|
Post by StringsAttached on Feb 17, 2012 8:02:48 GMT 7
Banjo - re O'Connor. I've never received a reply from a ministerial office when requesting this sort of information, have you? If I have even received a reply, it certainly didn't provide the information I was requesting. I've only gotten it in Senate Committees with questions on notice or FOI. Want to do an FOI?
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Feb 17, 2012 9:25:38 GMT 7
Agreed, they tend to ignore anything requesting hard information. I suppose we could ask our local MP. It wouldn't do me much good, mine's Kate Ellis and she seems to have me on ignore regardless of what I say now days.
|
|
|
Post by StringsAttached on Feb 17, 2012 11:02:19 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Feb 17, 2012 11:52:32 GMT 7
Started going through it. Some interesting sounding links don't work. Some are scans, so can't be copied and pasted. But found this bit of fun. This is the expenses just for the FOI Office of Human Services: 3/07/2009 332.08 DVD Recorder for Min & Parl Manuka 13/08/2009 1364.22 TV for the Minister's Office 29/5/09, Minister's Office 4/03/2010 1047.90 Dick Smith - TV and Wallmounts * 5/03/2010 187.00 Lamp for Chief of Staff in MO Minister's Office 5/03/2010 627.00 Bing Lee - Microwave ovens - Belconnen 16/03/2010 253.11 Filing Cabinet (Elite Brand) Business improvement 23/03/2010 253.10 Filing Cabinet (Elite Brand) Business improvement 30/04/2010 388.00 Laminator for Brisbane Site 4/05/2010 4141.32 Purchase of 2 Televisions ** 5/05/2010 550.00 Audio recording equipment 31/05/2010 876.00 Harvey Norman - Fridge 434L 16/06/2010 403.61 Reim China glassware cutlery for Legal Division 30/06/2010 1503.39 Electroboard Pty Ltd - TV *** 30/06/2010 1503.39 Electroboard Pty Ltd - TV *** 30/06/2010 1503.39 Electroboard Pty Ltd - TV *** 30/06/2010 100.95 Capital Retravision - Perth - Microwave Oven 8/04/2010 550.00 Artbank Prints x2 may10-apr 11 DHS Secretary 3/06/2010 1569.29 Artbank Prints x2 delivery, DHS Secretary * That many fittings, for just 3 tv's? ** I bet there was a couple of extra ones built into that deal, to be taken home by someone. *** Oh, I see those aren't really electronic whiteboards, they are tv's too. Good thing we have so many new digital channels for them to be watching at work.
|
|
|
Post by StringsAttached on Feb 17, 2012 12:25:25 GMT 7
OMG - don't read the "Investigation reports for 14 potential breaches of Centrelink Code of Conduct." You might want to die now - I do! There are findings of SERIOUS and REPEATED breaches and the penalty involves keep doing your job and fines of $200 (case 3), $500 (case 5), 5% salary reduction for 6 months (case 8) and case 2 - a fine of $400 deducted from salary representing "a significant amount of money therby reflecting the gravity of the offence". SPEW.
In short, there is NO penantly for C/L employees even when the findings of their misconduct are 'grave and serious'. Wow, ignorance is bliss, I wish I didn't find this.
BTW - FOI request sent off re extentions of portability requested and granted to freedomofinformation@humanservices.gov.au
|
|
|
Post by StringsAttached on Feb 17, 2012 12:46:18 GMT 7
Banjo - I didn't fully understand section 23(14) as it relates to portability so didn't include it in my FOI request. Section 23 is definitions and subsection 14 relates to what is a family member in relation to a person (the relevant person). So am I right in taking this to be pointing out that family member as used in section 1218(C) is defined in the Act? If so, bloody brilliant, because I've yet to find a definition in the Act of 'serious illness; it's not in Section 23 that I can see.
Surely serious illness has to be defined, but where?
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Feb 17, 2012 13:51:27 GMT 7
It's probably like residency, it's what they say it is.
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Feb 17, 2012 16:10:35 GMT 7
OMG - don't read the "Investigation reports for 14 potential breaches of Centrelink Code of Conduct." You might want to die now - I do! There are findings of SERIOUS and REPEATED breaches and the penalty involves keep doing your job and fines of $200 (case 3), $500 (case 5), 5% salary reduction for 6 months (case 8) and case 2 - a fine of $400 deducted from salary representing "a significant amount of money therby reflecting the gravity of the offence". SPEW. In short, there is NO penantly for C/L employees even when the findings of their misconduct are 'grave and serious'. Wow, ignorance is bliss, I wish I didn't find this. BTW - FOI request sent off re extentions of portability requested and granted to freedomofinformation@humanservices.gov.au Chunderous, indeed. 1) A government employee on $50,000/annum commits a serious and/or repeated breach, and is fined a few hundred dollars. 2) A recipient of Newstart, already poor and receiving something like $15,000 per annum, is breached a few times and loses payment for a few weeks, causing them untold financial trouble, 3) A person on DSP falls in love and marries whilst overseas. Their payment is immediately reduced by 30%, to half the married rate, and they are told they will have their payment stopped if they continue to live O/S after early January. 4) Same person returns from O/s and tries to find work but is given hurdle after hurdle to jump over, relentlessly pathetic service from Centrelink, and is made to wait a week for each appointment they make for him. After the 3rd time it wears a bit thin.
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Feb 23, 2012 10:18:18 GMT 7
Seems to me that this whole residency review stuff is all about cloak and daggers. C/L put out the instruction to return home, or else. Any correspondence querying it, or simply asking for confirmation of certain things, is just ignored. In fact, once you get the letter advising of your suspension, all business with you is ignored. Once you have taken their threat seriously enough to return home, it is only then that they will speak to you. Trying to fight this process is like trying to fight gossip. No one will tell you to your face what's going in, and you can't address it openly, since it is all being done behind your back. This is unfortunately quite accurate.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Feb 23, 2012 13:24:41 GMT 7
Seems to me that this whole residency review stuff is all about cloak and daggers. C/L put out the instruction to return home, or else. Any correspondence querying it, or simply asking for confirmation of certain things, is just ignored. In fact, once you get the letter advising of your suspension, all business with you is ignored. Once you have taken their threat seriously enough to return home, it is only then that they will speak to you. Trying to fight this process is like trying to fight gossip. No one will tell you to your face what's going in, and you can't address it openly, since it is all being done behind your back. This is unfortunately quite accurate. My intuition left out one bit. Once you get home, C/L will keep trying to ignore you, and make out that they are too busy to rectify the changes they had previously made to your payments. They will leave you to suffer through hardship and humiliation, and forever wonder why you treat them with more and more contempt in the months following.
|
|