The Slightly Disgruntled Scientist

...sorry about the Disqus ads everyone

A Disgruntled Technocrat's Guide to the 2019 Election

This one will be short, mainly because honestly, not much has changed since 2016. Same government, same opposition, same issues; all just turned up to 11.

We argued over metadata retention then, now it’s full-on mandated vulnerabilities. We ignored urgent advice about climate change then, now we ignore extinction-level desperation. It was dog-whistling then, now it’s pretty explicit white supremacy. I didn’t realise I would ever characterise the issues of 2016 as “subtle”, but here we are.

Let me remind you where this tradition of mine started: I had recently joined the Democrats. I had joined them in despair at the lack of a political home for the science-minded and actual scientists. In my narcissism I saw a moribund party as both a blank slate and a vehicle for science policy, and to some extent I made some progress. Not much, obviously.

I admit that a large part of that idealism is what I would now pejoratively call technocracy in anyone else. I did not specifically want an elite cabal of scientists to rule Australia, but I did definitely think that if we only had (many) more of them in politics, this country would just become better. I now see the foolishness of this. Voting ourselves more scientific works about as well as a Silicon Valley startup engineering themselves more ethical.

I do still believe that there is a place for science in Australian politics, both (a) in and of itself, as a powerful aspect of our humanity and (b) as something better than the current crop of coal carrying dipshits with Derek Zoolander levels of IT knowledge. But my question, the question you should be asking yourself is this:

What do you see in science, that makes you want to factor it into your vote?

We would like to make a Technical Assistance Request.

Why are you a science fan?

Management by surveillance

The cliché of a large, soulless company — a crowded commute to an office of cubicles as far as the eye can see, micromanagement and HR processes with no basis in logic — is a cliche for a reason. And while some of it could be considered annoying but harmless, and none of it new, it’s also pretty clear that a lot of “modern” corporate practices are firmly rooted in a culture of surveillance, control and mistrust.

I’ve been lucky enough to work in quite a mix of environments, and in each place I’ve put up with policies I didn’t like, because they were balanced out by the good things and that’s life. Almost none of them have been deal-breakers. But it’s always been at least a little bit frustrating, not least because no one responsible for them ever wants to talk about them.

Some of the policies I criticise here might seem… very normal. Reasonable, even. My criticism of them might seem a bit entitled. Well, good. Even the most common practises should be questioned and critiqued, perhaps especially the most common ones, and I dare say it’s a lot less entitled to question a practise than impose it without justification.

Medical certificates

Every place I’ve worked for has had some policy around taking sick leave, and it usually goes: if you take more than eg. two consecutive days of sick leave, you need a medical certificate from a doctor for any more.

So your worker says they have a cold and you don’t believe them. Firstly, holy macaroni you’re a tool. Secondly, how exactly do you think a medical certificate is going to thwart this evil plan of your employee’s? Do you expect the doctor to do a swab for cold bacteria, send it off to the lab, pace around their office until the results come in, circle the incriminating results and yell AAAAAAAAAHA! before loudly and publicly tearing up the unsigned certificate in the face of your conniving employee?

Here’s how a medical diagnosis really works:

  1. Patient describes symptoms.
  2. Doctor agrees those are symptoms of a cold.

I could not tell you the number of times I have dragged myself to the doctor because of this idiocy — worsening my own condition, prolonging my absence from work, spreading disease around for no reason whatsoever. I have yet to hear a single practising doctor actually endorse this idea, or indeed express anything but hatred for a policy that is a total waste of their time and attention and is constantly making them sick too.

An employer insisting on this is effectively refusing to trust their employee, but accepting the word of a doctor who is, themselves, trusting their employee. Which means it has nothing to do with trust, it’s just about petty control. A way to remind the employee that even at home, even when taking time to care for themselves and their colleagues, they are under your watch and your rule and must do meaningless busy work at your discretion. Which is a bit sick, really.

Twinkle twinkle

I made up some more… astrophysically accurate rhymes while settling the baby, because I got a bit bored singing the original one over and over again. At 2am. And 3am. And 4am. And GO TO SLEEP ALREADY PLEEEEEAAAASE

Twinkle twinkle little star
How I wonder what you are
In the depths of space so cold
Fusing atoms into gold
Twinkle twinkle little star
How I wonder what you are

Flicker flicker bright pulsar
Swiftly spinning neutron star
Sweeping out your radiant arc
Lonely lighthouse in the dark
Flicker flicker bright pulsar
Swiftly spinning neutron star

Sue the churches, sue the bakers

In 2004 it took the Australian parliament less than a day to decide to prohibit marriage between any couple who weren’t man and woman.

It has taken another thirteen years plus the length of a David Kalisch speech to see substantial progress on overturning this discriminatory act. Two weeks ago we got the results back from a survey run by the Australian Bureau of Statistics — a result that has no legal meaning, no statistical rigour and little political sway. However, it has called the bluff of a very work-averse government, and so now we have another marriage equality bill before the Senate.

As I write this, various conservative and libertarian senators are amending the hell out this bill. Their amendments reflect the rhetoric of the recent “no” campaign, which reflects conservative talking points that have been bouncing around for years.

The stated concern is that once marriage equality is restored people will, if refused marriage by a priest, turn around and sue the church.


It could also be a celebrant whose religion compels them to refuse. Or maybe someone will sue a baker who refuses to bake them a wedding cake.




Because that is exactly how you hold providers of a public service and business owners to account when they make highly questionable decisions.

One libertarian senator, whose totally consistent libertarian views birthed an extra regulatory body to appease a cargo cult, has claimed that no celebrant should have to solemnise any wedding they don’t want to.

They don’t have to. They can quit.

I mean, let’s think about what would happen even if they don’t resign. No one is going to call the police on them. The police are not going to show up and march them at gunpoint to the ceremony. No couple would exchange vows in front of such a horrific scene! Probably.

No one is going to be forced to celebrant a marriage, anywhere in Australia, ever, amendment or no.

Can I really say they weren’t forced if their only other choices are getting sued or quitting? Well, yes, of course I damn well can. They were not forced to specifically be a celebrant. They are not forced into making the choice as to whose relationship they permit to have legal recognition. They have made a free choice to work providing a public service, acting as a gatekeeper for a special legal status that carries importance in our society.

The public service is required to perform duties without discriminating. If you do not want to do that, do not become a public servant.

What's all the fuss about Centrelink reclaiming debts? A summary and a simple example.

Centrelink is Australia’s welfare service, responsible for administering unemployment benefits, pensions, and other related programs. This includes making payments, checking compliance with the conditions of such programs, and collecting debts if payments were made when they shouldn’t have been.

So what’s the fuss about? Isn’t it expected that Centrelink will try to reclaim benefits that should never have been paid?

The problems arise from recent changes to how Centrelink detect incorrectly paid benefits. For a few years now, Centrelink have been using an automated system to check reported income against Australian Tax Office (ATO) data. The trouble is, it’s very error prone and makes a number of assumptions about income that don’t hold up.

To put it simply: a large percentage of these “debts” are not really debts, they’re mistakes in Centrelink’s data matching algorithm.

Until recently, Centrelink were issuing approximately 20,000 notices per year for debts calculated under this system, with a manual review process to account for errors. Even so, at least 20% of notices raised by this system did not correspond to a real debt. Now Centrelink have increased rate at which they apply this algorithm to 20,000 per week (roughly a 50-fold increase), while decreasing oversight and review for a process known to be flawed.

An Example

Here’s an example to illustrate the problems:

Let’s say you became unemployed on July 1st 2009. You claim a Centrelink benefit (eg. Youth Allowance) for a few weeks, at $430 per fortnight. (I don’t know what the Centrelink payments or thresholds were in 2009, so I’m estimating from this year’s numbers. It doesn’t really matter.) The rules for each fortnight are: if you earn $430 or below, you receive $430 from Centrelink. If you earn $430-$1173, your Centrelink payment is reduced by $0.50 for each $1 over $430. If you earn $1173 or more, you receive no Centrelink payment.

You eventually find a casual job, getting a couple of shifts some fortnights and none in other fortnights. In a good fortnight, you’ll earn $800. You report this income to Centrelink, and your payments are reduced to $245. In a bad fortnight, you’ll earn $0, so you receive your full payment of $430.

After a few months working at this job, you start to pick up many more shifts, more regularly. Now your income is $2000 per fortnight. You report this income, and since it’s over the threshold for Centrelink payments to cease, you receive no benefits any more.

When July 1st 2010 rolls around, you do your tax return. You’ve earnt $30800 over the year (13 fortnights of $2000, 6 of $800), and you report it as well as your Centrelink payments of $4480. From July 1st 2010 you continue to earn above the threshold and claim no more payments from Centerlink. End of story, you’d think.

Note that everything here is above board. Having reported your income totally honestly and accurately, you’ve only received what Centrelink say you’re entitled to: $430 in the fortnights you earn nothing, $245 in the fortnights you earn $800, and $0 for the fortnights you earn $2000.

Six and a half years later, in January 2017, you receive a notice that you owe Centrelink $4480 plus interest.