But John, not only is The Trumpster a NEUTRAL OBSERVER, he votes LABOR as well, Yeah, sure, Trumpster get a grip, pigs might fly!

Robodebt and the public service....

"The commission found that public servants demonstrated a "remarkable lack of interest" in ensuring the legality of the Robodebt scheme. The report highlighted that the scheme was implemented with little regard for its legal foundation,"

Public servants across the Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Department of Social Services (DSS) were repeatedly warned about the scheme’s legal issues but failed to act decisively to address them. The commission noted that opportunities to seek legal advice on the lawfulness of income averaging were ignored.

Public servants were found to have engaged in misleading conduct, including providing inaccurate information to cabinet and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. For example, Malisa Golightly, a former deputy secretary of DHS, was criticized for directing the inclusion of a misleading statement in a cabinet submission that Robodebt did not change how “income was assessed or overpayments calculated.”

Kathryn Campbell was singled out for doing “nothing of substance” when exposed to information about the illegality of income averaging and failing to act on opportunities to obtain legal advice.

The report described the scheme as a “costly failure of public administration” marked by “venality, incompetence, and cowardice.” Public servants were criticized for prioritizing ministerial directives and cost-saving objectives over ethical decision-making and the welfare of recipients.

If I thought you were the slightest bit interested I could go on for several more posts.

Paul,

While I'm flattered that you have decided to educate yourself by reading my past posts, and think it'll immeasurably improve your understanding of the world, you need to do so with some forethought.

There's no question that I've heavily criticised the current government for all sorts of reasons. But in the adult world elections come down to picking one of two sides. I've been saying for years that I've been voting ALP until such time as the Liberal Party becomes a liberal party.

"Things looked grim in 2022 and nothing has improved since. So I'll look to see what the independents in my electorate look like, vote for one or more of them and then give my preference to the ALP over the Liberal candidate in the continued hope that an extended stay in the wilderness will encourage the Liberal Party to become a liberal party."

Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 30 March 2025 12:29:30 PM

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10577#369510

If needs be, I could find any number of similar posts from the most recent election and the few before that, explaining why I preference ALP over Lib. Clearly that type of thinking is going over your head.

But I don't need to find such posts since you're furthering your education by reading all my previous posts. Enjoy.

Ah, mhaze, both eyes open again, but both thumbs stuck on Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V.

Yes, the Commission absolutely flayed the public service. It used words like "venality, incompetence, and cowardice" for a reason. But here’s the trick you’re trying to pull: pretending that because public servants were condemned, ministers were somehow exonerated. That’s not what the report says.

The very same document you’re quoting also found:

- "One Minister, Mr Morrison, took the proposal to Cabinet, knowing that it involved income averaging … and proceeded without enquiring as to how the change had come about." (p.429)

- "In 2017 … there were plenty of indications that income averaging without other evidence was not a legitimate way of calculating entitlement." (p.430)

- "Mr Tudge … did nothing about the fundamental concerns: reversal of the onus and income averaging." (p.721)

Commissioner Holmes herself put it beyond doubt: "Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal." (Vol 1, p.4).

So no, you don’t get to cherry-pick the parts about bureaucrats while pretending the ministers were wide-eyed innocents. The RC made it clear: Robodebt wasn’t a bureaucratic fumble accidentally dropped on ministers’ desks. It was a political project, pursued despite warnings, with public servants enabling it.

And remember, by your own 2019 standard, mhaze: "Once someone shows that the government were warned of impending suicides, then I’ll accept that an RC is required."

Well, the RC showed it. Ministers were warned, people died, and the RC happened.

You wrote the test, and Robodebt meets it.

"pretending that because public servants were condemned, ministers were somehow exonerated. That’s not what the report says."

Nor is it what I said. Therefore the rest of your post is mere bunkum.

Trumpster,

Your claim you voted LABOR was not true, in your words; "So I'll look to see what the independents in my electorate look like, vote for one or more of them", you say you were considering voting for an INDEPENDENT candidate, as for where you might or might not have placed the LABOR candidate is neither here nor there. I voted for the LNP candidate in 3rd position in a field of 8, does that mean I voted for the COALITION. I on the other hand posted on May 2nd saying I voted 1 GREEN 2 LABOR in fact I voted for all 8 candidates. Of course I preferred the LNP to those redneck parties you would preference above both LABOR or the COALITION.