Politics Centrelink

[Gough]

why do you think that?

Because they give away money, that's their job. You can't privatise the agency but still have the government funding it's purpose. That's just another way of privatising the profit, and socialising the loss.

 

[Power Raid]

Privatisation hasn't helped in dealing with Medibank. No email service now and have to wait some time on the phone.

Can just imagine if someone took over Centrelink, you would need to pack lunch and sleeping bag whilst waiting for an answer.

both health and social welfare departments need to be separated from government like the RBA. From there privatisation has a chance.

Any political involvement = fail

 

[Power Raid]

Because they give away money, that's their job. You can't privatise the agency but still have the government funding it's purpose. That's just another way of privatising the profit, and socialising the loss.

You only privatise the administration and management of services. It creates a separation of duties and the conflict of interest of politics and government.

Separating the department from the politics will further strengthen the important social institution and framework.

 

[JackOutback]

gotta love government incompetence

it's time to privatise the operation of centrelink to separate the conflict of interest and provide customers with more power.

Yes, because private business has never exploited people for their own financial gain

 

[Power Raid]

Yes, because private business has never exploited people for their own financial gain

but at least you can terminate a contract in the case that occurs but it's hard to terminate a government department

 

[Rob]

You only privatise the administration and management of services. It creates a separation of duties and the conflict of interest of politics and government.

Separating the department from the politics will further strengthen the important social institution and framework.

The problem with that is that there are very few KPIs that you can measure to determine effectiveness, and those that you can (call waiting times, processing times and the like) can be easily manipulated to make it look like things are going well when in reality they may be actually going very badly. Like making fast decisions by giving no respect to the law.

The politics you speak of only come into play at the very top levels anyway, not the foot soldiers delivering the services. And they apply just as much no matter who's delivering them. Think about the census and ATO IT fails over the past year - the government have copped it just as much despite the culpability for both being primarily private industry.

IMO, most public service privatisation is a con job. If you start operating with a mind to making a profit the inevitable outcome is poor (and possibly illegal) service. It's fine where the client relationship is a business transaction, but our relationship with government is generally not one of a business nature. It's of necessity.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

You only privatise the administration and management of services.

This makes no sense.
The government currently pays people directly to do this.
You want the government to pay a private entity to pay these people people to do this?

Or are you thinking they will become more efficient, and get rid of some staff?
Which will increase the centrelink customers, and have the government paying the now unemployed?


Aren't the job finder things run privately? JobFind, CareerOne, that kind of thing?
They're a pretty good example of why we shouldn't privatise any more of centrelink.

 

[FredLeDeux]

This makes no sense.
The government currently pays people directly to do this.
You want the government to pay a private entity to pay these people people to do this?

Or are you thinking they will become more efficient, and get rid of some staff?
Which will increase the centrelink customers, and have the government paying the now unemployed?


Aren't the job finder things run privately? JobFind, CareerOne, that kind of thing?
They're a pretty good example of why we shouldn't privatise any more of centrelink.

You have just started querying articles of faith.
Be aware that from hereon in, all fact and reason-based argument has flown out the window.

 

[Power Raid]

The problem with that is that there are very few KPIs that you can measure to determine effectiveness, and those that you can (call waiting times, processing times and the like) can be easily manipulated to make it look like things are going well when in reality they may be actually going very badly. Like making fast decisions by giving no respect to the law.

The politics you speak of only come into play at the very top levels anyway, not the foot soldiers delivering the services. And they apply just as much no matter who's delivering them. Think about the census and ATO IT fails over the past year - the government have copped it just as much despite the culpability for both being primarily private industry.

IMO, most public service privatisation is a con job. If you start operating with a mind to making a profit the inevitable outcome is poor (and possibly illegal) service. It's fine where the client relationship is a business transaction, but our relationship with government is generally not one of a business nature. It's of necessity.

The privatisation would not be easy for reasons you highlight. The only way I can see this working is one entity being responsible to the database and IT platforms.

Then the "shop fronts" being outsourced like a post office franchise model. This would be best achieved within or next to a "disabilities services commission", as many applicants need support beyond a cheque. Sadly though, we are closing the DSC in favour of a lower service model of the NDIS.

We really need to stop and think about what we doing here. It is truly frightening.

 

[Power Raid]

This makes no sense.
The government currently pays people directly to do this.
You want the government to pay a private entity to pay these people people to do this?

Or are you thinking they will become more efficient, and get rid of some staff?
Which will increase the centrelink customers, and have the government paying the now unemployed?


Aren't the job finder things run privately? JobFind, CareerOne, that kind of thing?
They're a pretty good example of why we shouldn't privatise any more of centrelink.

the conflict of interest issue is clearly too great. The government can't work out whether welfare recipients are customers or troublesome.

if they can't provide a service with respect and dignity, then we need to find alternatives.

 

[Taylor]

Given what I have been told about government departments it would be smarter to make everyone redundant and then hire 2/3rds of the number of new people and you'll see them be twice as productive.

The mangers lose their place currently if there aren't enough people under them so there is no culture of finding better people, they keep their nest full of chicks and keep their place safe.

 

[Power Raid]

Given what I have been told about government departments it would be smarter to make everyone redundant and then hire 2/3rds of the number of new people and you'll see them be twice as productive.

The mangers lose their place currently if there aren't enough people under them so there is no culture of finding better people, they keep their nest full of chicks and keep their place safe.

When I was at uni, I had to go in each week to declare whether I had earned $50 vs $60 each week. I would line up for 30-60 minutes and here the dole recipients in front of me in the line being abused by centrelink staff and given the run around.

Then they would be nice as pie to an austudy recipient.

This just highlights the horrible mentality within the departments and this mentality should be held accountable from staff level, through management to the director general. They are paid to do a job, not express their opinion through disgraceful behaviour.

 

[Rob]

the conflict of interest issue is clearly too great. The government can't work out whether welfare recipients are customers or troublesome.

if they can't provide a service with respect and dignity, then we need to find alternatives.

That's the fault of the government though, and wouldn't change if any of it was privatised, as it's still the government that tells whoever is operating whatever they're privatising how to operate it. If the government want to be a bunch of campaigners, then the private sector will operate it that way, in addition to trying to make a decent profit themselves.

Whatever the problem is, it is unlikely the solution is the private sector.

 

[Power Raid]

That's the fault of the government though, and wouldn't change if any of it was privatised, as it's still the government that tells whoever is operating whatever they're privatising how to operate it. If the government want to be a bunch of campaigners, then the private sector will operate it that way, in addition to trying to make a decent profit themselves.

Whatever the problem is, it is unlikely the solution is the private sector.

that's why I propose separating welfare and health from the government like the RBA and the courts.

 

[Taylor]

And keeping the same staff under new management would be like handing them the red button to get revenge by being extra bad at their jobs.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Given what I have been told about government departments it would be smarter to make everyone redundant and then hire 2/3rds of the number of new people and you'll see them be twice as productive.

The mangers lose their place currently if there aren't enough people under them so there is no culture of finding better people, they keep their nest full of chicks and keep their place safe.

That should do wonders for their nearly non-functional telephone service, especially when coupled with a grossly inadequate website (which sporadically "forgets" log on details), and its associated contact service which regularly crashes.

It would, at least, mean that the "workers" are never bothered by having to deal with customers.

 

[Taylor]

That should do wonders for their nearly non-functional telephone service, especially when coupled with a grossly inadequate website (which sporadically "forgets" log on details), and its associated contact service which regularly crashes.

It would, at least, mean that the "workers" are never bothered by having to deal with customers.

If the contract requires it to work, then it will have to work. Currently, who is responsible for it?

 

[Rob]

that's why I propose separating welfare and health from the government like the RBA and the courts.

The problem there is that welfare and health would require about 100 times the funding that the RBA and courts need. That alone adds a huge political element, and you can't just give monoliths like that a blank cheque. Bearing in mind that the public service is (meant to be) apolitical anyway, so at least on face value there is a degree of independence.

 

[Taylor]

The political neutrality is literally the only thing the public service takes seriously enough to fire someone for immediately

 

[Power Raid]

If the contract requires it to work, then it will have to work. Currently, who is responsible for it?

a director general who gets a pay rise as the size of the budget he manages increases.

nothing quite like rewarding inefficiency!

 

[Maggie5]

Given what I have been told about government departments it would be smarter to make everyone redundant and then hire 2/3rds of the number of new people and you'll see them be twice as productive.

The mangers lose their place currently if there aren't enough people under them so there is no culture of finding better people, they keep their nest full of chicks and keep their place safe.

I have two neices currently working for Centrelink and this is one area that you would be wrong. It is not the people but the inefficient systems, governments asking for information that the systems can not supply.
Instead of spending money on a complete overhaul on the systems, they are carried out piecemeal adding to inefficiencies and frustration of staff.

 

[FredLeDeux]

If the contract requires it to work, then it will have to work. Currently, who is responsible for it?

That hasn't been the experience with privatisation of services which were failing because of chronic under-funding and under-investment.
The privateers have generally tried to rort any contract provisions with under-servicing customers and gold-plating infrastructure, etc,; and then, when they still can't engineer what they consider sufficient return on their investments because the reduced services are still too expensive, they have usually successfully managed to lower the services bar or increase the gov't payments, or both.

Anyway, this whole idea is all surely just an ideologically-inspired thought bubble or wet dream, and is really not worth bothering about until it actually becomes a real threat.

 

[Taylor]

I just want my money paid into my account regularly and easy

 

[Number37]

that's why I propose separating welfare and health from the government like the RBA and the courts.

Our constitution specifically separates the govt from the courts.

The govt can't privatise health or welfare. The money spent on health and welfare can only be spent under a head of power.
To spend money the govt must have the power to do so. Section 51 of the constitution sets out most of the powers that the govt can spend money under.
Money Bills can only appropriate money, they can't do anything else. If they do then whatever else they do is invalid.
The govt couldn't therefore privatise welfare because there is no power that would allow it to give money to a private organisation to pay pensions (for example).

It is under these principles that the GFC handouts and school chaplaincy programs were challenged as invalid, it was argued in those cases that the govt did not have the power to spend the money in the way it did.
The GFC handouts got through under the nationhood power.
The chaplaincy program was rejigged so that instead of giving the money to religious organisations and the like it was given to the States which made it constitutionally valid.

 

[Power Raid]

Our constitution specifically separates the govt from the courts.

The govt can't privatise health or welfare. The money spent on health and welfare can only be spent under a head of power.
To spend money the govt must have the power to do so. Section 51 of the constitution sets out most of the powers that the govt can spend money under.
Money Bills can only appropriate money, they can't do anything else. If they do then whatever else they do is invalid.
The govt couldn't therefore privatise welfare because there is no power that would allow it to give money to a private organisation to pay pensions (for example).

It is under these principles that the GFC handouts and school chaplaincy programs were challenged as invalid, it was argued in those cases that the govt did not have the power to spend the money in the way it did.
The GFC handouts got through under the nationhood power.
The chaplaincy program was rejigged so that instead of giving the money to religious organisations and the like it was given to the States which made it constitutionally valid.

you're right re s51 but s51 doesn't limit the privatisation of the administration of medicare or centrelink. Nor does this limit the capability of carving out these departments from the influence of the executive arm of government.