“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 3 points 4 days ago (5 children)

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.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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 2 points 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 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] jagungal@aussie.zone 2 points 21 hours ago

Totally agree!

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)