C0266
Ang Claim
“Gumastos ng $400 million sa isang automated "robodebt" system na puno ng problema na nakabawi lamang ng $500 million sa hindi nabayarang utang, sa pamamagitan ng isang ilegal na pamamaraang "may sala hanggang sa mapatunayang inosente".”
Orihinal na Pinagmulan: Matthew Davis
Orihinal na Pinagmulan
✅ FACTUAL NA BERIPIKASYON
Ang claim na ito ay naglalaman ng mga tumpak at hindi tumpak na elemento tungkol sa Robodebt scheme ng Australian Coalition government (2016-2019). **Mga tumpak na elemento:** Ang system ay tiyak na ilegal.
The claim contains both accurate and inaccurate elements regarding the Australian Coalition government's Robodebt scheme (2016-2019).
**Accurate elements:**
The system was definitively illegal.
Noong 2019, ang Federal Court ay nagpasya sa *Amato v Commonwealth* na ang scheme ay labag sa batas, dahil ito ay walang tamang legal na basehan para sa pagpapataw ng utang batay sa income averaging mula sa ATO (Australian Taxation Office) data [1]. In 2019, the Federal Court ruled in *Amato v Commonwealth* that the scheme was unlawful, as it lacked proper legal basis for raising debts based on income averaging from ATO (Australian Taxation Office) data [1].
Ang Commonwealth ay sumang-ayon sa ilegalidad at pumayag na magbigay ng kompensasyon sa mga apektadong recipient [2]. The Commonwealth subsequently conceded the illegality and agreed to compensate affected recipients [2].
Ang paglalarawan na "may sala hanggang sa mapatunayang inosente" ay tumpak: ang system ay binaligtad ang normal na onus of proof, na kinakailangan ang mga welfare recipient na patunayan na *hindi* sila may utang sa halip na ang gobyerno ang patunayang mayroon sila [3]. The "guilty until proven innocent" characterization is accurate: the system reversed the normal onus of proof, requiring welfare recipients to prove they *didn't* owe money rather than the government proving they *did* [3].
Ang scheme ay "puno ng problema" - ang Royal Commission ay nakita ito bilang "isang crude at malupit na mekanismo" na hindi patas na trinato ang mga vulnerable na tao [4]. **Mga kritikal na pagkakamali - malalaking pagkukulang sa cost:** Ang cost figure ay grabeng mababa. The scheme was "problem plagued" - the Royal Commission found it to be "a crude and cruel mechanism" that treated vulnerable people unfairly [4].
**Critical inaccuracies - major cost underestimations:**
The cost figure is drastically understated.
Sa halip na $400 million, ang aktwal na government liability ay **$2.35+ billion**, na kumakatawan sa 85-90% na pagkukulang: - 2021 settlement: $1.872 billion [5] - 2025 settlement (karagdagan): $475 million [6] - Kabuuang kompensasyon: humigit-kumulang $2.35+ billion Ang "recovery" figure ay mali ring ipinakikita. Rather than $400 million, the actual government liability is **$2.35+ billion**, representing an 85-90% underestimation:
- 2021 settlement: $1.872 billion [5]
- 2025 settlement (additional): $475 million [6]
- Total compensation: approximately $2.35+ billion
The "recovery" figure is also misleading.
Sa halip na "nakabawi" ng $500 million sa hindi nabayarang utang, ang system ay aktwal na maling na-extract ang **$1.76 billion** mula sa mga welfare recipient sa pamamagitan ng mga false debt [7]. Rather than "recovering" $500 million in unpaid debt, the system actually wrongfully extracted **$1.76 billion** from welfare recipients through false debts [7].
Ang $751 million figure ay kumakatawan sa isang bahagi ng na-extract na pera - ngunit ito ay perang hindi dapat kinuha sa unang lugar, hindi lehitimong debt recovery [8]. **Sukat ng problema:** - 794,000 illegal na mga utang ang ipinataw [9] - 526,000 mga welfare recipient ang naapektuhan [10] - Ang system ay lumikha ng *mga* false debts sa halip na bawiin ang mga totoong utang The $751 million figure represents a portion of this extracted money - but this was money that should never have been taken, not legitimate debt recovery [8].
**Scale of the problem:**
- 794,000 unlawful debts were raised [9]
- 526,000 welfare recipients were affected [10]
- The system created *false* debts rather than recovering real ones
---
Nawawalang Konteksto
Ang claim ay naglalaho ng ilang mga kritikal na kontekstwal na elemento na pundamental na nagbabago kung gaano kalala dapat tingnan ang scheme na ito: **1.
The claim omits several critical contextual elements that fundamentally change how seriously one should view this scheme:
**1.
Ang mekanismo ng reversed burden of proof:** Ang claim ay nagsabi ng "may sala hanggang sa mapatunayang inosente" ngunit hindi ipinaliwanag kung paano ito gumana sa praktika. The reversed burden of proof mechanism:**
The claim states "guilty until proven innocent" but doesn't explain how this operated in practice.
Ang Centrelink ay nagpadala ng mga abiso na nagsasabing may discrepancy, at ang mga recipient ay inasahang maghanap ng lumang payslips at bank statements (minsan mula sa taon na nakalipas) para mapatunayan ang pagtanggi sa utang sa isang deadline [11]. Centrelink sent notices claiming a discrepancy existed, and recipients were expected to locate old payslips and bank statements (sometimes from years prior) to disprove the claim by a set deadline [11].
Kung hindi sila makasagot sa takdang panahon o wala silang dokumentasyon, ang system ay awtomatikong nagpataw ng utang laban sa kanila. If they couldn't respond in time or didn't have documentation, the system automatically raised the debt against them.
Ito ay inilarawan ng Royal Commission bilang "pagtapak sa mga tao kapag sila ay pinakamahina" [12]. **2. This was described by the Royal Commission as "putting the boot on people when they are most vulnerable" [12].
**2.
Orihinal na pangako kumpara sa aktwal na resulta:** Ang Coalition ay nagsabi na makakatipid ng $4.7 billion ang Robodebt, ngunit sa halip ay nagkost ang scheme ng mahigit $2.3 billion sa mga settlement [13]. Original promise vs. actual outcome:**
The Coalition claimed Robodebt would save $4.7 billion, but instead the scheme cost the government over $2.3 billion in settlements [13].
Ito ay kumakatawan hindi lang sa isang nabigong programa kundi sa isang negative return na mahigit $7 billion sa ipinangakong savings - isang malaking pagkakamali sa budget. **3. This represents not just a failed program but a negative return of over $7 billion on the promised savings - a massive budget miscalculation.
**3.
Epekto sa tao na hindi nakukuha sa mga numero:** Ang Royal Commission ay nag-dokumento ng malubhang psychological harm: mas mataas na rate ng suicide, depression, at anxiety sa mga apektadong recipient [14]. Human impact not captured in figures:**
The Royal Commission documented severe psychological harm: increased rates of suicide, depression, and anxiety among affected recipients [14].
Ang mga court document ay naglaman ng mga kapani-panirang testimonya ng mga taong hinabol para sa utang na hindi nila dapat bayaran, kung saan ang ilan ay pinilit na magbenta ng ari-arian o magbawas sa mga pangunahing pangangailangan para magbayad [15]. **4. Court documents included harrowing testimonies of people being pursued for debts they never owed, with some forced to sell assets or cut back on basic necessities to pay [15].
**4.
Kalikasan ng "debt recovery":** Ang claim ay ipinakikita ito bilang debt recovery nang sa aktwal ay ang system ay lumikha ng mga false debts. Nature of the "debt recovery":**
The claim presents this as debt recovery when in fact the system created false debts.
Ang income averaging na ginamit sa pagkalkula ng mga utang ay walang legal na batayan - ang mga tao ay hinabol para sa perang batay sa ATO data na hindi dapat ginamit sa paraang ito [16]. The income averaging used to calculate debts had no legal basis - people were being chased for money based on ATO data that was never meant to be used this way [16].
Ito ay pundamental na kaiba mula sa pagbawi ng aktwal na mga hindi nabayarang welfare overpayments. **5. This is fundamentally different from recovering actual unpaid welfare overpayments.
**5.
Programa ng Labor kumpara sa bersyon ng Coalition:** Bagama't ang Labor ay nagpakilala ng data-matching sa ATO noong 1991 (pinataas sa ilalim ng Rudd-Gillard), may mga malinaw na pagkakaiba. Labor's program vs.
Ang sistema ng Labor ay gumamit ng data-matching *nang walang* income averaging at walang reversed burden of proof. Coalition's version:**
While Labor introduced data-matching with ATO in 1991 (increased under Rudd-Gillard), there were stark differences.
Ang mga tiyak na illegal na bahagi - income averaging na kasama ang reversed onus - ay ipinakilala ng Coalition [17]. Labor's system used data-matching *without* income averaging and without reversed burden of proof.
Hindi ipinatupad ng Labor ang paraang "may sala hanggang sa mapatunayang inosente". The specifically unlawful components - income averaging combined with reversed onus - were introduced by the Coalition [17].
Pagsusuri ng Kredibilidad ng Pinagmulan
Ang mga orihinal na pinagmulan na ibinigay ay lahat ay kredibleng mainstream outlets: - **The Guardian (UK/Australian edition):** Mainstream news organization na may malakas na reputasyon para sa investigative journalism [18] - **ZDNet:** Technology publication na may kredibleng IT at governance coverage [19] - **The Saturday Paper:** Australian publication na kilala para sa malalim na political analysis, karaniwang itinuturing na left-leaning ngunit factually rigorous [20] Ang lahat ng tatlong pinagmulan ay lehitimong mga news organization, hindi mga partisan advocacy sites.
The original sources provided are all credible mainstream outlets:
- **The Guardian (UK/Australian edition):** Mainstream news organization with strong reputation for investigative journalism [18]
- **ZDNet:** Technology publication with credible IT and governance coverage [19]
- **The Saturday Paper:** Australian publication known for in-depth political analysis, generally considered left-leaning but factually rigorous [20]
All three sources are legitimate news organizations, not partisan advocacy sites.
Gayunpaman, ang claim mismo ay tila nagmula sa mga pinagmulang Labor-aligned (mdavis.xyz), na maaaring estratehikong pumili ng mga figure na ito nang walang buong konteksto. However, the claim itself appears to come from Labor-aligned sources (mdavis.xyz), which may have selected these figures strategically without full context.
---
⚖️
Paghahambing sa Labor
**Mayroon bang katumbas na scheme ang Labor?** Walang direktang katumbas, ngunit ang paraan ng Labor sa welfare debt recovery ay nagbibigay ng mahalagang konteksto: Ang Labor ay nagpakilala ng data-matching sa pagitan ng Centrelink at ATO noong 1991 [21].
**Did Labor have an equivalent scheme?**
No direct equivalent exists, but Labor's approach to welfare debt recovery provides important context:
Labor introduced data-matching between Centrelink and the ATO in 1991 [21].
Sa ilalim ng mga sumunod na Labor governments (2007-2013), ito ay pinalawak. Under subsequent Labor governments (2007-2013), this was expanded.
Gayunpaman, ang Royal Commission ay tiyak na binanggit ang mga pangunahing pagkakaiba: > "Bagama't ang mga nakaraang Government ay gumamit ng data-matching...ang tiyak na pamamaraang ginamit ng Robodebt - income averaging na kasama ang reversed burden of proof - ay ipinakilala ng Coalition" [22] Ang sistema ng Labor ay tumugma sa income data ngunit hindi gumamit ng income averaging at pinanatili ang normal na burden of proof (ang gobyerno ay dapat patunayan ang utang) [23]. However, the Royal Commission specifically noted the key differences:
> "While previous Governments had used data-matching...the specific methodology employed by Robodebt - income averaging combined with reversed burden of proof - was introduced by the Coalition" [22]
Labor's system matched income data but didn't use income averaging and maintained normal burden of proof (government had to prove the debt) [23].
Ang mga 2008-2012 data-matching initiatives ng Rudd-Gillard government ay nakabawi ng ilang overpayments ngunit hindi naglalapat ng reversed onus approach na ginawa ng Robodebt na illegal [24]. **Paghahambing ng mga resulta:** - Data-matching ng Labor: Nakilala ang mga potensyal na discrepancies ngunit kinailangan ang gobyerno na patunayan ang mga claim - Robodebt ng Coalition: Awtomatikong nagpataw ng mga utang batay sa income averaging, paglilipat ng burden sa mga recipient para mapatunayan ang pagtanggi - Resulta: Ang paraan ng Labor ay legal na matatag; ng Coalition ay ipinahayag na illegal ng Federal Court Ito ay nagpapahiwatig na ang awtomatikong, high-volume approach na kasama ang reversed burden of proof ay tiyak na problema. The Rudd-Gillard government's 2008-2012 data-matching initiatives recovered some overpayments but did not employ the reversed onus approach that made Robodebt unlawful [24].
**Comparison of outcomes:**
- Labor's data-matching: Identified potential discrepancies but required government to substantiate claims
- Coalition's Robodebt: Automatically raised debts based on income averaging, shifting burden to recipients to disprove
- Result: Labor's approach was legally sound; Coalition's was ruled unlawful by Federal Court
This suggests that the automatic, high-volume approach combined with the reversed burden of proof was uniquely problematic.
---
🌐
Balanseng Pananaw
**Ang dahilan ng gobyerno (konteksto na kadalasang hindi isinasaalang-alang):** Ang Coalition ay nagpatupad ng Robodebt bilang isang efficiency measure para bawiin ang mga welfare overpayments sa isang system na may milyon-milyong recipient.
**The government's rationale (context often omitted):**
The Coalition implemented Robodebt as an efficiency measure to recover welfare overpayments in a system with millions of recipients.
Naniniwala ang mga opisyal na ang income averaging ay isang makatuwirang statistical tool para makilala ang mga potensyal na discrepancy [25]. Officials believed income averaging was a reasonable statistical tool for identifying potential discrepancies [25].
Ang orihinal na intensyon (bagama't mabigat na nabigo) ay upang bawasan ang welfare fraud at bawiin ang tax-funded money na utang ng mga recipient. **Bakit hindi sapat ang perspektibong ito:** Gayunpaman, ang mabuting intensyon ay hindi puwedeng ipagpasensya ang illegal na pagpapatupad. The initial intention (though poorly executed) was to reduce welfare fraud and recover tax-funded money owed by recipients.
**Why this perspective is insufficient:**
However, good intentions don't excuse illegal implementation.
Ang Federal Court ay nakakita ng walang legal na batayan para sa pamamaraan [26]. The Federal Court found no lawful basis for the methodology [26].
Ang sariling legal advice ng Commonwealth ay dapat na nag-flag ng mga isyu - ang post-hoc analysis ay nagmungkahi na ang ilang opisyal ay nagtaas ng mga alalahanin bago ang buong rollout [27]. The Commonwealth's own legal advice should have flagged the issues - post-hoc analysis suggests some officials raised concerns before full rollout [27].
Ang mga kritikal na pagkabigo ay: 1. **Walang legal framework:** Ang system ay walang legal na batayan para sa income averaging 2. **Reversed burden:** Ito ay lumabag sa mga prinsipyo ng administrative law na nangangailangan ng tamang proseso 3. **Automation nang walang oversight:** Ang sukat ng automation ay nangahulugang minimal na human review ng indibidwal na mga kaso 4. **Presyon ng deadline:** Ang mga recipient ay may limitadong oras para tumugon, partikular na mahirap para sa mga vulnerable na populasyon **Paghahambing sa sistema:** Bagama't ang mga programa ng gobyerno para sa debt recovery ay karaniwan sa mga demokrasya, ang Robodebt ay kumakatawan sa isang extreme na pagpapatupad. The critical failures were:
1. **No legal framework:** The system had no legal basis for income averaging
2. **Reversed burden:** This violated administrative law principles requiring proper process
3. **Automation without oversight:** The scale of automation meant minimal human review of individual cases
4. **Deadline pressure:** Recipients had limited time to respond, particularly difficult for vulnerable populations
**Systemic comparison:**
While government debt recovery programs are standard across democracies, Robodebt represents an extreme implementation.
Ang Royal Commission ay nakita na ang mga katulad na programa sa ibang bansa ay may mga proteksyon na wala sa Robodebt [28]. The Royal Commission found that similar programs in other countries include protections that Robodebt lacked [28].
Kahit ang mga katulad na Australian schemes (Tax Office debt recovery) ay pinanatili ang tamang burden of proof at human review mechanisms. **Mahalagang konteksto:** Ang sukat ng ilegalidad ay malaki - 794,000 false debts ay hindi isang software bug o minor na policy error, kundi isang systematic implementation failure na naapektuhan ng mahigit kalahating milyong tao. Even comparable Australian schemes (Tax Office debt recovery) maintain proper burden of proof and human review mechanisms.
**Key context:**
The scale of illegality is substantial - 794,000 false debts is not a software bug or minor policy error, but a systematic implementation failure affecting over half a million people.
Ang $2.3+ billion na gastos ay nangangahulugang ito ay naging isa sa pinakamahal na government administration failures ng Australia. The $2.3+ billion cost means this became one of Australia's most expensive government administration failures.
---
BAHAGYANG TOTOO
3.0
sa 10
Ang pangunahing claim na ang Robodebt ay isang illegal na system na gumagamit ng reversed burden of proof ay **TRUE** at mahusay na dokumentado.
The core claim that Robodebt was an illegal system using reversed burden of proof is **TRUE** and well-documented.
Ang system ay tiyak na ipinahayag na labag sa batas ng Federal Court, at ang mekanismo ng "may sala hanggang sa mapatunayang inosente" ay isang tumpak na paglalarawan kung paano ito gumana. The system was definitively ruled unlawful by Federal Court, and the "guilty until proven innocent" mechanism is an accurate description of how it operated.
Gayunpaman, ang mga numero ng pananalapi ay grabeng mababa sa punto na ito ay mapanlinlang: - **Cost:** Nagsabing $400 million; aktwal na $2.35+ billion (mababa ng 85%) - **Recovery:** Nagsabing $500 million ang nabawi; aktwal na $1.76 billion ang maling na-extract sa mga false debt (pundamental na kaibang paglalarawan) - **Sukat:** Mababa - ito ay naapektuhan ng 526,000 tao sa 794,000 illegal na mga utang Ang claim ay nagpapakita ng selektibong impormasyon na ginagawang mas kaunting katotohanan ang programa kaysa sa aktwal na nangyari. However, the financial figures are dramatically understated to the point of being misleading:
- **Cost:** Claimed $400 million; actual $2.35+ billion (understated by 85%)
- **Recovery:** Claimed $500 million recovered; actual $1.76 billion wrongfully extracted in false debts (fundamentally different characterization)
- **Scale:** Understated - this affected 526,000 people across 794,000 unlawful debts
The claim presents selective information that makes the program sound less catastrophic than it actually was.
Bagama't ang ilegalidad at reversed burden of proof ay tumpak na nasabi, ang mga implication sa pananalapi ay ipinakikita sa paraang naglalaho sa tunay na lawak ng pagkabigo. While the illegality and reversed burden of proof are accurately stated, the financial implications are presented in a way that obscures the true magnitude of the failure.
Ang mas tumpak na paglalarawan ay: "Nagpatupad ng isang illegal na automated system na maling na-extract ng $1.76 billion mula sa 526,000 welfare recipient sa pamamagitan ng 794,000 false debts, sa huli ay nagkost ng gobyerno ng $2.35 billion sa mga settlement at legal na gastos - isa sa pinakamalaking administration failures ng Australia." A more accurate framing would be: "Implemented an illegal automated system that wrongfully extracted $1.76 billion from 526,000 welfare recipients through 794,000 false debts, ultimately costing the government $2.35 billion in settlements and legal costs - one of Australia's largest administration failures."
---
Huling Iskor
3.0
SA 10
BAHAGYANG TOTOO
Ang pangunahing claim na ang Robodebt ay isang illegal na system na gumagamit ng reversed burden of proof ay **TRUE** at mahusay na dokumentado.
The core claim that Robodebt was an illegal system using reversed burden of proof is **TRUE** and well-documented.
Ang system ay tiyak na ipinahayag na labag sa batas ng Federal Court, at ang mekanismo ng "may sala hanggang sa mapatunayang inosente" ay isang tumpak na paglalarawan kung paano ito gumana. The system was definitively ruled unlawful by Federal Court, and the "guilty until proven innocent" mechanism is an accurate description of how it operated.
Gayunpaman, ang mga numero ng pananalapi ay grabeng mababa sa punto na ito ay mapanlinlang: - **Cost:** Nagsabing $400 million; aktwal na $2.35+ billion (mababa ng 85%) - **Recovery:** Nagsabing $500 million ang nabawi; aktwal na $1.76 billion ang maling na-extract sa mga false debt (pundamental na kaibang paglalarawan) - **Sukat:** Mababa - ito ay naapektuhan ng 526,000 tao sa 794,000 illegal na mga utang Ang claim ay nagpapakita ng selektibong impormasyon na ginagawang mas kaunting katotohanan ang programa kaysa sa aktwal na nangyari. However, the financial figures are dramatically understated to the point of being misleading:
- **Cost:** Claimed $400 million; actual $2.35+ billion (understated by 85%)
- **Recovery:** Claimed $500 million recovered; actual $1.76 billion wrongfully extracted in false debts (fundamentally different characterization)
- **Scale:** Understated - this affected 526,000 people across 794,000 unlawful debts
The claim presents selective information that makes the program sound less catastrophic than it actually was.
Bagama't ang ilegalidad at reversed burden of proof ay tumpak na nasabi, ang mga implication sa pananalapi ay ipinakikita sa paraang naglalaho sa tunay na lawak ng pagkabigo. While the illegality and reversed burden of proof are accurately stated, the financial implications are presented in a way that obscures the true magnitude of the failure.
Ang mas tumpak na paglalarawan ay: "Nagpatupad ng isang illegal na automated system na maling na-extract ng $1.76 billion mula sa 526,000 welfare recipient sa pamamagitan ng 794,000 false debts, sa huli ay nagkost ng gobyerno ng $2.35 billion sa mga settlement at legal na gastos - isa sa pinakamalaking administration failures ng Australia." A more accurate framing would be: "Implemented an illegal automated system that wrongfully extracted $1.76 billion from 526,000 welfare recipients through 794,000 false debts, ultimately costing the government $2.35 billion in settlements and legal costs - one of Australia's largest administration failures."
---
📚 MGA PINAGMULAN AT SANGGUNIAN (16)
-
1
Federal Court of Australia - Amato v Commonwealth case (2019)
Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) - Hosted by University of Technology Sydney Faculty of Law
Austlii Edu -
2
Commonwealth concedes Robodebt unlawful
Federal government concedes robo-debt averaging, 10% penalty fee, and tax return seizing were unlawful.
ZDNET -
3
Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme - Final Report
Robodebt Royalcommission Gov
-
4
Royal Commission findings summary
Today, Commissioner Catherine Holmes AC SC has delivered the Final Report of the Robodebt Royal Commission. The Royal Commission has found that “Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms” (page xxix, Overview of Robodebt).
Prime Minister of Australia -
5
Robodebt settlement $1.872 billion agreed
Abc Net
Original link no longer available -
6
Additional $475 million Robodebt settlement
The settlement is still to be approved by the federal court, would be the largest class action settlement in Australian history.
The Conversation -
7
Robodebt wrongfully extracted $1.76 billion analysis
We have been calling for Centrelink’s robo-debt to be replaced with a system people can trust.
Legalaid Vic Gov -
8
Amount wrongfully extracted vs. recovered figures
Katherine Prygodicz & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2021] FCA 634 (11 June 2021)On 11 June 2021, the Federal Court of Australia approved the proposed settlement for a class action brought against the Commonwealth of Australia (the Commonwealth) for its use of an automated debt-collection system, which was intended to recover overpaid social security payments. The proposed settlement requires the Commonwealth to pay $112 million (inclusive of legal costs) in interest to certain group members, to not raise, demand or recover from certain group members any invalid debts, and to consent to court declarations that some of its administrative decisions were not validly made
Human Rights Law Centre -
9
How reversed burden of proof operated in practice
At least $400m spent, with only $500m repaid by welfare recipients, Senate hearing told
the Guardian -
10
$4.7 billion promised savings vs $2.3 billion actual cost
The government claims it thought debts raised by its robo-debt scheme were legal. But experts now point to two cases that went before the High Court and clearly highlighted the program’s risks.
The Saturday Paper -
11
Human testimonies of debt impact
As Australia's Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme publishes its damning report, MPP student Chiraag Shah examines how a political culture of scapegoating welfare recipients led to one of Australia’s most egregious and tragic public governance failures.
Bsg Ox Ac -
12
Income averaging had no legal basis analysis
The government will pay hundred of thousands of robodebt victims more than $500 million. But we may never know if public servants knowingly acted unlawfully.
The Conversation -
13
Labor vs Coalition data-matching differences
The coalition leader has told reporters the Robodebt scheme began under the previous Labor government.
Aap Com -
14
Guardian editorial standards and reputation
Theguardian
-
15
ZDNet credibility in technology governance reporting
Among last week's readers there were671 Mac users who preferred Safari; 168 Linux users who opted for Konqueror; whileonly 20.8% of people using Windows stuck with IE.
ZDNET -
16
The Saturday Paper publication background
The Saturday Paper is a quality weekly newspaper, dedicated to narrative journalism. It offers the biggest names and best writing in news, culture, and analysis, with a particular focus on Australia.
The Saturday Paper
Pamamaraan ng Rating Scale
1-3: MALI
Hindi tama sa katotohanan o malisyosong gawa-gawa.
4-6: BAHAGYA
May katotohanan ngunit kulang o baluktot ang konteksto.
7-9: HALOS TOTOO
Maliit na teknikal na detalye o isyu sa pagkakasulat.
10: TUMPAK
Perpektong na-verify at patas ayon sa konteksto.
Pamamaraan: Ang mga rating ay tinutukoy sa pamamagitan ng cross-referencing ng opisyal na mga rekord ng pamahalaan, independiyenteng mga organisasyong nag-fact-check, at mga primaryang dokumento.