An attempt by the Victorian government to avoid paying two public servants’ relocation expenses has cost almost $120,000 in six months in legal fees – $30,000 more than the workers were initially claiming.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Legal invoices, seen by Fairfax Media, reveal the taxpayer bill from the Department of Primary Industries' fight to deny two officers reimbursements for transferring to another part of the state.
The Community and Public Sector Union said the high taxpayer cost of the legal stoush was a ‘‘shameful waste’’ of public resources.
It is the second time this week a government agency under minister Peter Walsh has been accused of wasting taxpayers’ money.
A Victoria Ombudsman's report tabled on Tuesday lashed the recently abolished Office of Living Victoria for lacking ‘‘accountability for its use of public funds’’, criticising its $10 million spend on consultants, contractors and staff.
In 2012, the two DPI officers were transfered elsewhere in regional Victoria for work, with one of the officers commuting an extra 320 kilometres a day, taking more than three hours, before relocating.
Transfers arising from advertised vacancies or redeployments entitle public servants to reimbursements for costs of the journey to the new location, removal, storage and insurance, as well as costs associated with purchasing a comparable home.
After the legal fight lasting almost a year, the department has paid $17,000 to the workers. The union said one of the workers was paid all of his out-of-pocket expenses, totalling $11,000, plus the cost of stamp duty when he buys a house closer to his new workplace, which is yet to be calculated and paid. The other worker, whose relocation was not as far, received $6000, which was less than he had initially claimed.
CPSU state secretary Karen Batt said the government had been ‘‘crying poor to justify savage cuts’’, but the minister seemed ‘‘happy to feed his hungry lawyers’’.
‘‘The whole sorry saga provides an insight into the government’s approach to their workforce ... the department deliberately concocted an artificial argument to deprive two valued employees of their rightful entitlement.’’
A spokesman for the Department of Environment and Primary Industries said it was committed to providing relocation assistance where warranted, but stressed the importance of considering the legitimacy of claims.
"The department is conscious of the need to carefully consider applications for relocation assistance to ensure they meet the eligibility criteria," the spokesman said.
The settlement was subject to a confidentiality clause and the department could not comment further.
