Comment by yosamino | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yosamino | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Original claim:

> Ms Fox complained that her problem arose from the fact that she was chased by Centrelink for a debt actually owed by her former de facto partner.

Centrelink rebuttal:

> The agency says Ms Fox's debt [...] arose after she received more FTB than she was entitled to because she under-estimated her family income for that year.

Counter-rebuttal:

> As I outlined in my article, when your ex does not lodge his tax return for a year in which you received the Family Tax Benefit it seems your family income will be classified ‘under-estimated’.

This is easily one of many possible scenarios that is not covered by standard procedures, of which I am sure there exist many every year, but which large bureaucracy are regularly unequipped to deal with, to the point that this behavior is a common trope in popular culture[0].

It's funny when it happens in a movie, but if you're actually on the receiving end of this sort of behavior where no-one listens to your most reasonable requests, takes the time to figure out that some sort of mistake has occurred and generally treats you with disrespect in addition to threaten the financial stability of you and your children, I'd put it to you that it's very human to get extremely frustrated and express that frustration.

You provide an excellent example of this:

> Secondly the only additional information released seems to be the actual date of when she seperated from her ex and failed to lodge the change of circumstance which lead to the overpayment. She already stated her break up in the original article.

You're right in a way, the second article by her doesn't add any significant information and reads a little helpless, because if Centrelink had actually taken her initial complaint, when she went to their offices and the article she wrote, seriously, there would have been no further issue.

Instead they chose to personally attack her. Which is quite different from attacking an organization.

> I thinkwe know exactly where she's coming from.

I don't actually. Would you mind explaining ? Does this play into the Guardian receiving funds somehow ?

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI5kwSap9Ug

Where did they personally attack her? Please provide some quotes from the original article and not the hyperbole in hers.

"scenarios that is not covered by standard procedures" Actually I know people who work in benefits and this is very common. It is entriely up to the claimant to notify the office in change of circumstances and anything else can be considered fraud. Also if you are claiming family benefit then they have every right to ask about your personal circumstances in terms of relationships and if you are living with someone as this determines the amount you can get.

Edit - In her original article she actually admits to ignoring letters from the office. This is a huge mistake.

> Where did they personally attack her? Please provide some quotes from the original article

You chose to ignore my questions, but continue to question me. Have you considered a career in politics ?

I am not going to play the definition game of what constitutes an "attack" with you, but I will state for you again the gist of this issue:

Centrelink released personal information that relates to her financial situation and relationship with Centrelink to the press.

> It is entriely up to the claimant to notify the office in change of circumstances

So she did, for whatever reason, not do that, was unaware that Centrelink wanted money from her, which they only wanted because her ex-husband didn't file taxes. So she tried to correct this tell them, that no she did not owe them any money, rather they should as her ex-husband file their taxes.

That seemed to have been a difficult process, which is common in large bureaucracies, but extremely frustrating, and as is custom when confronted with problems caused by the government, she too took to the free press to vent this frustration. One could say that that's one of the most important functions of a free press.

But instead of calling her up and saying

> So and so, you made this and that mistake, but also we get it, big organization can be annoying to deal with.

they chose to "correct the record" publicly by calling her a liar.

You might think that's a reasonable course of action.

I, on the other hand, think that if criticizing your government leads to them releasing personal data about you to the public, to let you know who's in charge, something isn't right.

I would think criticizing your government without fear of retribution is one of the fundamental features of a democracy.

Precisely because she didn't attack any person specifically, but the organization as a whole.

So, now I attempted to answer your question, and I ask that you return the favor:

What did you mean by the claim that The Guardian et al think they stand to gain in funds from this article?

And also: Why do you think her personal politics, or as you put it "I thinkwe know exactly where she's coming from" matters in this case ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com