Talk:Robodebt scheme

Article name: Robodebt scheme

I weighed up whether or not to put this page under the title 'Online Compliance Intervention' or something similar, but decided to put it under the title 'Robodebt scheme' as that is the name used much more commonly by the public, media, politicians and even law firms such as Legal Aid Victoria and the firm undertaking the class action. B 897 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Updates Post Election

Hi All, I am keen to make changes to correct some errors and omissions. I am hoping these corrections will be less controversial now the election has occurred. The changes will correct and complete several significant facts.

• Robodebt Algorithm was launched in 2004 after a pilot in 2001
• Robodebt Algorithm and process remained unchanged until 2015
• Data Matching programs have been occurring since the 1970's.
• Only the Data Matching program that uses the Tax File Number is subject to the Data Matching Act
• Non Tax File Number data matching is subject to guidelines.
• In 1992 there were already 20 Data Matching programs.
• The way it is currently read provides no context and misrepresents the data matching program undertaken in 2011.
• The 2011 program was designed to proactively contact people, this lowered Prosecution referrals from 4,000 to 1,200 per year.

What I have written above is a brief summary of the facts which I wish to include to clarify what Robodebt is and its origins. Please let me know if you have any issues with making these changes. Note: Each statement has references that substantiate all of this. HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

G'Day Harry,

If you would like to make some additions, you are welcome to, but please keep in mind that this page is about Robodebt, aka Online Compliance Intervention, which saw the automation of the calculation of overpayments and issuance of debt notices, between 2015-2020. Please be careful not to go beyond this scope.

If you can address your first 6 dot points above in only a few sentences or so that would be great, but if you have a lot more information to add, I would suggest that you might be better to create a new Wikipedia Page (e.g. Historic use of data-matching by Australian social welfare programs), than to put that information here. The 'Background' section really only needs to be a brief introduction to what came before the introduction of the Robodebt scheme, and not go into too much detail to the point that it distracts from the main topic of this page. Looking at the previous edits you made to the page, you went in to a bit too much detail for what this page needs;- again perhaps you would be better to put such in-depth information in a new/different Wikpedia Page. In relation to your last two dot points, the current section about the 2011 program does need a bit of work, again please be mindful to stay within the scope of this particular page.

Please also keep in mind the advice previously given to you by Pete, such as to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, or indulging in what's considered original research, and to use reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, tertiary sources and primary sources.

--B 897 (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I would note that I provided primary sources.

I woud also note that each of the claims made about my previous posts had no substance or explanation.

I simply gave up because it was clear people were not interested in facts.

You say 2015-2020. There has been a reference to 2011 on this page for a long time.

This particlar reference is one I wanted to remove, however Pete and others insisted it remain. They insisted it remain despite overwhelming evidence that proved it had nothing to do with Roodebt.

I will be removing that reference as it has zero to do with Robodebt

I will be making other changes, I will make them in small edits, this will make it easier for people to query changes rather than what people did last time when they reverted the changes and then accussed me of violating twitter rules

HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes

I have removed a portion of the introduction, which might be better suited to the Controversy / Critism section if someone feels strongly about keeping it.

Anon, 10:42 AEST 29-08-2021

@Nothereorthere: The recent rewrite of this article does not comply with our WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. The doctored image of Scott Morrison which you created gives him the made-up title "Minister for RoboDebt". The non-apology apology section seems to consist of original research. Several sources are being used to make assertions that do not appear in the source material. Much of the prose is written in a tone more befitting a political attack ad than an encyclopedia. gobonobo ^{+ c} 16:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Gobonobo:

I wish that you would've contacted me before making a judgement about my content and my integrity. I note that you are in America, I am unsure how to explain this information as our parliamentary system is different to yours

I will give you the information that should make it abundantly clear that I did not invent or make-up the apology content. The only practical way to try and do this is with a picture, see link https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Robodebt_Content_Justification_2-01.png

I will give you the information that should make it abundantly clear that attribution of responsibility for RoboDebt to Scott Morrison is correct. The only practical way to try and do this is with a picture, see link File:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Robodebt_justification_2-02.png

Please let me know if this information does not clarify things.

Regards Nothereorthere (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the attribution of responsibility for Robodebt to Morrison is not correct. What your sources show is that certain senators have accused Morrison of being responsible for it. Just because something is read into the Hansard (or Australian equivalent) does not make it unimpeachable fact. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Keen to make some updates

Hi All, I am keen to update some information on this article.
I have started with some additional background information.
I am happy to keep updating, but first I want to check if anyone has any issues or is keen to also do some updates.
I have marked this page for notifying me of changes, so if you want to reply here that is good, or add to my talk page.

For some incidental trivia, I have done extensive research in this area, and I have found the first instance of Data Matching is likely to have occurred in 1914. A woman failed to declare a second bank account at another bank branch, doing this allowed her to qualify for the pension as she was able to pass the "Assets Test". She as caught and charged. Anyway, this is an area I have found very interesting.

Cheers Harry HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A couple of years ago it was hit by some agenda-driven editing. It could certainly be updated, using reliable sources for all statements. Acroterion (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion,

• OK, thanks for the background information. That does explain some of the jumbled information.
• I always provide references, feel free to let me know if I should have more/less/different references.
• I would like to include a few point on the data matching/fraud/ prior to the creation of the data matching act.
• I am still feeling my way round with regards to best way to tag people, use signature etc. If I make a mistake, let me know I won't take it personally.

HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Great research skills Harry. Unfortunately the material you added appears to be your interpretation of primary sources such as government reports etc. This sort of thing doesn't really make for a good article; what we want - especially for a topic so widely covered as Robodebt - are identifiable authors writing in reliable sources. The Age, The Guardian, The ABC etc. If we editors just put in our own opinions on a political matter, no matter how many great sources we can cherry-pick, the thing just turns to custard. --Pete (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pete, Pete

Re: "appears"

• You have deleted my content based on "what appears to you to be my interpretation". The word "Appears" without any references does not seem like a sound basis on which to delete content.
  
• I would be more than happy to to discuss the specific areas that "appear" to be an issue for you.
  
• The information that was there was wrong. Why would we want to put wrong information back?
  

Re: Sources

• I note that Acroterian was supportive of using reliable sources (see above comment)
• Are you saying reports by the Auditor General, Judges, Ombudsman etc. are not a reliable source?
  
• I read the Wikipage on citation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources) This sentence "you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. " along with the inclusion of Harvard University Journals as an example supports the use of the primary resources I have used.
  

Re: cherry picking

• What other facts do you think should be included?
  
• Deleting the entirety of my content without prior discussion makes it very difficult to establish a consensus.
  

To summarise

• You have deleted all of my content based without any specific reference.
  

Question: How am I meant to work out what you are referring to if you dont provide a reference?

• You have put content back content that is wrong.
  

Question: Why would you want wrong content to be published?

• If you are able to provide an actionable description of something you would like to change, I will be more than happy to work to make that change.
  

Question: Do you have any actionable suggestions?

• Without a specific reference I am unable to see how your concerns can be actioned
  

Next Steps: I am thinking that without any actionable suggestions and the current content having errors I think it's most appropriate to put correct information up and correct other errors as well.

Regards HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

For one thing, perhaps you could read WP:INDENT and follow? It would make discussion flow easier. As for your question on sourcing, WP:PSTS has our policy. I quote:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

Editors are forbidden to indulge in what we call original research and an editor's personal interpretation of primary sources is either original research or synthetic. If the points being made are notable and relevant, then it should not be a difficult task to find someone who has published the inormation and argument in a reliable source.

I'm not saying you are wrong - I haven't read every voluminous word and digested every table of the sources you provide in order to form my own opinion - but really, if it is something that belongs in an encyclopaedia, surely it is something that has engaged other minds beyond yours and a bunch of public servants? --Pete (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Restructure

Hi all. I would like to restructure this article so that it's mostly in chronological order. I think this can be achieved by simply placing the Second Senate committee Inquiry and Royal Commission subsections below the Demise and Aftermath section. In that case, I think some of the subsections could be regrouped as well. As a suggestion, how about:

• Origins of the scheme
  • Background
  • Creation and Announcement
• Operation
  • Iterations and official names of the scheme
  • Debt recovery efforts
• Public reaction
  • Reactions and critiques
• Initial investigations
  • Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation
  • First Senate committee inquiry
  • Legal challenges
• Demise and further investigations
  • Demise and aftermath
  • Second Senate committee inquiry
• Royal Commission and aftermath
  • Royal Commission
  • (future section - further investigations referred by Royal Commission)

20WattSphere (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds great, the page shows is currently disjointed.

There has been considerable misinformation about th background of Robodebt, I will be keen to ensure that the incorrect information isn't reintroduced onto this page. HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds great :) I created this page not long after the end of the scheme, and tried to organise it mostly in chronological order at the time, however with a few years having passed and the Royal Commission unearthing a lot more information, I agree the page needs a bit of reorganising. What you've proposed to seems like a great solution. B 897 (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the input! I'll go ahead and make that change now, it would be great if you could have a glance over it at some point and make sure nothing is broken. 20WattSphere (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Style

Hey, how does this group feel about the lists of recommendations and determinations of reviews and the ombudsman? To my eye it feels clunky. I would prefer a summary of those recommendations to keep the article short - perhaps one or two key recommendations could still be quoted, but I think the way it is, it's not as readable as it could be. I won't change it right now but would appreciate views. 20WattSphere (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm just remembering this now, 1 year later. Any last minute requests not to do this? 20WattSphere (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)