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.