The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Will Abbott abolish Labor's Peter Principle ?

Will Abbott abolish Labor's Peter Principle ?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
Why is her living mainly in Canberra "a typical rort supported by our tax dollar."
Cossomby,
It is extremely typical of particularly ALP supporting Public Servants. You see, there are many & I mean many who apply for posts in remote area communities. Now this is where the rorts start. They then fly back to the offices for example in Brisbane & Cairns & whilst there on "government business" they stay in not so cheap Hotels whilst they're raking in rent from their vacated & now rented home. Whilst staying in their home town they receive $256.00 a day living away from home allowance plus several various benefits plus they're building up Gold frequent flyer points for airfares paid for by the taxpayer. You should look into these rorts, it might change the way you view the public service.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 24 September 2013 12:38:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual: Let's analyse your scenario.

Public servant applies for remote area position; while away, they rent out city home; returning to city office on business, they stay in hotel, receiving living away from home allowance. Because they fly a lot they build up frequent flyer points.

So what would they have to do for you not to label them as rorters?

1. Not apply for remote position? Presumably someone will be appointed. Will all applicants for remote areas positions be rorters by definition? [Assume that it's not applicant's fault that a remote position exists, or that there is no local who could fill it - that's another argument.]

2. Not rent out their house? What if they are paying a substantial mortgage? Should they leave it empty and keep paying the mortgage? If their family stayed in the house while they were away, it would be a typical FIFO situation, OK for companies but not public servants? If the house rented this assumes family goes with them. They would presumably carry the costs of family flights back and forth, schooling if high school age kids stayed behind. They may be paying storage for furniture as well in order to rent out the house (cont.)
Posted by Cossomby, Tuesday, 24 September 2013 3:27:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont.)

3. Refuse to come back to HO meetings? If this was a job requirement, that might be difficult.

4. Refuse to stay in hotels? Of course, they could have left the house empty for this reason. How often would they have to return for you to expect them to stay in the empty house? Once a month? 3-months? 6-months?

5. Refuse to accept the living away from home/ travel allowance? They could carry all the expenses themselves - eating air terminal meals, taxis, eating out when staying in hotels. Surely the issue here is the existence of these allowances - if they exist, can you expect people not to claim them? Should people be out-of-pocket by doing their job? When I was a public servant the daily travel allowance was expected to cover hotel accommodation as well as other expenses.

6. Refuse to accept frequent flyer points? It might be reasonable to have all frequent flyer points for public servants' work travel to be credited to the agency. If that was the official rule, and then an individual took them personally, that would be rorting; but if it's not the official rule, then why is the public servant rorting the system if they take FF points?

How much of this would be necessary for you not to label them a 'rorter'.

I realised as I wrote this that I have been in this position. Appointed by a federal agency to a one-year position (extended to 5) in a rural/remote town; I lived in Sydney, and was able to get my son to house-sit; accommodation was provided - upstairs room over rented office. I had to fly to Canberra regularly. Travel allowance just, sometimes covered expenses. And yes, I did get frequent flyer points. Never worked so hard in my life eg phone call from CEO Friday night, instructed to do field work Saturday, write report Sunday, send it to Canberra for Ministerial meeting Monday morning - (overtime - what's that?)
Posted by Cossomby, Tuesday, 24 September 2013 3:42:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cossomby,
They are rorts, accept it or not. We have tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of communication equipment yet these people still gallivant around the country as if there was no tomorrow. So, tell me, what's wasted then, the communication equipment or the airfares ?
If you had any inkling (I believe you actually have hence your objection to my highlighting this) then you would seek the information yourself rather than just defending the rorting.
How about a trip a week ? Are these people so useless that they can't sort things out over the phone or email ? Stop defending it, it IS RORTING ! Full stop ! Some officials have clocked up to $40,000,- in travel in just one month. I'm certain that person isn't a Robinson Crusoe.
And, yes, they should not be able to collect frequent flyer points, they should be pooled for the departments. The reason why it isn't so is proof of the rorting.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 24 September 2013 4:56:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul1405,
You are A complete pacifistic dunderhead.
Boot camp (and I argued against it) is not a military copycat. It is an attempt bu certain indigenous organizations to improve their cash flow. It will fail.
individual,
The senator from way up north has been a rorter from the first day it entered Parliament. It also has a penchant for sexual encounters of the third kind. I believe they are called 'cougars'
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Tuesday, 24 September 2013 5:14:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cossomby,

I am not calling all public servants rorters.

However it is so self evident that it is not worth arguing that political appointments, affirmative action, and the reduction in the powers and scrutiny of the Public Service Board to name a few, have brought corruption into the APS, as well as the claimed but so often untested and unproved, benefits.

The public want an apolitical and merit based public service with core values of professionalism, integrity, impartiality and objectivity. The Northcote-Trevelyan Review (that modernised the UK Civil Service in 1854), could be conducted all over again and come up with the same findings and recommendations in Australia's public services, State and federal.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 24 September 2013 5:49:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy