>

This is a karma farming bot which copies and possibly edits a comment from a thread and posts it elsewhere on the same thread. These bots are used for posting scams, spreading misinformation, and for other harmful things. Please report (Spam > Harmful bots) and downvote it. Also, avoid blocking these bots, since you can't report a blocked account. 
For more information on how to identify harmful bots, check out this post
Original comment
Wow, government acting like loanshark operator in trying to muzzle people from speaking out. >

This is a blatant violation of privacy rights and the government should be held accountable for their actions. >

They were, they’re no longer in government. Now the individuals involved are being held accountable. This inquiry is going to torpedo some careers, apparently deservedly. >

The alnp is the conservative bunch, the labor party is more progressive. >

(warning suicide) 
To me, Rachelle Millers statements here paint an informative picture of the Liberal government's approach at the time, and how quickly Australia is following the American partisan media route. 

"Ms Miller said there was a "proliferation" of negative media coverage in late 2016 that was "growing and growing and growing" but it was "predominantly in the left-wing media"."

The incredibly politician-esque description of 'negative media coverage' actually means articles in respected news outlets raising concerns from 
- the calculations are wrong - 
all the way to 
- nobody reviews these demands for thousands of dollars from welfare recipients before they are sent, and people in vulnerable groups suddenly receiving a letter from the govt saying they owe more money than they have ever had in their account is literally making people kill themselves. - 
But she then states:

"We weren't too concerned because it wasn't unusual that the left-wing media were attacking us regarding social policy," she said.

... Well as long as this shithead isn't concerned I guess it's fine. 

Ms Miller told the commission in response to growing criticism, the government adopted a counter-narrative strategy in the "more friendly media" such as the tabloids."... "That involved … placing stories with the more friendly media, the right-wing media, about how the Coalition was actually catching people who were cheating the welfare system."

Critically, the government had received advice that the program was likely illegal from their own legal advisors. Despite this, they both continued sending robodebt notices, and took the matter to the Federal court (unsurprisingly they lost). Imo, the actual legality of the matter is irrelevant if for 4 fucking years you keep effectively murdering people before you are told to stop by a court.
Now, returning to the abhorrent actions of Miller, she doesn't seem to discuss whether the strategy she was implementing had any basis in fact whatsoever (i.e. could the government show that their dog whistle argument 'we're catching the dole bludgers' was working through statistics, or forensic research). It seems she took the instruction completely for granted, and abused the bias in various media outlets to create dissent that discredits actual journalism. Similar to tactics that Murdoch media outlets utilise every day to foment conflict among groups with the explicit intent to distract everyone from focussing on the actual issues in society. 
To finish, it seems appropriate to reflect on the topic of this particular article; despite knowing that there were credible reports stating that issuing these bullshit notices to vulnerable people was harming them, not to mention illegal, she herself formulated the media crisis strategy, which involved publishing broadly the names and details of people who disputed the notices in the media to deter anyone else from coming forward.
Edit: Icing - when a fellow govt staffer came to her saying they had received a notice, and was only able to dispute it with incredibly detailed records from when they were a student, she raised it with the minister who stated 

'That's exactly how the system is supposed to be working'

I see this constantly being referred to as a 'failure' of public policy; this was not a failure, it was success on the part of bad faith actors. Do not give these people the benefit of the doubt, they are well educated, and certainly capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. 
Please, if you find yourself in a position like Miller was in, it is not worth sacrificing your integrity and humanity to stay in that path. There will always be another option that doesn't involve unethical behaviour to do your job. You can do better. We can do better. >


only able to dispute it with incredibly detailed records from when they were a student

I'll go you one better. I worked short contracts for a state government during part of the period they looked at. I wasn't working consistently, and only claimed what I was entitled to when not working, but of course the averaging process triggered for me because my annual income was over the threshold. But it had been so long between then and when I got my robodebt notice that the government's pay system had changed, and they literally would not accept the only records the state government was able to provide from their old system. 
I ended up in a standoff with them and their debt collectors for years, with them knowing perfectly well I hadn't claimed anything I wasn't entitled to, but the system not accepting the evidence. They'd put it on hold, and then it would come off hold after a couple of months and trigger another wave of debt collectors and I'd have to start arguing it all over again. I spent hundreds of hours defending myself, and it only went away after the court cases. >

Such absolute horseshit. The human impact is incalculable, but it's almost certain that will play no role in the outcome here. How many royal commissions have we seen with zero consequences for the participants? I'm sorry you had to waste so much of your life dealing with people worth less than the value of the minerals in their body >

Thanks. It still just blows my mind that even governmental records weren't considered good enough in terms of proof. I realise it was a federal policy and I worked for the state government, but if even governmental records weren't considered good enough what chance did most people have of being able to gather sufficient proof. I realise it's just more bad faith on top of bad faith, but it was absolutely set up so that people had no chance. >

It's telling that we are concerned about how someone else might or might not be able to handle the process. Randoms on the internet show more compassion and empathy than well remunerated public servants >

I believe that one's Qantas