Email sent to Minister Macklin today (08/04/2010)

[richoz]

The below is an email I sent to Jenny Macklin today. I will post the reply that I receive:

Dear Minister Macklin,

Re : New residency rules for Disability Support Pensioners (Media Release 28/03/10)

Could you please promptly advise what the proposed "crack down" with regards to residency rules with regards to DSP's will be?

Will it only be a "crack down" on the portability period of DSP's. If so, are you just intent on targeting the disabled? If the answer is 'yes', then kudos to you Minister, as the disabled are a very easy target aren't they? Especially those that are blind, deaf, physically or mentally disabled.

Will this "crack down" be an amendment to the Social Security Act, or merely a policy change? Will it be a case of policy not following the law (standard operating procedure of Centrelink). On that note, why are approximately one third of Centrelink decisions overturned on appeal by the applicant? Please answer that question too? how much does that costs the taxpayer each year.

Lastly, your media release states that the "expected changes" will save the taxpayer "around $3 million dollars a year". With due respect, not much thought has gone into calculating that figure, but I am sure you a aware of that aren't you? You see it is very easy to vilify and discriminate against disadvantaged members of the community as they dont really have a strong voice. I am of course referring to DSP's. What do you think (you must have a figure) the additional cost will be to the taxpayer with regards to all associated costs that DSP's predominately visiting overseas dont currently burden the taxpayer with? I am of course primarily referring to our already overburdened and poorly managed health care system. Sure, you might save the taxpayer $3 million dollars, but is it worth the additional costs of conservatively 10 fold that in doing so? Perhaps you can re-release the media release to say something like, "The crack down on the disadvantaged members of out society will save us about $3 million dollars, but unfortunately cost us about $30 million dollars in providing additional services and support that we dont currently provide DSP's. Fortunately this is of course not a concern as the Rudd Government is committed to form over substance".

I look forward to your prompt reply to the issues and questions I have raised.

Regards

R

[Banjo]

I'm still waiting for a reply to the email I sent this weekend. I just did a search of my email and found a computer generated reply to an email I sent her more than two years ago, which also went unanswered.
I've sent more than a dozen emails in the last couple of days... newspapers, radio talkback stations, even the Italian community radio in Adelaide caught my eye.
It may all be for naught, politicians employ people to make sure this sort of correspondence never reaches their desk, unless it's from a large voting group.
Keep up the good work though, cast thy bread upon the waters...

[ronald55]

I have also sent emails to Jenny Macklin, Wayne Swan, Peter Dutton and Bill Shorten with no reply as yet. If they dont reply by tomorrow I will send another.

[richoz]

I will email every day until I get a receipt of acknowledgment. If I fail to get a substantive response within a reasonable time to the questions/issues raised, then it will be a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.


Acknowledgment and Reply requested‏

To: [e-mail]
Dear Minister Macklin,

I yesterday (Thu 08/04) sent you an email through your website (original below). Despite 'ticking' the email me a copy of my correspondence, I did not receive an auto-responder notification. Therefore could you please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence I now sending directly to your email: [e-mail]. Furthermore could you please advise how long it will take to receive a substantive reply to the questions and issues raised within.

Re : New residency rules for Disability Support Pensioners (Media Release 28/03/10)

Could you please promptly advise what the proposed "crack down" with regards to residency rules with regards to DSP's will be?

Will it only be a "crack down" on the portability period of DSP's. If so, are you just intent on targeting the disabled? If the answer is 'yes', then kudos to you Minister, as the disabled are a very easy target aren't they? Especially those that are blind, deaf, physically or mentally disabled.

Will this "crack down" be an amendment to the Social Security Act, or merely a policy change? Will it be a case of policy not following the law (standard operating procedure of Centrelink). On that note, why are approximately one third of Centrelink decisions overturned on appeal by the applicant? Please answer that question too? how much does that costs the taxpayer each year.

Lastly, your media release states that the "expected changes" will save the taxpayer "around $3 million dollars a year". With due respect, not much thought has gone into calculating that figure, but I am sure you a aware of that aren't you? You see it is very easy to vilify and discriminate against disadvantaged members of the community as they dont really have a strong voice. I am of course referring to DSP's. What do you think (you must have a figure) the additional cost will be to the taxpayer with regards to all associated costs that DSP's predominately visiting overseas dont currently burden the taxpayer with? I am of course primarily referring to our already overburdened and poorly managed health care system. Sure, you might save the taxpayer $3 million dollars, but is it worth the additional costs of conservatively 10 fold that in doing so? Perhaps you can re-release the media release to say something like, "The crack down on the disadvantaged members of out society will save us about $3 million dollars, but unfortunately cost us about $30 million dollars in providing additional services and support that we dont currently provide DSP's. Fortunately this is of course not a concern as the Rudd Government is committed to form over substance".

I look forward to your prompt reply to the issues and questions I have raised.

Regards

[richoz]

And the AutoReply reply : I will keep you ALL updated


Out of Office AutoReply: Acknowledgement and Reply requested‏
From: Macklin, Jennifer (MP) ([e-mail])
Sent: Friday, 9 April 2010 2:58:10 AM

Thank you for your email, your concerns are important to me.

As I receive a large amount of emails, it can take some time to read and respond to each email.

If the matter is urgent, please contact my office 02 6277 7560.

Thank you.

Jenny Macklin.

[Banjo]

I sent a bulk email to all my friends in my address book, particularly the ones who forward me that "uplifting" chain mail crap, requesting they send a letter or email to Macklin, Rudd et al complaining about the changes and demanding an explanation.

[richoz]

Surprise surprise. I just got an automated response (see below) to my first email:

I any even, I will be pushing for a reply to the issues and answer raised, and will keep all updated:


Thank you for your message to The Hon Jenny Macklin MP‏
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, 9 April 2010 4:41:11 AM
To:
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED RESPONSE, PLEASE DO NOT REPLY.

Thank you for your message to the Minister. Your message was successfully submitted.

This email address does not accept replies. If you want to send another message, please submit another form.

Title: Mr XXXXX
First name: XXXXX
Last name: XXXXX
Email Address: XXXXX
Postcode: XXXX
Comment: Dear Minister Macklin, Re : New residency rules for Disability Support Pensioners (Media Release 28/03/10) Could you please promptly advise what the proposed "crack down" with regards to residency rules with regards to DSP's will be? Will it only be a "crack down" on the portability period of DSP's. If so, are you just intent on targeting the disabled? If the answer is 'yes', then kudos to you Minister, as the disabled are a very easy target aren't they? Especially those that are blind, deaf, physically or mentally disabled. Will this "crack down" be an amendment to the Social Security Act, or merely a policy change? Will it be a case of policy not following the law (standard operating procedure of Centrelink). On that note, why are approximately one third of Centrelink decisions overturned on appeal by the applicant? Please answer that question too? how much does that costs the taxpayer each year. Lastly, your media release states that the "expected changes" will save the taxpayer "around $3 million dollars a year". With due respect, not much thought has gone into calculating that figure, but I am sure you a aware of that aren't you? You see it is very easy to vilify and discriminate against disadvantaged members of the community as they dont really have a strong voice. I am of course referring to DSP's. What do you think (you must have a figure) the additional cost will be to the taxpayer with regards to all associated costs that DSP's predominately visiting overseas dont currently burden the taxpayer with? I am of course primarily referring to our already overburdened and poorly managed health care system. Sure, you might save the taxpayer $3 million dollars, but is it worth the additional costs of conservatively 10 fold that in doing so? Perhaps you can re-release the media release to say something like, "The crack down on the disadvantaged members of out society will save us about $3 million dollars, but unfortunately cost us about $30 million dollars in providing additional services and support that we dont currently provide DSP's. Fortunately this is of course not a concern as the Rudd Government is committed to form over substance". I look forward to your prompt reply to the issues and questions I have raised. Regards

[richoz]

Folks, as yet I have not received a reply from the Ministers office. I have again emailed today (14/04) inquiring as to when I could expect a reply. I will keep emailing until I get a substantive reply.

Dear Minister Macklin

Could you please advise when I could expect to receive a reply to the questions and issues I raised in an email (see below) to you on Thursday the 8th of April.

Regards


14 April 2010

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Acknowledgement and Reply requested
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 02:58:02 +0000

Dear Minister Macklin,

I yesterday (Thu 08/04) sent you an email through your website (original below). Despite 'ticking' the email me a copy of my correspondence, I did not receive an auto-responder notification. Therefore could you please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence I now sending directly to your email: [e-mail]. Furthermore could you please advise how long it will take to receive a substantive reply to the questions and issues raised within.

Re : New residency rules for Disability Support Pensioners (Media Release 28/03/10)

Could you please promptly advise what the proposed "crack down" with regards to residency rules with regards to DSP's will be?

Will it only be a "crack down" on the portability period of DSP's. If so, are you just intent on targeting the disabled? If the answer is 'yes', then kudos to you Minister, as the disabled are a very easy target aren't they? Especially those that are blind, deaf, physically or mentally disabled.

Will this "crack down" be an amendment to the Social Security Act, or merely a policy change? Will it be a case of policy not following the law (standard operating procedure of Centrelink). On that note, why are approximately one third of Centrelink decisions overturned on appeal by the applicant? Please answer that question too? how much does that costs the taxpayer each year.

Lastly, your media release states that the "expected changes" will save the taxpayer "around $3 million dollars a year". With due respect, not much thought has gone into calculating that figure, but I am sure you a aware of that aren't you? You see it is very easy to vilify and discriminate against disadvantaged members of the community as they dont really have a strong voice. I am of course referring to DSP's. What do you think (you must have a figure) the additional cost will be to the taxpayer with regards to all associated costs that DSP's predominately visiting overseas dont currently burden the taxpayer with? I am of course primarily referring to our already overburdened and poorly managed health care system. Sure, you might save the taxpayer $3 million dollars, but is it worth the additional costs of conservatively 10 fold that in doing so? Perhaps you can re-release the media release to say something like, "The crack down on the disadvantaged members of out society will save us about $3 million dollars, but unfortunately cost us about $30 million dollars in providing additional services and support that we dont currently provide DSP's. Fortunately this is of course not a concern as the Rudd Government is committed to form over substance".

I look forward to your prompt reply to the issues and questions I have raised.

Regards

[Banker]

Apr 14, 2010 13:26:46 GMT 7 @richoz said:

Folks, as yet I have not received a reply from the Ministers office. I have again emailed today (14/04) inquiring as to when I could expect a reply. I will keep emailing until I get a substantive reply.

Dear Minister Macklin

Could you please advise when I could expect to receive a reply to the questions and issues I raised in an email (see below) to you on Thursday the 8th of April.

Regards


14 April 2010

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Acknowledgement and Reply requested
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 02:58:02 +0000

Dear Minister Macklin,

I yesterday (Thu 08/04) sent you an email through your website (original below). Despite 'ticking' the email me a copy of my correspondence, I did not receive an auto-responder notification. Therefore could you please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence I now sending directly to your email: [e-mail]. Furthermore could you please advise how long it will take to receive a substantive reply to the questions and issues raised within.

Re : New residency rules for Disability Support Pensioners (Media Release 28/03/10)

Could you please promptly advise what the proposed "crack down" with regards to residency rules with regards to DSP's will be?

Will it only be a "crack down" on the portability period of DSP's. If so, are you just intent on targeting the disabled? If the answer is 'yes', then kudos to you Minister, as the disabled are a very easy target aren't they? Especially those that are blind, deaf, physically or mentally disabled.

Will this "crack down" be an amendment to the Social Security Act, or merely a policy change? Will it be a case of policy not following the law (standard operating procedure of Centrelink). On that note, why are approximately one third of Centrelink decisions overturned on appeal by the applicant? Please answer that question too? how much does that costs the taxpayer each year.

Lastly, your media release states that the "expected changes" will save the taxpayer "around $3 million dollars a year". With due respect, not much thought has gone into calculating that figure, but I am sure you a aware of that aren't you? You see it is very easy to vilify and discriminate against disadvantaged members of the community as they dont really have a strong voice. I am of course referring to DSP's. What do you think (you must have a figure) the additional cost will be to the taxpayer with regards to all associated costs that DSP's predominately visiting overseas dont currently burden the taxpayer with? I am of course primarily referring to our already overburdened and poorly managed health care system. Sure, you might save the taxpayer $3 million dollars, but is it worth the additional costs of conservatively 10 fold that in doing so? Perhaps you can re-release the media release to say something like, "The crack down on the disadvantaged members of out society will save us about $3 million dollars, but unfortunately cost us about $30 million dollars in providing additional services and support that we dont currently provide DSP's. Fortunately this is of course not a concern as the Rudd Government is committed to form over substance".

I look forward to your prompt reply to the issues and questions I have raised.

Regards

I Doubt very much if you will ever get a reply. They just ignore it & hope you will give up and Go away.

This happened to me some years ago with the Dept Of Foreign Affairs, until I sent them a Fax then the ball started rolling.

The other way is to contact your Local Federal Member>>>> BY FAX.

I don't know where you are located but where I am in SEA it would cost me about US$8. to send a one page fax, as I dont have a land line or fax machine. Someone told me that a fax can be sent with the computer but I dont know how to do it.

Cheers.
Banker.

[Banjo]

I messed around sending faxes years ago on Windows98. Can't remember what I did.
$8 sounds expensive, why don't you just post them from here? I send my Xmas cards for 27B and they have all turned up in the right place so far.
Failing that you can email them to me and I'll fax them in Australia but then it's not signed by the sender.
Getting their attention will always be difficult anyway, my personal game plan is to work out the maximum I'm prepared to tolerate regarding restraints on travel and fight Centrelink tooth and nail if it's exceeded.

Just remembered, my Federal member got back to me fairly smartly anyway, but they do know me personally in her office over the trouble I had last year.

Here's her reply....
Thank you for your enquiry.



The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon Jenny Macklin MP, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services, the Hon Bill Shorten MP, released a joint statement on Sunday regarding this issue. I have attached a copy for your information.



The release talks about how the Government “will crack down on people on the Disability Support Pension (DSP) who live permanently overseas but return to Australia every 13 weeks in order to retain their pension”



It goes on to say “The changes will not affect DSP recipients who need to leave Australia temporarily, only those who choose to no longer permanently live in Australia… The 13 week temporary absence rule will remain to allow DSP recipients to legitimately travel overseas for short periods”



So while there will be a greater scrutiny of those who regularly travel, the changes will only impact on those who are living permanently overseas. These changes are expected to save the taxpayer around $3million per year when fully operational.



I hope that this information helps to clarify the issue for you. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.



Kindest regards

Sure I've posted this elsewhere.

[Banker]

Apr 15, 2010 7:28:27 GMT 7 @ruddthedudd said:

There is a plugin for skype that allows it to send faxes.

Thanks for that.

[richoz]

FORMAL COMPLAINT - COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN‏

Sent: Monday, 24 May 2010 1:31:38 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Jenny Macklin ([e-mail])

Attention : Commonwealth Ombudsman

Re : Formal Complaint against the Hon. Jenny Macklin

I am hereby making a formal complaint against the Hon. Jenny Macklin MP. I have twice emailed the Ministers office (08 April and 14 April - see below) requesting information that may adversely affect my disability support pension. I am aware that my emails have been received as I have received the standard 'auto-responder' reply, and that's all

Six weeks an no response whatsoever is totally unacceptable. Perhaps Minister Macklin could be reminded that she is a public servant who has been elected to serve the people.

I will withdraw my complaint once I receive a substantive reply to the questions and issues I have raised.

Regards






To: [e-mail]
Subject: Reply Requested
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:36:22 +0000

Dear Minister Macklin,

Could you please advise when I could expect a reply to the questions and issues I raised in an email to you last week (see below).

Regards





To: [e-mail]
Subject: Acknowledgement and Reply requested
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 02:58:02 +0000

Dear Minister Macklin,

I yesterday (Thu 08/04) sent you an email through your website (original below). Despite 'ticking' the email me a copy of my correspondence, I did not receive an auto-responder notification. Therefore could you please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence I now sending directly to your email: [e-mail]. Furthermore could you please advise how long it will take to receive a substantive reply to the questions and issues raised within.

Re : New residency rules for Disability Support Pensioners (Media Release 28/03/10)

Could you please promptly advise what the proposed "crack down" with regards to residency rules with regards to DSP's will be?

Will it only be a "crack down" on the portability period of DSP's. If so, are you just intent on targeting the disabled? If the answer is 'yes', then kudos to you Minister, as the disabled are a very easy target aren't they? Especially those that are blind, deaf, physically or mentally disabled.

Will this "crack down" be an amendment to the Social Security Act, or merely a policy change? Will it be a case of policy not following the law (standard operating procedure of Centrelink). On that note, why are approximately one third of Centrelink decisions overturned on appeal by the applicant? Please answer that question too? how much does that costs the taxpayer each year.

Lastly, your media release states that the "expected changes" will save the taxpayer "around $3 million dollars a year". With due respect, not much thought has gone into calculating that figure, but I am sure you a aware of that aren't you? You see it is very easy to vilify and discriminate against disadvantaged members of the community as they dont really have a strong voice. I am of course referring to DSP's. What do you think (you must have a figure) the additional cost will be to the taxpayer with regards to all associated costs that DSP's predominately visiting overseas dont currently burden the taxpayer with? I am of course primarily referring to our already overburdened and poorly managed health care system. Sure, you might save the taxpayer $3 million dollars, but is it worth the additional costs of conservatively 10 fold that in doing so? Perhaps you can re-release the media release to say something like, "The crack down on the disadvantaged members of out society will save us about $3 million dollars, but unfortunately cost us about $30 million dollars in providing additional services and support that we dont currently provide DSP's. Fortunately this is of course not a concern as the Rudd Government is committed to form over substance".

I look forward to your prompt reply to the issues and questions I have raised.

Regards