IMPORTANT: The following journal is intended for the use and viewing of approved persons only and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational religious beliefs. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this work is not authorised (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word ‘absquatulation’ has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the creation of this journal and a minimum of Microsoft software was used. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards.

Year View| Summary| Highlights| Month View| Wednesday 1 March 2006 (Day View)

Sat 25 Feb | Sun 26 Feb | Mon 27 Feb | Tue 28 Feb |   Wed 1 Mar   Thu 2 Mar | Fri 3 Mar | Sat 4 Mar | Sun 5 Mar |

01.03.2006 – Wednesday 1 March – Centrelink & Munich

• One wouldn’t think sub-leasing was all that complex a matter. In fact, it isn’t. You go to the residential tenancies authority, pick up the appropriate forms, complete and sign them, have your tenant complete and sign them, have your signatures witnessed by a third party, and that’s that—an entirely legal tenancy agreement, assuming the lessors have authority to lease the property in the first place. However, once Centrelink enters the equation, everything goes horribly pear shaped, as per usual.
  Initially, someone somewhere, probably a computer, flags the situation as unusual, and various forms are posted. Then, when one contacts Centrelink, they’re informed that the total individual rents for the premise exceed the total rent for the premise, and that this situation cannot occur. They’re not told that Centrelink deems such a situation illegal, or that Centrelink will not accept such a condition, they’re told it physically cannot occur. When informed that such a situation has indeed occurred, and therefore obviously can, the girl on the phone decides to go get her supervisor. Two trips to Centrelink in Toowong and a mobile call later, one is informed that such a situation still cannot occur, and informing Centrelink that such a situation has indeed occurred will do no good, and that one should pick up the appropriate forms for a complaint to the commonwealth ombudsman and attempt to explain to him that the impossible has occurred.
  At this point one decides that Centrelink is ridiculous, and refuses to accept that they have a right to request any further information, as such information is a request for third party information which one does not have the right to request, and as such cannot provide to Centrelink, or be expected to provide. This does not make the woman at Centrelink happy, although she does accept that one can’t be expected to provide third party information, even though one has in one’s hand a request for said information from Centrelink, and one’s payment will be cancelled if such information isn’t provided. This impasse, coupled with an apparently impossibility having occurred, results in a situation ridiculously similar to a juvenile “yes it is, no it isn’t” argument, with one claiming an event has occurred, and Centrelink claiming such an event cannot occur. Such argument is clearly futile, so one goes to bed.
  In the morning, one contacts the residential tenancies authority and confirms that the tenancy arrangements are legal, and are quite normal, that a sublease is not related to any other lease a lessor may hold, and that the amounts paid by a tenant to a lessor under a sublease are agreeable between those parties and bear no relation to any lease the lessor may hold. One then contacts the Australian taxation office, who also confirms that the existing arrangements are legal, normal, and should be counted as personal taxable income. Having now officially confirmed what one was telling Centrelink all yesterday, one again contacts Centrelink, informs them that their impossibility is not only possible, but is now legally backed up by the residential tenancies authority and the Australian taxation office. This finally causes Centrelink to stop saying the already occurred can’t occur, and actually sort out their mess, resulting in one getting someone’s personal number at Centrelink, and the remote possibility that things may actually go according to how they should. Several wasted hours later, one decides to wait and see what happens next, before complaining vehemently about ineptitude and attempting to get everyone at Centrelink’s Queanbeyan rental review offices fired.

Afternoon

• Clint and I went shopping at Toowong, followed by a visit to his place, then some more shopping at Indooroopilly, then a trip to my place, then the movie “Munich” at Indooroopilly.

Comment by DM – Wednesday 1 March 2006, 4:34 PM

  I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that "one" throughout this passage is actually you. (Shock, horror.)

Comment by Ned – Thursday 2 March 2006, 1:16 AM

  One would have to agree.

Comment by Mum – Thursday 2 March 2006, 7:17 PM

  Yes, well. One wonders if thou hast actually succeeded in finding another person for your place? As far as Centrelink goes, why is anyone surprised? Only those who have not delved the awesome depths of the bloody place, could be surprised.