While the department did not release the cause for death in these cases, nearly a third - 663 people - were classified as "vulnerable", which means they had complex needs like mental illness, drug use or were victims of domestic violence.
I would hazard a guess that a portion of this would be suicide, hence the coverup. Even a low 10% is still at least 100+ deaths directly due to this program.
Sure - I have no trouble believing that robo-debt notices caused deaths, but there is nothing in the article that proves that in any way.
Before RD notices went out, those vulnerable people already existed and no doubt died from a variety of causes. Did the rate of death go up after the RD notices were issued? The article doesn't say and hence there is nothing in the article which proves that RD notices were an issue.
The premise of robo-debt and how it was carried out puts the onus on the government to defend the process. Anecdotally, we know that robo-debt has caused greater instability in peoples lives which may have contributed to suicide . However, the data provided doesn't support the correlation of robo-debt killing people. Logically it cant, since its not a list of suicide notes stating the robo-debt pushed them over the edge.
The data[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzkBzvmUwAA9hIf.jpg:large] (which you need to dig for) does however suggest some ethical questions need to be answered and further fact finding needs to done. Ethical questions in regards to individuals being marked vulnerable and those on the age pension and DSP. The actually questions that would've provided some meat where questions a) and h), which probably weren't answered due to having to summarize a persons entire contact with centrelink before their death.
To actually answer your question, the data can't support the title and there's no way to link the data provided with the ABS or AIHW data. Therefore, its largely useless as it doesn't, and can't be given, context.
Absolutely agree.
The way robo-debt notices were implemented was disgusting and I'd love to see a full investigation on it (as long as we don't use silly no-info data to build the case ... cos that's a sure fire way for the justification to be easily dismissed by the Libs).
Load more comments
I think just a Thanks and Sorry would cover most scenarios. Too many options would be a bit distracting for everyone involved
Yes very true.
I'd probably go over the top if I did it anyway ... i'd have a little pac-man that scrolled from right to left 'chomping' up the text after it displayed, or a million different transitions, blinking text, scrolling arrows, emoji icons ...
I look forward to rear-ending you while I'm staring at your light display and not your brake lights!
<blink text> Sorry! /wave <blink text>
Load more comments
It's not just here. NSW, Queensland and New Zealand have completely overflowing recycling storage facilities.
A large amount of the Western world had been dependent on China to hide our waste.
Check out the 4 corners expose "Wasted". It is quite eye opening.
Also, having worked directly with Recycling companies: they are not pro-waste reduction.
They put a lot of money into encouraging people to increase packaging etc. So they can make more money in collection.
My team has been pushed out of a few areas due to recycling companies not liking our waste reduction solutions/education.
A large amount of the Western world had been dependent on China to hide our waste.
I've long wondered if any recycling actually happens in China. Is the waste actually recycled, or is the majority just sent to landfill and/or burnt?
Has 'recycling' in Australia just been a lie? - ie we ship it overseas and conveniently ignore/forget about what happens to it.
EDIT: Have added a bit more info based on /u/BringBackTheOldFrog post
I have a membership list of people, and I'm trying to produce lists of who lives in what towns by matching against their postcodes. The tricky bit for me is that each town consists of multiple postcodes.
So my membership list consists of this data:
Members Worksheet
NAME | POSTCODE
Bob | 3364
Peter | 3550
Tom | 3352
Sally | 3897
Jane | 3877
Regions Worksheet
TOWN | POSTCODE
Ballarat | 3364
Ballarat | 3363
Ballarat | 3352
Ballan | 3400
How many towns? I've got a solution but might only be practical with a small number of towns.
About 20
Ok I think this might work then. For some reason I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this lol.
This method would start by generating a list of unique towns, and then transposing it across the header row of your membership data.
Then use the following CSE formula in the top left cell of the matrix. Commit with CTRL + SHIFT + ENTER. Drag down the entire list. With the column still selected after the autofill, drag all the way to the right (to the end of all towns).
=IF(ISNUMBER(MATCH($B2,IF($A$19:$A$22=D$1,$B$19:$B$22,""),0)),TRUE,"")
This seems like a problem that would be so much easier in a database thing or something, but I don't know anything about those.
Thanks for your help so far by the way! And yes - it's a problem where I know the outcome I want, but I've been really struggling to explain it, or wrap my head around the logic/steps to get the outcome!
I'll have a play with your proposed solution and see how I go ...
Load more comments
That was actually a very clear explanation of the whole issue - well done to the author.
And it highlights how Keating's introduction of franking credits was smart, well thought out and fair - ie. you shouldn't be taxed twice on income; you shouldn't get refund on tax not paid, companies were incentivised to pay full tax to get the 100% franking credit etc.
And conversely, how Howard fucked the system just to buy retiree votes.
It was indeed very well written.
But I don't think you can genuinely at the same time say that not having credits results in being taxed twice and that a refunded credit is a refund on tax not paid. The article puts it better, saying that a refund results in the dividend effectively avoiding tax.
Maybe that's a problem. But I'm not convinced it's really worse (apart from the amounts involved) than it effectively being taxed at a rate between 0 and 30%, which it seems Keating's system does allow.
But I don't think you can genuinely at the same time say that not having credits results in being taxed twice and that a refunded credit is a refund on tax not paid. The article puts it better, saying that a refund results in the dividend effectively avoiding tax.
I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to when you say the article says that a refund results in the dividend avoiding tax (I couldn't find that bit in the article).
However, the article does say that not have dividend imputation/credit is like being taxed twice. Under the 'Dividend Imputation' section it says: "It would greatly reduce the existing bias in the tax system which taxed interest income once, but dividend income twice."
I suspect I'm misunderstanding your point though ...
I once got ticketed for parking in a loading zone on Kerferd road at 11.30 PM. I can't doubt the validity of the ticket but I had wrongly assumed leaving the car there for 15 minutes while I took something inside and set it up would be fine at that time of night. What parking inspector does nightshift on a week night?
Another time I got ticketed for parking in the wrong direction ('against the flow of traffic') in a single lane two-direction street. I wouldn't have thought my vehicle was actually against traffic for or posed an issue for anyone.
At the end of the day they are cunts and for one good reason: parking is worth many millions of dollars of revenue every year. Those guys working night shift hiding in the shadows booking cars are bringing in thousands of dollars a shift. While there are issues of limited parking and preserving the use of streets for residents, these are all secondary considerations to the sheer rivers of gold that parking enforcement delivers.
I once got ticketed for parking in a loading zone on Kerferd road at 11.30 PM.
If the loading zone had times on it (eg Loading zone between 6am-11pm), then you would have been allowed to park there. If it didn't, then it's a loading zone 24x7 and you can't stop there at all unless you are a commercial vehicle.
I'd also say never ever get deadlocks for your exterior doors - or if you must, only ever use them when there is no-one inside.
Friend of mine had a rental unit and the tenant was smoking inside and fell asleep. He woke up to the loungeroom on fire and ran to the back door to get out - which he had deadlocked. With the smoke, heat and panic, he couldn't find the key (which was nearby) and he died at that spot.
12-Year Club
Reddit Premium
Since April 2016
