Welcome to Ratepayers Victoria Incorporated, advocating for Collaboration, Accountability & Transparency. Our 2022 vision is a future where Victorian ratepayers are highly connected, value adding and engaging to increase their councils’ and state agencies’ propensity to achieve higher council rates affordability and local liveability. Our blog highlights the latest news and issues affecting ratepayers. Visit our Facebook.
Ratepayers Victoria are calling a expression of interest meeting to see if RPV can set up a ratepayer group in Geelong
Ratepayer Groups are set up to assist our ratepayers when a problem occurs between a ratepayer and their council
If there is no ratepayer group at your council ,the ratepayer is on their own for assistance
If there is a ratepayer group at that council then your ratepayer group can assist and advice the ratepayers
When 21st November 2017
Where 7-13 Beauford Ave , Bell Hill Post
Any inquires contact Frank Sullivan 0438555805
Has great pleasure to announce that RPV are intending to form a ratepayer group in Bendigo
RPV have called a public meeting in Bendigo to gauge public interest
Ratepayer Groups are formed to assist our ratepayers
When 7th December 2017
Place Quarry Hill Community Hall
Hamlet Street Quarry Hill .Bendigo
Any further information please call 0438555805
Well, Well, Well. Nice to hear the facts from someone who knows the calcs. Who knows better than him ?? Definitely a good informative read. As we all know one doesn’t need a smart brain to be a Politician in Government or Opposition. This I have to pass on to as many Australians I know, hoping they will pass it on to inform us the Australian voters, most of us who don’t know, while the Politicians would have us worry about minor issues, like same sex marriage and other minor issues. Well worth reading.
This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09.
This is an excellent piece for anybody who needs to be educated about Australia’s Coal driven power houses.
Terry is now retired and is in excellent health at age 69. Nobody paid him to write the article which was, (to their credit), published by the local press.
Written By Terence Cardwell mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org%20%3cmailto:email@example.com> The Editor The Morning Bulletin.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example.
The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made ‘carbon emissions’ which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don’t have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don’t have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem—It doesn’t exist.
Yes – there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a ‘base load’ because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydroelectric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the ‘believers’ the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective; If you had a room 12 ft. x 12 ft. x 7 ft. or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world’s total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world’s total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that.
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.
T.L. Cardwell To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
2017 Ombudsman report on council complaints
note page 40/ 3740 compaints copy link go to google and add link
George Reynolds, 19 Agnes Street, Beaumaris, 3193 P. 0430900822. E. firstname.lastname@example.org
Formal complaint to Auditor General. Annual accounts of Bayside City council.
The Auditor-General, State of Victoria.
35 Collins Street
Dear Mr Greaves,
I wish to revisit our earlier correspondence on the topic of the truth, honesty and fairness of the Annual Accounts of the City of Bayside. In this new complaint, the accounts in question are those prepared, published and certified by Bayside City Council for the year ending June 30th 2017. My understanding, from correspondence with the Governance Manager of the City of Bayside, is that you have certified these accounts without qualification.
I recognise that you have “taken the Fifth Amendment”, in your letter to me of 10th April 2017.Your letter states “I do not intend to address your (my) issues of contention again..”. This does not resolve the “truth, honesty and fairness” matter. Indeed, your “opinion, (that) the financial report presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Bayside City Council …”, is questionable. IT IS MY FURTHER CONTENTION THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BAYSIDE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30TH JUNE 2017, DO NOT PRESENT FAIRLY, THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OF COUNCIL, AS OF THAT DATE.
My evidence for this contention is as follows:
1. There is a fundamental flaw in the Local Government Model Financial Report (LGMFR) at paragraph G25. This paragraph states that “monetary and non-monetary contributions are recognised (as income) when council gains control over the contribution”. It quotes AASB 1004
12-15 as its supporting referenced Accounting Standard. However, the Standard has three qualifications for recognition as income. These are:
– the entity obtains control of the contribution, and
– the economic benefits … will flow to the entity, and
– the amount of the contribution can be measured reliably.
ALL THREE QUALIFICATIONS MUST BE MET SIMULTANEOUSLY. (Note that AASB 1004.13 also states “Contributions that are Income exclude contributions by owners”.)
2. Bayside City Council, in common with many others, exploits the defect at G24. Council claims contributions as income when they meet the single control requirement. Despite failing to meet both the “economic benefit” and the “reliable measurement” criteria, Council claims, as income, the surplus revenue collected from the General Rate payments. (How can surplus revenue provide an economic benefit?)
3. In your letter to me dated 2 February 2017 (Reference 10.09.03/1 Item1a) you ignore the first paragraph in the accounting policy note. This lists, in the policy note, the recognition of income requirement as stated in AASB 1004.12. You then go on to assume that (all) revenue is recognised as income, despite the fact that some revenue, particularly the General Rate Surplus, fails to meet the triple test in AASB 1004.12. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, AT s165 AND s141(c) MAKES PROVISION FOR RATE REVENUE NOT ABLE TO BE RECOGNISED AS INCOME, TO BE RETURNED TO THE CONTRIBUTOR.
4. The LGMFR, at Box 1, para 6, on page 5, also states “In the event of any conflict between the requirements of the LGMFR and the requirements of the AAS, the requirements of the AAS take precedence.”
I am thus able to claim, on unquestionable evidence, that any Council stating that a rate revenue surplus becomes Council Income, is misappropriating ratepayer funds.
I will leave aside the question of which sectors of the 2017 Annual Accounts of the City of Bayside demonstrate Error or Fraud (EoF). That is the function of a competent Auditor, not a financial analyst. However, as an analyst, I suggest that:
1. The Comprehensive Income Statement is clearly defective. It would be better prepared in the format set out in AASB 101.103. Note that an expenditure on depreciation represents a transaction involving owner contributions. AASB 1004.13 prevents owner contributions being recognised as income.
2. An income statement needs to be assembled, and balanced, for each and every asset. Each income statement must then be reconciled with the Source of Funds estimate required by Regulation 10 (1)(b) in the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations, 2014.
3. The individual asset statements then need to be consolidated into four Standard Income Statements representing the four streams of revenue open to Councils, namely:
– General Rate
– Municipal Charge
– Special Rate
– User Fees and Charges
(Standard Income Statements were required prior to 2014, but not correctly utilised).
4. Finally, the four Standard Income Statements be consolidated into a Comprehensive Income Statement.
5. Note 31, the cash statement, needs critical review. It is the repository of the unspent and misappropriated funds. (The misappropriated funds are spent on providing cheap goods and services to the User Fee stream). This Note is also defective (in Bayside) in failing to provide “restricted funds” to meet the outstanding leave liabilities.
I trust that you will give due consideration to my complaint. I will be copying this letter to a number of other authorities concerned with “Rate Capping”. I have previously raised these General Rate issues with Bayside City Council, the Essential Services Commission and the Environmental and Planning Committee of the Parliament; they will be advised of the issues above.
Bayside Ratepayers Association.
agvbcc021017; rev1; 041017. Author GR.
Ratepayers Victoria, Inc. (A0040924M)
Membership Application/Renewal: 1/7/2017 to 30/6/2018
Organization (if relevant) _________________________________________________________
Phone _______________________ Mobile _______________________________
In the event of my admission to membership, I agree to be bound by the rules of the Association for the time being in force, to pay annual membership dues as determined by the association, and to work cooperatively with the other members.
Membership Fees: $10 Pensioners $20 Individuals $40 Organization
Additional donation optional $____________________
Cheque/Money Order /Cash or
Bank deposit to: Ratepayers Victoria Inc.
BSB No: 063 855 Account No: 10127765
Whittlesea branch________________________________________Mail To:
8/1248 North Road Oakleigh South 3167
Heraldsun 24th Sept 2017
Spending with contempt
It has been the concern of Ratepayers Victoria for some time regarding the lack of accountability at local councils in Victoria.
This concern was further highlighted by the article “Councils living large (“Sunday Herald sun Sept 17 2017) and several prior editions regarding the irresponsible spending of hard earned rates payments. What was mentioned in the article were over seas trips,the purchase of nine electric bikes at $4000 each for staff,taxi and mobile phones,food bills and many more.
There seems to be little regard for the ratepayers who foot the bills.
Ratepayers Victoria asks for local government to consider appointing a monitor to oversee spending of ratepayers money.
This monitor would not interfere with decisions made by elected councillors but would make sure that decisions made were within the Local Government Act.
The monitor would be appointed by the Local Government and answerable to Local Government and would be paid by councils RPV considers that this would save millions.
If councils were not prepared to adhere to the advice given to them by the monitor. they would be reported to the Local government inspectorate for investigation. MINISTER FOR LOCAL Government Natalie Hutchins has stated that most councils are flush with cash yet councils are still increasing rates. A record of $3.9 billion in rates will be harvested from rates this financial year.
Enough is enough of this irresponsible spending of our money.
Jack Davis,Oakleigh Sth
PRESIDENT Ratepayers Victoria
Council clowns are a costly joke
Victorian councils criticised for social and political meddling
JOHN MASANAUSKAS and JESSE WRAY-MCCANN, Herald Sun
LOCAL councils are under fire for meddling in controversial issues like flying political flags, promoting indigenous treaties and raising century-old ethnic disputes.
Councillors have been told to stick to basics like collecting rubbish and fixing roads instead of focusing on social and political matters outside their jurisdictions.
MINISTER TELLS COUNCIL TO FLY RAINBOW FLAG
The City of Monash is divided over a bid by some councillors to discuss ways of recognising the Armenian genocide which occurred a century ago.
Monash Mayor Rebecca Paterson took the extraordinary step of issuing a statement accusing the councillors of stoking unnecessary controversy by pitting one ethnic group against another.
This matter may be appropriate to be debated in the Australian Parliament, but it is not appropriate for our council chamber,” she said.
However, one of the councillors, Josh Fergeus, said the debate “remains a live issue” for the council that will require detailed consultations with the community
YARRA’S VIETNAM FLAG STOUSH
City of Yarra councillors have voted to temporarily fly the so-called Co Vang flag, which is a Vietnamese community symbol linked to the South Vietnamese regimen which was defeated by the Communist forces in 1975.
State Vietnamese Community president Vivien Nguyen said the flag represented the identity and heritage of the community and its refugee background.
“We are proud of our heritage, we are proud of our identity and we want to show the broader community as a contribution to overall multiculturalism in our society,” she said.
But Evan Mulholland of free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, said voters elect councillors to focus on fixing local roads and collecting their rubbish.
“Councillors have no jurisdiction to comment on international affairs, refugees, or marriage.
“They should do that in their own time as private citizens rather than spending our money,” he said.
Meanwhile, Moreland Council is tomorrow due to debate a motion by Socialist Alliance councillor Sue Bolton to organise a “major public forum” to discuss a treaty with local Aborigines.
However, a council officer’s comments on the idea said the State Government was handling treaty negotiations with indigenous groups.
“At this stage it is uncertain what role local government has to negotiate such a treaty,” the officer said.
The officer said that depending on how large and formal the forum was it could cost up to $5000 including money spent on external speakers, catering, sound and lighting.
Among other issues, many councils fly pro-LGBTI community flags, put up ”welcome refugees” banners and spend ratepayers’ funds on providing aid to local governments in East Timor.
Ratepayers Victoria Inc.
Dear Mayors of Local Councils of Victoria. Local government Minister Natalia Hutchins and Premier of Victoria Daniel Andrews
Ratepayers Victoria committee member Frank Sullivan and myself were recently invited to meet Nillumbik Mayor, Peter Clarke to discuss local government issues.
Peter was appointed Mayor of Nillumbik Council last October after council elections.
Peter’s first duty was to investigate the present running of his council.
He decided to dispose of the Mayoral car and with additional savings of registration and insurance this resulted in a saving of approx. $ 50.000 over four years
The mayor also reduced his Mayoralty remuneration by 10%
He decided with the support of his fellow councilors that a new Chief Executive Officer was to be appointed
The first major duty of the new CEO was to remove the present four senior directors and that no more than 57% of incoming revenue would be used on salaries.
Cr. Clarke stated that this would lead to realignment of staff with fewer managers and more staff on the ground .The council also froze salaries and decided that there will be no rate increase next financial year.
Another massive saving was the slashing of advertising in the local newspaper that promoted the Mayor.
The State Government will introduce revaluations every year .This will cost council’s 41 Million annually with no financial benefit to councils .This decision will affect every council in Victoria.
Cr. Clarke made an excellent comment in that council decided to do an audit on surplus council land in Nillumbik and with the sale of this land resulted in $25 million for their council.
Ratepayers Victoria ask that if Nillumbik Council can make savings as such, why cannot your council make these savings also.
At the meeting on the 19th May 2017 with Cr. Clarke he stated that Ratepayers Victoria should engage with the Municipal Association of Victoria.
He said that there has been a very significant change at the MAV and considers now is the time for RPV to communicate with them.
RPV are aware that in an article in the Herald Sun on the 9th March 2015, the Andrews Government said they may review the role on the MAV. At present RPV is not aware of any significant change at the MAV.
RPV consider that with rate capping with us, now is the time for councils to act as Nillumbik council has .If councils are not prepared to address the financial problems at councils such as addressing the spending RPV consider that now is the time for the Government to consider reverting to AMMINISTRATORS to be appointed at our councils.
All the fact re land tax go to www.sro.vic.gov.au/valuation