minister that RoboDebt notices should be issued without review, knowing full well that doing so will have these outcomes. Nothing that this government does is about efficiency and fairness.
- tomhoward 7y ago
  Seriously, HN is not the place for charged political rhetoric like this. Like I said, I'm no fan of this government or its leadership. For what it's worth I literally handed out how-to-vote cards for the other side in the last federal election, not that it should matter in this context. But partisan, ideologically charged venting like this makes it impossible to have constructive and/or interesting discussions about the way government works.
  - manicdee 7y ago
    Without understanding of the ideology behind RoboDebt there is no way to discuss either making it work or mitigating the damage it does. The ideology drives the definition of “working”.
    - tomhoward 7y ago
      It’s a simplistic and narrowly-judgemental take on a complex topic; exactly the kind of commentary that HN participants are asked to avoid.