Australian Aged Pension

[Lacessit]

16 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Why are you so confident the Labor government will not implement the changes? 

 

I've posted a link showing the Assistant Treasurer of the Labor Party informing expats at a meeting in Singapore that the proposed changes are in the government's "in-tray" and that they were looking at the 45 days part of the legislation. 

 

This says to me that the changes are not dead in the water under Labor.   

Why are you so confident the Labor government will?

 

There's a political process called flying kites. Either by leaks or direct contact with affected parties, politicians put policy ideas out to gauge public reaction. Depending on the response in terms of potential votes, the idea either gets implemented, or quietly shelved.

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

So you are saying you resolve your issue through that line, how do you negotiate the transition from a complaint about wait times to the real purpose of your call?

I would suggest not doing it too often, otherwise you could be blacklisted.

It is common knowledge that the wait times on 13200 are over the top.

 

Don't think I have ever been queried about why I am calling on the Complaints line.

 

In fact most of my queries are valid complaints as I do most of my interaction with online thru Mygov with Centrelink, as is the OP's query to find out why the approval was taking so long.

 

When I first applied for the pension I personally went to the Centrelink office and submitted all of my required documentation in person.

 

Most of that was subsequently lost.

 

Then I posted it as quested. My application was cancelled as Centrelink had lost it again.

 

Resolution took days mainly waiting to get thru on 13200 and eventually was only done thru the Complaints line.

 

I had to go thru the same waiting process again to find that the application had been approved.

 

But the start date had been changed due to time I took to finally submit the application.

 

I won an appeal against the pension start date but they failed to implement the result for six months until I complained after trying to get thru on 13200 for days.

 

I have called 13200 many times only to get the run around by untrained staff.

 

Recently I had to call and ask why my online asset adjustments had not been processed and 13200 did not have a clue.

 

Only by calling Complaints did I resolve the issue.

 

I suggest that I will not get blacklisted as I have enough complaints to  justify my actions.

 

NB Complaints line staff are very experienced and have level 3 approval to make decisions.

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

Thanks.  I can only share my experiences which were excellent re time to answer / talk to an officer and get a focuded clear answer for sharing. That's on 132300 and the toll free interntionl line.

 

No doubt workload changes continuously.

Professional businesses offer callers the option of being called back if the operators are busy, and also tell the caller their positioning in the call queue.

I have not heard the first option on the 132300 number.

 

As a test of the system while posting this, I called 132300 and was told the estimated wait time was more than 40 minutes. Your experiences differ from others.

 

I understand the callback option is offered on the Jobseeker and Youth Allowance numbers, the only problem with that being Centrelink does not call back.

Meantime, all Centrelink clients in those categories are expected to chew up their phone credit waiting for an operator to answer. This really matters when someone is attempting to live on $50 a day. Our Treasurer admits he couldn't do it.

 

I have found the Financial Services Officers of Centrelink to be professional and unbiased, front line desk staff less so. Several were as dumb as a can of soup.

 

 

[Lacessit]

20 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

It is common knowledge that the wait times on 13200 are over the top.

 

Don't think I have ever been queried about why I am calling on the Complaints line.

 

In fact most of my queries are valid complaints as I do most of my interaction with online thru Mygov with Centrelink, as is the OP's query to find out why the approval was taking so long.

 

When I first applied for the pension I personally went to the Centrelink office and submitted all of my required documentation in person.

 

Most of that was subsequently lost.

 

Then I posted it as quested. My application was cancelled as Centrelink had lost it again.

 

Resolution took days mainly waiting to get thru on 13200 and eventually was only done thru the Complaints line.

 

I had to go thru the same waiting process again to find that the application had been approved.

 

But the start date had been changed due to time I took to finally submit the application.

 

I won an appeal against the pension start date but they failed to implement the result for six months until I complained after trying to get thru on 13200 for days.

 

I have called 13200 many times only to get the run around by untrained staff.

 

Recently I had to call and ask why my online asset adjustments had not been processed and 13200 did not have a clue.

 

Only by calling Complaints did I resolve the issue.

 

I suggest that I will not get blacklisted as I have enough complaints to  justify my actions.

 

NB Complaints line staff are very experienced and have level 3 approval to make decisions.

 

Interesting to know, thanks. On that basis, I am wondering if another poster is a Centrelink shill.

[Seeall]

On 4/30/2023 at 6:58 PM, ripstanley said:

Very true. Wait and see.

Since when do anything logical...

[Pink Mist]

 

A reported Troll post, which is in bad taste as well as a personal attack have been removed.  This is the last time you will be warned to be civil to each other and stay on topic.  Suspensions will follow.  

 

9. You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages. You will respect other members and post in a civil manner. Personal attacks, insults or hate speech posted on the forum or sent by private message are not allowed.

[KhunHeineken]

On 5/3/2023 at 12:05 PM, ozfarang said:

I have no opinion on any of your scenarios as I will it will not affect me.

How so?

 

On 5/3/2023 at 12:05 PM, ozfarang said:

I will be in an urn on the wife's sideboard before any of the changes eventuate.

What makes you think the implementation of the changes are so far away in the future?

 

On 5/3/2023 at 12:05 PM, ozfarang said:

You're still a broken record on the subject.....................but keep going someone might be interested in your opinions

 

Not me

No, just wondering why you are so confident the changes will either not be passed at all, or if passed, they will be passed so many years from now that you would have died, hence they will have no impact on you.

 

What would your comment be if they are in the May budget, which is less than a week away? 

[Olmate]

14 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

How so?

 

What makes you think the implementation of the changes are so far away in the future?

 

No, just wondering why you are so confident the changes will either not be passed at all, or if passed, they will be passed so many years from now that you would have died, hence they will have no impact on you.

 

What would your comment be if they are in the May budget, which is less than a week away? 

No chance. Increase to jobseeker but hook into expat retirees. Sad you have no understanding of Labour fundamentals.

[Will27]

23 minutes ago, Olmate said:

No chance. Increase to jobseeker but hook into expat retirees. Sad you have no understanding of Labour fundamentals.

What's sad is he will come back with a 10 000 word reply on why he's right and you're not.

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Olmate said:

No chance. Increase to jobseeker but hook into expat retirees. Sad you have no understanding of Labour fundamentals.

I admit the increase to Jobseeker caught my eye. 

 

As for Labor fundamentals, well, as a party, they haven't looked after "the worker" like they used to for decades now.  In any case, what has non resident taxation got to do with Labor fundamentals? 

 

There's 1 million Australians living / working overseas at any given time. (link already provided)  I would think quite a high percentage of them are on very good money.  I personally know a few that are. 

 

One member says about 80,000 of them are pensioners, I put it at about 200,000 are pensioners.  Only the government knows the exact number.  Why wouldn't the government, even a Labor government, go after the 800,000 / 920,000 non residents for taxation purposes with a law that scoops up them all up, with pensioners simply being collateral damage, as there are currently no exemptions in the proposed changes?  Or, do you think there will be exemptions or a threshold introduced?   

 

I admit, I give the article, and the Assistant Treasurer's statements, some weight, particularly as the statement was made to expats at a meeting in Singapore, so it clearly was an issue they wanted him to speak on. 

 

As for "no chance" do you think this is fake news?  Labor's Assistant Treasurer says it's in the government's "in-tray."  A little hard to ignore that statement from him, isn't it?   

 

https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/assistant-treasurer-flags-new-tax-residency-rules-20220826-p5bd1v

 

It's one thing to say "no chance" because of a possible increase to some welfare, but it's a completely different thing to address changes to a 90 year old law for non resident taxation. 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Will27 said:

What's sad is he will come back with a 10 000 word reply on why he's right and you're not.

What's even more sad is you continue to post off topic and personal attacks, yet, I have never reported anyone, ever. 

 

Does the issue upset you that much you need to constantly shoot the messenger?

 

Just put me on your ignore list and move on. 

[Peterw42]

14 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I admit the increase to Jobseeker caught my eye. 

 

As for Labor fundamentals, well, as a party, they haven't looked after "the worker" like they used to for decades now.  In any case, what has non resident taxation got to do with Labor fundamentals? 

 

There's 1 million Australians living / working overseas at any given time. (link already provided)  I would think quite a high percentage of them are on very good money.  I personally know a few that are. 

 

One member says about 80,000 of them are pensioners, I put it at about 200,000 are pensioners.  Only the government knows the exact number.  Why wouldn't the government, even a Labor government, go after the 800,000 / 920,000 non residents for taxation purposes with a law that scoops up them all up, including pensioners?    

 

As for "no chance" do you think this is fake news?  Labor's Assistant Treasurer says it's in the government's "in-tray."  A little hard to ignore that statement from him, isn't it?   

 

https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/assistant-treasurer-flags-new-tax-residency-rules-20220826-p5bd1v

 

It's one thing to say "no chance" because of a possible increase to some welfare, but it's a completely different thing to address changes to a 90 year old law for non resident taxation. 

your link has a paywall

[KhunHeineken]

8 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

your link has a paywall

It's easy to get around, but if you can't, here's the quotes.

 

"Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones told an Australian Chamber of Commerce event in Singapore this week the new rules for deciding Australian tax residency were in “the government’s in-tray” ahead of the October budget, and the day limit was “being looked at”."

 

"Under changes put forward in last year’s federal budget, expats who spend more than 45 days in Australia and who also satisfy two of the four proposed “factors test” – being an Australian citizen or permanent resident, having access to an Australian property, having direct family members in Australia or Australian economic interests – would be classed as residents for tax purposes."

 

The day limit he is referring to is the 45 days, not the 183 days. 

[Lacessit]

8 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's easy to get around, but if you can't, here's the quotes.

 

"Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones told an Australian Chamber of Commerce event in Singapore this week the new rules for deciding Australian tax residency were in “the government’s in-tray” ahead of the October budget, and the day limit was “being looked at”."

 

"Under changes put forward in last year’s federal budget, expats who spend more than 45 days in Australia and who also satisfy two of the four proposed “factors test” – being an Australian citizen or permanent resident, having access to an Australian property, having direct family members in Australia or Australian economic interests – would be classed as residents for tax purposes."

 

The day limit he is referring to is the 45 days, not the 183 days. 

Does this statement not contradict the 183 day rule?

[KhunHeineken]

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Does this statement not contradict the 183 day rule?

No. 

 

The way it reads to me is this part of the proposed changes has nothing to do with retired expats who are living overseas full time.

 

Many working expats wish to be deemed a non resident for tax purposes, but were concerned if they came home for a 4 week or 6 week holiday, and then had to come home again within the same year for something unexpected like a funeral or illness or injury to a family member, then that would put them over the 45 days, but still under the 183 days, so they would be deemed a resident for taxation purposes, and hit with a tax bill from the ATO.  

 

Here's a quote from the article about it.

 

"Vanessa is a school teacher, and like many of her colleagues would return to Australia for the annual six-week break. However, based on a 45-day allowance, this would not provide for any buffer if she needs to fly home for emergencies such as a family member being unwell or even a teacher conference.

As the draft rules stand, the 45-day test does not distinguish between work or personal travel. If Martyn was required to attend Australia for work-related purposes, this would also reduce potential visits for the balance of the year."

 

In my opinion, there's no doubt that if you are outside of Australia for 183 days you will be deemed a non resident for tax purposes.  This is obvious. 

 

As seen by a link posted by another member, involving Bob asking a question on an ATO Forum, and Blake, an ATO staff member answering, and something we have addressed time and time again on this thread, with many disagreeing, expat pensioners should already be paying non resident tax, but it's the grey area of 90 year old laws that allow so many, including myself, to slip through. 

 

The 183 days, linked to immigration records, will do away with that grey area and see every expat "deemed" a resident or non resident for taxation by the ATO simply based on the amount of days inside and outside of Australia.  It's a simple and as cut and dry as that, no gray area, at all.  Nothing to ask for a review, nothing to appeal.  Black and white law. 

 

This is the real issue for consideration with these proposed changes.  Not whether a pension is an income, or if you still have a Medicare Card, because these were already known at law well before these proposed changes, but the ease in which the government will be able to deem you in the future, simply through immigration records, and not through a 90 year old law's gray area.  This is why they were designed the way they were. 

 

Simply to scoop everyone up, and have no way to appeal the tax bill, as it's all about the amount of days inside and outside Australia, nothing more.

 

The member's link involving Bob and Blake settles a lot of debate.  The 183 days in the proposed changes does away with any existing gray area and will be based on immigration records.  I think this is pretty clear. 

 

When you simply look at these two things, the issue facing expat retirees, including pensioners, becomes very clear.  Pensioners are already having their pension reduced when outside of Australia for 6 weeks.  Consider how easy that is for the government to do, then consider the 183 day law with no exemptions or threshold, and one can see the financial impact, and the seriousness, of these proposed changes on expat retirees. 

[KhunHeineken]

3 hours ago, Olmate said:

Sad you have no understanding of Labour fundamentals.

I actually thought the Labor government would extend this, as it was for covid, but now due to the high cost of living, but it appears not.

 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/federal-budget-2023-low-middle-income-tax-offset-stage-three-tax-cuts-explained/b0735bc5-ce62-4c29-a923-354710093ed3

 

"So for many Australians (according to the ATO, more than 10 million people claimed the LMITO in 2019-20), their tax bill will increase by up to $1500 next year."

 

Fundamentally unlike Labor. 

[Lacessit]

"Under changes put forward in last year’s federal budget, expats who spend more than 45 days in Australia and who also satisfy two of the four proposed “factors test” – being an Australian citizen or permanent resident, having access to an Australian property, having direct family members in Australia or Australian economic interests – would be classed as residents for tax purposes

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

No. 

 

The way it reads to me is this part of the proposed changes has nothing to do with retired expats who are living overseas full time.

 

Many working expats wish to be deemed a non resident for tax purposes, but were concerned if they came home for a 4 week or 6 week holiday, and then had to come home again within the same year for something unexpected like a funeral or illness or injury to a family member, then that would put them over the 45 days, but still under the 183 days, so they would be deemed a resident for taxation purposes, and hit with a tax bill from the ATO.  

 

Here's a quote from the article about it.

 

"Vanessa is a school teacher, and like many of her colleagues would return to Australia for the annual six-week break. However, based on a 45-day allowance, this would not provide for any buffer if she needs to fly home for emergencies such as a family member being unwell or even a teacher conference.

As the draft rules stand, the 45-day test does not distinguish between work or personal travel. If Martyn was required to attend Australia for work-related purposes, this would also reduce potential visits for the balance of the year."

 

In my opinion, there's no doubt that if you are outside of Australia for 183 days you will be deemed a non resident for tax purposes.  This is obvious. 

 

As seen by a link posted by another member, involving Bob asking a question on an ATO Forum, and Blake, an ATO staff member answering, and something we have addressed time and time again on this thread, with many disagreeing, expat pensioners should already be paying non resident tax, but it's the grey area of 90 year old laws that allow so many, including myself, to slip through. 

 

The 183 days, linked to immigration records, will do away with that grey area and see every expat "deemed" a resident or non resident for taxation by the ATO simply based on the amount of days inside and outside of Australia.  It's a simple and as cut and dry as that, no gray area, at all.  Nothing to ask for a review, nothing to appeal.  Black and white law. 

 

This is the real issue for consideration with these proposed changes.  Not whether a pension is an income, or if you still have a Medicare Card, because these were already known at law well before these proposed changes, but the ease in which the government will be able to deem you in the future, simply through immigration records, and not through a 90 year old law's gray area.  This is why they were designed the way they were. 

 

Simply to scoop everyone up, and have no way to appeal the tax bill, as it's all about the amount of days inside and outside Australia, nothing more.

 

The member's link involving Bob and Blake settles a lot of debate.  The 183 days in the proposed changes does away with any existing gray area and will be based on immigration records.  I think this is pretty clear. 

 

When you simply look at these two things, the issue facing expat retirees, including pensioners, becomes very clear.  Pensioners are already having their pension reduced when outside of Australia for 6 weeks.  Consider how easy that is for the government to do, then consider the 183 day law with no exemptions or threshold, and one can see the financial impact, and the seriousness, of these proposed changes on expat retirees. 

"Under changes put forward in last year’s federal budget, expats who spend more than 45 days in Australia and who also satisfy two of the four proposed “factors test” – being an Australian citizen or permanent resident, having access to an Australian property, having direct family members in Australia or Australian economic interests – would be classed as residents for tax purposes"

 

It seems to me you have used statements by the Assistant Treasurer, regarding expats who meet 2 of 4 criteria, to be classified as RESIDENT in Australia for tax purposes, as justification for claiming expats outside Australia more than 183 days will be NON-RESIDENT. Which makes no sense, as said Assistant Treasurer never even mentions the 183 day rule, which at present is only one of four scenarios. I think the polite term is grasping at straws.

BTW, I am 4 out of 4 on the criteria Stephen Jones actually referred to.

 

[KhunHeineken]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

"Under changes put forward in last year’s federal budget, expats who spend more than 45 days in Australia and who also satisfy two of the four proposed “factors test” – being an Australian citizen or permanent resident, having access to an Australian property, having direct family members in Australia or Australian economic interests – would be classed as residents for tax purposes

"Under changes put forward in last year’s federal budget, expats who spend more than 45 days in Australia and who also satisfy two of the four proposed “factors test” – being an Australian citizen or permanent resident, having access to an Australian property, having direct family members in Australia or Australian economic interests – would be classed as residents for tax purposes"

 

It seems to me you have used statements by the Assistant Treasurer, regarding expats who meet 2 of 4 criteria, to be classified as RESIDENT in Australia for tax purposes, as justification for claiming expats outside Australia more than 183 days will be NON-RESIDENT. Which makes no sense, as said Assistant Treasurer never even mentions the 183 day rule, which at present is only one of four scenarios. I think the polite term is grasping at straws.

BTW, I am 4 out of 4 on the criteria Stephen Jones actually referred to.

 

It's a news article, not a transcript of the whole meeting.  I'm sure he spoke about the proposed changes more in depth than what was reported in the article. 

 

That said, many working expats want to be deemed a non resident because they are working for big dollars in a low tax jurisdiction.  They don't want to come under Australia's non resident tax laws, so the 45 day law is more applicable to them than the 183 day law.

 

Then you have expats with small incomes from Australia, including pensions, that want to be deemed a resident for tax purposes, so they do not come under the Australian non resident tax brackets, so the 183 day law is more applicable to them than the 45 day law. 

 

Can you see how the proposed changes scoop up everyone? 

 

I'll ask you the same question I asked another member recently.  Given the proposed changes, how would an expat argue that they are a resident for tax purposes when they have spent maybe 2 months in Australia out of the last 5 years, or haven't even been back to Australia at all in the last 5 years?  How could one possible argue they are an Australian resident for tax purposes? 

 

For most expats, the 183 days is irrelevant because they have no intention of returning to Australia for 6 months every year for the purposes of qualifying for tax resident status.    

 

Once again, confirmed by the Bob and Blake link, that pensioners should already be paying non resident tax.  If one maintains a domicile, maybe a vehicle, a utility bill, bank account, community ties and has family,, basically all the things that kept them in the gray area for so long, the 183 day law does away with all of it. 

 

If one is a resident because they have been in Australia for more than 183 days, wouldn't that mean one is a non resident because they have been outside of Australia for more than 183 days?  It can't work both ways.   

 

 

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's a news article, not a transcript of the whole meeting.  I'm sure he spoke about the proposed changes more in depth than what was reported in the article. 

 

That said, many working expats want to be deemed a non resident because they are working for big dollars in a low tax jurisdiction.  They don't want to come under Australia's non resident tax laws, so the 45 day law is more applicable to them than the 183 day law.

 

 

 

 

I would have thought condensing all 4 scenarios into one 183 day rule in a meeting would have got far more attention than a 45 day law. Perhaps you can show evidence from the full transcript 183 days was even mentioned.

 

Any sensible expat working overseas for big bucks would ensure they stayed in Australia for less than 45 days, either in a financial year or calendar year, thereby preserving their non-resident tax status.

 

So where is the money? In taxing pensioners on about $26,000 a year, or classifying expats who fulfill two of the four criteria for Australian residency as taxable?

 

It seems to me contradictory to have both 45 days and 183 days operating in tandem.

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I would have thought condensing all 4 scenarios into one 183 day rule in a meeting would have got far more attention than a 45 day law. Perhaps you can show evidence from the full transcript 183 days was even mentioned.

Of course I don't have the transcript, but I am sure the meeting went more in depth than just the brief comments reported in the article. 

 

Once again, if if they condense 100 scenarios into the 183 day rule, how does that help retired expats who have not lived in Australia for years, and who have no intention of returning for 6 months every year in order to maintain a resident for tax purposes status? 

 

You are missing the point.  The Bob and Blake link confirms expat retires should already be paying non resident tax, and should have done for years. 

 

The proposed changes just make it easier to either bill them, as in the case of self funded retires, or reduce their pension, as in the case with retirees on a pension. 

 

The 183 day may be of interest to those who come and go from Australia, maybe Australia's version of the European snowbirds, but in general, for expat retirees, the 183 day law is of little consequence because what it does is turns the gray area into a maths formula informing "days."  It's as simple as that. 

 

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Any sensible expat working overseas for big bucks would ensure they stayed in Australia for less than 45 days, either in a financial year or calendar year, thereby preserving their non-resident tax status.

Did you read the testimonies in the article? 

 

if you are teaching overseas, for example, and come back to Australia for the overseas school holidays, totaling 6 weeks over the year, then something unforeseen happens to a family member in Australia, causing you to return, you have basically used up your 45 days on non resident status allowance.  However, this is irrelevant to expat retirees.

 

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

So where is the money? In taxing pensioners on about $26,000 a year, or classifying expats who fulfill two of the four criteria for Australian residency as taxable?

 

It seems to me contradictory to have both 45 days and 183 days operating in tandem.

Again you are focusing on the dollar return from pensioners as the motivation for the proposed changes, and I have said many times pensioners may very well just be collateral damage, because as it stands, there are no exemptions or thresholds mentioned in the proposed changes.  As another member called it a blanket law or blanket tax.

 

Again you miss the point that pensioners should already be paying non resident tax anyway.  This was confirmed in  the Bob and Blake link.

 

45 days or 183 days is of little consequence because what these laws will do is reduce the gray area to "days" inside and outside of Australia, backed up by immigration records, and there will be no way getting around that. 

 

I really thought we were past the votes lost from pensioners and the dollars gained from pensioners debate about it, because the proposed changes seem to care little about both. 

[Lacessit]

If you don't have the transcript, how can you know how deep it went?

[KhunHeineken]

33 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If you don't have the transcript, how can you know how deep it went?

You are just trolling now.

 

I'm sure it went longer than the 20 seconds it would have taken to say what he was quoted as saying in the article. 

 

In any case, the point of me posting that link was to show that Labor have the proposed changes in their "in-tray"  as said by the Assistant Treasurer. 

 

The proposed changes are not dead in the water as many members thought they may have been because Labor is such a caring and sharing political party. 

[Lacessit]

It's not trolling when I ask a question in relation to a speculation of yours. That's simply a deflection.

You can't know what was said unless you have the full transcript, you just don't want to admit it.

You are reminding me of a guy who claimed he remembered everything. I asked him "How would you know?"

[Olmate]

Good to see the end of the Robodebt debacle with former Min.Roberts ducking out amid further inquiry of his action.

[Lacessit]

25 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Good to see the end of the Robodebt debacle with former Min.Roberts ducking out amid further inquiry of his action.

IMO Tudge and Robert should be in jail for what they did during Robodebt.

[Olmate]

52 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IMO Tudge and Robert should be in jail for what they did during Robodebt.

Seems he had some 'undeclared income' from extra carricular activity! Ironic much!! 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Olmate said:

Good to see the end of the Robodebt debacle with former Min.Roberts ducking out amid further inquiry of his action.

He's a crook.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/stuart-robert-lobbying-conflict-claims-demand-further-inquiry-20230328-p5cvzr.html

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

IMO Tudge and Robert should be in jail for what they did during Robodebt.

It caused over 2000 deaths.  Disgraceful.  What a legacy to leave as a politician.  Totally immoral. 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/2030-people-have-died-after-receiving-centrelink-robodebt-notice/10821272

[Lacessit]

20 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It caused over 2000 deaths.  Disgraceful.  What a legacy to leave as a politician.  Totally immoral. 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/2030-people-have-died-after-receiving-centrelink-robodebt-notice/10821272

For once, we are in full agreement.

[Rimmer]

An inflammatory baiting post and replies have been removed