At first I thought that as usual, the government hired bad quality software developers which naturally led to bugs like incorrectly calculating debts and prematurely notifying debt collectors.
But now that I had a small amount of time to read through some of the hearing transcripts and exhibits, I realise that the issue was in the system design phase, not the software development phase. Even the best system analyst/architect would not have picked up on the issues - the client requirements did not align with legal foundations.
It turns out that the practical onus to establish that a debt exists, and to determine its size, remains with Centrelink, not the customer. The practice of calculating a debt based on assumed averages is not consistent with Centrelink's onus and so the algorithm was based on an unlawful process.
Source:
https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2018-1-CARNEY.pdf
[This document was referenced by Exhibit 3-3497 - TCA.9999.0001.0007 - Terry Carney, 'Robo-debt illegality- The seven veils of failed guarantees of the rule of law-' (Alternative Law Journal)]
- Forums
- Political Debate
- Robodebt Inquiry cutting to the chase
At first I thought that as usual, the government hired bad...
- There are more pages in this discussion • 85 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
RDN
RAIDEN RESOURCES LIMITED
Dusko Ljubojevic, MD
Dusko Ljubojevic
MD
SPONSORED BY The Market Online