JPI have made the mistake of reading parts of the NACC report about Robodebt. Just more evidence that huge chunks of DHS methodically plotted to build, operate, and keep running Robodebt, with the knowing complicity of the ATO and DSS.
I am not a court of criminal law and I do not require things to meet the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" to arrive at a conclusion.
"during the meeting on 14 October 2014, Mr Lumley emailed Mr Britton and Mr Ryman on 24 October 2014 attaching a ‘DSS – PAYG analysis docx’. It contained ‘Analysis of PAYG Uninitiated Matches from ATO PAYG data for 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13 financial years’ and identified 866,857 uninitiated PAYG compliance matches."
That sounds like a document that should have fallen within the scope of at least one of my FOI requests, yet DHS never identified it. Funny that.
I note there are essentially zero consequences for just ignoring FOI law.
"The measure is dependent on a variation to the policy treatment of earned income under the income test of welfare payments. It is proposed that income treatment for earned income include an option to annualise income rather than use the point of earnings calculation."
It was always about income averaging and they all knew it was. They were all actively lying about it to everyone the whole time.
"On 27 November 2014, Ms Bianca Norris110 emailed Ms Collins (with a copy on 1 December 2014 to Mr Ryman) a PAYG analysis for hypothetical debts for 2010-11 and 2012-13 financial years.111 It showed that, when the PAYG data smoothing methodology was applied to 2010-11, 94% of the cases resulted in an overpayment and only 6% of cases resulted in no debt."
Another document they somehow failed to find when I asked for exactly this sort of document in https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/business_case_and_pilot_for_data on 14 January 2017.
Business case and pilot for data matching - a Freedom of Information request to Services Australia
If possible, please treat this as an informal or administrative request. Otherwise, please treat this as a formal request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. I request copies of the following: - The business case document(s) for the Pay As You Go (PAYG) data matching initiative that is the subject of Question on Notice HS 15 from the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Budget Estimates hearing on 3 June 2015. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/clacctte/estimates/bud1516/DHS/index - Documents that describe the algorithm or process used to perform the data matching that identified the "approximately 1,080,000" discrepancies between PAYG data and data reported by DHS customers, as referred to in the Answer to Question HS 15. - Documents that describe the analysis process for how the value of "historical discrepancies", as described in the Answer to Question HS 15, was determined. Such documents should describe the statistical method, the sampling process used, statistics returned (standard error, mean, confidence interval, etc.), how the likely average debt value was determined, etc. - Documents containing the program specifications/requirements used to define how the data matching process should be implemented by programmers. Such documents would refer to, for example, the use of certain fields to match on such as ABN, Business Name, Customer Name, etc. I further request that all charges in relation to this request be waived as this information is in the public interest. There is considerable public interest in the programme as evidenced by the substantial media attention of late. The social welfare payments system is also one of the most substantial outlays of Government funds, and it affects a large proportion of the Australian public. The Australian public is as concerned as the Department is that people receive no more, and no less, than what they are entitled to received. This information will help to re-assure the Australian public that the data matching process is correct and fair, and that the process for approving the project was conducted with appropriate rigor and due diligence. Yours faithfully, Justin Warren