I'm just very annoyed. I am now in full time employment as I've completed my PhD. If an undergraduate or honour's student put together an analysis with this level of inflexibility and fundamental flaws I'd be taking a deep breath and asking them to do a more thorough job before resubmitting their work for marking.
I think they have sold out both clients and the staff of Centrelink who must be going throuhg hell dealing with a huge mess they didn't create and can't modify and recipients of Centrelink. Unfortunately this mess pits one group against the other.
There should be an anonymous reporting option to allow the staffers to document the issues they are having to deal with because someone high up allowed the release of a program that they either knew was fundamentally flawed or they were too incompetent to realease was fundamentally flawed.
The algorithms in the actual computer data matching program are obviously inappropriate but the supporting system that doesn't send flagged discrepancies for review before sending out the infamous 'polite letters' puts the onus on the victime to prove their innocence rather than the system to reliably and reasonably establish their guilt. Our justice system has the presumption of innnocence as one of its defining values why is our welfare system suddenly working on the presumption of guilt?
I would like to see Christian Porter work a week in a low-income area Centrelink to see how things are at the coal face.