This is from a Senates Estimate session looking into the Government's use of Robodebt calling.

Senator SIEWART: 11:32AM Mr. Hank Jongen,Can you confirm the documents I have that show you have indications of 6 people ending their lives due in part for receiving a debt?

Mr. Hank Jongen: 11:33AM Well that's a rough assumption of the figures senator and unfair to place the blame on our Department.

Senator SIEWERT: 11:33AM How is it Sir, they didn't have a debt before and the notes I have here clearly show that several of these people left notice as the reason they ended their lives,is the debt your department issued. So again sir,is the number 6 or more?

Mr. Hank Jongen: 11:34AM Six is correct from the data we have senator.

Senator WONG: 11:35AM Senator may I ask a follow on?

Senator SIEWART: 11:35AM Of course Senator Wong.

Senator WONG: 11:35AM Mr Jongen, may I ask how many of those people later on review owed any funds to your department?

Mr. Hank Jongen: 11:36AM Only 1 Senator.

Senator WONG: 11:36AM Mr Jongen Do you not feel any shame in your part in this?

End

6 lives is likely to be the full number.

If we can have a Royal Commission into the Pink Batts saga which claimed 4 lives why can't we do the same for this?

Sorry, that should have been 6 deaths are unlikely to be the full number.

Indeed there are estimates that the figure could be as high as a couple of thousand.

The 6 mentioned above are those where the robodebt was specifically mentioned prior to the person taking their lives for example in the note left by the victim.

Well what do you know. SR has moved even further left, past communism to a fully fledged green supporter.

I've always had the feeling he was more than just the dill he has portrayed himself as on the Forum.

Isn't this Senator Wong a member of the crowd that has been at the forefront of social engineering ? Better call her Senator Kettle !

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock? Good?

I will admit to being a little bemused that you deem caring about Australians suiciding because of Robodebt calls was exclusively the domain of people to the left of you.

I actually raises the question of how far to the right you would have to be not to care.

Obviously at your level on the spectrum and beyond is a default position. Anning level? Obviously. Dutton level? Probably. Scomo level? A maybe. Trent Zimmerman? Probably not far enough to the right to be included.

Hey SteeleRedux;

I don't care much for Penny Wong, but I can't argue with the issue.
I accept the logic that there'd certainly be more than the 6 reported cases; though I wouldn't like to speculate what the number is.
It's right that the governments policies be put through the wringer on this issue, if the policies are leading to the deaths of Aussie citizens.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I don't doubt either your figures or the general thrust of your inquiry for a Royal Commission. However, I've investigated many suicides over the years, and the reason or reasons, for the deceased to take their own lives, are many and varied. While insurmountable debt is clearly one of them, there are often other factors, that predicate suicide, Steele?

I agree, if governments can take a more measured approach, I guess a 'softer' line with ordinary people who owe them money perhaps, there might be fewer people who'll take that awful final step to end their lives. The ATO is notorious for putting the 'weights on' people to pay their outstanding tax debt, and if you can furnish a convincing case, they'll allow you to discharge that debt, over a period of time.

Steele, I don't have all the answers. Moreover, I recognize we have many professional debtors, who through clever accounting, can 'stave off' all efforts of the government to collect on that debt. On the other hand, there are those people who through bad luck, happenstance, or poor (personal) debt management, who should be counselled as to how they might discharge that debt. But are utterly terrified when the Sheriff knocks on their door, with a Summons, or worse, a Writ to seize all their possessions, in order to hold a Sheriff's Sale to acquit that debt.

This process should be the very 'LAST' resort, and often the final tipping point for people to end their lives. Judgment Debtors are also human, with the same emotions & needs as you and I. Imagine what it must be like, being dispossessed of your home? You're married with a couple of young kids - What are you left with...utter despair; A nearby tree, a length of rope, and no more debt or worries

Hey SteeleRedux,

On a side note and a separate issue;
I saw Pauline Hanson has also been fighting for fairness within the family courts and domestic violence policy area.
I caught a moment of a TV interview the other day where she was arguing that the default standard for custody issues should be 50/50 rather than one parent being a primary carer.

Of the small part of the interview I saw, I thought she too was making some fair and reasonable arguments.

Good thread but poor out come is likely this government is unconcerned about the under dog
IF and it is a big word, some got over paid the government via its workers is the reason
Clearly huge numbers did not get over paid but are victims of dog whistling aimed at convincing some we are seeing thefts that are questionable in most cases

Dear o sung wu,

Look I agree with much of what you have said but I think you might be missing just how outrageous this really is. It ultimately turned out that of the 6 who took their own lives five of them did not have any debt owed at all.

It is reasonably suspected that the actual figures of deaths are much higher.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/2030-people-have-died-after-receiving-centrelink-robodebt-notice/10821272

Centerlink had been sending out about 40,000 letters a year. In 2017 that changed to 40,000 per week.

What the government is doing is saying 'our records show you have a debt with us now pay it unless you can provide evidence that you don't owe this money'. Over 80% those who received a letter in one class of benefit recipients were subsequently shown to owe nothing. This is just wrong.

It reminds me a little of one of our local garages. They had lost some of their records sent out request for payment on a whole bunch of invoices without doing the homework to ascertain who had paid. When I rocked up to query it with the details from my transactions clearly showing a payment had been made they said thanks but didn't apologise. Rather it was 'We knew the people who had paid were going to let us know'. I told them it was unacceptable especially as if I had paid in cash which I often do then I wouldn't have had proof to dispute the invoice. Often wonder how many of their clients paid twice because they were unsure.

I never returned ever again.

This is a terrible way of conducting themselves and is probably illegal. It needs to be condemned for the stress it has placed on 100s of thousands of Australians, many disadvantaged, most who are utterly blameless and ultimately found to owe nothing and all who have been harassed repeatedly by private debt collectors contracted by the government..

The big difference between the pink batts disaster and this is that, in the former case, the government and PM of the day were pre-warned that deaths would occur. But they, for politic purposes, elected to ignore that information.

Once someone shows that the government were warned of impending suicides, then I'll accept that an RC is required.

What I find fascinating here is that those of a certain leaning are always the ones so outraged at the failures of government.

Their entire political philosophy is that more government is the solution to all problems, real or imagined. But when shown that government screws up, they become outraged at the evidence.

But we all know that 'screwed up' is the default position for government and it ought to be expected that whatever programmes or initiatives they implement will be mucked up.

Indeed if we ever find a government programme or department that isn't a disaster we should hold a Royal Commission into it to find out what went right.

Dear mhaze,

It wasn't the government sector which installed the pink batts it was the private.

Centerlink is still very much in government hands thus blame should be attributed directly. As for acknowledging their blame for lives lost because of Robodebt, this government has not offered a peep.

Dear Steele,

Six lives lost is shocking. And no excuses whould be
tolerated. And investigation is warranted and must
be made. The sooner the better. Action is needed not
talk and excuses.

apologies for the typos.

"It wasn't the government sector which installed the pink batts it was the private."

And Rudd was warned that the private sector wasn't equipped to install the batts at the rates he wanted. And he ignored that. And then he ignored the fact that a bunch of fly-by-night operations were popping up as he'd been warned would happen and that unskilled workers were being exposed to risks just to fulfil his economic fantasies. And then people died and Rudd, defender of the workers that he was, ran for cover.

That's why there was a RC. When we see equivalent governmental disregard for their victims, and disregard for clear warnings, then you can make these utterly fatuous comparisons between the two.

Meanwhile Reagan's insights remain spot on...""The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

mhaze,

So what do you suggest be done?

Nothing?

I like what another American President said -

"The buck stops here!

"So what do you suggest be done?

Nothing?"

No not nothing. Have an enquiry if you want. Have two or three. But an RC is over the top. An expensive way to find out what we already know, but a way for poliies to strut and posture.

A RC to find out why government deliberately ignored warnings of potential deaths from batt installation in the name of political advantage is one thing. And as I said, if we find there were warnings of impending doom from the Robodebt issue, then fine, have an RC and send a few bureaucrats to gaol....Pour encourager les autres.

But having an enquiry into why a government programme failed is like having an enquiry into why the sun rose today. It's inevitable.

So again have the enquiry, find out why it all went pear-shaped. But equally inevitably, all the lessons will be forgotten.

In a better world an enquiry or an event like this would cause people to stop and wonder if getting the government involved is the best idea. But the very people who want these enquiires are the very same who'll be the quickest to forget whatever lessons come from it.

If I thought an RC or any other type of inquisition might lead to better more circumspect decisions latter, I'd be all for it. But what it will lead to is just more government, more people overseeing other people who are overseeing people who screwed up the last time.

Remember that the whole Robodebt programme is an admission that the welfare systems failed by overpaying some people. So to fix a failed system, they introduce an new (inevitably) failed system . And now we're gunna have an enquiry to work out what systems we should implement to fix the failed system that was implemented to fix a failed system.

Turtles all the way down... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Well done mhaze;

"Indeed if we ever find a government programme or department that isn't a disaster we should hold a Royal Commission into it to find out what went right."

- I think there's never been a truer word said.

Dear Armchair Critic,

And if we ever have a privatisation of a government monopoly that has worked we can do the same.

Dear mhaze,

You have a government who is avowedly fixated on being punitive toward the unemployed, who has gone hardarsed and well over the top on debt recovery very much against the advice of the department and the sector, yet instead of going after the pollies like you have after Rudd you want to go after department heads?

How does that work? Is your side of politics immune from being held to account?

mhaze,

So, if the Government has failed with this scheme
and a Royal Commission will not achieve anything as
you claim - shouldn't the Government just suspend it?

The legal basis of the scheme is also being
questioned and there's a class action on the books.
This could be a test case.

Not looking good for the Government.

Behind this and a lot of government policy is its wish to convince some voters the world is flat
Every move they make in this area is to tell that type of voter these folk are thieves
And cashless card is another one

a government who is avowedly fixated on being punitive toward the unemployed,
SteeleRedux,
you conveniently left out "the deliberately unemployed".

" Is your side of politics immune from being held to account?"
Oh so you just want to punish the 'other' side. Thought so.





Foxy wrote: "shouldn't the Government just suspend it?"

Yes. Its a failed scheme implemented by people and systems that don't have the wherewithal to run anything more complex than a chook raffle.

So yes, cancel it. It'd set a nice precedent. Cancel all government schemes that fail to do what they were set up to do....

* Federal Education Dept - with educations results going backwards for the past decade or three, they have obviously failed...GONE

* Dept of Abbariginal Affairs - there's been no advance the 'closing the gap' mantra forever so...GONE.

* Women's Affairs....GONE

* That part of Treasury that forecasts the economy....GONE

* NBN...GONE

* Dept of the Arts....well you know.

We'd erase the nation debt within the life of this parliament.

And another one.

"A 19-year-old single mother experiencing an arc of issues living below the poverty line, alone with a bub, without the support of the biological father, struggling day to day then receives a Robodebt around $9000. This is not how it should be.

She sought assistance from the community shire office and was told they could not help. She visited the office a number of times distressed about the unaffordable debt she did not understand how she could owe this amount. This is not how it should be.

Despite an accumulation of stressors, isolation, the Robodebt indisputably contributed to her negative self, to it all being too much, tipping her."

http://thestringer.com.au/robodebt-suicide-19-year-old-mum-13001#.XYf5dCgzbIU

What's wrong with the left whingers? Every time they dream up a cause some fruit bat wants a royal commission?

The facts are:
1 With about 1.5m welfare recipients there has been wide scale abuse of the system and there are not enough people to do the analysis to recover most of the money.
2 The robo system has recovered roughly $300m the overwhelming majority of which was not contested.
3 Epstein committed suicide because he was convicted.
4 There is some credence in the claim that the system was insensitively handled.

In conclusion the system needs refinement especially when the claims are contested, but should not be cancelled.