Finally, the official refusal was provided by Australia Post. Rather than answer questions, the pretext was that Australia Post had corrected unspecified problems with internal management had been addressed and so the new delivery regimen was perfectly clear.
The rejection of the request allowed a complaint to be raised with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, but whether the ombudsman is interested or delays their investigation until after the removal of the boxes is anyone’s guess.
Then, in accordance with the dynamic responsibility of bureaucrats to accountability, the Department of Finance referred the request for their intervention not to Australia Post, but to the Department of Communications with whom they have a shared responsibility. It is expected that the Department of Communications will reciprocate so that responsibility for the financial elements, i.e. a business case to justify the debacle, become a communications issue and the failure to properly communicate and respond becomes a financial responsibility.
In the real world, posting boxes have been observed sprouting up in accordance with interpretations of Australia Post’s wishes. One at one of the non-preferred corners of Stoke and Redhill. One on Warrentinna Road outside the delivery area. It seemed worthwhile to advise ABC Tasmania and the North Eastern Advertiser of the scoop.
Dorset Council confirmed that they have not been consulted with by Australia Post.
The response by police media to a request for details of the crime wave was denied because it was not from a journalist. It was referred to another department of policing capabilities; who diligently referred it on to a form for a Right to Information request. A request which required a donation of $47.75 to the Police Christmas Fund. It might also uncover whether the police care about protecting mailboxes from molestation by malcontents. However this offer can be refused, because there is no guarantee the shakedown fee will reduce any personal loss due damage to a mailbox.
The police extortion for an unknown result is not as expensive as Australia Post’s standard threat if you question their accountability. $15-$20 per hour, $0.10-$4.40 per page, plus delivery costs; which from past experience with a Robodebt FOI would most likely be a jumble of redactions. Even of the emails that you wrote, to protect you from yourself!
The North Eastern Advertiser expressed interest in following up their story, but before brush and comb could be procured to make a presentable interviewee for a wee interview, Australia Post announced they had changed their opinion that the complaint was closed. It has been reopened for undisclosed reasons:
This communication is Intriguing because the unidentified Delivery Manager has never been engaged throughout their disaster they initiated, and the management reforms are still maintaining middlemen rather than transferring responsibility.
Australia Post is an octopus with tentacles everywhere. It has no brain. Its intelligence is distributed throughout its nervous system to numerous nodes operating independently. Logistics(!), Delivery Centres, Post Offices, Post Agents, Contact Centre, Contractors, Community Service . . .
The octopus tentacles communicate with restricted information on a convoluted need to know basis. Like parcel tracking, where if its late you have to wait two weeks, just in case the problem goes away due to something going on somewhere in the convoluted mass of tentacles too busy not caring.
It appears that something has poked a tentacle in the Contact Centre manking it poke the Delivery Manager, but it didn’t know what to poke with. Hence the request for the nomination of a time and date; which another part of the octopus would decide was appropriate, or not. Was this the Launceston Delivery Manager? Had they been replaced as part of an internal revolution management? Was this manager referred to the manager of all the Delivery Centres for all of Australia?
Whatever was the stimulus (the erection of a letterbox outside the new delivery area, another complaint? the Ombudsman? Dorset Council? Journalists? Police? Retrospective guilt? . . . ) to whatever tentacle, the unidentified manager tentacle was invited to come to the Gardener’s Cottage and inspect the home-made interpretation of their letterbox requirements on 8 April. The North Eastern Advertiser was copied in to add to the photo opportunity.
Then the mail was delivered. Four items had been put in the post box for the neghbouring address and they had been away for a couple of months. These failures by Australia Post are getting more frequent and the posting box system does not make correction by customers easy. Although the mail is addressed to the address it has to be translated to the appropriate postal box. A doublecheck the translation register also includes the names of the usual culprits associated with that address. However it appears that the contractor has confused the doublecheck with a double entry where two post box numbers are assigned on the same letter.
It is suspected this debacle is caused by the additional load of the new improved service; where determining whether a parcel is small enough to qualify for translation to the existing mailbox number or delivery to the address is complicated by the need to not do this if the address is outside of the newly defined delivery area. Not to mention the ever present fear of the ever present Vandals and thieves lurking in the telephone box ready to spring out and attack the unarmed postman.
Anyway, if the proposed meeting is arranged; it can be publicised to the community who are at risk that Australia Post might extend service delivery to Warrentinna Road residents as requested in an attempt to shut down the noise. If that is their solution; then other remote residents may have to erect their post boxes on Stoke Street or rent a PO Box, because the larger community type meeting is thwarted.
Leave a Reply