Jeremy Poxon
LightNews LightNews
banner
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
Jeremy Poxon
@jeremypoxon.bsky.social
650 followers 290 following 90 posts
i've been bullied to go on here by @maximumwelfare to post about the mutual obligations scandal

contact me if you have MOs issues or questions: [email protected]
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
Jeremy Poxon @jeremypoxon.bsky.social · 11d
NEW: I have obtained, under FOI, a secret Department report that initially recommended the Targeted Compliance Framework - aka, the unlawful "mutual obligations" scheme

It reveals that, like Robodebt, they recklessly built this thing to punish "entitled" frauds who never existed
"Other job seekers who fail to meet their requirements are not interested in finding work, either because they have other sources of undeclared income or because they see their payments as an entitlement for which they should not have to do anything in return. For these job seekers, strong penalties are required to send a clear message that those who are unwilling to meet their mutual obligation requirements will not receive income support. Based on these findings, a new compliance system is proposed that will address the weaknesses of the current model and deliver the objectives of this review. This new framework will include: • Greater autonomy and emphasis on personal responsibility for most job seekers. • Better identification of factors impacting job seeker capability before penalties are applied. • Targeting of significantly tougher compliance penalties at job seekers who have demonstrated they are not genuine in meeting their requirements. • Greater simplicity through more consistency in the design and application of compliance rules for different types of failures Recommendation 1: Targeted Compliance Framework The new approach will be based around a targeted compliance framework which consists of two phases – a personal responsibility phase for the majority of job seekers who generally meet their requirements and an intensive compliance phase which will apply strong penalties to persistently non-compliant job seekers. The system will be bolstered by new technologies to assist job seekers in monitoring their requirements, and multiple interventions to identify when factors impacting the job seekers ability to comply or inappropriate requirements may be preventing a genuine job seeker from meeting their requirements."
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
antipovertycentre.org
Today @tanyaplibersekmp.bsky.social succeeded in establishing new powers to cancel Centrelink payments before conviction.

Thanks @senatorthorpe.bsky.social @andrewwilkiemp.bsky.social @davidpocock.bsky.social @pennyallmanpayne.com for trying to stop this dangerous law.
Shame Labor shame: New powers to cancel Centrelink payments before conviction pass the senate
Welfare recipients have a right to be treated equally under the law, and should not be subject to punishment before having access to legal advice for any reason, ever.
apcentre.substack.com
November 26, 2025 at 2:42 AM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
maximumwelfare.bsky.social
It's staggeringly unlikely this stupid power will ever be used.

Congratulations to the Albanese Government and @tanyaplibersekmp.bsky.social for embarrassing themselves, for insulting the welfare and legal sectors, and wasting everyone's time for no public or political benefit whatsoever.
jeremypoxon.bsky.social Jeremy Poxon @jeremypoxon.bsky.social · 2d
Sadly, they cut a deal with the Libs to indeed rush this through
"Labor and Liberals have just voted to give police the powers to recommend cancelling Centrelink payments. The Crossbench and the Greens attempted to have the power removed, but failed because Liberals backed Labor."
November 26, 2025 at 1:44 AM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
asherwolf.bsky.social
So Labor and the Liberals teamed up to pass legislation to give police the power to recommend cancellation of Centrelink payments of people who have not been found guilty of a crime by a court of law. It’s discriminatory financial punishment of people in poverty who are already over-policed
November 26, 2025 at 1:36 AM
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
Earlier, @davidpocock.bsky.social calls out Plibersek for saying critics of the amendment (to cut ppl's welfare before they're guilty) "are on the side of rapists & murderers"

"What a way to make laws: to rush something through, point the finger at those who dare question these provisions"
November 26, 2025 at 1:29 AM
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
Here, again, is the human cost of the government's unlawful system of payment suspensions

Constant cycles of punishment that you cannot escape - even when you're in hospital
www.kingaroy.org/invisible-ca...
Emma knows about imperfect systems. When she called the Centrelink compliance line to contest her first suspension—the one that arrived while she was in hospital—she was on hold for forty-three minutes. She counted. The hold music was a tinny loop of Vivaldi’s “Spring,” chopped and distorted through cheap speakers. By the time someone answered, she’d missed her next appointment with her psychologist. Which, naturally, triggered another suspension notice the following week. “You can’t win,” she says. “The system is designed so you can’t win.”
November 25, 2025 at 9:57 PM
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
Senator Thorpe criticises the government for ignoring these 100+ experts and groups to sneak the amendment through "without any scrutiny"

"I'd be putting my head down in shame too, Minister"
November 24, 2025 at 1:37 AM
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
New: 100+ legal experts, welfare groups & academics demand the Minister bin an amendment, allowing police to cancel welfare payments for people who have not been found guilty of any crime

@tanyaplibersekmp.bsky.social is trying to ram this amendment through today

Read more: archive.is/UHu9J
"Labor’s plan to cancel the welfare benefits of people accused of serious violence or sexual offences has come under fire by more than 100 academic and legal experts. “This represents a dangerous departure from fundamental legal principles that underpin Australia’s social security and criminal justice systems,” the 116 signatories wrote in the letter to be tabled by independent Senator Lidia Thorpe in parliament on Monday. The so-called Schedule 5 amendment was quietly tacked onto an unrelated bill previously introduced by Social Services Tanya Plibersek in late October with no announcement or prior notice by the government."
November 23, 2025 at 11:16 PM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
alicektg.bsky.social
"Our national debate pretends as though all jobseekers can simply try harder and land a job. It is an argument that wilfully ignores the reality of a labour market where entry-level jobs have nearly collapsed." Kasy Chambers on @thepointau.bsky.social today
We're having the wrong conversation about unemployment
The point.com.au
thepoint.com.au
November 20, 2025 at 2:00 AM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
maximumwelfare.bsky.social
In this country the Anglican peak body argues for freedom from the poorhouse and the Catholics argue in favour of the dignity of sorting buttons out the back of Vinnies in 'return' for what is your entitlement
jeremypoxon.bsky.social Jeremy Poxon @jeremypoxon.bsky.social · 8d
"Australia needs a fundamentally different model based on voluntary participation"

This, from Anglicare's new report, should be the baseline for all reform proposals to employment services: Remove all compulsion & punishment - provide actual support www.anglicare.asn.au/research-adv...
"A new approach: Support, not surveillance Australia needs a fundamentally different model based on voluntary participation, trust, and tailored support. A reformed system would treat unemployment as a shared challenge rather than an individual failure. It would offer practical help, not punishment. The core elements of this new approach should include: » Voluntary engagement: People should be able to choose how to engage with employment services, rather than being compelled through the threat of sanctions. Evidence shows that voluntary participation leads to better outcomes and stronger motivation. » Personalised case management: Support should be delivered by skilled, stable caseworkers who understand local labour markets and can build lasting relationships with jobseekers. » Wraparound support: Many people with barriers to work face challenges that go beyond job searching, such as housing instability, poor health, or caring responsibilities. A new system should coordinate with housing, health, and community services to address these barriers holistically. » Outcome-based funding: Providers should be funded for helping people into sustainable, longterm employment, not for ticking boxes. Payments should be linked to meaningful outcomes, such as maintaining employment for six months or more. » Public and community delivery: Rather than relying on large for-profit companies, funding should prioritise community organisations, local providers, and social enterprises with proven experience supporting people facing disadvantage as well as strong links to local employers. A voluntary public option, echoing the Commonwealth Employment Service, would add value to this landscape. Overhauling employment services is not just a bureaucratic reform, but an imperative for the wellbeing of people in the system. A reimagined system would replace fear and compliance with partnership and opportunity."
November 20, 2025 at 12:18 AM
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
"Australia needs a fundamentally different model based on voluntary participation"

This, from Anglicare's new report, should be the baseline for all reform proposals to employment services: Remove all compulsion & punishment - provide actual support www.anglicare.asn.au/research-adv...
"A new approach: Support, not surveillance Australia needs a fundamentally different model based on voluntary participation, trust, and tailored support. A reformed system would treat unemployment as a shared challenge rather than an individual failure. It would offer practical help, not punishment. The core elements of this new approach should include: » Voluntary engagement: People should be able to choose how to engage with employment services, rather than being compelled through the threat of sanctions. Evidence shows that voluntary participation leads to better outcomes and stronger motivation. » Personalised case management: Support should be delivered by skilled, stable caseworkers who understand local labour markets and can build lasting relationships with jobseekers. » Wraparound support: Many people with barriers to work face challenges that go beyond job searching, such as housing instability, poor health, or caring responsibilities. A new system should coordinate with housing, health, and community services to address these barriers holistically. » Outcome-based funding: Providers should be funded for helping people into sustainable, longterm employment, not for ticking boxes. Payments should be linked to meaningful outcomes, such as maintaining employment for six months or more. » Public and community delivery: Rather than relying on large for-profit companies, funding should prioritise community organisations, local providers, and social enterprises with proven experience supporting people facing disadvantage as well as strong links to local employers. A voluntary public option, echoing the Commonwealth Employment Service, would add value to this landscape. Overhauling employment services is not just a bureaucratic reform, but an imperative for the wellbeing of people in the system. A reimagined system would replace fear and compliance with partnership and opportunity."
November 20, 2025 at 12:09 AM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
simonrosenberg.bsky.social
This 🧵.

"a masterclass of maladministration, contempt for the law, ideological malice - and plain stupidity
...The department's focus on behavioural change, via mutual obligation punishments, is criminally deranged."

Labor is pursuing LNP's pointless cruelty with gusto.

Great work from Jeremy.
jeremypoxon.bsky.social Jeremy Poxon @jeremypoxon.bsky.social · 11d
NEW: I have obtained, under FOI, a secret Department report that initially recommended the Targeted Compliance Framework - aka, the unlawful "mutual obligations" scheme

It reveals that, like Robodebt, they recklessly built this thing to punish "entitled" frauds who never existed
"Other job seekers who fail to meet their requirements are not interested in finding work, either because they have other sources of undeclared income or because they see their payments as an entitlement for which they should not have to do anything in return. For these job seekers, strong penalties are required to send a clear message that those who are unwilling to meet their mutual obligation requirements will not receive income support. Based on these findings, a new compliance system is proposed that will address the weaknesses of the current model and deliver the objectives of this review. This new framework will include: • Greater autonomy and emphasis on personal responsibility for most job seekers. • Better identification of factors impacting job seeker capability before penalties are applied. • Targeting of significantly tougher compliance penalties at job seekers who have demonstrated they are not genuine in meeting their requirements. • Greater simplicity through more consistency in the design and application of compliance rules for different types of failures Recommendation 1: Targeted Compliance Framework The new approach will be based around a targeted compliance framework which consists of two phases – a personal responsibility phase for the majority of job seekers who generally meet their requirements and an intensive compliance phase which will apply strong penalties to persistently non-compliant job seekers. The system will be bolstered by new technologies to assist job seekers in monitoring their requirements, and multiple interventions to identify when factors impacting the job seekers ability to comply or inappropriate requirements may be preventing a genuine job seeker from meeting their requirements."
November 17, 2025 at 5:36 AM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
maximumwelfare.bsky.social
'Mutual obligations' are not mutual, but in adopting the Targeted Compliance Framework the Australian Government chose to abandon their legal obligations entirely.

This system harms, creates liability daily and it must cease. Minister can order it now, or be ordered to later in court.
jeremypoxon.bsky.social Jeremy Poxon @jeremypoxon.bsky.social · 11d
These docs show that the Department knew many job providers' decisions are incorrect - and complain about the administrative burden of overturning them

Their solution? Give job providers new, automated powers to make harsher punishments w/ less government oversight. Legally disastrous
"Further, provider engagement and qualitative data has demonstrated that, although payment suspension is effective in re-engaging job seekers, there is a small group of job seekers who only attend re-engagement appointments or will wait until they need to report for their fortnightly income support before they make contact with their provider – suggesting they understand and are exploiting the current job seeker compliance system. Current arrangements also lead to significant administrative churn. In the year from October 2015-September 2016, jobactive providers submitted around 350,000 compliance reports with no positive impact on job seeker behaviour but considerable administrative burden, including around: • 187,000 PRs that were rejected by DHS or withdrawn; • 5,400 invalid PAR reports; • 1,700 CCAs that could not be actioned due to insufficient evidence or procedural error; • 152,000 NARS submitted in error or automatically rejected due to being invalid."
November 17, 2025 at 6:03 AM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
milokei.bsky.social
The moral repugnance of conditional unemployment benefits had been with us for a very long time. Here however is conclusive evidence of unlawful practices to keep punishing those receiving benefits.

This is after a RC into #RoboDebt. Breathtakingly savage. #Auspol #ALP
jeremypoxon.bsky.social Jeremy Poxon @jeremypoxon.bsky.social · 11d
NEW: I have obtained, under FOI, a secret Department report that initially recommended the Targeted Compliance Framework - aka, the unlawful "mutual obligations" scheme

It reveals that, like Robodebt, they recklessly built this thing to punish "entitled" frauds who never existed
"Other job seekers who fail to meet their requirements are not interested in finding work, either because they have other sources of undeclared income or because they see their payments as an entitlement for which they should not have to do anything in return. For these job seekers, strong penalties are required to send a clear message that those who are unwilling to meet their mutual obligation requirements will not receive income support. Based on these findings, a new compliance system is proposed that will address the weaknesses of the current model and deliver the objectives of this review. This new framework will include: • Greater autonomy and emphasis on personal responsibility for most job seekers. • Better identification of factors impacting job seeker capability before penalties are applied. • Targeting of significantly tougher compliance penalties at job seekers who have demonstrated they are not genuine in meeting their requirements. • Greater simplicity through more consistency in the design and application of compliance rules for different types of failures Recommendation 1: Targeted Compliance Framework The new approach will be based around a targeted compliance framework which consists of two phases – a personal responsibility phase for the majority of job seekers who generally meet their requirements and an intensive compliance phase which will apply strong penalties to persistently non-compliant job seekers. The system will be bolstered by new technologies to assist job seekers in monitoring their requirements, and multiple interventions to identify when factors impacting the job seekers ability to comply or inappropriate requirements may be preventing a genuine job seeker from meeting their requirements."
November 17, 2025 at 2:08 AM
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
NEW: I have obtained, under FOI, a secret Department report that initially recommended the Targeted Compliance Framework - aka, the unlawful "mutual obligations" scheme

It reveals that, like Robodebt, they recklessly built this thing to punish "entitled" frauds who never existed
"Other job seekers who fail to meet their requirements are not interested in finding work, either because they have other sources of undeclared income or because they see their payments as an entitlement for which they should not have to do anything in return. For these job seekers, strong penalties are required to send a clear message that those who are unwilling to meet their mutual obligation requirements will not receive income support. Based on these findings, a new compliance system is proposed that will address the weaknesses of the current model and deliver the objectives of this review. This new framework will include: • Greater autonomy and emphasis on personal responsibility for most job seekers. • Better identification of factors impacting job seeker capability before penalties are applied. • Targeting of significantly tougher compliance penalties at job seekers who have demonstrated they are not genuine in meeting their requirements. • Greater simplicity through more consistency in the design and application of compliance rules for different types of failures Recommendation 1: Targeted Compliance Framework The new approach will be based around a targeted compliance framework which consists of two phases – a personal responsibility phase for the majority of job seekers who generally meet their requirements and an intensive compliance phase which will apply strong penalties to persistently non-compliant job seekers. The system will be bolstered by new technologies to assist job seekers in monitoring their requirements, and multiple interventions to identify when factors impacting the job seekers ability to comply or inappropriate requirements may be preventing a genuine job seeker from meeting their requirements."
November 16, 2025 at 11:47 PM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
Why did DEWR outsource "independent" assurance, giving Deloitte access to its own AI tools to spit out slop?

Because all it ever wanted from Deloitte was justification to keep MOs punishments going

I have FOIed a bunch of Ministerial briefings & the theme is the same: We must keep the system on
November 12, 2025 at 2:14 AM
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
Why did DEWR outsource "independent" assurance, giving Deloitte access to its own AI tools to spit out slop?

Because all it ever wanted from Deloitte was justification to keep MOs punishments going

I have FOIed a bunch of Ministerial briefings & the theme is the same: We must keep the system on
November 12, 2025 at 2:14 AM
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
Another lingering question I have about all this: why did Deloitte even have access to the Department's AI tools - when it was meant to be doing "independent" assurance of the unlawful mutual obligations system?
November 12, 2025 at 1:26 AM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
paulkarp.bsky.social
Deloitte caught in false claim it owned up to AI in tainted report.

It told finance it had explained the cause of errors to DEWR.

False - initially it used the same snow job it tried on the media "oh just some errors in citation".

www.afr.com//politics/de...
Deloitte caught in false claim it owned up to AI in tainted report
The employment department rebuked Deloitte for claiming it had owned up to artificial intelligence use, prompting correction from consultancy to another department.
www.afr.com
November 11, 2025 at 9:03 PM
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
go ahead, write another take about what australia can learn from mamdani. claim all the ALP needs to do is magically get more bold. call on the left to do better video content. get paranoid that the rise of mamdani could also upend the establishment here. conflate left populism with right populism
November 10, 2025 at 11:18 PM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
mklapdor.bsky.social
This decision last week flew under the radar - case could have significant ramifications for Centrelink debt decisions
mklapdor.bsky.social Michael Klapdor @mklapdor.bsky.social · 21d
High Court granted special leave to appeal Fed Court’s decision in the Chaplin v DSS case (related to Centrelink’s assessment of employment income and income apportionment).
Comes same day the gov’s income apportionment validation Bill delayed to next sitting www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-ju...
www.hcourt.gov.au
November 9, 2025 at 8:16 PM
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
labor backbencher putting up their hand in the caucus room to ask for permission to go to the toilet
November 8, 2025 at 12:01 AM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
antipovertycentre.org
Many of the groups calling on @tanyaplibersekmp.bsky.social to abandon her plan to involve police & ministers in cancelling Centrelink payments for someone accused of a serious offence work directly with people affected by family violence.

To suggest they don’t take it seriously is vile. Apologise.
November 6, 2025 at 9:37 PM
jeremypoxon.bsky.social
A new FOI into the Deloitte nonsense has revealed:
-there were MORE AI errors in the Deloitte report than previously admitted
-DEWR knew about this for weeks & did nothing
-DEWR's Secretary lied in Estimates, when saying Deloitte never apologised to her
archive.is/F8qtG#select...
November 6, 2025 at 11:03 PM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
maximumwelfare.bsky.social
#BREAKING 🚨 FOI documents show AI-tainted Deloitte report was 'much worse' than previously thought (by YOU?) or disclosed.

It appears DEWR Secretary Natalie James may have misled the Senate in relation to the conduct of her previous employer.

✍️ @paulkarp.bsky.social

www.afr.com/politics/ai-...
AI-tainted Deloitte report was worse than previously thought
Non-existent laws and a misnamed judge were among concerns raised with Deloitte about its artificial intelligence-tarnished report.
www.afr.com
November 6, 2025 at 10:43 AM
Reposted by Jeremy Poxon
maximumwelfare.bsky.social
Huge result for now. Rapid response starting last Thursday to establish a united front of community and civil society organisations. Gonna be much tougher for them to get this through from here 👍
Antipoverty Centre @antipovertycent It’s official. Labor has failed to sneak through its attempt to grant police powers to cancel welfare in this parliamentary sitting. They can now explain to the community why they believe such a drastic power grab should be waived through without scrutiny from the parliament. Quote Antipoverty Centre @antipovertycent · 35m Replying to @antipovertycent @Kerrynne_Liddle and 10 others In stunning news, the senate has adjourned early, without the income apportionment bill coming back for debate. The next parliamentary sitting is in two weeks. 4:55 PM · Nov 6, 2025
November 6, 2025 at 6:30 AM