HELSINKI CHAT…
(Yes, I do know neither of these gangsters is Australian… )
5 Likes
This is the stuff that irks me.
Rips off the system to the tune of $20K, after being ‘sacked’ (lol, we all know they just get shuffled arpind) from parliament previously.
And then when he’s found out, he can simply just offer to pay back the money and no one GAF.
3 Likes
Was there any explanation of what it was he was doing? Unlimited data has been a thing for a while now. Did he buy an extra 100 blocks a month?
Very high resolution adult cinema
2 Likes
It’s beyond curious. And despicable that he doesn’t need to explain anything if that’s truly the case.
1 Like
Something stupid like he ‘only’ had a 50G plan, and he went over the limit so was being charged more, instead of being shaped.
Spent something like $2,800 in a month using 300+ Gigs.
From the article “Three hundred gigabytes equates to about 100 hours of streaming high definition shows on Netflix or Stan, playing 3000 hours of Fortnite online or streaming music for about 2600 hours.”
Anyone playing 3000 hours of Foetniye should not be running the country.
But seriously, shouldn’t this sort of stuff be sackable? I get it that it’s probably ‘part of their entitlement, and no rules have been broken’ but FFS.
3 Likes
Public servants are subject to “reasonable use” conditions in regard to government funded internet and mobiles for work purposes. Records are subject to quarterly checks which identify personal and official use. You pay up for what goes beyond reasonable use. The records should show what has been accessed.
I would be interested to learn of data costs/ use at his electorate office, plus usage when he is personally at home.
1 Like
Does he have kids? 100 hours of Netflix per month isn’t that much if you have kids who watch it so the idea that an extra 250-300G is unusual doesn’t stack up. Sounds like he was simply not paying attention to what his homes needs where & should have upgraded to a more suitable plan. Had the same situation happened to a pensioner you’d be asking how his ISP does’t have some obligation to not exploit the situation. If it was a once off thats ok (still way over the top pricing) but obliviously this was months of overcharging - sounds like some of the stuff banks were pulling. Not sure how it works but do his bills get paid or does he have to claim them back? Was he aware of the cost but was that out of touch he didn’t realise it was enough to supply his whole street?
1 Like
Guy who wastes 20 grand on home internet is the Assistant Fcking Treasurer of this country.
15 Likes
Enough said.
1 Like
And how the fck does he decide that we should be the ones to pay for it? Absolutely fcking obscene.
9 Likes
Normally, the government would hold the contract and be liable for costs. I’m assuming that it would not be on a re-imbursable basis.
The issue came up some time back, with a$20k charge to the Commonwealth for Reith’s mobile - which he gave to his son, who racked up the bill. Did not have to pay it back, as the clause for pollies allowed for family use of internet and mobiles.
Fair go, … it’s not like a bloke in his position could afford 80 clams a month for his own unlimited Top speed internet. 
2 Likes
That’s alright, we should be entitled to vote in both the evil empire and Russia elections because they run the world. There is more Trump in our daily lives and a smattering of Putin, than there is Morriscum.
Senate Estimates, commencing 22October, should be fun, what with the ABC, Roberts internet costs ( unless others have something to hide) the Great Barrier Reef contract, the special overseas travel allowance to Turnbull and unfinished business with Michaela Cash.
4 Likes
Bring on the Federal ICAC.
4 Likes
Why do we worry about this crap?
This bloke would never see his bills, they would go straight to Public Service for payment. I bet he had no say In selecting the provider.
There are much more important things about this farking Government than this tripe
I think we worry about this crap because someone who charges a $2800 monthly internet fee to their employer needs to show why they’re not dishonest and fraudulent.
I’m pretty sure it would raise questions at anyone else’s place of business, and I think it’s weird that you don’t think it should.
5 Likes
What is weird Wim, is the outrage some show.
I check the expenses of my Staff every month and if there is an issue I ask. This bloke as I said probably had no idea of the charges and correctly it will be looked at.
The outrage and abuse is just nonsense.
Eh, I’m not outraged, but I think he has some 'splaining to do.
I also agree with others who’ve said that it’s not a great look if the assistant treasurer can’t handle a household internet contract.
Edit: ‘He might not be corrupt, he may just be exactly that stupid,’ isn’t really going to set anyone’s mind at ease. Not mine, anyway.
5 Likes