I just don't understand sometimes

[Peter R]

A few things confound me and this is no exception.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW) (NPWS) is an organisation that is supposed to manage the national parks, right? Bob Carr may not be a tree hugger himself but I believe that he genuflects in abeyence when he gets a go at traffic lights, thus he continues to lock up more an more areas for the sake of the green vote and gives less and less to the NPWS for their management costs.
Fire trails and fire breaks have been forgotten, gates locked, roads blocked with bulldozed woboys stopping any access by fire trucks, which creates the present policy that if the national park catches fire it is let burn if there is no danger to life or property. The NPWS goes along with this, but is it not against their mandate to protect the habitat, fauna and flora? How many animals are burnt or torn to pieces by dogs as they 'escape' into suburbia.
In this area, on the north coast of NSW, horses are running rampant in the national park, there are signs on the pathetic highway stating that wild horses roam onto the road. Is this a clear admittance that the national parks would be liable in the event of an accident? Maybe.
The method used by the NPWS in this case is to allow a contract musterer to muster the horses, with the suggestion, not contract, that he may sell the horses in leiu of payment. However, it is illegal to take the horses as they must be kept for fourteen days, fed and watered, at the expense of the musterer; and unsustainable agreement.
The NPWS consideres that it is managing the park ( on paper) the practicality of the exercise is not considered, nor does it seem to matter.
The horses will continue to roam and create serious danger to motorists and the habitat of the park because the men in grey and the politicians can not come up with a sensible solution.

Peter R.

[journeyman Mick]

Peter,
the sad fact of the matter is that the higher up the bureaucratic ladder you go the more like politicians its inhabitants become. To go places in any large government organisation people generally need to play politics, say the right things at the right times, keep their mouth shut on sensitive or unpopular issues etc etc. You obviously would not make a good upper echelon public servant because what your saying shows insight and broaches unpopular and difficult issues. The people up the top at NPWS got there because they're good administrators (maybe), good at playing Machiavellian games, good at covering their @rses when things go wrong, good at massaging the egos of their superiors etc etc etc. The people that are truly passionate about ecology or environmental management are out there opening their mouths at inopportune moments and spoiling their chances of promotion or trying to doing a hell of a lot of work with not a lot of money and consequently too busy to play politics. The other problem is that most of the staff nowadays come from academic backgrounds and couldn't recognise a practical solution if it bit them on the bum. I've had a few dealings with government environmental officers in regards to fire management and the lack of understanding, foresight and common sense was truly astounding.

Mick

[barnsey]

Come now Mick - aren't you being a bit harsh on the NPWS

Trot down to the MissingLink and see real compassion, vision and intelligence at it's bureaucratic best.

SWMBO - the psychologist has first hand experience - pay nothing unless it is asked for, use every blind trick you can find to deny payment and when they get angry repeat the phrase "your not listening to me" until they give up and walk away in absolute desperation :mad: :mad:

I agree - these government departments wouldn't know s@#t from cold puddin

Jamie

[journeyman Mick]

........Trot down to the MissingLink and see real compassion, vision and intelligence at it's bureaucratic best. .....Jamie

I had to laugh recently when it was revealed that a huge percentage (can't remember how much) of all complaints about Gov. depts. was about Centrelink. They had a PR person come out and say that it was actually an improvement on their past performance.
On a personal note, I went in to Centrelink on several occasions when my wife needed surgery for brain tumours and they kindly put me on the dole so I could look after her. I only needed to put forms in every 6 weeks or so. It wasn't until they were hassling me because I hadn't put a form in, because I couldn't leave her bedside that they informed me I could get a carer's pension. Now I don't expect the people behind the counter to be medical experts but I would've thought that caring for a brain tumour patient might have qualified someone for a pension straight off. :mad:

Mick

[barnsey]

There I believe the case rests

[bitingmidge]

But....and I am not kidding...wish I were...haven't they just changed the names of Centrelink offices (again) to "Centres of Excellence" to fix all those problems?

P
:confused: :confused: :confused:

[barnsey]

"Centres of Excellence" :eek:

They couldn't organise a you know what in a knock shop for a blind man :eek: :mad: :eek:

OK OK I said I'd stop

Sorry all

[journeyman Mick]

"Centres of excellence", Surely you jest? Centres of ineptitude more like it, or rudeness, or inefficiency. :mad:

Mick

[Peter R]

Come now Mick - aren't you being a bit harsh on the NPWS

Trot down to the MissingLink and see real compassion, vision and intelligence at it's bureaucratic best.


Jamie

Now you have done it!!

I was standing in line at Centrelink, waiting to submit a form that I had already prepared from a previous visit. As I waited I read a few of the posters on the walls whereupon I noticed one that said "If you need an interpreter please ask" I thought to myself, self, that is funny because it is written in English and if you could read the sign....etc.
when it was finally my turn I presented the form to a lass of ethnic origin who promptly said "No,NO, you must fill in form" and handed me the exact same form but not filled in of course.
I argued, and could not understand her or make myself understood so, frustrated I asked "Could I have an interpreter please".
Well! you could imagine, almost run out of the office on a pole or a Russian or something.
Woman next cubicle said, 'You come back when there is someone more suited to you...You could be had up for discrimination, you know". I didn't but my dander was up now, and when my dander gets up everyone ducks for cover. It hasn't been up for awhile, but that's another story.
"Bring me the manager" says I, my best danderish voice raised in indignation.
The up shot was the woman next cubicle accepted the form and sent me on my way, and as I left I pointed to a notice that said 'English Classes very Wednesday Night'.

Much fun

Peter R

[bitingmidge]

"Centres of excellence", Surely you jest? Centres of ineptitude more like it, or rudeness, or inefficiency.

Mick

Jest???

Moi???

Monday, 26 July*, 2004* 08:21:32

HAMISH ROBERTSON: (snip).....Now the Minister in charge of Centrelink, Larry Anthony, is overhauling the agency's so called "debt servicing teams". From now on, they'll be renamed "centres of excellence".

And as the Minister told Alexandra Kirk, their job is to prevent debts, or if that's not possible, better manage them.

LARRY ANTHONY: Well, what's going to be happening in Centrelink is that we're going to be restructuring a lot of the functions particularly in debt recovery, from 13 areas to six – just to name one. And the basis is to improve the quality of service and also to make improvements in the quality of decision-making.

And I believe in the fullness of time, not only will Centrelink get greater accuracy, but also will be in a position for greater prevention for individuals getting into greater debt.

I'd give you the link but it's too depressing!!! Anyway that's probably one reason Lazza didn't get back in?

Cheers,

P (taxpayer)

[journeyman Mick]

Now you have done it!!

I was standing in line at Centrelink, waiting to submit a form that I had already prepared from a previous visit. As I waited I read a few of the posters on the walls whereupon I noticed one that said "If you need an interpreter please ask" I thought to myself, self, that is funny because it is written in English and if you could read the sign....etc.
when it was finally my turn I presented the form to a lass of ethnic origin who promptly said "No,NO, you must fill in form" and handed me the exact same form but not filled in of course.
I argued, and could not understand her or make myself understood so, frustrated I asked "Could I have an interpreter please".
Well! you could imagine, almost run out of the office on a pole or a Russian or something.
Woman next cubicle said, 'You come back when there is someone more suited to you...You could be had up for discrimination, you know". I didn't but my dander was up now, and when my dander gets up everyone ducks for cover. It hasn't been up for awhile, but that's another story.
"Bring me the manager" says I, my best danderish voice raised in indignation.
The up shot was the woman next cubicle accepted the form and sent me on my way, and as I left I pointed to a notice that said 'English Classes very Wednesday Night'.

Much fun

Peter R

Yes, well, that definitely sounds like a centre of excellence to me, excelling in "FAwlty Towers" style manic comedy.

Mick (who would be rolling in the aisles laughing at the inept comedy if it wasn't so damn serious when he goes in to Centrelink)

[jackiew]

The issue of employing people with poor English skills in public roles is an interesting one.

I worked in Germany for a bit and I know how frustrating it is when one isn't a total idiot but ones poor language skills make one appear to have an IQ in single figures. So I have every sympathy with someone who doesn't speak the native language well but needs a job.

That said I don't think it is fair on anyone to employ someone who doesn't have good communication skills in a role where those skills are essential.

It can be hard work talking to someone who has a strong unfamiliar accent ( for many people my London accent can be a problem ) but if they can at least understand you then the conversation will ultimately succeed ( worst case scenario is they write down what they are trying to say ). But where the person not only has a strong accent but they have a weak vocabulary ( or the conversation is taking place over the telephone ) then I don't think that they should be doing the job. No arguments.

Not only is it unfair on ones customers to employ someone with poor language skills in a customer facing role it is unfair on the person employed. I can vouch for the total misery of day after day of not knowing what people are saying in shops and in life outside work. I can't imagine what it would be like to get up every workday morning and know that you are going to spend 8 hours with people saying "pardon", "excuse me", "can you say that again", "what?" every time you open your mouth to talk.

[barnsey]

As I said earlier

There I believe the case rests

And I was so saddened that Larry "I'm a country member" Anthony copped the chop and after he'd made that stirring address as quoted by Midge. Poor man

Governmet Bureaucracies
Fair dinkum - can't we - no I guess we can't

Bring on the benevolent dictators

Jamie

[DavidG]

The biggest problem is cost cutting which results in the lowest paid (and least qualified) people being placed on the counters.

Please don't blame the poor person behind the counter as they have had very little training and are shoved in to a terrible stressful job with a wad (thick one at that) full of bureaucratic instructions to follow.

Lots of the instructions are contradictory, confusing, incomprehensible and regardless someone else will change what you say anyway.

Any volunteers to serve on the counter for a week at your local Centrelink office? Low pay, poor conditions, insults, abuse, fear, etc. can be all yours.

[jackiew]

uninformed front line staff seem to predominate at the ATO too. Phoning their help line is a total waste of time.

There seem to be two kinds of people manning the phone

1. the person knows nothing and admits it and suggests that you assume the worst on your tax return, ask for a private ruling and hope you get something back when they've made a decision.

2. the person knows nothing but confidently tells you complete rubbish rather than admit it. If you're lucky you find out they've given you incorrect information before you get audited rather than when you get audited.