Let's deconstruct the waffle and self-serving spin for the ignorance and asre-covering that it is, shall we?
It isn't a trivial matter to give front line staff access to account details and personal information.
I think what you meant to say was that Myki's budget does not support training a large number of front-line staff in Privacy Act provisions. I've worked in banking, so I know what the provisions need to be (staff need to be able to ID customers with 100 points, Privacy Act training, and the only opposition I can see is one of costs for training, and some issues regarding anonymous cards - which is simple: only refund registered cards.
And as your name implies, your job is to try - and fail - to find ways of cutting costs. Sort of like a clown wielding a novelty axe.
The level of complexity grows significantly. For example, all the controls about seeing who accessed what information, at what time for what purpose needs to be managed very carefully.
In other words, you had a meeting with real lawyers once, and it involved spending money on staff, so hells no, girlfriend.
This then impacts on staff training and responsibilities.
In other words, it costs money.
Because the money on cards is actual money (not credits) then there are banking regulations that apply.
Are we supposed to be scared of the EEEEVIL BANKING REGULATIONS OF DOOOOOOM?
Not. That. Hard - it just involves making sure staff are trained correctly. But I'm not going to repeat myself...
Anti money laundrying laws then apply.
Laundering, not laundrying. We know your level of ignorance. Please don't make it too obvious.
There is a loophole for money-laundering. In fact, getting staff to process refunds closes that loophole. What that loophole is - well, you're the one on the international jet-set lifestyle income. You figure it out.
That's why this function - of refunding cards - was to be done centrally.
Save me the drama: it's money.
To give front line staff access to the information required to process a refund (as opposed to swapping money from one card to another) is a MAJOR complication.
Comes back to money for training staff again, doesn't it?
Bank tellers can be trained, but it's a MAJOR complication for station staff?
The functionality DOES exist at the back end. So then the solution could be a limited number of locations where the back end is accessible to a small number of staff who are essentially managed and trained as if they are in the call centre - with all the checks and balances that involves.
Well, why not?
But having said all that - most people don't ask for refunds where they are available. Most people in London just throw their myki into one of the charity bins provided at stations and airports in London when they go.
Considering that a) PTV was too proud and greedy to get Oyster b) no charity bins c) this isn't London and d) given that evidence I've heard is the exact opposite (many people ask for refunds of the remaining amounts) I'm calling spin and asre covering over the fact that another poor, accountancy-driven decision that screws over the customer was made.
And no-one cares that you've been to London. Again, maybe go to somewhere in Melbourne instead.
Add it to the short-term tickets and the poor hardware quality (significant levels of EFTPOS reader failure a/c PTV being so tightfisted to buy the cheapest readers available is one big story on the staff level) and the poor choice of software provider and idiotic contract oversight...
Agreed the contractor failed to deliver (understatement) - but given that the cost of keeping Metcard running was around a million dollars a week then you can appreciate the need to get myki delivered as soon as possible.
My Gods, that's the first time you've posted something factual, without spin and not full of self-serving boasting...
The contract management for Myki has been terrible - and I hasten to add that the people who caused those issues are no longer with the Victorian Government.
Or moved somewhere else in PTV...
You have to feel sorry for the people who have tried to fix that up - who have really done a very good job in difficult contractual circumstances.