Politics Centrelink

[Run n Spread]

What comes around goes around. If they didn't pay security to intimidate poor people, the poor people wouldn't retaliate. I've seen them bully law abiding rate paying citizens. once you cross that line you have no credibility, you are the problem and deserve everything you get working for an organization that does that.

Centrelinks job is not to administer welfare and pension payments. It is to kick as many off these payments as possible.

 

[Number37]

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.

s.51 by implication does limit the capability to privatise Centrelink.

When the govt asks for money from the govt coffers e.g. $2bn to pay pensions, it cannot do anything else with that $2bn other than pay pensions.
If it tries to, then it would be a breach of the constitution.
It would be a breach of the constitution in 2 ways;
1. It spends money on something that it doesn't have the power to spend money on. ( e.g. school chaplaincy program)
2. It spends the money on something other than what the appropriation Bill sets out.

Assuming Centrelink is privatised, where would the private entity get the money to pay pensions?

The govt cannot have a bill that says "this appropriation Bill is to give money to XXXX organisation to pay pensions".
There is no power, under the constitution, for the govt to do such a thing.

 

[Farm Boy]

Centrelinks job is not to administer welfare and pension payments. It is to kick as many off these payments as possible.

If the government isn't providing jobs then what do you expect the people to do? Centrelink can't just kick them off welfare. Is isn't as simple as that, and that would be quite cruel. I have no problems with my taxes going towards people who are on welfare. Like anything, some of them will deserve their welfare, and others won't. But to have a system who's job is to kick people off welfare, it isn't that simple.

 

[Run n Spread]

If the government isn't providing jobs then what do you expect the people to do? Centrelink can't just kick them off welfare. Is isn't as simple as that, and that would be quite cruel. I have no problems with my taxes going towards people who are on welfare. Like anything, some of them will deserve their welfare, and others won't. But to have a system who's job is to kick people off welfare, it isn't that simple.

I agree completely with you. In fact I am beginning to strongly support the basic income concept. What else can you do? 715000 unemployed vs 175000 job vacancies says it all. And don't get me started on the Gig Economy, Own a Business, Robotics, Coding or whatever the latest fad is.

BUT

I'm simply stating the reality of the situation.

 

[Farm Boy]

I agree completely with you. In fact I am beginning to strongly support the basic income concept. What else can you do? 715000 unemployed vs 175000 job vacancies says it all. And don't get me started on the Gig Economy, Own a Business, Robotics, Coding or whatever the latest fad is.

BUT

I'm simply stating the reality of the situation.

I understand that, and I also understand that there is economists on both sides of the political landscape who believe they have the solution. But the fact is at present there aren't enough jobs to keep those on welfare employed. If there were, then the argument about them being on welfare is simple - they shouldn't be. But I don't believe the jobs are there. I think a more practical question to ask is that - should people on welfare be taking jobs (any job) as opposed to being on welfare? And I would support that they should. I imagine there are quite a number of people on welfare who are offered jobs, and do not take them because they do not want, or feel they have to take them. In these instances I think they should have their welfare cut. But I would stress, that these are probably the minority of people, as there aren't a great number of jobs out there. The demand is greater than the supply atm IMO.

 

[JCHolmes]

Story time..... I funded myself through uni working part time (first year, living in a house that wasn't my parents) by selling weed (another govt failure). Centrelink is an absolute joke and I would recommend selling drugs from an overpriced, hostile, distant yet very much needed rental house in the outer suburbs over going to them for legit financial assistance (rent assistance) and being farked around and still getting nothing. Get those baggies ready Jimmy, we gone put you through uni living out of home (for complex massive list of reasons, unique to individuals) and you wont have to live under the poverty line as the govt seemingly expects you to. And there are people who are in far worse a position then I was, who wont get help due to I guess ''honour'' or whatever the govt has cultivated over the years in regards to ''entitlement'' to social welfare and the maze they get led through, time better spent packing those baggies before bed Jimbob. The government is trying to make it out that if you ask for help in most circumstances, that you dont actually deserve shit in any case and that your a leech to this great country. Being a citizen (I can only imagine) of this great country used to mean a lot more, I assume. Its 1000 times worse for my grandma, each an every year. Jeez that was dark shit story...

 

[Power Raid]

s.51 by implication does limit the capability to privatise Centrelink.

When the govt asks for money from the govt coffers e.g. $2bn to pay pensions, it cannot do anything else with that $2bn other than pay pensions.
If it tries to, then it would be a breach of the constitution.
It would be a breach of the constitution in 2 ways;
1. It spends money on something that it doesn't have the power to spend money on. ( e.g. school chaplaincy program)
2. It spends the money on something other than what the appropriation Bill sets out.

Assuming Centrelink is privatised, where would the private entity get the money to pay pensions?

The govt cannot have a bill that says "this appropriation Bill is to give money to XXXX organisation to pay pensions".
There is no power, under the constitution, for the govt to do such a thing.

Ah I see your concern now.

However I'm only proposing privatising the operations not the obligation of the welfare.

It is no different to how we have privatised Medicare operations and military operations. But very different to how we have privatised Telstra and the commonwealth bank.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I'd assume if Centrelink was to be privatised the only way you could get someone to buy it is to convince them it could be run at a profit which would be interesting sell.

You couldn't privatise it, per say, but certainly a lot is already outsourced. But the real issue is governments don't want people getting hold of their entitlements. And this government wants to claw back what people were entitiled to, even what they were never paid to begin with.
DHS has a huge budget for certain areas, mostly areound the top executives. A large IT budget that senior people want to spend in entirely the wrong way, and then poush things out the door when everyone under the top echelon tells them its going to be a disaster.

Modern governments, ALP or Liberal, barely tolerate the existence of Centrelink; and only keep it around because there are votes in making it "harder" and it looks too hard to abolish it (and some interpretations of the Constitution over the last 40-50 years might mnake it difficult).

 

[FredLeDeux]

You couldn't privatise it, per say, but certainly a lot is already outsourced. But the real issue is governments don't want people getting hold of their entitlements. And this government wants to claw back what people were entitiled to, even what they were never paid to begin with.
DHS has a huge budget for certain areas, mostly areound the top executives. A large IT budget that senior people want to spend in entirely the wrong way, and then poush things out the door when everyone under the top echelon tells them its going to be a disaster.

Modern governments, ALP or Liberal, barely tolerate the existence of Centrelink; and only keep it around because there are votes in making it "harder" and it looks too hard to abolish it (and some interpretations of the Constitution over the last 40-50 years might mnake it difficult).

Such as the legendary Mr Hank Jongen, "General Manager".
Not the only "General Manager", though.
DHS actually has more than 30 "General Managers".

 

[Bokonon_]

Centrelink must have perverse motivations. I spent around a decade working for an area health service with a budgdt just shy of $2 billion. I recall to this datly a DOH technocrat mocking someone who suggest a way for a project to improve patient care.
He ridiculed the concept of improving care because it would cause create more patients who would use the public system if it worked instead of paying for private health insurance.
Never addressed what the budget was for exactly except oresumably to provide employment oportunities for technocrats.

The last thing Centrelink would want is to grow it's business and cteate more customers who they have to give money to. The bkancing act is to not cause the Government embarassment with negative press over the non-delivery of services.

In my view it's pretty simple to outsource the adminstration of payments, but imposible to outsoyrce policy.
I dont the the outsourcing if employment services has worked because they haven't used this principle, they use a payment system with it's own perverse motivators to manage the providers. A petson finding a job quickly gains them a small payment. A person unemployed for a sole destroying period gains them payment for every enforced activity and a much larger payment when they find work.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

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.

Conflict of interest?
Can you give me a couple of examples of a public service that has been privatised, that then proceeded to put patient care ahead of profit?

 

[Power Raid]

Conflict of interest?
Can you give me a couple of examples of a public service that has been privatised, that then proceeded to put patient care ahead of profit?

It is quite incredible that government departments are so inefficient it's almost criminal, so incompetent that they can't deliver basic services properly and can't manage conflicts of interest like separating the requirement to provide quality service from the displeasure of paying welfare payments.

Further in many cases, as you highlight, the outsourcing or privatisation is bungled due to the inability to structure or contract with proper controls or procurement fundamentals. Instead they rely on groups like EY and PWC to make decisions (people who have never run a business) and lawyer (people who have never run a business) then wonder why it fails. Even we you outsource or privatise, you never let go of controls to ensure levers can be pulled to maintain quality and performance.

Even when they get the contracting remotely right, the government has to deal with a lazy management who resist change and their actions could be akin to corporate sabotage. Again this is a failing to manage people and align interests of the organisation, it's objectives and staff.


Despite not being able to run the business, not able to manage conflicts of interest, not being capable of managing and motivating staff, not being competent enough to contract; some will still defend the government to provide important services to our most vulnerable people in society.

We as a society should not accept this.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

It is quite incredible that government departments are so inefficient it's almost criminal, so incompetent that they can't deliver basic services properly and can't manage conflicts of interest like separating the requirement to provide quality service from the displeasure of paying welfare payments.

Further in many cases, as you highlight, the outsourcing or privatisation is bungled due to the inability to structure or contract with proper controls or procurement fundamentals. Instead they rely on groups like EY and PWC to make decisions (people who have never run a business) and lawyer (people who have never run a business) then wonder why it fails. Even we you outsource or privatise, you never let go of controls to ensure levers can be pulled to maintain quality and performance.

Even when they get the contracting remotely right, the government has to deal with a lazy management who resist change and their actions could be akin to corporate sabotage. Again this is a failing to manage people and align interests of the organisation, it's objectives and staff.


Despite not being able to run the business, not able to manage conflicts of interest, not being capable of managing and motivating staff, not being competent enough to contract; some will still defend the government to provide important services to our most vulnerable people in society.

We as a society should not accept this.

How will privatizing fix this if as you pointed out, it's never worked before?

There is a lot that we as a society shouldn't accept.

 

[Power Raid]

How will privatizing fix this if as you pointed out, it's never worked before?

There is a lot that we as a society shouldn't accept.

the commonwealth bank has been a success. so it hasn't been without precedence.

the starting point should be separating the health and social welfare portfolios from the executive. Setting up performance measures and remuneration to align interests. Then embarking on the privatisation of the administration process.

It's actually really easy and happens everyday successfully by accountable management teams.

 

[Sinjin Smith]

It is quite incredible that government departments are so inefficient it's almost criminal, so incompetent that they can't deliver basic services properly and can't manage conflicts of interest like separating the requirement to provide quality service from the displeasure of paying welfare payments.

Further in many cases, as you highlight, the outsourcing or privatisation is bungled due to the inability to structure or contract with proper controls or procurement fundamentals. Instead they rely on groups like EY and PWC to make decisions (people who have never run a business) and lawyer (people who have never run a business) then wonder why it fails. Even we you outsource or privatise, you never let go of controls to ensure levers can be pulled to maintain quality and performance.

Even when they get the contracting remotely right, the government has to deal with a lazy management who resist change and their actions could be akin to corporate sabotage. Again this is a failing to manage people and align interests of the organisation, it's objectives and staff.


Despite not being able to run the business, not able to manage conflicts of interest, not being capable of managing and motivating staff, not being competent enough to contract; some will still defend the government to provide important services to our most vulnerable people in society.

We as a society should not accept this.

None of that answers nor provides any examples in regards to Watchyourwaite post at all.

 

[Power Raid]

None of that answers nor provides any examples in regards to Watchyourwaite post at all.

you must have missed the first sentence referring to the commonwealth bank

you also must have missed the previous references to the courts and the RBA

 

[Watchyourwaite]

None of that answers nor provides any examples in regards to Watchyourwaite post at all.

I got lost in his confusing post.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Conflict of interest?
Can you give me a couple of examples of a public service that has been privatised, that then proceeded to put patient care ahead of profit?

the commonwealth bank has been a success. so it hasn't been without precedence..

How is the commonwealth bank an example of a public service that has been privatised, and then put patient care ahead of profit?

Aren't commbank currently in the news for exactly the opposite of that?

 

[Power Raid]

How is the commonwealth bank an example of a public service that has been privatised, and then put patient care ahead of profit?

Aren't commbank currently in the news for exactly the opposite of that?

The commonwealth bank was once government owned and operated.

No doubt the money AML/CTF issue has damaged brand. But it remains an excellent example of separating government's role of regulating from operations.

 

[NSWCROW]

122 million dollars for a Plebiscite.




How many weeks grace will that give Welfare recipients from being labelled " Bludgers " or attacked with tightening of already punitive-measures ??



If i was Cash , Tudge or Porter i'd be shutting the **** up for 12 months at least.

 

[AM]

Centrelinks job is not to administer welfare and pension payments. It is to kick as many off these payments as possible.

Not sure that's entirely fair. I know a number of people who have received considerable help from Centrelink staff, leading to them being entitled to higher benefits. I guess it's who you get the handle your case.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

The commonwealth bank was once government owned and operated.

No doubt the money AML/CTF issue has damaged brand. But it remains an excellent example of separating government's role of regulating from operations.

Can you slow down a bit please?

You said we need to privatise centrelink because they have a conflict of interest, in that they don't put the person first.
I asked you for a couple of examples of a public service that has been privatised, that then proceeded to put patient care ahead of profit.

And you answered with the commonwealth bank.
Who are currently in the news for putting profits ahead of patient care.

Wiki has 4 listed controversies for combank.
Environmental.
2008 financial planning scandal.
Ponzi scheme.
And the current Insurance division scandal.
And those are just the big obvious ones that even I can understand.

How is the combank an example of a public service that has been privatised, that then proceeded to put patient care ahead of profit?

 

[Power Raid]

Can you slow down a bit please?

You said we need to privatise centrelink because they have a conflict of interest, in that they don't put the person first.
I asked you for a couple of examples of a public service that has been privatised, that then proceeded to put patient care ahead of profit.

And you answered with the commonwealth bank.
Who are currently in the news for putting profits ahead of patient care.

Wiki has 4 listed controversies for combank.
Environmental.
2008 financial planning scandal.
Ponzi scheme.
And the current Insurance division scandal.
And those are just the big obvious ones that even I can understand.

How is the combank an example of a public service that has been privatised, that then proceeded to put patient care ahead of profit?

I think it is a wonderful example. Firstly because the commonwealth bank provides an excellent level of service and provides funding at rates below the risk reward ratio. Meaning the organisation is efficient and effective.

Secondly the scandal you refer to is a real issue. However, the separation of operations to the regulator means this will be resolved.

unlike a government organisation that isn't efficient, isn't effective and when issues occur the conflict of interest and the lack of segregation of duties (operator and regulator) means an inability or lack of desire to resolve.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

I think it is a wonderful example. Firstly because the commonwealth bank provides an excellent level of service and provides funding at rates below the risk reward ratio. Meaning the organisation is efficient and effective.

Secondly the scandal you refer to is a real issue. However, the separation of operations to the regulator means this will be resolved.

unlike a government organisation that isn't efficient, isn't effective and when issues occur the conflict of interest and the lack of segregation of duties (operator and regulator) means an inability or lack of desire to resolve.

I disagree.

On average I get better service when I've dealt with centrelink than I do when I've dealt with combank.

 

[Power Raid]

I disagree.

On average I get better service when I've dealt with centrelink than I do when I've dealt with combank.

take that up with the OP