• John Bruzzolini@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    “We came to the settlement offer of $600 as studies have shown that to be an amount poor people view as a lot of money.”

    Something uttered by someone at Centrelink, probably

  • Joshi@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    5 days ago

    “Our social security system is designed to be there for Australians when they fall on hard times, which is why it’s important debt recovery processes must be fair and transparent,” Plibersek said.

    Anyone who has actually had to rely on centrelink knows this to be untrue. The intent may be to help those who need it but the structural design assumes everyone is a welfare cheat until proven otherwise. If you do manage to prove that you’re not a bludger you can get below poverty level amounts of money and if centrelink makes a mistake you’re on the hook.

    This is a small positive step but remember the context.

    • null@piefed.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      the structural design assumes everyone is a welfare cheat until proven otherwise

      I disagree. I work in a related industry and sadly see a lot of people trying to interact with centrelink.

      Over the years I’ve developed a strongly held belief that their processes are designed to be invasive and difficult to follow in order to discourage claimants. Dealing with centrelink is your last, worst option, and that is by design.

      • Joshi@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        It feels lime we agree on the impact but disagree on whether it is bad or good. Treating the most vulnerable people in our society like criminals and further alienating them while pushing them further into poverty is the design and the effect. It is immoral. Did I misread you?

        • null@piefed.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          No I’m pretty sure we agree that it’s a bad thing.

          I’m pointing out the intention of those involved. The intention is not to assume everyone is a cheat, rather the intention is to make it difficult to make a claim.

        • jagungal@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          I think their point is that it’s not that Centrelink is designed around the assumption that people are welfare cheats but rather it’s designed to discourage everyone as a cost saving measure.

          • Joshi@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I’ll concede that that is likely the case. The point remains it is an aggressively immoral way to structure a welfare organisation

    • Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      The purpose of a system is what it does. Whatever they SAY it’s for is irrelevant in the face of the obvious reality.

  • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 days ago

    Too little too late, but better than nothing.

    Centrelink is a parody of how Australian Government Departments should not behave.

    Some Ministers, and Commissioners, ought to be held personally accountable for overseeing very obvious violations of the laws they are supposed to be upholding.