I think you are overlooking that 80% of the letters that have gone out relate to issues.Privatising CL is not the answer, will only be another bunch of self serving buffoons ******* up another former govt department.
Serco ring a bell? They are useless.
Besides, this pathetic excuse of a federal govt seems to **** up everything they touch. Wish we had a real government who are elected to do a job and run the country for all Australians and not just their wealthy mates and donors.
a basic start is privatisation promotes innovation and efficiency where government agencies deliver bonuses based on "the bigger the budget the bigger the director generals pay".Ok, explain the model of privatisation of Centrelink and its benefits. I just can't see it.
care to retract the statement on these notices and how to respond? or prefer just to hurt the vulnerable with misinformation?
You appear to be suggesting efficiency and private enterprise go hand-in-hand. One of the great misnomers perpetuated by the commercial sector is that private enterprise generally functions more efficiently than government. As an observer one should know that is not the case. As an investor, one is positive it is not the case.You're confusing the important service of social security with administration.
Do you think all GPs should be govt agencies?
Evidencing you can separate important services and the administration of those services.
You can add Private Training organisations.Have you not learned from the disasterous privatising of job network agencies?
All it did is create a field of corporate parasites who take generous government handouts while not doing a damned thing. Theres no incentive for a privatised centrelink to provide any service to their customers. It just doesnt play to the markets stremgths.
Ok so you can't explain the model of privatising social welfare, not even the admin. why are you pointing out gov does no dev ops for software?? Yeah no sh*t. Has nothing to do with corporate ownership of of social services.a basic start is privatisation promotes innovation and efficiency where government agencies deliver bonuses based on "the bigger the budget the bigger the director generals pay".
We are not talking about privatising social welfare, we are simply talking about privatising the administration. After all it is already 90% privatised as govts don't make their own software.....it is already outsourced. We are going the final next step, so that basic concepts like writing a letter are done properly to avoid the 20% issue and better management so the 80% issue is reduced to single digit figures.
Care to retract your previous statement regarding the nature of the letter and how to respond?
The main advantage is a significant investment in technology is required.Ok so you can't explain the model of privatising social welfare, not even the admin. why are you pointing out gov does no dev ops for software?? Yeah no sh*t. Has nothing to do with corporate ownership of of social services.
You honestly think that because the interfaces are already purchased via oracle, MS, IBM we need to privatise the admin? Worrying stuff.
If there was any such 'statememt' you would use the quote function. But there isn't. Because you're a fantasist.Care to retract your previous statement regarding the nature of the letter and how to respond?
It is hard not to take you as mischievous when you won't put your hand up especially when your actions hurt the vulnerable.
I agree it needs to be treated professionally, not sure what you mean about respect. In short if it is to be privatised then the buyer will want a profit, they ain't going to do it as a community service. To put it bluntly, trying to make a profit out of managing dole payments simply isn't going to work. The people that need it will lose more than they are now and that will have massive social repercussions.The main advantage is a significant investment in technology is required.
The future will see a greater integration of health, tax, education, day care, shopping, employment and other aspects of life for our lowest income earners. The future also requires local knowledge and local solutions for local problems.
This requires special skills that a department will never have. Further it splits the strategy and operations which is a healthy concept of all well run large businesses and more importantly separates politics from operations.
In short this services is more important in the future than anytime in the past and needs to be treated with respect and professionally. These two words are not synonymous with big government.
I'm only referring to privatising the administration and not the governments responsibility to pay social security payment.I agree it needs to be treated professionally, not sure what you mean about respect. In short if it is to be privatised then the buyer will want a profit, they ain't going to do it as a community service. To put it bluntly, trying to make a profit out of managing dole payments simply isn't going to work. The people that need it will lose more than they are now and that will have massive social repercussions.
It's a government responsibility, they need to pick their game up, not sell it off because they can't be bothered dealing with it.
I would say this is wrong. It would be the criteria asked for but it will fall very short.I'm only referring to privatising the administration and not the governments responsibility to pay social security payment.
If anything it should result in higher payments and better services. The DSC model would be an example of this, which actually assist people in need (especially those who can't help themselves) to integrate social welfare and social services for themselves and their families.
the model would be like the DSC which is a fully integrated model. The benefit of privatising is the service can cross whole departments just like DSC rather than limited within a department. The federal govt is trying to achieve this but given their traditional role is not service roll out, they will fail.I would say this is wrong. It would be the criteria asked for but it will fall very short.
The only way for a private business to make money is to tender savings. And when you look for savings you cut and cut. It would make for a more heartless business model than is in place.
Don't mind the idea of looking at Privatising, but you need to let it go or show a constructive model that shows. 1. Benefit to Privateer 2. Savings to Government. 3. No Loss to consumer or employee
http://www.smh.com.au/business/fede...help-bring-turnbull-down-20170311-guw690.htmlAbused public servants help bring Turnbull down
There's no clearer sign that the Turnbull government is in deep political trouble than the never-ending saga of the Centrelink robo-debt stuff-up. A well-functioning government would have closed down the controversy more than a month ago. If the relevant senior or junior minister hadn't had the wit to do it himself, the Prime Minister would have told him to.
Instead, the controversy's been allowed to roll on, while the junior minister, Alan Tudge, and more particularly the man allowing himself to be described as general manager of Centrelink, Hank Jongen, have repeatedly denied that there's any problem with the automated debt recovery system that's been making life miserable for many Centrelink "customers", including many who, in truth, owe the government nothing.
To broaden the focus, this is the story of how a highly class-conscious government – which sides with the well-off "lifters" against the less fortunate "leaners" – has come adrift from political reality and is using and abusing its public servants to prosecute its war on those unfortunate enough to need to deal with Centrelink.