Turnbull Government dragging its heels on legislation to protect vulnerable workers?

The Age, 6 April 2017:

The peak body for the $150 billion franchise sector has launched an intense behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to convince MPs to water down Turnbull government legislation designed to prevent future worker exploitation scandals.

Spearheaded by former Liberal minister Bruce Billson, the Franchise Council of Australia is targeting the government, opposition and crossbenchers as it seeks to pressure Employment Minister Michaelia Cash into changing course on the bill.

It has also directed its members - which include 7-Eleven, Pizza Hut, Caltex and other companies accused of underpaying their workers - to bombard MPs with calls and letters about the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill.

The campaign comes as petrol giant United Petroleum became the latest company to be embroiled in an exploitation scandal, with the workplace regulator blasting it for rampant underpayment of workers across its franchise network. United Petroleum is not listed as a FCA member.

Mr Billson personally pressed the franchisor case with visits, calls and texts to MPs during the most recent parliamentary sitting fortnight in Canberra.

And in emails that have begun arriving in MP's inboxes in recent days, franchisors argue it is "unreasonable" to single out the franchising sector.

"The real issue here is that the risk of worker underpayment exists across the economy," the missives read.

The government's bill was introduced into Parliament last month but subsequently disappeared from the agenda, fuelling speculation from the Opposition that the council's campaign was succeeding.

However Senator Cash said the government remained "firmly committed to this policy"…..

The Franchise Council originally sought to kill off the bill entirely, warning it would lead to unavoidable unintended consequences.

It is now arguing for extensive amendments and is particularly concerned about the world-first "joint liability" provisions, claiming they will negatively impact investment, growth and employment.

It also wants courts and regulators to be explicitly forced to take a businesses size and resources into account, and further clarity about what "reasonable steps" actually means….

Franchises employ close to 500,000 people across 73,000 outlets across Australia and contribute up to 10 per cent of Australia's GDP.

The Age, 7 April 2017:

Shocking cases of wage fraud in the big brands of 7-Eleven, Domino's, Caltex and United Petroleum, ricochet across the country, prompting all sides of politics to promise new legislation to rein in systemic wage fraud.

Or so we thought.

In the weeks before the election the Turnbull government promised to change the law to make franchisors jointly responsible with their franchisees for workplace abuses if they have significant control or influence on the franchisee……

But the sector decided to have none of that.

Enter Bruce Billson, the former small business minister who became chairman of the franchise lobby group just before the last election. His role as chairman of the Franchise Council of Australia has been to tell anyone who will listen that the proposed laws are too draconian.

It was a smart move by the FCA. In one newspaper article Billson described the new laws as "a media-inspired regulatory misadventure to introduce unprecedented laws that fit up the franchisor for the Fair Work Act breaches of their franchisees where they have had no actual involvement".

The article worked itself up into a fervour, arguing that the laws represent an "existential threat" to the successful franchise model of enterprise.

The reality is convenience store giant 7-Eleven became embroiled in a systemic wage fraud scandal in August 2015. It shocked the nation. The business model was flawed and head office agreed to repay exploited workers. More franchisors should follow its lead.

The Protecting Vulnerable Workers Bill was designed to do just that. It was introduced on March 1, with the legislation listed on March 20.

But it quietly disappeared from the program last week with two other Fair Work Bills listed in its place, without explanation.

When it will be re-listed is anyone's guess but it is unlikely to be the next sitting as it will be dominated by the federal budget.

According to the Australian Parliament website the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017: "amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to: increase maximum civil penalties for certain serious contraventions of the Act; hold franchisors and holding companies responsible for certain contraventions of the Act by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they knew or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them; clarify the prohibition on employers unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments in relation to the performance of work; provide the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) with evidence-gathering powers similar to those available to corporate regulators such as the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and prohibit the hindering or obstructing of the FWO and or an inspector in the performance or his or her functions or powers, or the giving of false or misleading information or documents.”

On 23 March 2017 this bill was referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee.

Submissions were invited but none are listed on the Inquiry’s webpage to date. Public hearings are being held in Canberra on Wednesday 12 April and in Sydney on Thursday 13 April 2017.

Those giving evidence before the Senate  inquiry are:

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI)

Council of Small Business Australia (COSBOA)

Franchise Council of Australia

National Retailers Association

The Australian Industry Group (AIG)

McDonalds Australia

Department of Employment

Fair Work Ombudsman

Fair Work Commission

West Justice (Western Community Legal Centre)

Prof. Andrew Stewart

Gerard de Valence

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA)

One other to be announced

           

The Committee is due to report to Parliament on 9 May 2017.

Australian Dept. of Human Services and Centrelink sink to a new low

An automated Dept. of Human Services-Centrelink debt recovery system that launched an est. 230,000 investigations into client welfare paymentsin 2016-17, then used an error-prone “income averaging” method to decide that more than 133,000 clients had incurred a debt owed to Centrelink and sent them a bill which included a recovery fee.

If that wasn’t bad enough, around 43 per cent of these debts were immediately referred to heavy-handed private sector debt collectors working on commission.

During this entire debacle spokespersons for the Turnbull Government, the Department and Centrelink have attempted to mislead and misinform welfare clients, mainstream media and the general public.

Now we have been told that for months, perhaps years, the software program being used by Centrelink to run its access to online services portal left users vulnerable to phishing attacks which can steal their credentials including names, addresses, bank account details.

If this is yet another example of the innovative and agile government information technology Liberal and National Party MPs boast about - then gawd help us all!

Comment  on office of the Minister for Human Services, Mr Alan Tudge

By an IT consultant.......

Senate Standing Committees On Community Affairs, Inquiry Into Design, Scope, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Contracts Awarded And Implementation Associated With The Better Management Of The Social Welfare System Initiative, Excerpt from Submission 38:

That Victorian Legal Aid saw it necessary to update its advice to clients to warn them that their personal information is no longer safe with the Department is an extraordinary situation. This is not advice from tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists. This is sober advice from legal professionals that a major part of the Australian Government cannot be trusted. I cannot stress enough how bad this is.

This behaviour from the Department has had a chilling effect, as I believe it was intended to. This chilling effect is not theoretical. I have personally spoken to individuals who have been reluctant to speak out against the Department, either to the media or to this Inquiry, because they fear repercussions from the Department as they are dependant in some way on income support.

At one point I discussed these matters with the office of the Minister for Human Services, Mr Alan Tudge, and was alarmed to discover that his office did not share my view that the Department has an asymmetric power advantage over individuals. They were of the view that if an individual is critical of the Department in the media, they become fair game.

The attitude from Mr Tudge’s office appeared to be one of a siege mentality where they were at a substantial disadvantage despite the vast array of resources at their disposal, particularly when compared to an individual reliant on income support. They felt that there had been a lot of false information being reported in the media and that it was time for them to “start fighting back.” This adversarial attitude, coupled with the astounding levels of secrecy from the Department, indicates major cultural issues in the Department and in the responsible Minister’s office.

The Department of Human Services exists to serve the humans in our society. The clue is in the name of the department. If individuals within the Department are unhappy with their role, then they should be encouraged to seek employment elsewhere.

By a Queen's Counsel.......

ABC News, 3 April 2017:

One of Australia's leading criminal barristers believes Human Services Minister Alan Tudge — or one of his staff — may have broken the law by supplying a journalist with a Centrelink client's personal information.

Robert Richter, a Queen's Counsel and former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, believes the disclosure could lead to a prison sentence if it is tested beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal court.

Mr Tudge has dismissed the legal advice, saying the disclosure was approved by his department's lawyers and was necessary to correct misleading public statements.

"I received clearance to release the information from the Chief Legal Counsel of the Department of Human Services, who is intimately across the details of the case and the relevant laws."

Mr Richter's advice was commissioned by Labor MP Linda Burney and his findings were based on public information, rather than inquiries with Mr Tudge's office.

In his opinion, it is "reasonably clear that either the Minister or one of his office's staff had committed an offence".

"We cannot presently put it higher without knowing precisely the content of the information that was disclosed and by whom it was disclosed," Mr Richter said……

See that furtive chap in the dark glasses? He's a negative gearer!

Just a reminder of the cost to the rest of us of the out-of-control negative gearing of investment properties.     

The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 May 2016:

The re-analysis of the 2013-14 tax data, the latest available, shows that each negative gearer claimed an average loss of $8722 per year. Seven out of 10 had income before deductions in the top or second-top tax bracket. The average amount of tax saved by each of the 1.2 million negative gearers was $2900 per year.

Spread over the remaining 11.7 million taxpayers, the average cost was $310 each. The total, $3.646 billion, is about as much as the government spent on assistance to jobseekers and vocational training, and twice what it spent on assistance to indigenous Australians.

Haven't heard any negative gearer bragging about this around the barbeque lately.

President Trump failed to stop yet another lawsuit

https://youtu.be/vwMqf6Y7Md4

On 1 March 1 2016 Donald Trump held a campaign rally at the Kentucky International Convention Center in Louisville, Kentucky. What occurred at this campaign rally led to the United States District Court Western District Of Kentucky Louisville Division hearing KASHIYA NWANGUMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants (Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-247-DJH), which resulted in this 22 page Memorandum Opinion And Order.

AP News, 1 April 2017:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- A federal judge has rejected President Donald Trump's free speech defense against a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a campaign rally.

Trump's lawyers sought to dismiss the lawsuit by three protesters who say they were roughed up by his supporters at a March 1, 2016 rally in Louisville, Kentucky. They argued that Trump didn't intend for his supporters to use force.

Two women and a man say they were shoved and punched by audience members at Trump's command. Much of it was captured on video and widely broadcast during the campaign, showing Trump pointing at the protesters and repeating "get them out."

Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled Friday that the suit against Trump, his campaign and three of his supporters can proceed. Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions, and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence.

"It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force," the judge wrote. "It was an order, an instruction, a command."

Plaintiffs Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah and Henry Brousseau allege that they were physically attacked by several members of the audience, including Matthew Heimbach, Alvin Bamberger and an unnamed defendant they have yet to be able to identify.

Bamberger later apologized to the Korean War Veterans Association, whose uniform he wore at the rally. He wrote that he "physically pushed a young woman down the aisle toward the exit" after "Trump kept saying 'get them out, get them out," according to the lawsuit.

Heimbach, for his part, sought to dismiss the lawsuit's discussion of his association with a white nationalist group and of statements he made about how Trump could advance the group's interests. The judge declined, saying such information could be important context when determining punitive damages.

The judge also declined to remove allegations that Nwanguma, an African-American, was the victim of racial, ethnic and sexist slurs from the crowd at the rally. This context may support the plaintiffs' claims of negligence and incitement by Trump and his campaign, the judge said.

Examining the Alternative Media Ecosystem using Twitter

Kate Starbird, University of Washington, HCDE, excerpt from the Abstract for Examining the Alternative Media Ecosystem through the Production of Alternative Narratives of Mass Shooting Events on Twitter:

In the aftermath of major political disruptions in 2016—in Britain with the Brexit vote and in the United States with the election of Donald Trump to the presidency—there has been widespread attention to and theorizing about the problem of “fake news”. But this term is both amorphous and contested. One perspective locates the problem within the emerging ecosystem of alternative media, where the term has been applied to refer to “clickbait” content that uses tabloid-style headlines to attract viewers for financial reasons (Silverman & Alexander 2016) and to describe political propaganda intentionally planted and propagated through online spaces (Timberg 2016). Challenging these definitions, alternative media outlets have appropriated the term to attack “mainstream” media for its perceived economic and political biases and for hosting inaccurate or under-sourced content (e.g. Rappoport 2016). Beneath this rhetoric, we are seeing traditional new providers and emergent alternative media battle not only for economic viability, but over accepted methods of how information is shared and consumed, and, more profoundly, for how narratives around that information are shaped and by whom.

This research seeks to provide a systematic lens for exploring the production of a certain type of “fake news”— alternative narratives of man-made crisis events. For three years, our research group has examined online rumoring during crises. Over that time, we noted the presence of very similar rumors across many man-made crisis events— including the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings, the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, and several mass shooting events including those at Umpqua Community College in Oregon (October, 2015). For each event, rumors claimed the event had been perpetrated by someone other than the official suspects—that it was instead either a staged event performed by “crisis actors” or a “false flag” orchestrated by someone else. Both explanations claimed that a powerful individual or group was pulling the strings for political reasons. Interestingly, though the arguments and evidence used to support these alternative narratives were somewhat consistent across events, the motives cited were often very different—e.g. from the U.S. government trying to support gun control to coordinated global actors staging violence to motivate military intervention.

For this paper, we utilize this type of conspiracy theory or alternative narrative rumor as an entry point for understanding the ecosystem of alternative media. We examine the production of these narratives through Twitter and across the external websites that Twitter users reference as they engage in these narratives. We propose and demonstrate that this lens—Twitter data from mass shooting events and our method for utilizing that data to reveal and explore connections across web domains—provides a systematic approach for shedding light on the emerging phenomena of alternative media and “fake news”.

Our contributions include an increased understanding of the underlying nature of this subsection of alternative media—which hosts conspiratorial content and conducts various anti-globalist political agendas. Noting thematic convergence across domains, we theorize about how alternative media may contribute to conspiratorial thinking by creating a false perception of information diversity……

We collected tweets related to shooting events for more than ten months in 2016. This time period included several high profile shooting events, including mass shootings with civilian casualties at an Orlando, FL nightclub on June 12, in a shopping district in Munich, Germany on July 22, and at a mall in Burlington, WA on September 23. Each of these events catalyzed considerable discussion online and elsewhere about the details and motives of the attack— including claims of the attack being a “false flag”.

More than half of our alternative narrative collection (30,361 tweets) relates to the Orlando event, including:

@ActivistPost: "Was Orlando Shooting A False Flag? Shooter Has Ties To FBI, Regular At Club, Did Not Act Alone? "

This tweet is typical of an alternative narrative tweet, leveraging uncertainty in the form of a leading question (Starbird et al. 2016) to present its theory. The linked-to article—whose title is the content of this tweet—presents evidence to support the theory, including facts about the case (such as previous contact between the FBI and the shooter) and perceived connections to past events that are similarly claimed to be false flags. The underlying theme here is that the U.S. government perpetrated the shooting with the intention of blaming it on Islamic terrorism. This tweet’s author, the ActivistPost, is associated with one of the central nodes in our network graph (see Figures 1-3), referenced in 191 tweets by 153 users and connected (by user activity) to a relatively high number of other domains.

The following tweet, by an account associated with a domain that has a strong edge tie with ActivistPost, forwards a similarly themed alternative narrative:

@veteranstoday: Orlando nightclub shooting: Yet another false flag? - looks like another PR extravaganza

This article was linked-to 147 times in our data. The tweet and the article feature an image with the title, “Omar Mateen: Patsy or MK Mind-Control Slave”. The term patsy is often used to label an accused perpetrator who has been framed for the incident by government or other powerful groups. MK Mind-Control refers to a CIA project that experimented with mind control in the 1950s. This speculative tweet and related article therefore present two potential explanations of the Orlando shooting event, both building off alternative narratives used in previous events. The underlying claim here is that the named suspect was not responsible for the Orlando shootings, but that the U.S. government was. This claim is extended in the article to apply to other violent acts attributed to Muslim terrorists.

Alternative narratives around the Munich shooting had a similar theme, though blame was pushed onto international geo-political actors: Desperate Zionists Commit Another Fraud with Munich Shooting Hoax - NODISINFO

The above tweet links to an article (tweeted 54 times) within the nodisinfo.com domain, one of the most highly tweeted and highly connected domains in our data. Citing photographic evidence from the scene, the article claims that the shooting was a drill, staged by crisis actors. All of these terms echo other alternative narratives of other events. Diverging from the Orlando narratives, which blame the U.S. government, in this case the accused “real” perpetrators are Zionists—echoing long-active narratives about covert power wielded by Jewish bankers and others. The article offers no evidence to support that connection other than reference to other “staged” events.

The Cascade Mall Shooting in Burlington, Washington referenced a third kind of alternative narrative that has appeared after many U.S.-based shootings, including the Sandy Hook School shooting in 2012 and the Umpqua School shooting in 2015. This narrative claims that these mass shooting events are again staged using crisis actors, but in this case by the left-leaning U.S. government to provide a political basis for reducing gun rights.

Absence Of Footage Of Wounded/Deceased Victims. Media Were Told Victims Remained In The Mall #Cascade #FalseFlag

This tweet suggests that there were no actual victims of the event. It links to an article on the memoryholeblog.com domain, which also has a relatively high degree in our network graph and was tweeted 125 times. The linked-to article assembles evidence to make a case for the event being a drill and describes an outlook that connects several events to this narrative: “Such events are reported on by major news media uncritically, thus supporting the call for strengthened gun control measures. […]”

Interestingly, the second most highly referenced event in our alternative narrative collection from 2016 (at 5,914 tweets) is the Sandy Hook shootings, which occurred in 2012. Though a large portion of those tweets contest or deny that alternative narrative, several utilize Sandy Hook “evidence” to support alternative narratives around more recent events. For example:

Orlando shooting was a hoax. Just like Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, and San Bernandino. Keep believing Rothschild Zionist news companies. More Orlando shooting Hoax – proof - same actors in Sandy hook & Boston Marathon Fake bombing - gun take away agenda.

These two tweets both connect the Orlando Shooting to claims that Sandy Hook was a hoax. In the first, the author refers to the “Rothschild Zionist news companies”, a reference to anti-globalist and anti-media viewpoints that appear as major themes across many alternative news sites. The second tweet connects Orlando to Sandy Hook (and paradoxically the Boston Marathon bombings) as part of an ongoing agenda to reduce gun rights in the U.S.

Taken together, these examples describe a few of what turns out to be a collection of distinct alternative narratives that share several common features. As the above tweets highlight at the micro-level, at the macro-level our domain data demonstrate that different alternative narratives are connected across users and sites—e.g. some users reference both memoryholeblog.com (which assigns blame to U.S. government officials trying to take away gun rights) and veteranstoday.com and/or nodisinfo.com (which theorize that international conspirators set up these events to further their political agendas by falsely blaming Muslim terrorists). Our tweet and domain data suggest that the production of these narratives is a distributed activity where “successful” elements (e.g. drills, crisis actors, Zionist conspirators) of one narrative are combined with others in a mutually reinforcing manner……

Shorter Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman Richard Glenn: yes, it was a #CentrelinkFAIL

Commonwealth Ombudsman, media release, 10 April 2017:

Ombudsman publishes report on Centrelink’s automated debt system

Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman Richard Glenn today released a report into the Department of Human Services – Centrelink’s (DHS) implementation of the automated debt system known as the Online Compliance Intervention (OCI).

‘We found there were issues with the usability and transparency of the system. There were deficiencies in DHS’ service delivery and communication to customers and staff when implementing the system. These issues affected the quality of decisions made by the OCI. Many of these problems could have been reduced through better project planning, system testing and risk management,’ Mr Glenn said.

Since the Ombudsman’s office began its investigation in January 2017, DHS has made positive changes to the system, in response to the office’s feedback.

‘However more improvements are needed to ensure the system reflects good public administration,’ Mr Glenn said.

The Ombudsman’s office made recommendations in the report about clearer letters and system messaging to customers, more help for customers when gathering income information, improving service delivery and communication, more assistance and support for vulnerable customers and reviewing automated recovery fee decisions.

DHS and the Department of Social Services (DSS), which is responsible for the relevant legislation and policy, responded positively to the Ombudsman’s investigation, agreeing to all recommendations.

Mr Glenn said the Ombudsman’s office would continue to work closely with DHS and DSS to monitor the implementation of the recommendations in this report. He also acknowledged DHS’ assistance during the investigation.

The Ombudsman will make no further comment on the report.

Excerpts from the 110 page report illustrating just some of the shortcomings in Centrelink’s automated debt recovery program:

We asked DHS whether it had done modelling on how many debts were likely to be over-calculated as opposed to undercalculated. DHS advised no such modelling was done.16 In our view the absence of modelling means DHS cannot say how many debts may be under-calculated or overcalculated and by what margin.

The risk of over-recovering debts from social security recipients and the potential impact this may have on this relatively vulnerable group of people, warrants further consideration by DHS. We suggest DHS test a sizeable sample of debts raised by the OCI. The samples should include people who did not respond to the initial letter, as well as people who went online and people who contacted DHS via other channels. We also suggest DHS re-evaluate where the risk for debts calculated on incomplete information should properly lie and investigate whether there are ways to mitigate this risk……

In the OCI, the automatic application of the ten per cent recovery fee occurs when there is no contact from the customer, or the customer specifically indicates they did not have personal factors which affected their ability to accurately declare their income. 3.8 This raised concerns for customers who may not have had an adequate opportunity to provide a reasonable excuse, for example if they did not receive the initial letter, or did not understand the connection between reasonable excuse and the recovery fee.

In the initial letters used from July 2016, customers were warned a recovery fee may be applied, however there was no information in the letter about the ‘reasonable excuse’ exception. DHS advises that an explanation of ‘reasonable excuse’ was added from August 2016. However, reminder letters and debt notification letters did not include this information. A copy of these letters can be found at Appendix D.

In response to concerns raised by our office, DHS will no longer apply the fee automatically where there is no contact from the customer, or the customer responds that they had personal factors which affected their ability to accurately declare their income. DHS has taken steps to ensure that customers receive the initial letter, including the use of registered post……

Our investigation revealed the letters DHS sent to customers before 20 January 2017 to alert them about the income discrepancy were unclear and deficient in many respects. The letter did not include the 1800 telephone number for the compliance helpline. It did not explain that a person could ask for an extension of time or be assisted by a compliance officer if they had problems. It asked the person to ‘confirm’ their income information, possibly giving the impression that, if the figure was the correct annual figure, merely confirming the information would suffice. The letter did not provide a clear explanation that applying ATO income to the person’s record may negatively affect the amount of any debt. Copies of these letters are at Appendix D……

We received other complaints where people were told by DHS staff that payslips were the only acceptable form of evidence and bank statements would not be accepted. In our view, DHS should have more clearly communicated to customers the evidence they needed to provide, and what they could do if they had problems obtaining this evidence. In particular, DHS should have given customers a clearer and more consistent message that it would accept alternative forms of evidence, such as bank statements, where a customer was having difficulty gathering payslips or other evidence directly from the employer. As illustrated by Ms H’s complaint, in some cases, DHS can consult its own records for employment information it may have previously verified.

DHS has always accepted bank statements as reasonable evidence of historical income where other evidence is unavailable. As customers do not have the same information gathering powers as DHS, it is critical for DHS to give some customers additional support and assistance to obtain this evidence when they have made genuine and reasonable attempts and other available information is not sufficient. The accuracy of debts relies on the customer’s ability to obtain and input historical income information into the OCI. DHS should take into account the potential cost to customers to obtain bank statements. We suggest that where a customer cannot obtain the information despite genuine and reasonable attempts, DHS should use its information gathering powers to request the information directly from the employer or the financial institution. We suggest the Department of Social Services should include guidelines about the process for obtaining employment income evidence in the Guide to Social Security Law…..

Poor service delivery was a recurring theme in many of the complaints made to our office about the OCI system. Key problems customers experienced were:

* the compliance helpline number was excluded from letters and hard to find within the OCI system itself, meaning customers called the general customer service lines resulting in longer wait times than the compliance line

* not getting a clear explanation about the debt decision and the reasoning behind it

* being required to go online to resolve their situation when they had already indicated they were having difficulties

* instances where there should have been a more thorough manual intervention by a compliance officer but the customer was still referred back online

* difficulties getting information and assistance from service centre staff, either on the phone or in person, or when they tried to go online to use the system

* staff not having sufficient knowledge about how the OCI system works.

The far-right Turnbull Government's response to the Commonwealth Ombudman's report reeks of a defensive inability to face the consequences of its ongoing ideological class war.

The Guardian, 10 April 2017:

In a statement, Tudge repeatedly noted the parts of the report that defended the automated system and said the government was already making improvements that, in some cases, went further than what was suggested by the ombudsman.

“The unfortunate reality is that while most welfare recipients do the right thing, some deliberately defraud the system while others inadvertently fail to accurately declare their income and consequently receive an overpayment,” he said.

“We want to be fair and reasonable to welfare recipient but also fair to the taxpayer who pays for the welfare payments.”

The shadow human services minister, Linda Burney, said the report raised “serious questions about Alan Tudge’s oversight of his department”.

“While some changes have been made to Tudge’s robo-debt system, the ombudsman is clear they don’t go far enough,” she said. “The minister has no one to blame but himself. According to the ombudsman, all of these issues could have been avoided with proper planning and consultation.”

The shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen, said Labor maintained the system should be suspended for a review.