Robodebt Data Match A Cover Up Equal to Covid19 Part 1

Many of my followers know I self researched & self defended my Data Match Act 1990 Robotic Process Automation Debt nicknamed Robodebt at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) & won June 2018. My story was covered by Ch9 online (https://www.9news.com.au/national/centrelink-robodebt-queensland-amputee-takes-on-centrelink-in-debt-case-and-wins/d5cd6adb-07c8-4834-a866-0aeb91b4ba8c). This was well before the Victorian Legal Aid Amato decision & the Gordon Legal Class Action motivated by Bill Shorten. Both had this Senate submission. Amato's Agreed Statement of Facts was based on suitable information being used but the Gordon Legal action limited that & a lot of people should be asking why.

I went public in my AAT & despite government trying I was able to not just keep computer faults in my winning case but got mention in the Decision of raising the faults. Also the Member noted I had been a competent student & considering my studies were for an Accounting Diploma that had currency when I made my observations on the accounting information system that gave my finds even more damning. My many submissions have been systematically silenced by corrupt agents of APH & in various ways they have been acting for the interest of a corrupt Australian Labor, Greens & LNP parties. My public Senate submissions were accepted but made confidential ensuring I would have no legal protections unless I got their permission to release the details. My main submission to the Royal Commission to this day remains censored with only the covering letter & the update visible.  That ends today.


20th September, 2019

 

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

RE:

 

Thank you for the opportunity to lodge a public submission.

 

I am a 2x Robodebt vulnerable recipient.  I experienced the process all the way to AAT through Ombudsman Complaints etc.  I’m experienced in accounts, computers & have work experience in legal offices.

 

My submission is lengthy, but I identified the illegality early so have been tracking it.

 

I look forward to your advices.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Tracey Hoolachan


 

Enc.

 

 Chapter 1: - Introductory Summary

1.1 Work Experience - I have over 20 years work experience with legislation, accounts & various AIS & MIS programs in Windows/DOS for various size entities as a senior on-customer-site bookkeeper inclusive of payroll for accountants.  I have completed numerous set ups, general ledger creations & end of year rollovers & transitions to new Accounting Information System (AIS). My Diploma of Accounting 28 April 2017 had educational currency at the time of my AAT1 Robodebt. It enabled my comments on the OCI kpi flaws be considered qualified & remain & get mention of making them in the waive winning ruling. The Diploma includes module FNSACC505 Establish & Maintain Accounting Information Systems. NB: The OCI was a new AIS. My education included test procedures for a newly established system. Module FNSACC506 Implement & Maintain Internal Control Procedures included audit control.  Additionally, the module FNSACC507 Provide Management Accounting Information enables my comment. Across the years I’ve received many certificates including Certificate III Business Management 2015 & many years of experience, in the work place with Management Information Systems (MIS). I even have an old TAFE Computer Programming Certificate 1983 same age as Centrelink’s old computer ISIS & have knowledge of Commodore. I have worked previously in highspeed data entry teams, so I am also aware of the conditions under which errors are likely to arise in batch processing and use of entry rules short forms. My first job was a legal secretary. My work history includes working for a Qld Arbitrator. I’ve been on a local super Council sub-committee the inaugural 2 years. I am not fazed by interpreting legislation & considering its correct application.

 

1.2 Vulnerability – My Robodebt enquiry letter was dated the day I was released from hospital into Transition Care an amputee wheelie for life 24 October, 2017. I was approved for NDIS on Sickness Benefits & awaiting approval for DSP. My first contact with the Centrelink debt team was made from Centrelink’s office. I was on opioids, morphine & other drugs when taken by 2 Transition Care nurses in my wheelchair to Centrelink early November 2017 to respond. I was directed to a telephone. I self-defended the Robodebt Overpayment Account through many appeals, Ombudsman action to AAT1 & won waive July 2018 on Special Circumstance of my College not being as advertised & my medical condition.  As part of defending the Robodebt at many times I had to come off my pain medications for clarity of thought.  It is my opinion Centrelink attempted to entrap me with a second Robodebt by untimely processing of a notification.  I am still in recovery.

1.3 Scope of my Submission – I’ve considered the program as a whole as follows: -

1.3.1 As a 2x Robodebt receiver I’ve considered my personal experience, maltreatment & assistance afforded me as a vulnerable Centrelink customer fighting Robodebt through to an AAT1;

1.3.2 As an accounting exercise considering creation of a program from set-up to testing to consider feasibility & possible existing system rectification & low-cost alternatives. I have personally received multiple system errors & analysed them. I’ve considered 2 types of data matching to educational institutes & to ATO in whole of process. The algorithm is a formula that can be corrected. The real problem historically in an ATO data match it compares to actual earns whilst Centrelink is estimated earns even if not yet paid. Fuzzy logic an address book issue.

1.3.3 Legality of process from the raise of the account to account closure;

 

1.4 I believe I have the skills, work experience & personal experience in dealing with a Robodebt or Data Match Overpayment Account that should make my public submission essential to any Senate enquiry on the same.  Further my information has already been placed in the public domain therefore there is no problems with it remaining private.

Chapter 2: - Personal Experience

2.1   My first Robodebt enquiry letter was dated 24 October 2017. It was also the date of my hospital discharge & just after I advised DHS ERS, I’d be lodging an Ombudsman complaint at the earliest time following discharge. An appalling list of punitive actions were made against me, by various sections of DHS whilst in hospital over a 3+ month period from July to 24th October 2017. My right leg was amputated after staph infection to both legs & I nearly died about 3 weeks before discharge. The Qld hospital maximum stay period expired & I was discharged into hospital arranged Transition Care. I received their maximum care period till 15th January 2018.  I was approved by NDIS, October 2017, but after 20 hrs cleaning in 2+ years, it is fair to say my care has been neglected.  I’m still in recovery from the amputation, damage to my right leg & I’m a wheelie for life.  DSP approval was 4 months from receipt.  (NB: Senate questioning Centrelink advised Senator Watts approvals averaged 39 days. That’s incorrect. 2 separate Centrelink personnel told me it could take up to 3 months).

 

2.2   The Robodebt enquiry letter was related to my DSP approval. The initial enquiry letter gave no indication of required information & didn’t even relate to the benefit I was on at the time namely Newstart.  When I attended the Centrelink office to respond to the letter I was in a wheelchair, high as a kite on pain medications opioids, morphine & more. I was taken by 2 nurses from hospital Transition Care.  In Centrelink Toowoomba you queue up & then a Centrelink employee asks you the purpose of your visit & directs you to the relevant waiting area. I handed the letter to the usher & was just directed to a telephone.  I remember asking her whether it was to do with my DSP & was told it was. 

 

2.3 I had to call what I now know is a Debt Team, performance motivated for brownie points on a whiteboard. If my name’s not on that “300 vulnerable” crash test dummies list many more questions should be asked (Ref17). The information Centrelink Secretary Leon gave to Senator Siewert was false. Had there been any staff assisted process in place, Centrelink Toowoomba had enough time to implement them on my arrival.  I never got a follow up phone call & the letter pictured, even falsely states it related to benefits “you are receiving”. I was on Sickness Benefits not Austudy the subject of the Robodebt. The phone call was an interrogation. The only thing missing a bright light in my eyes. As a vulnerable person, I consider the Centrelink Secretaries were grossly negligent in implementing a process

that fails to observe SSAdminAct 1999 in particular Part 2 8(a)1 and 8(b).  The instruction threatening benefits gives me less rights than a serious terrorist under the Crimes Act 1914 is afforded, as it fails to specify “the matters to which documents to be produced relate”.

2.4 My first Robodebt was for Centrelink’s claim of my non-enrolment at Martin College aka Ivy College 20 November 2015 to 30 March 2016.  That “aka” does not exist anywhere but on Centrelink’s OCI, so I guess they were technically correct. I had to self-defend the Robodebt through multiple reviews & all the way to AAT1. 

 

2.5 Centrelink data matched to Martin College who I’d never heard of. Martin College was an aka of Study Group Australia (SGA) in partnership with my education deliverers Ivy College. Ivy or “Shemozzle College” as it was referred to in The Australian (Ref 26), had its registration removed in 2012 by ASQA. Ivy appealed the decision & AAT was so proud of upholding it, Member Handley’s ruling made the annual report 2012-2013.  My letter of enrolment clearly noted the partnership & a “Centrelink Institute Reference No. (4D004)”. The high number of complaints about SGA to ASQA’s warranted a place in its mass audit of 16 Vet-fee Help Colleges held 2015 to 23 Feb 2016. It failed audit on data retention, but was allowed continue trading with conditions. I lodged a 20pg detailed complaint to ASQA (s2.7) on 24 March 2016. SGA lost registration 16 Jan 2017, just after I sent my Robodebt & Ivy file to media. Reports show ASQA did not connect Ivy to SGA (Ref 25). Neither partner had qualified data as determined by Commonwealth authorities.  Centrelink though still considered the data an accurate data source for data matching. I maintain Centrelink’s negligence resulted in my Robodebt.

2.6     I obtained a Special Circumstance Remission from Ivy College held under the govt’s own HES Act2003. As part of process, I had to prove no module had been completed and that non-completion was not my fault. I successfully did that & won a full remission. Despite copy of the email confirmation of receiving that Special Circumstance Remission being: -

2.6.1 included twice in my written request for a CSO review demand letter;

2.6.2 dated 6 months prior to any module being due for completion by timetable;

2.6.3 mentioned verbally in all CSO reviews bar one (review lasted about 2 minutes);

2.6.4 the review demand letter, being included in evidence on the AR Outcome; &

2.6.5 raised in a winning AAT;

still to this day correspondence received from Centrelink makes it clear they consider their Robodebt was valid & not the total inter-departmental communication breakdown it really was.

NB:- Left- No modules to complete until end date. Below-Special Circumstance Remission was granted 6+months before ‘End Date’. I left, went to a College that passed the ASQA audit SGA failed and got a harder Diploma of Accounting. Robodebt punished me for pursuing a fully compliant honest education.

 

2.7 Ivy College was chosen from a Commonwealth Govt site of educational institutes. It held a Centrelink institute registry number.  In my personal opinion Centrelink, the Dept of Education & ASQA, regulated the site & registry poorly if Govt could lose sight of College partnerships. Govt also negligently failed in its own notifications to students. At no time when I applied for benefits was advice given to me that my College was de-registered or that its partner was in ASQA audit. I had every reason to expect, it was an acceptable educational institute. Neither ASQA or Centrelink notified me of SGA aka Martin College’s changed circumstances (data retention questionable) after the ASQA audit in February 2016. How can an audit of satisfactory performance occur without even surveying students to monitor their satisfaction level?  When has Centrelink’s actions approving Austudy payments to a deregistered College, to enable it to continue to trade come under scrutiny of Mr McNamara’s compliance-fraud spectrum (Ref 7).

2.8 Many of my private documents were missing from the OCI: - 

2.8.1 Ivy College Application 20 Nov 2015 (s2.5) & submitted with the Austudy Application. It showed no modules due to complete when Special Circumstance Remission;

2.8.2 Confirmation of enrolment pictured at s2.3 stamped received by Centrelink 4 JAN 2016 vanished from the OCI. Resupplied Nov2017;

2.8.3 Centrelink notification record 24 March, 2016. This was my final Ivy option’s decision date.  Same day I advised ASQA. That receipt went to my personal email not the MYGOV inbox. See picture of receipt for a 20-page document.

2.8.4 Lodged April/May 2016 copy of the 20-page Ivy College complaint was included with my Centrelink application for Austudy for the new College Australis as wanted the reasons I left.  This had vanished. Pre- Oct 2016 & I had to

Ref13

resubmit the entire thing again as Centrelink stopped my benefits. Missing again obviously 24 Oct 2017 or OCI should’ve registered my student status & no modules were due to complete.  

 

2.8.5 Indications are someone at Centrelink or Dept of Education was working very hard to keep SGA aka Martin College in ‘buisiness’ (how my Business Management Diploma tutor spelled it).

 

2.9 I had a number of complaint issues, in addition to Robodebt, that were raised in my request for an ARO. All issues were in a single document listed as evidence on the AR Outcome. Centre-link applied to AAT, to have the case split. They claimed only the Robodebt portion had been reviewed (same single document).  The list of actions made against me by Centrelink in one Application was not a good look. Without my knowledge or consultation, AAT allowed that to occur.  When I telephoned the AAT clerk, I was able to get the OCI faults back in.  If data match was not how the Robodebt was detected, I’d would consider have to consider its raise as a malicious action (my enquiry letter timing). Robodebt computer OCI faults had already been given a pass by the Acting Ombudsman report May 2017. I guess that made it the lesser two evils.  To this day Centrelink hasn’t given me an Authorised Review on my Application’s other portions. 

 

2.10 I think I’m the only one sees something is fundamentally wrong & biased in a justice review process, when an “independent” ARO, doesn’t review the most critical single document namely the original complaint, listed as evidence thereon.  Also, the only one saw something was legally wrong when the AR Outcome failed to acknowledge SSAct 1991 has various compilations & we all had to guess the one being used.  Despite being clearly a student who signed agreements & commenced study in 2015, the half of the clauses used in the AR Outcome, (because full clauses favoured me), considered me a 2016 student. Does that really matter at all though, when the entire process is to railroad everyone who’s name comes out of a hat with a Robodebt;

2.11 I won waive, but the AAT Member in ruling did all she could to avoid Centrelink’s liability. AAT1 deemed I’d not met progress rules for completion under Centrelink’s SSAct 1991, but was very light on saying why.  Namely, that the data match disaster Ivy, was deregistered 3 years before, there were no formal tests, assignments or even a workbook for Diploma level & ergo nowhere to progress to. I’m fascinated to know, how Centrelink was able to data match no information? Ivy College as aforesaid, had: - been deregistered ASQA 2012; decision upheld by Deputy Commissioner Handley AAT 2013; made the AAT Annual Report 2012-2015 App7; & was panned in main stream media as ‘Shemozzle College’. In Centrelink & the ARO’s office in 2018, it was still deemed that Ivy College was an approved Centrelink educational institute. At least somebody loved them.  I went to a fully ASQA approved College after. I maintained study patterns, did tests, assignments & my Dip Accounting validates (confirmed by AAT1) I was a capable student mindful of Centrelink’s progress conditions when they existed at the educational institute. I used the lawful method of exit HES Act2003 for full refund. Centrelink’s issue of a Robodebt for pursuing an honourable ASQA approved Diploma & attempting to force me to answer questions that may have made me liable to a deregistered College with an education debt is beyond questionable. That I had to fight this rubbish all the way through multiple reviews to an AAT1, while very sick shows Centrelink in their true light. Special Circumstance Remission should’ve seen attention by the Centrelink’s Secretary immediately – still waiting.  How did the AAT Member reflect this fiasco in her decision to give me Robodebt waive? The College had falsely advertised its product. No mention of Centrelink’s negligence;

2.12 Medical circumstance warranted the other half of the reason for my special circumstance waive.  I had to rent 2 properties as having a Centrelink’s Robodebt means no access to the emergency loan. Applying for private loans you have a reportable liability in any loan application. Despite a letter signed by 2 hospital doctors, DHS ERS prevented access to my own superannuation on medical grounds. That was extravagantly for a medical bed & to pack & move belongings from my old house on stumps to a new wheelie unit near the hospital. 3 claim rejections, the main reason for the Ombudsman complaint. NDIS refused to let me set my own goal, being united with my belongings. When disabled you mustn’t need things like cups & saucers or furniture for daily living.  I lived nearly a year in a virtually empty unit incurring rent loss alone of approx. $10K less rent assistance. My entitled benefit was spent on 2 property rentals to prop up an inadequate rent assistance. When my benefits were majority rent payments, I think it is more than fair to consider my forced Robodebt repayments were an unjust acquisition of property Constitution s51(xxxi). 

2.13 Even if you go public at AAT1 like I did, it’s improbable the ruling will be published. This gives Centrelink as Respondent in many Robodebt cases an unjust advantage.  The public funded legal team has file histories of other Robodebts & Centrelink’s legal teams can consider Member rulings to arrive at their procedural patterns in making their determinations. This history also enables them to structure all their Centrelink review questions.  When you are answering questions in a recorded telephone call you are enabling Centrelink’s gathering of any self-incriminating answers to move you across the compliancy-fraud spectrum. Whilst Centrelink can cut & paste its responses from prior AAT actions as a Robodebt victim you have to prepare your case from scratch.  Centrelink customers defend their AAT with no knowledge of Centrelink administration, Centrelink’s OCI, AAT procedures, legislature & oh yes, virtually no legal aid.  I remember reading AAT annual reports in 2011 that boasted of keeping customer wins down to 2% - Wrong! If justice is blind it’s not motivated by whiteboard, but by where evidence takes it;

 

 2.14 In I think Dec 2017, Transition Care was concerned about my health as I was continually angry about DHS actions against me. They asked if I’d like to speak to a psychologist.  I agreed as I was on a lot of heavy pain meds. I doubted what I was looking at. He looked at my file & less than 10 minutes was on the phone to try get me a solicitor.  He told me I had a heightened sense of community. Jan 2018, again another heath card attack. A Transition Care social worker asked for a single point Centrelink officer for MY protection from DHS.

 

2.15 Within a week of lodging my winning AAT1 I was shifted to a new special services personnel member Ms J. Ms J increased the persecution on me. I advised Ms J I’d given prior written notification of my objection to Robodebt repays & quoted multiple times Guide 6.7.3.08 (Ref6).  In a call Ms J switched me through to a debt team to hear an instruction from them that I had to make a minimum repayment.  What Ms J didn’t do was advise the debt team my debt was in review.  In my opinion she breached the Criminal Code Act 1995, by giving me an unwarranted demand with menace by threatening $127 repays if I didn’t agree to $15 ones. She also told me the OCI couldn’t process $0 repays, which I knew was a blatant lie. I’d been on $0 repays before. As my one Centrelink contact, she must have also have watched on, as Centrelink tried to set me up with Robodebt no. 2.  I have lodged numerous complaints that include items on the original AR Outcome split by the AAT they are auto turned off. When my 2nd request for an Authorised Review was denied & I was given an internal review instead I lodged an Ombudsman complaint. On 29 August, 2019, I was advised that finally an Ombudsman complaint was being referred for further investigation (after the whiteboard’s). This investigator came back first in phone call to refuse it. To which I responded with showing it is a systemic fault. Now rejected again & the investigator is passing the buck to another review committee. Based on experience to date, the somersaults to avoid illegalities & protection of Centrelink up to even the AAT, my newly developed paranoia tells me instead of being happy about that I should be even more afraid;

 

2.16 How did this affect me personally?  Having to fight Robodebt I’ve had to put my recovery on hold for 2 years.  I’ve not had time to consider my life as an independent disabled person.  Since Dec 2017, I’ve tweeted information to people in hospital, some appearing close to the edge & families with deceased relatives. I rarely watch tv anymore, even on the lap top.  It’s filled with vile Govt media portraying what I know are Robodebt victims as ‘welfare cheats’.  I’d go to the shops to get away from Robodebt. Even sat in the food court having a coffee my peaceful enjoyment’s been disturbed by despicable DHS commercials.  I hate SMS messages from Centrelink, because I don’t know what I’ll get.  Still, despite objections, I’m subjected to single point contact from Ms J. The vile propaganda spread by Govt has affected all our lives.  As a newly disabled wheelie amputee in recovery, I lived for nearly a year, with barely any belongings as all avenues for loans were out of my reach, due to Robodebt. I was back paid a $4+K & I couldn’t risk spending it on moving my belongings in case I lost the AAT. The reduced payments, NDIS non-provision of Plan needs meant I needed the health safety net.  I couldn’t access the emergency Centrelink loan facility & had been prevented access to even my own Superannuation on medical grounds. I believe the Robodebt also interfered with provision of my other entitled rights of health card and DSP approval.  The lack of my belongings obviously impacted on my health & you can’t study if you don’t have even have a proper table let alone your books. The Robodebt case I fought, took the AAT past my currency expiry date.  I have a $15+K education debt for nothing.  I’ve had numerous personal actions related to Robodebt, that I’m still fighting to get justice on.  As a long-time medical privacy advocate, I had to expose myself & my medical condition to public scrutiny in order to help bring Robodebt down (Ref 24). My father died in Canada last year & I couldn’t even consider going to get closure. As a 2 times Robodebt victim the second of which is highly questionable, I will not be able to consider leaving the country until Robodebt finishes.  I’m not sure when I’ll get closure or trust APH again. 

3. My Computer Observations

3.1 Computer Faults

3.1.1 I obtained a brand-new internet service 15 November 2015.  I had a number of documents to upload to Centrelink as I sorted & prepared them. This was started late night on the 15th into the early hours of the 16th November.  For speed & to ensure accuracy of receipt no. I screen capture the receipt & add it to the bottom of the documents sent.  It was on my second upload I realised I the receipt date was wrong.  I checked the other upload & realised both uploads had an incorrect date of 24 July, 2017. My leg was amputated 18 July, 2017.  I was incapable of lodging anything that date.  When I realised the significance of the receipt’s, same night I lodged a warning to Centrelink legal dept online.

The flawed receipts raise a number of problems: -

3.1.1(a) A failure to assign a unique receipt number means that documents uploaded can not be easily located when a receipt number is given to evidence an event or notification;

3.1.1(b) It can indicate documents are being saved over, which would indicate why I was able to identify a high number of my documents were missing including Ivy enrolment paperwork pictured at 2.5 & 2.7.  Generally, this occurs when the storage size is too small;

3.1.1(c) The incorrect date should immediately flag a major problem in security lock-offs.  In order to secure data in AIS & MIS regular lock-offs by period are done. Access to historical data can only be achieved by "Privileged users".  This ensures systems are tamper proof & that there’s a record of changes made & by whom of that historical data.  I reported my concerns about these receipts to the ANAO 29 December, 2017 and was advised “the first in a series of audits would be done in email from them 2018”.  I submitted this in my AAT1 Application lodged 1st April, 2018; Auditor General’s Report (Ref 19) released July 2018 supported my suspicions data isn’t secure.

3.1.1(d) Centrelink’s archival storage procedures show document destruction after upload (Ref20). In order for Centrelink to be able to use replicas it has to prove its records recognise correct dates & afford security of storage of the replicas to meet the Evidence Act 1995.  These receipts show it could do neither.  I maintain therefore all Robodebts raised up to 16 November 2017 had to have been at that date “irrecoverable” at law as Centrelink had no firm evidence;

3.1.1(e) What could have accounted for dates so wrong? Issuing wrong dates can happen when computers accessing the server of a networked AIS or MIS are not properly time synchronised.

 

3.1.2 As part the defence of my Robodebt for AAT I was interested in how the debt arose as a data-match.  I was obviously aware from my personal experience (herein s2.5) Centrelink could not have been considering the accuracy of data it was matching to. It clearly had faults within its own OCI program.  I researched all reported faults within the media to consider whether the OCI could be repaired: -

3.1.2(a) Algorithm – Anyone with an interest in Robodebts has heard this bandied around.  It is a coded mathematical formula ATO has a single figure & Centrelink has 26 fortnights.  The too easy step was taken equally averaging the ATO income over the 26 fortnights paid.  What is being downplayed is this could never have worked even if individual fortnightly earnings were entered to the system: -
3.1.2(a)(i) ATO has historically been a total of gross actual paid earnings for a year. Centrelink is 26 fortnightly estimates of earnings that customers are advised to “report it even if your employer hasn’t paid you yet.” The ATO is the primary data-match source and it is fundamentally incompatible with Centrelink’s OCI program; 

3.1.2(a)(ii) FWA historically released CPI increase rises for 1st October for awards & backdates may have occurred to 1st July. Centrelink participants receiving a pay backdate would be more inclined to apply that totalled backdated increase to the current form they received the increased value from the backdate if over the permissible earnings without affecting benefit threshold;

3.1.2(a)(iii) Part-time permanent employer agreed contracts are usually renewed with pay rises time regulated by start date this means more than one pay rate within a year;

3.1.2(a)(iv) New employees often see pay rate increases with award period of service rises;

3.1.2(a)(iv) Permanent part-time employees have holiday pay that may include holiday loading;

3.1.2(a)(v) Centrelink itself has permissible earnings without affecting benefit threshold. I found it interesting the average of debts was $2276 & the threshold over 26 weeks exceded that figure threshold at $2704 across a year. 

3.1.2(a)(vi) Working Credits. I’ve scanned a “Boost Reporting Guide for Compliance Officers” manual on social media. If the document is valid it shows no consideration of these. (Ref 22).

 

 

 

\

3.1.4 The critical fail factor in 3.2.2 for historical data-match was of course comparing “actual” to “estimated”. 

It should be obvious to anyone that was not a just basis upon which to claim liability.  The Better Management Committee had an ex- ANAO auditor to advise them of that.  Her participation under international auditor standards voided her opinion in any auditory testing of the OCI (Ref 10 pg14).  It didn’t void her though from internal test processes or from what should have been easily determined in a very cheap pre-feasibility report. I have read Mr McNamara’s repeated comments about OCI tests. Had heuristic testings been done, it would have started with a Centre-link form. The minute an estimate of earnings was requested anyone with Australian payroll experience would have to know there

was a major problem with ATO data-match. ANAO advised me in email January 2018 they planned to do their first audit later in the year. This was a new inhouse home-made program. Centrelink itself withholds PAYG on customer request.  Nothing tells me this system’s been successfully independently tested. The Amended Annual PAYG Summary shows signs of being designed by a different programmer & possibly raised on the new OCI (letter’s date fields use the sign ‘- ‘to divide them. PAYG Summary opts for use of the word ‘to’). It has incorrect actual pay field dates.  It raises the question what happens with backdated pays cross-ing end of the year.  Without proper tests it is anyone’s guess, if Centrelink’s providing accurate total gross actual paid income figures for relevant years to ATO for future year data-matching.

3.1.5 As aforesaid, I emailed my concerns to ANAO 29 December 2017.  I provided 2 receipts with the same number & the same wrong date of issue. My response January 2018 indicated they were hoping to do the first in a “series” of audits in 2018. This is a home-made system that has been up & going since the latter half of 2016. Centrelink had in its budget $16.2 million for just feasibility & yet no money from Mr McNamara’s ‘savings’ to pay even another office for an independent audit. How do you possibly complete a transaction audit check with billions of transactions, when you can’t even find a transaction by date in accounts?  Answer you can’t. The receipts I provided would be an immediate fail in any audit. They’re a major kpi flaw.

 

3.1.6 In the case of Centrelink notifications and document uploads are the basis upon which it creates new financial transactions & raises breaches for failed notifications. The date of the upload & receipt numbers is critical component for backdated payments. Uploads are accounting source documents & the date of their receival forms part of that financial event. In accounting per AASB101(15) transactions the base elements of reports should be a true & correct representation of the event (Ref11 pg9). As at 16 November 2017 Centrelink Legal Department were in possession of proof their system could not be relied on to issue an accurate or indeed a consecutive individual receipt number.  My ATO Annual Payment Summary is my final report & clearly is an inaccurate representation of the date I received an actual payment namely $208.  It records the date I received the payment as being 19 November, 2015.  I actually received payment after 12 January 2016.  For approximately 6 weeks as far as the Centrelink program was concerned my actual $208 payment was nowhere.  This is a major kpi security failure.  It enables the misuse of the funds within that 6-week period & should there be an event where money was stolen altogether a 6-week time before it’s detected.

3.1.7 In my email to ANAO on 12 January, 2018 I noted a failure to consider State legislation. Centrelink’s computer program has problems recognising even Commonwealth statute: -

3.1.7(a) On more than one occasion my rent assistance has been cancelled for no reason.  In Qld Standard Special Conditions of our Residential Tenancy Authorities fixed term leases do not expire they continue as a month to month tenancy until either party issues a Notice to Vacate.  Centrelink had a fixed term tenancy lease on my file as I was already on Austudy, but when I lodged my forms in hospital for Sickness benefits & DSP noting a current lease was held already on file & the reason my rent assistance was still cancelled requiring me to complete all new forms.  Centrelink had also cancelled my rent assistance earlier in the year it should have also had a record of details of the State legislation already on file;

3.1.7(b) Commonwealth has statutory public holidays the computer program cannot cope with this.  The shut downs of the OCI debt mail outs is systemic of that. What is clear though is the same problem affects other areas.  This notice requiring a new Medical Certificate dated 1st January (New Year’s Day) is ridiculous to humans but….;

3.1.7(c) I entered hospital July 2017. When I lodged my Sickness Allowance & DSP Applications, they included a

Centrelink Verification of Medical Condition of 2+years.Centrelink rejected that report, because it was for too long.  In telephone call from my hospital bed, I was told that Centrelink could not enter a period of more than 3 months. I was told that unless I gave Centrelink another Medical Certificate for a period of less than 3 months, they’d cancel my health card.  I told the Centrelink person that my leg had been amputated & that to do that I’d have to get doctors to lie on a statutory form.  The answer left me in no doubt it would happen. Hence the reason I supplied another form of less than 3 months that warranted this letter advising the receipt of the Medical certificate.  Was her instruction incorrect? Yes! I hand delivered to Centrelink Toowoomba another form early December, 2017, so I would not be caught out over Christmas & the New Year when my doctor was on holidays.  Unfortunately, he made a mistake & put less 4 months instead of 3 months. I was advised of the rejection of my health certificate Christmas & had to spend between Christmas & the New Year tracking down a fresh certificate by myself. At that time, I was still in hospital Transition Care had not been fully cleared for using a wheelchair safely in the community & they were still on carers statutory holidays.  This was despite Centrelink being in possession of a 2+year Centrelink Verification Medical Condition form, Centrelink Medical Certificate for less than 4 months & at that time I had already been advised mid-December, 2017 on the phone by Centrelink’s own doctor that I qualified for DSP. My DSP approval had been paused for another unexplained reason. It goes without saying, that a computer program that isn’t programmed to consider statutory regulations, compels Centrelink customers/staff to breach the Criminal Code Act 1995 so it can “work” & places the lives of users in mortal danger is a major kpi.

 

 

 

3.1.7(d) When I lodged my corrected Medical Certificate, I thought that would be enough.  Centrelink’s OCI then decided it wanted me to complete a new Medicare Card & wanted details of a one-off car accident payment for about 20 years ago when I wasn’t even on benefits. This was a gross invasion of privacy.  It in no way related to any of the claims for benefit I was making (amputation resulting from staph).  As part pf the correction of the DSP approval fiasco, I had to cancel my hospital arranged Transition Care in the New Year, because I had no health cover.

3.1.7(e) I contacted Centrelink I think 4 January, 2019 & got a Centrelink Senior Officer.  She also told me she would process the DSP that I’d been parked.  What was interesting was she deleted the request for the Medicare Card from my MYGOV box.  That further confirmed my suspicions on the inability of Centrelink to meet the Evidence Act 1995.  If an AIS or MIS can have documents accessed & deleted (3.2.7(d)) and the same program enable access to historical periods for creation of documents (the incorrect receipts (s3.2.1)), any file can be accessed, changed, altered & deleted.  It is my personal opinion nothing from the Centrelink computer would meet rules of the Evidence Act 1995.  Reference 2.7.3 is a classic case of documents that do not pass muster.  Here is a document I had not requested on a date when I was performing multiple advisory tasks related to leaving Ivy College.  Without a batch number the claim of the document being sent out on that date to me is highly questionable.  Networked to a mail system that did have a security lock it could be unable to register a number on that prior date. 

For this document to exist it would certainly merit a batch number of at least “1” to show monitor of the internal user performance in delivery of service. In a mail delivery system with two methods of delivery Auspost & MYGOV inbox financial accountability I would also have been expecting to see 2 different codes.  This may be in the abbreviation of “batch”.  This is a security kpi flaw as outlined in 3.2.1(c). It also raises questions on performance monitoring of Centrelink staff & the Debt Team.

3.1.8 Section 2.4 herein shows a major failing of the OCI & its ability to adapt to easily change to differing environments. Data matching needs similar parameters.  If you are playing the card game of snap you may accept a different suit, but a different card number on cards doesn’t win. Robodebts is a data match exercise that is supposed to be checking data from two players finding snaps, eliminating them & leaving the anomalies. Both players need to be playing the same game & be working to the same rules for any snaps to be made. My Reverse Onus Commonwealth HES Act2003 proven Special Circumstance Remission should’ve seen a match to a special circumstance remission within the Social Security Act 1991.  The OCI was fundamentally flawed as it had no place where the spectrum could show a common ground zone, between the entities being data matched.

Examples: -

3.1.8(a) As aforesaid in the introduction, ATO records were based on annual reporting of actual gross paid, while Centrelink is based on fortnightly estimates of payments even if not paid yet;

3.1.8(b) SSAct 1991, that allowed private Colleges to determine how they structured education, but Centrelink implemented its own program after the event & issued Robodebts to those that did not follow Centrelink’s new program that was not compulsory for Colleges to adopt at the time I signed my agreement;

Two systems incompatible for backdated data match from the start tells me 2nd party programs were never considered. Robodebt along with the Better Management Committee were clearly playing with themselves. Robodebt data match had no common ground to fairly place a sliding innocent-fraud spectrum on. Centrelink was like that bully in the playground that only played to its own rules, tilted for its benefit & everyone in the Public Service accepting changed rules to let the bully win.  Robodebt victims were never going to win in a data match cycle the only question was how much they could get us to lose.

 

3.1.9 I remember when I lodged my initial Application for Austudy the proof of enrolment was initially rejected because it was more than one piece of paper.  When I consider the receipts & 3.2.1(d) this enforces my suspicion of restricted file space.  If an OCI initial goal was to reclaim historical missed ‘overpayments’ then it goes without saying you would need to have access to all years as corrections or backdated payments for prior financial years may be in forward years. 

3.1.10 I ‘ve seen many people who sorted out Robodebts & months later got another Robodebt for the same wrong thing.  The popular nickname for these is Zombie Robodebts, because they come back to life.  I considered how this could occur.  Due to the need for Centrelink to process end of year Centrelink 2016 PAYG Payment Summaries for ATO, they’ve probably used the Payroll system facility of a modern day AIS.  This presents a problem in that you cannot go back to prior financial years to adjust transactions.  The program behaves like a ticker tape adding machine.  It adds within a current year only all gross payments & on a separate ticker tape tax withholds from same.  At year end when what’s popularly called a “rollover” is performed, the ticker tape totals are added to the entity’s summary of all Annual Centrelink 2016 PAYG Payment Summary issued.  The ticker tape then clears its memory & the old year rolls over to the new financial year starting at zero balance.  Once a rollover has occurred accounts within a Centrelink customer accounts should be inaccessible in a prior financial year as Centrelink 2016 PAYG Payment Summaries are issued once annually & annual books are traditionally reconciled & closed off at financial year end.  The Centrelink 2016 PAYG Payment Summary pictured above at s3.2.4 should never be added to the

prior 2016 financial year summaries as it changes the financial records for that reconciled/reported year.  Any changes to that prior year should be processed as a prior year general journal adjustment or a special transaction in the current financial year.  My Amended Centrelink 2016 PAYG Payment Summary is clearly dated March 2018.  It was raised many months after Centrelink had issued me a Robodebt.  Its raise the questions: -

3.1.10(a) did the year’s higher original income result in me paying tax?

3.1.10(b) if I was able to submit an amended return would I receive a refund?

3.1.10(c) is it just that Robodebts can go back forever, but I can only amend tax returns for 2 years?

3.1.10(d) my Robodebt at s2.5 shows a date of 8 Nov 2017.  The Amended Centrelink 2016 PAYG Payment Summary was only raised 14 March 2018. ATO lodgements are time sensitive & lodgements may result in financial returns to customers.  Why if the Robodebts are considered by Centrelink to be valid accounts, did it take over 4 months to issue an Amended Centrelink 2016 PAYG Payment Summary?

3.1.10(e) why was the Robodebt that benefited Centrelink an automated process, but the Amended Centrelink 2016 PAYG Payment Summary not automated for release at the same time if this was the expensive purpose built OCI the public has been led to believe?

3.1.10(f) I won waive at AAT1 in July 2018. It is now 19 September 2019 & I have yet to receive an Amended Amended Centrelink 2016 PAYG Payment Summary. That’s a period of over a year.  If I had submitted the first Amended Centrelink 2016 PAYG Payment Summary for which I may have received a financial return, I may now be liable to ATO. The lengthy period of Amended Amended Centrelink 2016 PAYG Payment Summary issues & ATO’s 2 year cut off for lodging Amended annual return would legitimately give me a perfect excuse to pay less tax than I really should be liable to pay. Considering the Class Action on the horizon & the unjust nature of s3.2.10(c) I think it would be a necessity to amend the ATO amended period so ATO returns can mirror the periods data match accounts can be raised. What say you?

3.1.11 We have to add to the computer failures the failure discussed at s2.5. Not considering the accuracy of the data source the Centrelink OCI compliance system is data matching to.  One thing that seems to have been filed from everyone’s memory banks is the bank statements used as an unquestionable source of accuracy.  The majority of Centrelink customers would have Commonwealth Bank of Australia accounts, because customers are told they get benefits a day earlier. In 2016 they conceded they had not disclosed a major data breach, which raised serious questions as to whether their Bank Statements can still be considered court worthy.

3.1.12 In government administration the accepted norm is <2% not 20% (Ref 16).  The Acting Ombudsman’s judgement was the OCI had comparable to humans’ error rate.  This logic is wrong doing the same calculation task a computer will always have a better accuracy rate in programmed correctly as they don’t make human errors.  The algorithm that does the averaging – Wrong! It hides the real problem to the detriment of customers, but affords a case for OCI continuance by Centrelink.

3.2 Was I A Crash Test Dummy?

 

3.2.1 I don’t think anyone can doubt I should have been in the “vulnerable” group.  When statements are clearly being made that Govt is only now considering a rollout to “vulnerable” people was my Robodebt a data-match mistake, malicious or was I a test subject?

 

3.2.2 Design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System Initiative Submission 38 Mr Warren of PivotNine Pty Ltd was right when he stated of Centrelink, “They were of the view that if an individual is critical of the Department in the media, they become fair game.”(Ref 2.13). I had been commenting on ABC Analysis & Opinion early 2016, about the disastrous access to Centrelink for Austudy approval November 2015 due to computer problems after Microsoft withdrew its support to XP early in 2016.  My knowledge of computers may have made me a prime target to play games with to test faults as an external user. What I am sure of, is the number of things thrown at me e.g. numerous health card stops, rent assistance stops, 3xsuperannuation forms when only one was on the DHS site, NDIS interference & obviously 2 of the most ridiculous Robodebts on the planet says that since becoming disabled I’ve also become one of the most unluckiest people on the planet.

 

3.2.3 You can only imagine how angry I am to find that, "measuring public value created through the introduction of a disruptive, digital platform-servicing model in the disability sector in Australia" is the PHD topic of Mr GS Centrelink’s former Chief Information Officer (Ref 18).  Initially, Centrelink’s Robodebt Team made “a conscious choice not to have that helpline phone number in the letters and on the OCI, and that came about through the involvement of behavioural economists and nudge factors in the design of the OCI.”  When you add the compliance-fraud spectrum to this mix, the only thing that surprises me, is that any of us victims got out alive & are jail free.

 

3.2.4 In addition, to the wargames (ISIS the name of the old computer, coloured zones & trigger language) going on inside Centrelink, I’ve also been subjected to a number of BOT attacks online for actually helping people with information to legally fight Robodebt. Embracing paranoia, I think there’s every possibility, they may also be part of the program.  Other issues I’ve researched online, information is scattered in various areas. What I noticed with Robodebt was a lack of information & victims being directed to one particular group. This group’s information was often inaccurate, always took people the longest way possible to information & continually failed to include direct links. Clearly people with high value Robodebts, were being investigated for fraud & what simpler way to evidence gather than to concentrate info & encourage victims to tell their story (confess) in an online public access forum. What I’m sure of, is their “About” page, informs me it was started as a social media experiment & had strong links to a reporter with long-time political associations. Despite me requesting qualifications on numerous occasions they have never provided same. Considering, they encourage DM interaction & impart of private information without legal privilege on Robodebts that found with intent is a crime, I quickly had doubts about the group.  Robodebts were an enacted program.  It was my right & the right of victims to have the information er needed on ‘overpayments’ readily available to us by Centrelink SS(Admin)Act 1999 Part 2 8(a)(i).  At no time should we have been placed at privacy risk by having to seek information from other sources. This was forced on me, because I received blatantly inaccurate information even within a Centrelink Senior Officer review. Examples of this detailed in my Ombudsman’s Office complaint as early as November/December 2017.

 

3.2.5 This Australian citizen is very angry in light of “strengthening the citizenship loss provisions” changes discussed at s4.2.2. She caught Centrelink setting her up for a 2nd Robodebt created initially, due to their untimely processing of my notifications. I tweeted the picture below. Within a receipt held call, I was discouraged from repaying the Robodebt liability in full immediately & told a repayment arrangement would be put in place to auto-deduct the amount from my next benefit.  It wasn’t. I checked the MYGOV site a few days before the due date & no pay arrangement had been set up. I paid by B-Pay.

Failure to process my notifications in a timely manner cost the Govt $153.20.  Senate should be questioning whether Mr McNamara’s Robodebt “savings” are being artificially created & why?

 

4.  Accounting Standards & Legislation Meets Robodebt

4.1 could not find one single process of data match through to settlement that acted within normal legal parameters. I tried to get the “illegality” of Robodebt under every spotlight I could… Commonwealth Integrity Commission, Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, ANAO, ACCC & all avoided the level of “illegality” & worse tried to cover Robodebt up.  I managed to get many of the computer faults as above into AAT1. Hundreds of thousands of victims, in my opinion multiple crimes & no-one at APH interested.

 

4.2 The Robodebt enquiry letter in my opinion gave me less rights than a serious terrorist under the Crimes Act 1914 is afforded, as it fails to specify “the matters to which documents to be produced relate”. Failure to observe the Crimes Act warrants that SSAdminAct 1999 Part 2 8(f) should also be considered.

 

4.3 The initial phone call failed to advise me that I was being questioned for welfare fraud a criminal offence. Despite being obviously unwell if I needed to be accompanied by 2 nurses to Centrelink & was sat in a wheel-chair minus a leg, do I consider at any time: -

4.3.1 I was delivered services “under the law in a fair” SSAdminAct 1999 Part 2 8(a)(iii) manner;

4.3.2 were my SSAdminAct 1999 Part 2 8(b) “special needs” regarded;

4.3.3 was regard given to the fact I was already on Mr McNamara’s compliance-fraud spectrum (s2.7) with a Robodebt more than double the average & that tended to make the debt team “quite certain” … “there was a chance that was deliberate”. “Presumption of Innocence” in that statement. Article 14.2 of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights & SSAdminAct 1999 Part 2 8(f).

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.3.4(a) The Robodebt - Despite providing proof of enrolment, advice I had received a full credit the Special Circumstance Remission to a Centrelink debt team member I still received an account. I was already guilty per the compliance-fraud spectrum.  I have considered the “evidentiary burden of reverse onus” & it cannot apply, because as a long-time bookkeeper I’m aware in accounting under which the Robodebt transaction was created it does express otherwise.  Robodebt in accounting per AASB101(15) transactions is base element of reports & should be a true & correct representation of a financial event (Ref11 pg9).  I uploaded this to Twitter many months ago

4.3.4(b)(i) What is a Robodebt or a Data Match Overpayment Account?  By virtue of its nickname Robodebt also known as Robo-debt is short for Robotic Debt.  Robodebts or Overpayment Accounts are actually in accounting an “undue paid” or “unduly paid” transactions. They would normally be processed as a special transaction or general journal adjustment entry.  “Undue Paid” transactions have been in use for hundreds of years & there is precedence for same in International accounting Spanish Civil Code Title XIII s1895-1901 Pg295-6(Ref1);

4.3.4(b)(ii) The fact that Robodebts are “undue paid” adjustments to a prior Social Security claimed overpayment does not give licence to reverse onus of proof. Australian Accounting Standards include International Standards and Spanish Civil Code s1900 clearly shows the person raising the existence of the overpayment has that onus of proof;

4.3.4(b)(iii) Further, in cases where Centrelink “accepts an undue payment” if it can be shown they’ve acted in “bad faith” the shoe is clearly put at Government feet as being liable for not just reimbursement of payments & interest, but also damages Spanish Civil Code s1896;

4.3.4(b)(iv) The need for the Robodebt raiser Centrelink to be able itself to prove the transaction was again affirmed by Judge Barbara Rothstein US ruling 28 December2018 Taylor Bean & Whitaker & Colonial Bank (auditors Price Waterhouse Cooper). Quoting the 5th January 2018 Market Watch article (Ref3), “The judge wrote that, instead of looking at the actual documents, Price Waterhouse Cooper relied on TBW CEO Lee Farkas, to confirm the key information". In order for an auditor to consider validity of any transactions during audit, that proof namely “actual documents” or source documents must be accessible to check transactions within the accounts.  Indeed, this is even the common place expectation of Australian Taxation Office during its audits.

Did Centrelink have that proof when it raised the Robodebts?  All indications are from a 20% inaccuracy rate no checks were done with “actual documents”.  In the case of Centrelink its archiving procedures indicate destruction after scan of documents. This is displayed in DHS’s Specialist Manuals and System Tools 111-17010020-02 (Ref2). This process places a higher burden on Centrelink itself to prove its OCI can meet Rules of Evidence as it is not using actual documents and not using duly authorised Justice of the Peace replicas of same;

 Ref 5

 

 

4.3.4(b)(v) The full federal Court determined machine-generated “could not be relied on since there was no related “mental decision”;

 

4.3.4(b)(vi) Centrelink’s archiving process deems replicas of documents must meet the conditions of the Evidence Act 1995.  It’s failure to provide accurately dated receipts or even accurate dates Centrelink annual summary for ATO would contrary prove Centrelink have a major problem with facilitating proof worthy source document replicas. I believe the large list of computer flaws listed within this report alone would show an inability to facilitate even data that is proof worthy in proceedings in any legal arena.

 

 

 

4.3.5(a) Evidence Act 1995 - All indications are from Centrelink’s Operation Guide, Centrelink as part of normal archiving has been uploading and then destroying original source documents.  Its use of computer-generated replicas of those documents and data records is enabled as evidence under rules of evidence, but only if the day on which replicas can be seen to be accurate and appears on the document;

4.3.5(b) On the 4th January 2018 I monitored a Centrelink Senior employee delete an item from my MYGOV mail box;

4.3.5(c) As aforesaid at 3.2.4 my PAYG Summary showed a wrong date of payment that crosses 2 financial quarters.  Back dated access is clearly enabled to prior financial quarters that should be locked off so transactions cannot be changed;

4.3.5(d) I have at least one document in my possession that have a 0 Batch quantity showing a highly questionable tracking of document issue.  It’s existence alone should indicate at least a batch number of 1 if dispersed;

4.3.5(e) I have another document for activity and notification within a year both having 2 different years;

4.3.5(f) I can see no independent audit of the system that would confirm any form of check considering security (and let’s not also forget privacy should be considered here also) has been done.  I have yet to read the Auditor-General concerns about management of privilege user access in a report.  Though I cannot substantiate whether this related to the Centrelink OCI also with backdated access, an ability to delete documents and questionable batch numbers I am of the firm opinion it does. With backdated access I allege not one single piece of information or with modern graphic packages one replica document cannot be changed or deleted;

4.3.5(g) For the reason in 3.1 none of the data provided by Centrelink on Robodebts from its OCI would meet rules of evidence requirements detailed under the Evidence Act 1995. Accordingly, unless Centrelink has the original documents, I allege all Robodebts were irrecoverable at law.

 

4.3.6 Professor Carney in UNSW Law Journal Issue 41 No 1 Pg. 4 “6.13 It is a basic legal principle that in order to claim a debt, a debt must be proven to be owed. The onus of proving a debt must remain with the department. This would include verifying income data in order to calculate a debt.”   The debt onus validation being the responsibility of the debt raiser is a long-standing common law & practice procedure.  It has formed the basis upon which many State Small Claims & Magistrate Court action determinations in Trade and other liabilities have been made. The reason is anybody can create a false account and say, “You prove the account I’m giving you is not real or else you have to pay it”.  Anyone receiving a valid account can evade payment of that said account simply by inventing a false account and making claim to a contra.  A valid account can be financially debt payment settled without payment ever being made.  This scenario would cause a major financial catastrophe.  It is therefore not within the Powers of good government per Clause V of the Constitution to create legislation that would enable that environment to occur. Neither the government or subsequently the Department of Human Services had the Power in legitimacy to create any account that was not beknown to them to be 100% accurate and valid.

 

4.3.7 Professor Carney in UNSW Law Journal Issue 41 No 1 Pg. 4 “6.16 The committee recommends the department resume full responsibility for calculating verifiable debts” (including manual checking)”.  This was a “Recommendation” resulting from the Senate Social Welfare Systems Report/c06.  When put with” Member Treble states” Centrelink Secretaries in my opinion have shown yet again poor application of the SSAdmin Act 1999 Part 2 8(f).  The

Secretary had a requirement to consider all AAT rulings and the Treble ruling mirrored long held common law accounting practice of the transaction raiser being responsible for validation. Formalised in the Spanish Code 1900.  The Treble ruling in Australia’s own AAT was ignored and Centrelink has continued to place the onus of proof on Robodebt victims.

 

4.3.8(a) International Criminal Court Political Rights 14.2 – Robodebt’s more than just a bad OCI computer system.  It’s a whole of process unjust persecution against innocent citizens to meet a political agenda of a ‘welfare crackdown’. More than one Minister in the current Govt proudly announced in the media its “welfare crackdown” using the OCI system less than a week before the 2016 Federal Election (Ref9). It was clearly intended to meet a political agenda;

4.3.8(b) Robodebts are an element of a crime.  Mr McNamara couldn’t have made that any clearer when stating in the Finance & Public Administration References Committee 23 March 2018, “The way we do reviews when we’re looking at a change is we have to sort of assess where it sits on the compliance-fraud spectrum.” (Ref7).  He also gave a very clear indication on what the determination was of it being on the fraud spectrum, “the anomalies tended to be quite large, tending to make us quite certain that the person had been overpaid, and, obviously, there was a chance that was deliberate” ergo fraud. As someone who Centrelink had determined owed the large sum of $5,713.68 based on absolutely no qualified source, that didn’t bode well for me.  The compliance-fraud spectrum showed no recognition of innocence for those with a large value account.  No presumption of innocence was afforded Robodebt victims;  

4.3.8(c) Reverses the onus on an element of crime;

4.3.8(d) places a burden of proof beyond even Centrelink’s algorithm programmers. Even correct earnings figures can’t data match reconcile Centrelink’s incorrect calculations;

4.3.8(e) Removing the statutory time limits for overpayment claims past a 7year period employers are required to keep records for placed an unrealistic evidentiary burden of proof on Robodebt recipients;

 

4.3.8(f) Rebuilding from bank statements with net income only thereon for insolvent unlocatable employers would require a level of payroll skill far in excess of even many bookkeepers;

calls for self-incrimination;

 

4.3.9 The AFP Taskforce Integrity webpage.  Exert your lawful right & privilege to not self-incriminate yourself (Ref23), in what is welfare fraud if proven with intent their attitude is you move closer across to fraud on the spectrum, “People who deliberately don’t give us information” its akin to giving them “false information”.  Failure to give notifications when clearly Centrelink can delete, alter & amend anything on their file (s3.2.7(e)) is another consideration on the fraud spectrum. Govt has double time, been trying to get agreements to Robodebt repayments offering debt settlements a lot cheaper than the initially falsely inflated values.  This is typical of a confidence trick. Centrelink have automated the procedure to an online process to arrange Robodebt repayments so you can be conned quicker. Some people will: -

4.3.9(a) have inadequate skills or be physical incapable to fight Robodebt;

4.3.9(b) have been advised to accept low value Robodebts by underfunded welfare groups/orgs;

4.3.9(c) believed Centrelink/Govt not knowing it’s an “elaborate sham” to per Gavin SilbertQC;

4.3.9(d) failed to see the connection between Robodebt & Centrelink Overpayment Accounts;

4.3.9(e) fear threatened re percussions of not making a repayment arrangement like added interest/visa holds.

 

 

 

 

 

4.4 While Centrelink has been sending out highly questionable Robodebts Govt has been

“strengthening the citizenship loss provisions” to remove people’s Australian citizenship for minor offences.  A Robodebt & you’re automatically on the compliance-fraud spectrum. That means AAT can issue warrants on suspicion.  With Metadata 2015 forces ISPs to retain 2 years of history & aabill waived happily through Parliament allows 2 years of all your online information to be read. This is a gross invasion of innocent citizens privacy & yet where has been OAIC?  It has been defending the interests of the Govt who had no hesitation in giving out the private information of a citizen, who dared to speak out in the media about “illegal” Robodebt. If a warrant is lawfully obtained almost every household in Australia has kitchen knives uh terrorist weapons.  Govt’s legislated with Robodebt a way to deport you for doing nothing but being unable to fight for your life (ref 8).

 

 

4.5 Had I not won the AAT1 I fully intended to take the matter further. Looking at the above did I really have a choice? That was never going to happen though. Centrelink have been doing somersaults from stopping anything going on record that shows illegality & raises faults of the OCI. My case certainly did both.  I had a number of complaint issues in addition to Robodebt that were raised in my request for an ARO. All issues appeared in a single document that appeared as an evidentiary document in the AR Outcome.   Centrelink applied to the AAT to have the case split so only the Robodebt portion was heard.  It claimed that it had only reviewed Robodebt. The moment that was done it is my opinion the AR Outcome should have been considered suspect immediately as all evidence in the case had clearly not been considered.  Instead without my knowledge or consultation the AAT clerk allowed the case to be split. When I telephoned the AAT clerk, I was able to get the computer OCI faults back in.  Audi alteram partem.   Also if data match was not how the Robodebt was detected, I’d have to consider it was raised as a malicious action & should be referred to another Court.  I noted my enquiry letter timing. Robodebt computer OCI faults had already been given a pass by the Acting Ombudsman report May 2017. I guess it made it was the lesser evil;

 

 

4.6 During the period of my Robodebt I had numerous payments took out against my will.  Centrelink guide 6.7.3.08 very clearly says that when in review if the debt relates to a pre 1st January 2017 only voluntary payments can be taken.

 

Ref 6

 

 

 

I note: -

4.6.1 My Robodebt was continually in review from the moment I received it;

4.6.2 I lodged a letter to the Legal Department objecting to all repays 15 March 2018 and my intention to lodge an AAT action which was done 1st April 2018.  Within that letter final paragraph, I advised I objected to all repayments;

4.6.3 I had an AAT lodged 1st April 2018;

4.6.4 I have continually objected to repayments and quoted 6.7.3.08 more than 3 times to the single contact “personal services” Ms J was assigned me in the week following application lodge of what was an winning AAT winning action;

4.6.5 I raised the forced repayments in the AAT and asked for mention;

4.6.6 Lodged an Ombudsman complaint again for amongst other things at 3(b) therein the forced repayments by Ms J and her ignoring 6.7.3.08;

4.6.7 In addition, I’ve made numerous online complaints about the forced repayments.

I was finally advised 29 August, 2019, my complaint to the Ombudsman wherein I allege I had forced repays in breach of 6.7.3.08 would proceed to an investigation finally. My conversation from the investigator then told me the office yet again are in damage control.  I now have to lodge an objection to my investigation not proceeding.

4.6.8 The breach of Guide 6.7.3.08 referred to as discussed in s2.15 should’ve seen consideration under the Criminal Code Act 1995 as it was unwarranted demand. I’ve seen multiple examples of the same negotiated reduced repayment of $15 in media.  The other media reports cross State lines.  I went digging as I believed the value may be a procedural minimum figure & not unique to an individual branch debt team or member (Ref 14). It makes the instruction indicative of an umbrella management level advice. I’ve found a Guide 7.2.2 that instructs Centrelink it applies to “all debt types”. It advises Centrelink employees to refer anyone wanting reduced with-holdings back to the debt team for their decision. There’s no mention of people’s lawful right to refuse any repays if their debt is in review & relates to a period pre 1st January 2017. I believe it’s the reason me & others have been forced to agree to $15 repays we didn’t want or have to pay. Ms J’s failure to consider my advice has affected many.

 

In Conclusion: - I have another 80 pages I could have included in this report.  The Robodebt OCI is a grossly flawed. Just end it!

 

 

AAT1

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

AIS

Accounting Information Systems

APH

Australian Parliament House

ARO

Authorised Review Officer

AR Outcome

Authorised Review Outcome

ATO

Australian Taxation Office

Centrelink

Department of Human Services Centrelink

CSO

Centrelink Senior Officer

Dept

Departments

DHS

Department of Human Services

DSP

Disability Support Pension

ERS

Department of Human Services Early Release of Superannuation

Govt

Government

KPI

Key Performance Indicator

NDIS

National Disability Insurance Service

Ombudsman

Commonwealth Ombudsman

Robodebt

Centrelink Overpayment Account

 

Ref

Details

 

1

https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Spain-Spanish-Civil-Code-2012-eng.pdf

 

2

http://operational.humanservices.gov.au/public/Pages/specialist-manuals-and-system-tools/111-17010020-02.html

 

3

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fdic-win-against-pwc-could-finally-force-auditors-to-look-for-fraud-2018-01-04

 

4

http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/006-Carney.pdf

 

5

https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Privately-owned-and-wealthy-groups/What-you-should-know/Tailored-engagement/Audits/  Last modified 26 Sep 2018 QC44841

 

6

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/6/7/3/08

 

7

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees/commsen/0d9e8f9f-ca2b-44e2-9f13-88a62d34bc6f/0004;query=Id:%22committees/commsen/0d9e8f9f-ca2b-44e2-9f13-88a62d34bc6f/0003%22

 

8

https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=3074a63f-8322-4473-9399-f22430b9d8fc&subId=509171

 

9

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/scott-morrison-flags-welfare-crackdown-finding-2-3-billion-in-extra-budget-savings-to-keep-it-in-the-black-2016-6

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-election-2016-welfare-crackdown-at-centre-of-coalition-budget-costings-20160628-gptq4h.html

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/16/myefo-government-defends-welfare-fraud-savings-in-economic-outlook

 

10

https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket012/2004-06-09_Release_2004-006.pdf

 

11

https://www.aasb.gov.au/admin/file/content105/c9/AASB101_07-15.pdf

 

Ref

Details

12

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/auditor-warns-of-cyber-security-flaws

13

https://www.asqa.gov.au/news-publications/media/asqa-cancels-registration-cornerstone-investment-aust-pty-ltd

14

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/government-asks-pensioner-to-repay-thousands-and-he-still-doesn-t-know-why

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/fraudster-given-226-year-payment-plan-to-return-stolen-money-to-centrelink/ar-AAE66Tq

15

https://guides.dss.gov.au/family-assistance-guide/7/2/2

16

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesvarpe.htm

17

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2F53e1f7ac-7a34-4885-9637-0fcd99ed029b%2F0006;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F53e1f7ac-7a34-4885-9637-0fcd99ed029b%2F0000%22

18

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/human-services-cio-quits-480241

19

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/auditor-warns-of-cyber-security-flaws

20

http://operational.humanservices.gov.au/public/Pages/specialist-manuals-and-system-tools/111-17010020-02.html

21

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/topics/income-reporting/30331#a1

22

https://www.scribd.com/document/419788314/BOOST-performance-framework

23

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-alrc-interim-report-127/12-privilege-against-self-incrimination/a-common-law-right-8/

24

https://www.9news.com.au/national/centrelink-robodebt-queensland-amputee-takes-on-centrelink-in-debt-case-and-wins/d5cd6adb-07c8-4834-a866-0aeb91b4ba8c

25

https://www.asqa.gov.au/news-publications/media/asqa-cancels-registration-cornerstone-investment-aust-pty-ltd

26

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/shemozzle-college-loses-appeal/news-story/a4ee17aa6c4c86249052bc8e6d5a3abd

27

https://www.afr.com/technology/commonwealth-bank-admits-customer-data-breach-affecting-19-million-accounts-20180503-h0zkh7

28

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/22/morrison-government-to-make-it-easier-to-strip-citizenship-from-people-convicted-of-terrorism

 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

COVID19 ROYAL COMMISSION SUBMISSION PART2 LODGED Feb 2021 (RC P2)

Image
  Part 2 Section 1 - COVID19 is an overblown threat!   2.1.1 I hold a DipAcc that includes the module Budgeting & Forecasting. I’m also a former State Emergency Service Deputy Rescue Leader & Specialist Flood Boat Crew Member.   I completed the welfare & wardens’ courses.   Part of the training for welfare was to manage evacuation centres in any emergency event & part of wardens to run reconnaissance on an emergency.   2.1.2 COVID19 was never a greater health threat than seasonal influenza. 25 January, 2020, I posted on Twitter accordingly.   At that time, it was being nudged up on nothing.   It was China’s flu season & their population 1.44 Billion. The media frenzy was disproportionate for only 28 frail aged/ chronic deceased .     2.1.3 I hereby submit a portion of a submission I made to Senate May 27 th , 2020, that shows conclusively COVID19 was never a high consequence infect...
Read more

COVID19 ROYAL COMMISSION SUBMISSION PART3 UPDATE LODGED Feb 2022 (RC P3update)

Image
  22/02/2022 I lodged my Royal Commission update this is the portion that relates to COVID-19. The original submission can be found on this site https://democracydemon1.blogspot.com/2023/10/covid19-royal-commission-submission.html Section(s) Topic Page   Index 3.0.0 Introduction 3.1.0 Update to Part 2 on COVID-19 3.1.0(a) Introduction, Recap & the Status 3.1.1(a) Nuts & Bolts – Natural Immunity, Reinfection, Hotspots, Mutations & Plandemic 3.1.1(b) COVID-19 PCR & Other RATs Tests 3.1.1(c) COVID-19 Vaccines 3.1.1(d) Big Pharma Is the Watch Dog for Big Pharma 3.1.1(e) The UK Influence – The GasLight of DNR’s without Consent 3.1.1(f) ...
Read more

Census Damned If You Do & Fined if You Do Not.

Image
This is a submission I did against changes that the Liberal Govt wanted to push through just prior to Covid19.  It now has relevance for all Australians. Census has included the changes requiring former Australian Defence Force personnel to identify themselves. 5 th January, 2020 To the Reviewing Committee, Re:   Proposed Amendments Details of the Census and Statistics Amendment (Statistical Information) Regulations 2019 Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission. I wish my submission to be public, but to have only my address/email withheld for security reasons. I believe I have both the personal and qualified experience to make my submission worthy of inclusion as I: - (a)    served in the Australian Defence Force; (b)    am a wheely for life above knee amputee and was also carer of a frail aged prior; (c)    have experience of computers (old programming) for networked/large entities in the workplace as snr bookkeeper for...
Read more