Surprise, Surprise Council administration show contempt and continue to avoid disclosure and accountability

Surprise surprise. The Melbourne City Council have failed to publish the Council’s Travel Register detailing the cost of staff and Councillor’s overseas and interstate travel.

The Travel Register is a public document and is required to be maintained by the City Council pursuant to the Local Government Regulations (Regulation 11).

The Travel Register was previously published on the Council’s web site but mysteriously was removed following the Council election by the CEO, David Pitchford, during the 2004 Christmas holiday period without the authority or consent of the elected Council.

The City Council passed a resolution in December 2005 requiring that the publication of the Travel Register be reinstated. Yesterday was the deadline and the City Council administration have failed to published the Travel Register.

Questions Raised:

  • Has the Council administration and David pitchford acted in good faith?
  • Is the administration demonstrating its ongoing contempt for the elected Council?
  • What actions and steps will the elected Council take to restore public confidence in the Governance of the Melbourne City Council


The Melbourne City Council continue to go to extraordinary efforts to avoid disclosure and accountability.


– Letter sent to the City Council February 1, 2006-

The Lord Mayor and Councillors
David Pitchford, CEO,
City of Melbourne

Dear Councillors

Publication of the Council’s Travel Register

I note with serious concern that the City of Melbourne administration have failed to published the Council’s Travel Register as anticipated and expected in accordance with the resolution of the elected Council moved by Cr Shanahan and seconded by Cr Snedden at its December 2005 meeting.

It was understood that the expressed intention of the Council was for the Travel Register to be reinstated and published on the Councils web site in accordance with the time-lines associated with the publication of the Councillor’s Quarterly Expense Statement.

As of 12:00AM February 1, 2006 the City of Melbourne had published the Councillors expense statement but has failed to reinstate or publish the Council’s Travel Register. WHY?

This raises issues of serious concern. Has the City Council administration and the CEO, David Pitchford acted in good faith?

The failure of the Melbourne City Council to reinstate and publish the Travel Register undermines public confidence in the administration of the City Council and the role of the elected Council. The Council’s administration continue to go to extraordinary efforts to avoid disclosure and accountability.

I request, without delay, information and explanation accordingly

Awaiting your immediate attention and reply to the above


Yours faithfully

Anthony van der Craats

cc Media, Members of Parliament

Melbourne City Council – Holding them to account

– Extract from the Minuets –

Motion Moved Cr Shanahan

1. That Council:
1.1. publish the Council’s Travel Register on the Council’s Website on a quarterly basis, in accordance with the timeframes established with respect to the publication of Councillor Expense Statements;

City Council splurge on Games Ratepayers continue to foot the bill as the full expenses are hidden from public view

Melbourne City Council spends up big on the Commonwealth Games. The Herald-Sun today reports that the City Councillors will spend in excess of $170,000.00 on Commonwealth Games tickets. And that is just the tip of the Ice Berg.

Herald Sun: Ratepayers foot Commonwealth Games splurge bill [31jan06] by Jen Kelly

The City Council has spent much much more overall, most of the expenditure has been hidden away under creative accounting and other budget items. The previous two Councils had spent 100’s of thousands of dollars visiting the Sydney Olympics, Junkets to Manchester – London and the like all in the name of the Games.

Part-time Labor Councillor Kate Redwood (Yes the same Kate Redwood elected on the back of McClowns push for the top job). Kate spent over $20,000.00 on a five day visit/junket to Manchester in 2003. To what benefit? Kate was not directly involved in the planning or organisation of the event and has little to no experience, knowledge and skills in sports/event planning.

The concerns expressed by Cr Ng are highly dubious if not deceitful. Surely Ng knew about these expenses before today? If not she should have. She comes out and expresses concern about the level of unbudgeted expenditure only after the Herald-Sun catches them out.

Council expenses, which are due to be published today, are all funded by a bottomless pit of contingent funding from consolidated revenue. We have constantly requested the council provide a budget for Councilor expenses but they never release this information Why?. Because they do not have a budget preferring instead to just pay the cost as and when they occur. No constraints, no financial management and no responsibility.

We challenge and call on the City Council to provide a full detailed account of Games related expenditure so that ratepayers can be informed of the full cost benefits to the City in hosting this two week event.

Game on

Update: For more information and review see Andrew Landeryou’s Blog for Freedom article on Cr Ng “Snouts in the trough”

City Council splurge on Games Ratepayers continue to foot the bill as the full expenses are hidden from public view

Melbourne City Council spends up big on the Commonwealth Games. The Herald-Sun today reports that the City Councillors will spend in excess of $170,000.00 on Commonwealth Games tickets. And that is just the tip of the Ice Berg.

Herald Sun: Ratepayers foot Commonwealth Games splurge bill [31jan06] by Jen Kelly

The City Council has spent much much more overall, most of the expenditure has been hidden away under creative accounting and other budget items. The previous two Councils had spent 100’s of thousands of dollars visiting the Sydney Olympics, Junkets to Manchester – London and the like all in the name of the Games.

Part-time Labor Councillor Kate Redwood (Yes the same Kate Redwood elected on the back of McClowns push for the top job). Kate spent over $20,000.00 on a five day visit/junket to Manchester in 2003. To what benefit? Kate was not directly involved in the planning or organisation of the event and has little to no experience, knowledge and skills in sports/event planning.

The concerns expressed by Cr Ng are highly dubious if not deceitful. Surely Ng knew about these expenses before today? If not she should have. She comes out and expresses concern about the level of unbudgeted expenditure only after the Herald-Sun catches them out.

Council expenses, which are due to be published today, are all funded by a bottomless pit of contingent funding from consolidated revenue. We have constantly requested the council provide a budget for Councilor expenses but they never release this information Why?. Because they do not have a budget preferring instead to just pay the cost as and when they occur. No constraints, no financial management and no responsibility.

We challenge and call on the City Council to provide a full detailed account of Games related expenditure so that ratepayers can be informed of the full cost benefits to the City in hosting this two week event.

Game on

Update: For more information and review see Andrew Landeryou’s Blog for Freedom article on Cr Ng “Snouts in the trough”

Empire Building City Council propose free tourist bus service to support fleeting Museum attendance. Residents’ needs left wanting

City of Melbourne will today decide what appears to be a given with the proposed establishment of a free Tourist bus service. The Council is being asked to fund a 40 seat bus shuttle service between Southbank/Crown Casino and Carlton.

The City of Melbourne have already spent/allocated $500,000.00 and plans to provide a further $750,000.00 ratepayer subsidy at the average cost of $85.00 per trip. (four trips per hour 6 hours a day 365 days a year)


Problems exist in that the free-shuttle service has a limited route and directly undercuts private tour operators who already service this sector and have invested a considerable amount of money in their business. Other cities around the world provide similar services but most are subsidised by the commercial sector. Establishments such as Crown Casino stand to benefit from such a service. The Museum, which was poorly located on the outskirts of the City (An issue that was identified when Jeff Kennett ignored community and professional advice and shifted the location of the Museum from Southbank to Carlton), are hopeful the free tourist service will revive its patronage – which is well below expectations. The proposed route is already serviced by the tram network although it is not direct and not free.

Insufficient information has been provided by the City Council as to the assessment of alternative proposals and we wonder if they were given due weight and consideration.

The City administration report recommending the establishment of the free bus service lists dubious statistical information based on the number of responses they received for and against the proposed project. On what basis the Council can give weight to the numeric analysis of the number of submission and respondents is beyond me, other then it gives an impression that the service has wide support and is worthwhile and viable, but is it?. Reliance on the statistical information of submissions would be foolish and adds little to the merits of the project. Issues of economics, viability and assessment of alternatives outweigh the self interests statistics of those who made a submission.

The City Council is not a good or efficient provider of services. In most cases they are empire building, expanding the management job market within the Council.

Let’s not forget the proposal, supported by former Councillor Kate Redwood, to establish mobility support/hire services for the disabled. The Redwood proposal was 3-4 times the cost of providing a similar service utilising infrastructure and services provided by existing community organisations such as Travellers Aid. Council should have considered more the submission made by former Lord Mayor Trevor Huggard. The council could have approached the Car Hire companies based in the City to asked for their support and assistance in providing this service to the public. Chances are hire companies would have offered their services free of charge as good corporate citizens, after all the provision electric wheel chairs is complementary the service they already provide. where they consulted?

The City Council should think twice before establishing a free tourist bus service.

Prediction: We expect that Council will soon find it need to put in significantly more funds and additional managerial services to oversee the provision of this service. The size of the buses will need to be reviewed with consideration given to the use of smaller buses that are better suited to manoeuvring though city traffic less city congestion. Operators will soon ask for more money. The proposed service in two to three years time will be closed down as it will be found to be economically unviable. The true cost of the project will not be disclosed as hidden costs will be allocated to other budgets and areas of expenditure. More money and limited resources wasted on ill-considered ideas designed to keep management busy.

Further consideration needs to be given, in preference to the proposed tourist shuttle, to the establishment of a mini-bus service linking East Melbourne, Carlton, Parkville and North Melbourne complementing and adding to the existing public transport connections currently available. This service could be run by private operators with a nominal fee per trip. It would significantly benefit residents of the East Melbourne, Carlton, Parkville and North Melbourne who currently have no access to cheap efficient public transport linking these areas, other then having to travel into the city centre and out again. Parkville in particular has limited public transport options available providing access to Carlton and North Melbourne shopping precincts.

Empire Building City Council propose free tourist bus service to support fleeting Museum attendance. Residents’ needs left wanting

City of Melbourne will today decide what appears to be a given with the proposed establishment of a free Tourist bus service. The Council is being asked to fund a 40 seat bus shuttle service between Southbank/Crown Casino and Carlton.

The City of Melbourne have already spent/allocated $500,000.00 and plans to provide a further $750,000.00 ratepayer subsidy at the average cost of $85.00 per trip. (four trips per hour 6 hours a day 365 days a year)


Problems exist in that the free-shuttle service has a limited route and directly undercuts private tour operators who already service this sector and have invested a considerable amount of money in their business. Other cities around the world provide similar services but most are subsidised by the commercial sector. Establishments such as Crown Casino stand to benefit from such a service. The Museum, which was poorly located on the outskirts of the City (An issue that was identified when Jeff Kennett ignored community and professional advice and shifted the location of the Museum from Southbank to Carlton), are hopeful the free tourist service will revive its patronage – which is well below expectations. The proposed route is already serviced by the tram network although it is not direct and not free.

Insufficient information has been provided by the City Council as to the assessment of alternative proposals and we wonder if they were given due weight and consideration.

The City administration report recommending the establishment of the free bus service lists dubious statistical information based on the number of responses they received for and against the proposed project. On what basis the Council can give weight to the numeric analysis of the number of submission and respondents is beyond me, other then it gives an impression that the service has wide support and is worthwhile and viable, but is it?. Reliance on the statistical information of submissions would be foolish and adds little to the merits of the project. Issues of economics, viability and assessment of alternatives outweigh the self interests statistics of those who made a submission.

The City Council is not a good or efficient provider of services. In most cases they are empire building, expanding the management job market within the Council.

Let’s not forget the proposal, supported by former Councillor Kate Redwood, to establish mobility support/hire services for the disabled. The Redwood proposal was 3-4 times the cost of providing a similar service utilising infrastructure and services provided by existing community organisations such as Travellers Aid. Council should have considered more the submission made by former Lord Mayor Trevor Huggard. The council could have approached the Car Hire companies based in the City to asked for their support and assistance in providing this service to the public. Chances are hire companies would have offered their services free of charge as good corporate citizens, after all the provision electric wheel chairs is complementary the service they already provide. where they consulted?

The City Council should think twice before establishing a free tourist bus service.

Prediction: We expect that Council will soon find it need to put in significantly more funds and additional managerial services to oversee the provision of this service. The size of the buses will need to be reviewed with consideration given to the use of smaller buses that are better suited to manoeuvring though city traffic less city congestion. Operators will soon ask for more money. The proposed service in two to three years time will be closed down as it will be found to be economically unviable. The true cost of the project will not be disclosed as hidden costs will be allocated to other budgets and areas of expenditure. More money and limited resources wasted on ill-considered ideas designed to keep management busy.

Further consideration needs to be given, in preference to the proposed tourist shuttle, to the establishment of a mini-bus service linking East Melbourne, Carlton, Parkville and North Melbourne complementing and adding to the existing public transport connections currently available. This service could be run by private operators with a nominal fee per trip. It would significantly benefit residents of the East Melbourne, Carlton, Parkville and North Melbourne who currently have no access to cheap efficient public transport linking these areas, other then having to travel into the city centre and out again. Parkville in particular has limited public transport options available providing access to Carlton and North Melbourne shopping precincts.

City Council splurge on Games Ratepayers continue to foot the bill as the full expenses are hidden from public view

Melbourne City Council spends up big on the Commonwealth Games. The Herald-Sun today reports that the City Councillors will spend in excess of $170,000.00 on Commonwealth Games tickets. And that is just the tip of the Ice Berg.

Herald Sun: Ratepayers foot Commonwealth Games splurge bill [31jan06] by Jen Kelly

The City Council has spent much much more overall, most of the expenditure has been hidden away under creative accounting and other budget items. The previous two Councils had spent 100’s of thousands of dollars visiting the Sydney Olympics, Junkets to Manchester – London and the like all in the name of the Games.

Part-time Labor Councillor Kate Redwood (Yes the same Kate Redwood elected on the back of McClowns push for the top job). Kate spent over $20,000.00 on a five day visit/junket to Manchester in 2003. To what benefit? Kate was not directly involved in the planning or organisation of the event and has little to no experience, knowledge and skills in sports/event planning.

The concerns expressed by Cr Ng are highly dubious if not deceitful. Surely Ng knew about these expenses before today? If not she should have. She comes out and expresses concern about the level of unbudgeted expenditure only after the Herald-Sun catches them out.

Council expenses, which are due to be published today, are all funded by a bottomless pit of contingent funding from consolidated revenue. We have constantly requested the council provide a budget for Councilor expenses but they never release this information Why?. Because they do not have a budget preferring instead to just pay the cost as and when they occur. No constraints, no financial management and no responsibility.

We challenge and call on the City Council to provide a full detailed account of Games related expenditure so that ratepayers can be informed of the full cost benefits to the City in hosting this two week event.

Game on

Update: For more information and review see Andrew Landeryou’s Blog for Freedom article on Cr Ng “Snouts in the trough”

Empire Building City Council propose free tourist bus service to support fleeting Museum attendance. Residents’ needs left wanting

City of Melbourne will today decide what appears to be a given with the proposed establishment of a free Tourist bus service. The Council is being asked to fund a 40 seat bus shuttle service between Southbank/Crown Casino and Carlton.

The City of Melbourne have already spent/allocated $500,000.00 and plans to provide a further $750,000.00 ratepayer subsidy at the average cost of $85.00 per trip. (four trips per hour 6 hours a day 365 days a year)


Problems exist in that the free-shuttle service has a limited route and directly undercuts private tour operators who already service this sector and have invested a considerable amount of money in their business. Other cities around the world provide similar services but most are subsidised by the commercial sector. Establishments such as Crown Casino stand to benefit from such a service. The Museum, which was poorly located on the outskirts of the City (An issue that was identified when Jeff Kennett ignored community and professional advice and shifted the location of the Museum from Southbank to Carlton), are hopeful the free tourist service will revive its patronage – which is well below expectations. The proposed route is already serviced by the tram network although it is not direct and not free.

Insufficient information has been provided by the City Council as to the assessment of alternative proposals and we wonder if they were given due weight and consideration.

The City administration report recommending the establishment of the free bus service lists dubious statistical information based on the number of responses they received for and against the proposed project. On what basis the Council can give weight to the numeric analysis of the number of submission and respondents is beyond me, other then it gives an impression that the service has wide support and is worthwhile and viable, but is it?. Reliance on the statistical information of submissions would be foolish and adds little to the merits of the project. Issues of economics, viability and assessment of alternatives outweigh the self interests statistics of those who made a submission.

The City Council is not a good or efficient provider of services. In most cases they are empire building, expanding the management job market within the Council.

Let’s not forget the proposal, supported by former Councillor Kate Redwood, to establish mobility support/hire services for the disabled. The Redwood proposal was 3-4 times the cost of providing a similar service utilising infrastructure and services provided by existing community organisations such as Travellers Aid. Council should have considered more the submission made by former Lord Mayor Trevor Huggard. The council could have approached the Car Hire companies based in the City to asked for their support and assistance in providing this service to the public. Chances are hire companies would have offered their services free of charge as good corporate citizens, after all the provision electric wheel chairs is complementary the service they already provide. where they consulted?

The City Council should think twice before establishing a free tourist bus service.

Prediction: We expect that Council will soon find it need to put in significantly more funds and additional managerial services to oversee the provision of this service. The size of the buses will need to be reviewed with consideration given to the use of smaller buses that are better suited to manoeuvring though city traffic less city congestion. Operators will soon ask for more money. The proposed service in two to three years time will be closed down as it will be found to be economically unviable. The true cost of the project will not be disclosed as hidden costs will be allocated to other budgets and areas of expenditure. More money and limited resources wasted on ill-considered ideas designed to keep management busy.

Further consideration needs to be given, in preference to the proposed tourist shuttle, to the establishment of a mini-bus service linking East Melbourne, Carlton, Parkville and North Melbourne complementing and adding to the existing public transport connections currently available. This service could be run by private operators with a nominal fee per trip. It would significantly benefit residents of the East Melbourne, Carlton, Parkville and North Melbourne who currently have no access to cheap efficient public transport linking these areas, other then having to travel into the city centre and out again. Parkville in particular has limited public transport options available providing access to Carlton and North Melbourne shopping precincts.

The Clown’s review Maoist, Anti-Zionist and betrayer of the people. A review of career and the face behind the makeup of Peter (Pan) McClown

Review of the life and career of a Clown based on the true life story of an Aged Sleepy Hollow actor.

Peter McClown, former disgraced Deputy Lord Clown of Clown Hall, the same McClown who sold out his Melbourne audience and supporters is now seeking to sell off Geelong’s reputation and past heritage. He wants to build a commercial bridge across Yarra Street cutting off benefits to side alley traders.

Yes the same McClown that was elected to the City of Melbourne Clown Hall in 1996 on a platform of support for tradition, heritage preservation and opposition to the location of Melbourne’s Museum adjacent to the historical Royal Exhibition Buildings in the Carlton Gardens.

Within months of being nominated to the Deputy Clown role McClown soon betrayed his promoters and loyal supporters. He could not have bent over backwards fast enough to assist and please the King Ring Master, Jeffery “Gibson” Kennett, who continued to gamble and was seeking revenge for his past failed efforts to destroy Melbourne’s historic stage.

McClown would not support or advocate even the slightest change to Jeff’s script. He was a devoted disciple of destruction and to everyones amazment voted against a motion (which lost by one vote) calling on the design of the Museum development to be subjected to an independent economic review and proper planning assessment. It was a reasonable, simple, request but he McClown would not support it.

Having sold-out his constituent investors, McClown, whose performance was not that good and declining faster then a sinking ship, was soon removed from his role as Deputy Clown and dumped overboard the following year (Two years short of his expected tenure).

Even though he lost the lead-understudy role and the Deputy’s title he continued to play up on the fact that he once held the position and always mentions in his repertoire that he was once the Deputy and not just the fool.

His attempt to regain access to the centre ring was unsuccessful. He lost his re-election bid in 1999 and failed again, dismally, to secure the top Lord Clown position in 2000, having spent over $300,000.00 promoting his comeback tour.

McClown’s main achievement and talent, apart from selling out on the Museum issue, was how quick and skilled he was at assuming new roles. He should have been an acrobat given the way he flipped and flopped bending over as quick like he did. He was good. He could stick his head between his legs and grin widely whilst sticking out his tongue, trying to pull a funny face hoping to please the ring master.
(With all the make-up he wore you never knew if it was a smile of a frown)

He tried his hand at being an entrepreneur and stitched up a deal with American “exploiter of talent and cheap labour, the god of NIKE, and gave them a $200,000.00 subsidy, sponsored by Melbourne ratepayers, to set up a show in Bourke Street. (We didn’t know that Nike made shoes for Clowns)

Rumours and facts have it he was one of the player-producer-writers behind the fooleries, lies and deceit of the junior-understudy Clown whose performance and antics brought the house down in 2000 resulting in the earlier closure of the 1999-2002 Clown Hall season.

Having failed to make it on the Melbourne stage, McClown moved to a new location, the Geelong-Corangamite region, a sea change to try to win a Federal role from the other troop of actors – the Corangamite Liberato Party. Whilst unsuccessful in 2004 he hopes to try again next time and he may succeed as the current incumbent performer is getting rather old and there is no apparent successor in the wings. McClown hopes to ride the wave of fortune as and when the tide changes.

In the meantime McClown has taken a job at the lesser known theatre at Geelong’s Clown Hall and is continuing to work on and develop his old scripts selling out Geelong’s past heritage and reputation.

My uncle, who was a long time Labor voter and resident of the Corangamite electorate said he could not support or vote for McClown in the last election. His assessment and independent review was made before I even had a chance to explain to him some of the history behind his act and the antics McClown got up to when he was on the Melbourne stage. (Not to mention his time as a student Clown at Melbourne’s law review where he would dress up as a Millionaire’s son and pretend to be Chairman Mao. He would recite his lines and make stupid statements like “religion was the opium of the masses” whilst spousing his hate for the Zionist cause.)

Thankfully some people could see beyond the makeup just how sad this Clown really can be.

“You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all the time but you can not fool all of the people all the time.”

The Clown’s review Maoist, Anti-Zionist and betrayer of the people. A review of career and the face behind the makeup of Peter (Pan) McClown

Review of the life and career of a Clown based on the true life story of an Aged Sleepy Hollow actor.

Peter McClown, former disgraced Deputy Lord Clown of Clown Hall, the same McClown who sold out his Melbourne audience and supporters is now seeking to sell off Geelong’s reputation and past heritage. He wants to build a commercial bridge across Yarra Street cutting off benefits to side alley traders.

Yes the same McClown that was elected to the City of Melbourne Clown Hall in 1996 on a platform of support for tradition, heritage preservation and opposition to the location of Melbourne’s Museum adjacent to the historical Royal Exhibition Buildings in the Carlton Gardens.

Within months of being nominated to the Deputy Clown role McClown soon betrayed his promoters and loyal supporters. He could not have bent over backwards fast enough to assist and please the King Ring Master, Jeffery “Gibson” Kennett, who continued to gamble and was seeking revenge for his past failed efforts to destroy Melbourne’s historic stage.

McClown would not support or advocate even the slightest change to Jeff’s script. He was a devoted disciple of destruction and to everyones amazment voted against a motion (which lost by one vote) calling on the design of the Museum development to be subjected to an independent economic review and proper planning assessment. It was a reasonable, simple, request but he McClown would not support it.

Having sold-out his constituent investors, McClown, whose performance was not that good and declining faster then a sinking ship, was soon removed from his role as Deputy Clown and dumped overboard the following year (Two years short of his expected tenure).

Even though he lost the lead-understudy role and the Deputy’s title he continued to play up on the fact that he once held the position and always mentions in his repertoire that he was once the Deputy and not just the fool.

His attempt to regain access to the centre ring was unsuccessful. He lost his re-election bid in 1999 and failed again, dismally, to secure the top Lord Clown position in 2000, having spent over $300,000.00 promoting his comeback tour.

McClown’s main achievement and talent, apart from selling out on the Museum issue, was how quick and skilled he was at assuming new roles. He should have been an acrobat given the way he flipped and flopped bending over as quick like he did. He was good. He could stick his head between his legs and grin widely whilst sticking out his tongue, trying to pull a funny face hoping to please the ring master.
(With all the make-up he wore you never knew if it was a smile of a frown)

He tried his hand at being an entrepreneur and stitched up a deal with American “exploiter of talent and cheap labour, the god of NIKE, and gave them a $200,000.00 subsidy, sponsored by Melbourne ratepayers, to set up a show in Bourke Street. (We didn’t know that Nike made shoes for Clowns)

Rumours and facts have it he was one of the player-producer-writers behind the fooleries, lies and deceit of the junior-understudy Clown whose performance and antics brought the house down in 2000 resulting in the earlier closure of the 1999-2002 Clown Hall season.

Having failed to make it on the Melbourne stage, McClown moved to a new location, the Geelong-Corangamite region, a sea change to try to win a Federal role from the other troop of actors – the Corangamite Liberato Party. Whilst unsuccessful in 2004 he hopes to try again next time and he may succeed as the current incumbent performer is getting rather old and there is no apparent successor in the wings. McClown hopes to ride the wave of fortune as and when the tide changes.

In the meantime McClown has taken a job at the lesser known theatre at Geelong’s Clown Hall and is continuing to work on and develop his old scripts selling out Geelong’s past heritage and reputation.

My uncle, who was a long time Labor voter and resident of the Corangamite electorate said he could not support or vote for McClown in the last election. His assessment and independent review was made before I even had a chance to explain to him some of the history behind his act and the antics McClown got up to when he was on the Melbourne stage. (Not to mention his time as a student Clown at Melbourne’s law review where he would dress up as a Millionaire’s son and pretend to be Chairman Mao. He would recite his lines and make stupid statements like “religion was the opium of the masses” whilst spousing his hate for the Zionist cause.)

Thankfully some people could see beyond the makeup just how sad this Clown really can be.

“You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all the time but you can not fool all of the people all the time.”

The Clown’s review Maoist, Anti-Zionist and betrayer of the people. A review of career and the face behind the makeup of Peter (Pan) McClown

Review of the life and career of a Clown based on the true life story of an Aged Sleepy Hollow actor.

Peter McClown, former disgraced Deputy Lord Clown of Clown Hall, the same McClown who sold out his Melbourne audience and supporters is now seeking to sell off Geelong’s reputation and past heritage. He wants to build a commercial bridge across Yarra Street cutting off benefits to side alley traders.

Yes the same McClown that was elected to the City of Melbourne Clown Hall in 1996 on a platform of support for tradition, heritage preservation and opposition to the location of Melbourne’s Museum adjacent to the historical Royal Exhibition Buildings in the Carlton Gardens.

Within months of being nominated to the Deputy Clown role McClown soon betrayed his promoters and loyal supporters. He could not have bent over backwards fast enough to assist and please the King Ring Master, Jeffery “Gibson” Kennett, who continued to gamble and was seeking revenge for his past failed efforts to destroy Melbourne’s historic stage.

McClown would not support or advocate even the slightest change to Jeff’s script. He was a devoted disciple of destruction and to everyones amazment voted against a motion (which lost by one vote) calling on the design of the Museum development to be subjected to an independent economic review and proper planning assessment. It was a reasonable, simple, request but he McClown would not support it.

Having sold-out his constituent investors, McClown, whose performance was not that good and declining faster then a sinking ship, was soon removed from his role as Deputy Clown and dumped overboard the following year (Two years short of his expected tenure).

Even though he lost the lead-understudy role and the Deputy’s title he continued to play up on the fact that he once held the position and always mentions in his repertoire that he was once the Deputy and not just the fool.

His attempt to regain access to the centre ring was unsuccessful. He lost his re-election bid in 1999 and failed again, dismally, to secure the top Lord Clown position in 2000, having spent over $300,000.00 promoting his comeback tour.

McClown’s main achievement and talent, apart from selling out on the Museum issue, was how quick and skilled he was at assuming new roles. He should have been an acrobat given the way he flipped and flopped bending over as quick like he did. He was good. He could stick his head between his legs and grin widely whilst sticking out his tongue, trying to pull a funny face hoping to please the ring master.
(With all the make-up he wore you never knew if it was a smile of a frown)

He tried his hand at being an entrepreneur and stitched up a deal with American “exploiter of talent and cheap labour, the god of NIKE, and gave them a $200,000.00 subsidy, sponsored by Melbourne ratepayers, to set up a show in Bourke Street. (We didn’t know that Nike made shoes for Clowns)

Rumours and facts have it he was one of the player-producer-writers behind the fooleries, lies and deceit of the junior-understudy Clown whose performance and antics brought the house down in 2000 resulting in the earlier closure of the 1999-2002 Clown Hall season.

Having failed to make it on the Melbourne stage, McClown moved to a new location, the Geelong-Corangamite region, a sea change to try to win a Federal role from the other troop of actors – the Corangamite Liberato Party. Whilst unsuccessful in 2004 he hopes to try again next time and he may succeed as the current incumbent performer is getting rather old and there is no apparent successor in the wings. McClown hopes to ride the wave of fortune as and when the tide changes.

In the meantime McClown has taken a job at the lesser known theatre at Geelong’s Clown Hall and is continuing to work on and develop his old scripts selling out Geelong’s past heritage and reputation.

My uncle, who was a long time Labor voter and resident of the Corangamite electorate said he could not support or vote for McClown in the last election. His assessment and independent review was made before I even had a chance to explain to him some of the history behind his act and the antics McClown got up to when he was on the Melbourne stage. (Not to mention his time as a student Clown at Melbourne’s law review where he would dress up as a Millionaire’s son and pretend to be Chairman Mao. He would recite his lines and make stupid statements like “religion was the opium of the masses” whilst spousing his hate for the Zionist cause.)

Thankfully some people could see beyond the makeup just how sad this Clown really can be.

“You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all the time but you can not fool all of the people all the time.”

Australian Open

Truly one of the Melbourne’s best sporting events
(Second only to the AFL Grand Final)

Congratulations to the winners and organisers
of this years
Australian Open held in Melbourne.

It would have to be Melbourne’s greatest international sporting event,
enjoyable to watch, and providing Melbourne with
the best economic return and international recognition possible
(beats the Grand Prix and Commonwealth games by a mile).

The quality of tennis was truly admirable

Thanks to all

Looking forward to the 2006 Olympic Games to be held next month.
Well done Melbourne!!

Australian Open

Truly one of the Melbourne’s best sporting events
(Second only to the AFL Grand Final)

Congratulations to the winners and organisers
of this years
Australian Open held in Melbourne.

It would have to be Melbourne’s greatest international sporting event,
enjoyable to watch, and providing Melbourne with
the best economic return and international recognition possible
(beats the Grand Prix and Commonwealth games by a mile).

The quality of tennis was truly admirable

Thanks to all

Looking forward to the 2006 Olympic Games to be held next month.
Well done Melbourne!!

Australian Open

Truly one of the Melbourne’s best sporting events
(Second only to the AFL Grand Final)

Congratulations to the winners and organisers
of this years
Australian Open held in Melbourne.

It would have to be Melbourne’s greatest international sporting event,
enjoyable to watch, and providing Melbourne with
the best economic return and international recognition possible
(beats the Grand Prix and Commonwealth games by a mile).

The quality of tennis was truly admirable

Thanks to all

Looking forward to the 2006 Olympic Games to be held next month.
Well done Melbourne!!

Governor in Council working in the past New provisions of the Local Government Act in dispute


A whole host of amendments were made to the law affecting the governance of local councils.

One of the sections that were amended was section 74 Councillor Allowances.

It is worth noting the changes to the Act, which need to be read carefully, to try and understand what was envisaged and what will and should take place. (extract of before and after below)

Prior to the changes made to the Local Government Act, in 2003, the Government was able to control and limit the amount of allowances paid to Local Councillors.

This is done by way of an Order in Council a joint decision of the Cabinet and Governor of Victoria published in the Government Gazette.

In 2001 the Governor in Council made an order, pursuant to section 74 of the Act. It is this executive order that limits and governs Councillors’ allowances based on the category allocated to each Council.

A potential problem, that has been identified, is that the Bracks Government in 2003 replaced section 74 of the Local Government Act 1989 with whole new provision dealing with the payment of Councillors’ allowances Section 74 was changed and new sections (74B and 74C) modified/added (see extract below).

Previously orders of the Governor in Council were made under Section 74. Now they fall under the provisions of the revised section 74B.

So what you might say it’s just re-indexing? Well there is more to it then that.

– If you read the wording before and after the changes you begin to notice the differences and the question you need to ask why was it modified and what is the effect of the modification?

There are different mechanisms at work depending on if you use Orders of the Council made under the old regime or an Order of Council made under the new section 74B.

Under the old system the Government would just make an executive decision and the cap was in place. To make any changes to the extent of allowances paid to Councillors all that the executive required was to amend the original order made in 2001.

The new system is somewhat different.

There is now a new mechanism or process that has to be followed in determining the allowances paid to Councillors and Mayors (although not fully implemented – why we ask?).

Orders in Council are now made pursuant to section 74B not section 74.
(As we understand each section of an Act is different and section 74B can not be construed as being a sub-set of section 74)

Section 74B requires the establishment an independent Local Government Panel to consider and make recommendations related to the any amendment of any Order seeking to change the allocated category of a Council which in terms determines the extent of limits to any allowance payable to Local Councillors. (s 74C(3))

The interesting part is that the Government MUST adopt the recommendations of the panel. (s 74C(4)). It no longer can make an executive decision as to which category a Council should be allocated (responsibility for determining allowance payments has effectively been delegated).

At first this looks like a hands-off approach with the decision made by an independent and hopefully professional panel, but is it?

The Government still get to appoint the panel, but it can not be sure as to the outcome of the panel findings, the Government have limited control and may be handing a loaded gun that may just explode in their faces.

It could be that a decision of the appointed panel is not to the government’s liking or worst not palatable to the broader community. Under the provisions of the current act there is nothing that the government could do, it has to adopt the recommendations of the panel. The Government’s hands are tied.

So what you may say? Well it gets more interesting.

The provision of the act related to the requirement for a panel only come into effect if and when the Governor in Council makes an order under section 74B – something that the Government to date has not done.

Why? It has been over two years since the legislation was changed.

Of equal concern is that there is no longer provision under the revised Act for the Governor to make any orders under section 74 (It lapsed when the act was changed). The authority for the Governor in Council to make any order is now pursuant to section 74B not section 74.

However the Government continues to make orders amending the original substantive Order made under the old section 74 of the act (now modified) but under what authority?

We do not claim to be a constitutional lawyers but it does seam rather strange and somewhat convoluted that the Government continues to operate under the provisions of the old act and not the current Act.

Why has the Government not made any orders pursuant to revised section 74B of the Local Government Act (as currently exists), revoking all previous Orders made under the old provisions of section 74 and replaced them with a new Order all together? This would have been a simple task but (for some reason) has not been implemented.

Strangely this is not what has happened. The Governor in Council still continues making amendments to the original orders issued pursuant to section 74 not section 74B.

If the Governor in Council has no authority to make an order pursuant to section 74 and that new orders should have been made pursuant to section 74B instead, then existing orders could be considered`null-in-void. It’s a technical point but never the less potentially significant one – one that requires clarification.


There are questions that we believe need answers.

1. Are the Orders of the Governor in Council made pursuant to section 74 since 2003 valid under the current law?

We acknowledge that section 74B(4) states:

Any Order in Council that was made under section 74 (as in force immediately before the commencement of section 55 of the Local Government (Democratic Reform) Act 2003) and that was in force immediately before that commencement continues in force until it is replaced by an Order in Council under this section.

2. Does Section 74B entitle the Governor in Council to continue to modify old orders as opposed to making a new order under section 74B?

3. If the Orders in Council are not valid what is the status of the payments that have been made under the orders amended since 2003?

4. Why did the Government not make a new order under section 74B and replace the existing orders made under the old Act?

The answers may be in the detail of the legislation:

It could be that the Government is not really happy with the current legislation, by not making a new order under section 74B they are delaying or avoiding the implementation of provisions in the act they really do not want implemented?

We think this is the case and reason why a new order has not been made.

If they open the gates then the horses will bolt and it is the Government that will be held responsible for not taking control.

Section 74C only comes into play pending the establishment of orders made pursuant to section 74B order which to date do not exist, there for the provisions of section 74C do not apply.

The new provisions are a recipe for disaster and will result in a significant increase in the level and amount of allowances and benefits paid out to Local Councillors with the State Government unable to control it without legislation amending the Local Government Act.

There to needs to be more checks and balances in the system. Councillor allowances and benefits need to be subjected to a formal public review.

Councillors are elected representatives they are not employees. Any determination of allowances and benefits should be determined prior to an election and not immediately after.

The legislation as it stands is messy and fail to see what was wrong with the old version if the Government is not going to use the new provisons then why did they change it?.

– Extract of the Local Government Act as it exists today.

Part 4—Council Administration
Local Government Act 1989
Act No. 11/1989

74. Councillor and Mayoral Allowances

(1) A Council must review and determine the level of
the Councillor allowance and the Mayoral
allowance within the period of 7 months after a
general election.

(2) Subject to sub-section (3), the allowances
determined under sub-section (1) are payable
during the next 4 financial years.

(3) A Council can only vary the allowances
determined under sub-section (1) if—
(a) an Order in Council has been made under
section 74B which changes the range of
allowances that apply in respect of the
Council; and
(b) the Council has conducted a further review
of allowances.

(4) A person has a right to make a submission under
section 223 in respect of a review of allowances.

74A. General provisions relating to allowances

(1) A Mayor is not entitled to receive a Councillor
allowance if the Mayor is entitled to receive a
Mayoral allowance.

(2) A Council must pay a Councillor allowance or
Mayoral allowance as specified in the relevant
Order in Council made under section 74B.

(3) A Council does not have to pay an allowance
under section 74 to a Councillor or Mayor who
does not want to receive an allowance.

(4) A person is only entitled to receive an allowance
under section 74 while he or she holds the office
in respect of which the allowance is payable.

74B. Allowance Orders

(1) The Governor in Council may by Order in
Council—
(a) specify the amounts of allowances payable
by a Council as a Councillor allowance or a
Mayoral allowance;
(b) specify limits on the amounts of allowances
payable by a Council as a Councillor
allowance or a Mayoral allowance;
(c) vary the amount, limit or range of
allowances payable by a Council as a
Councillor allowance or a Mayoral
allowance;
(d) specify the manner in which Councillor
allowances and Mayoral allowances are
payable.

(2) An Order in Council may make the same
provision for all Councils or may make different
provision for particular Councils or for different
categories of Councils as specified in the Order in
Council.

(3) After an Order in Council has made provision for
the categories of Councils, an Order in Council
can not be made to change the category of a
Council unless a recommendation to that effect
has been made under section 74C(3).

(4) Any Order in Council that was made under
section 74 (as in force immediately before the
commencement of section 55 of the Local
Government (Democratic Reform) Act 2003)
and that was in force immediately before that
commencement continues in force until it is
replaced by an Order in Council under this
section.

74C. Advisory panel

(1) The Minister may appoint a local government
panel under Part 10A to advise the Minister on
matters relating to Councillor allowances and
Mayoral allowances.

(2) A Council may make a submission to the local
government panel requesting that an Order in
Council be made under section 74B to change the
category of that Council.

(3) If after considering a submission under subsection
(2) the local government panel considers
that the category of the Council should be
changed, the local government panel may make a
recommendation to the Minister that an Order in
Council be made to change the category of that
Council.

(4) The Minister must give effect to a
recommendation under sub-section (3).

75. Reimbursement of expenses

A Council may reimburse Councillors or members
of Council committees for necessary out-of pocket
expenses incurred while performing duties
as a Councillor or committee member.

– Extract of the Local Government Act prior to the amendments made in 2003 –

74. Allowances

(1) A Council must pay to each of its Councillors the
allowance specified in any Order in Council made
for the purposes of this section from time to time.

(2) A Council may pay to each of its Councillors a
higher allowance than that required by sub-section (1).

(3) However, the amount of the higher allowance—
(a) must not exceed any limit specified in any
Order in Council made for the purposes of
this sub-section from time to time; and
(b) must be the same for each Councillor.

(4) An Order in Council may specify that amounts
and limits higher than those specified for the
purposes of sub-sections (1) and (3) are to apply
to Mayors.

(4A) A Mayor is not entitled to receive an allowance as
a Councillor if she or he is receiving an allowance
as a Mayor.

(4B) An Order in Council may specify that different
amounts and limits are to apply in respect of
specified categories of Councils.

(4C) In paying an allowance under this section, a
Council must make the payment in the manner
specified in the Order in Council that specified the
amount of the allowance.

74B. General provisions concerning allowances

(1) A Council does not have to pay an allowance
under section 74 or 74A to a Councillor who does
not wish to receive it.

(2) A person is only entitled to receive an allowance
under section 74 or 74A while she or he holds the
office for which it is payable.

75. Reimbursement of expenses

A Council may reimburse Councillors or members
of Council committees for necessary out-of pocket
expenses incurred while performing duties
as a Councillor or committee member.

— Governor in Council Orders published in the Government Gazette —

Gazette:G26 Summary:Local Government Act 1989 S74 – Amending the Councillor & Mayoral Allowances for Greater Dandenong, Port Phillip, Whittlesea Page
Issue Date:30 Jun 2005
Download Gazette: http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/Gazettes2005/GG2005G026.pdf

Gazette:G26 Summary:Local Government Act 1989 S74 – Amending the Councillor & Mayoral Allowances for Greater Dandenong, Port Phillip, Whittlesea
Issue Date:30 Jun 2005
Download Gazette: http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/Gazettes2005/GG2005G026.pdf

Gazette:G13 Summary:Local Government Act 1989 S27 – Ministerial Order fixing Allowances for Councillors in Country Areas
Issue Date:29 Mar 2001
Download Gazette:
http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/Gazettes2001/GG2001G013.pdf

Governor in Council working in the past New provisions of the Local Government Act in dispute


A whole host of amendments were made to the law affecting the governance of local councils.

One of the sections that were amended was section 74 Councillor Allowances.

It is worth noting the changes to the Act, which need to be read carefully, to try and understand what was envisaged and what will and should take place. (extract of before and after below)

Prior to the changes made to the Local Government Act, in 2003, the Government was able to control and limit the amount of allowances paid to Local Councillors.

This is done by way of an Order in Council a joint decision of the Cabinet and Governor of Victoria published in the Government Gazette.

In 2001 the Governor in Council made an order, pursuant to section 74 of the Act. It is this executive order that limits and governs Councillors’ allowances based on the category allocated to each Council.

A potential problem, that has been identified, is that the Bracks Government in 2003 replaced section 74 of the Local Government Act 1989 with whole new provision dealing with the payment of Councillors’ allowances Section 74 was changed and new sections (74B and 74C) modified/added (see extract below).

Previously orders of the Governor in Council were made under Section 74. Now they fall under the provisions of the revised section 74B.

So what you might say it’s just re-indexing? Well there is more to it then that.

– If you read the wording before and after the changes you begin to notice the differences and the question you need to ask why was it modified and what is the effect of the modification?

There are different mechanisms at work depending on if you use Orders of the Council made under the old regime or an Order of Council made under the new section 74B.

Under the old system the Government would just make an executive decision and the cap was in place. To make any changes to the extent of allowances paid to Councillors all that the executive required was to amend the original order made in 2001.

The new system is somewhat different.

There is now a new mechanism or process that has to be followed in determining the allowances paid to Councillors and Mayors (although not fully implemented – why we ask?).

Orders in Council are now made pursuant to section 74B not section 74.
(As we understand each section of an Act is different and section 74B can not be construed as being a sub-set of section 74)

Section 74B requires the establishment an independent Local Government Panel to consider and make recommendations related to the any amendment of any Order seeking to change the allocated category of a Council which in terms determines the extent of limits to any allowance payable to Local Councillors. (s 74C(3))

The interesting part is that the Government MUST adopt the recommendations of the panel. (s 74C(4)). It no longer can make an executive decision as to which category a Council should be allocated (responsibility for determining allowance payments has effectively been delegated).

At first this looks like a hands-off approach with the decision made by an independent and hopefully professional panel, but is it?

The Government still get to appoint the panel, but it can not be sure as to the outcome of the panel findings, the Government have limited control and may be handing a loaded gun that may just explode in their faces.

It could be that a decision of the appointed panel is not to the government’s liking or worst not palatable to the broader community. Under the provisions of the current act there is nothing that the government could do, it has to adopt the recommendations of the panel. The Government’s hands are tied.

So what you may say? Well it gets more interesting.

The provision of the act related to the requirement for a panel only come into effect if and when the Governor in Council makes an order under section 74B – something that the Government to date has not done.

Why? It has been over two years since the legislation was changed.

Of equal concern is that there is no longer provision under the revised Act for the Governor to make any orders under section 74 (It lapsed when the act was changed). The authority for the Governor in Council to make any order is now pursuant to section 74B not section 74.

However the Government continues to make orders amending the original substantive Order made under the old section 74 of the act (now modified) but under what authority?

We do not claim to be a constitutional lawyers but it does seam rather strange and somewhat convoluted that the Government continues to operate under the provisions of the old act and not the current Act.

Why has the Government not made any orders pursuant to revised section 74B of the Local Government Act (as currently exists), revoking all previous Orders made under the old provisions of section 74 and replaced them with a new Order all together? This would have been a simple task but (for some reason) has not been implemented.

Strangely this is not what has happened. The Governor in Council still continues making amendments to the original orders issued pursuant to section 74 not section 74B.

If the Governor in Council has no authority to make an order pursuant to section 74 and that new orders should have been made pursuant to section 74B instead, then existing orders could be considered`null-in-void. It’s a technical point but never the less potentially significant one – one that requires clarification.


There are questions that we believe need answers.

1. Are the Orders of the Governor in Council made pursuant to section 74 since 2003 valid under the current law?

We acknowledge that section 74B(4) states:

Any Order in Council that was made under section 74 (as in force immediately before the commencement of section 55 of the Local Government (Democratic Reform) Act 2003) and that was in force immediately before that commencement continues in force until it is replaced by an Order in Council under this section.

2. Does Section 74B entitle the Governor in Council to continue to modify old orders as opposed to making a new order under section 74B?

3. If the Orders in Council are not valid what is the status of the payments that have been made under the orders amended since 2003?

4. Why did the Government not make a new order under section 74B and replace the existing orders made under the old Act?

The answers may be in the detail of the legislation:

It could be that the Government is not really happy with the current legislation, by not making a new order under section 74B they are delaying or avoiding the implementation of provisions in the act they really do not want implemented?

We think this is the case and reason why a new order has not been made.

If they open the gates then the horses will bolt and it is the Government that will be held responsible for not taking control.

Section 74C only comes into play pending the establishment of orders made pursuant to section 74B order which to date do not exist, there for the provisions of section 74C do not apply.

The new provisions are a recipe for disaster and will result in a significant increase in the level and amount of allowances and benefits paid out to Local Councillors with the State Government unable to control it without legislation amending the Local Government Act.

There to needs to be more checks and balances in the system. Councillor allowances and benefits need to be subjected to a formal public review.

Councillors are elected representatives they are not employees. Any determination of allowances and benefits should be determined prior to an election and not immediately after.

The legislation as it stands is messy and fail to see what was wrong with the old version if the Government is not going to use the new provisons then why did they change it?.

– Extract of the Local Government Act as it exists today.

Part 4—Council Administration
Local Government Act 1989
Act No. 11/1989

74. Councillor and Mayoral Allowances

(1) A Council must review and determine the level of
the Councillor allowance and the Mayoral
allowance within the period of 7 months after a
general election.

(2) Subject to sub-section (3), the allowances
determined under sub-section (1) are payable
during the next 4 financial years.

(3) A Council can only vary the allowances
determined under sub-section (1) if—
(a) an Order in Council has been made under
section 74B which changes the range of
allowances that apply in respect of the
Council; and
(b) the Council has conducted a further review
of allowances.

(4) A person has a right to make a submission under
section 223 in respect of a review of allowances.

74A. General provisions relating to allowances

(1) A Mayor is not entitled to receive a Councillor
allowance if the Mayor is entitled to receive a
Mayoral allowance.

(2) A Council must pay a Councillor allowance or
Mayoral allowance as specified in the relevant
Order in Council made under section 74B.

(3) A Council does not have to pay an allowance
under section 74 to a Councillor or Mayor who
does not want to receive an allowance.

(4) A person is only entitled to receive an allowance
under section 74 while he or she holds the office
in respect of which the allowance is payable.

74B. Allowance Orders

(1) The Governor in Council may by Order in
Council—
(a) specify the amounts of allowances payable
by a Council as a Councillor allowance or a
Mayoral allowance;
(b) specify limits on the amounts of allowances
payable by a Council as a Councillor
allowance or a Mayoral allowance;
(c) vary the amount, limit or range of
allowances payable by a Council as a
Councillor allowance or a Mayoral
allowance;
(d) specify the manner in which Councillor
allowances and Mayoral allowances are
payable.

(2) An Order in Council may make the same
provision for all Councils or may make different
provision for particular Councils or for different
categories of Councils as specified in the Order in
Council.

(3) After an Order in Council has made provision for
the categories of Councils, an Order in Council
can not be made to change the category of a
Council unless a recommendation to that effect
has been made under section 74C(3).

(4) Any Order in Council that was made under
section 74 (as in force immediately before the
commencement of section 55 of the Local
Government (Democratic Reform) Act 2003)
and that was in force immediately before that
commencement continues in force until it is
replaced by an Order in Council under this
section.

74C. Advisory panel

(1) The Minister may appoint a local government
panel under Part 10A to advise the Minister on
matters relating to Councillor allowances and
Mayoral allowances.

(2) A Council may make a submission to the local
government panel requesting that an Order in
Council be made under section 74B to change the
category of that Council.

(3) If after considering a submission under subsection
(2) the local government panel considers
that the category of the Council should be
changed, the local government panel may make a
recommendation to the Minister that an Order in
Council be made to change the category of that
Council.

(4) The Minister must give effect to a
recommendation under sub-section (3).

75. Reimbursement of expenses

A Council may reimburse Councillors or members
of Council committees for necessary out-of pocket
expenses incurred while performing duties
as a Councillor or committee member.

– Extract of the Local Government Act prior to the amendments made in 2003 –

74. Allowances

(1) A Council must pay to each of its Councillors the
allowance specified in any Order in Council made
for the purposes of this section from time to time.

(2) A Council may pay to each of its Councillors a
higher allowance than that required by sub-section (1).

(3) However, the amount of the higher allowance—
(a) must not exceed any limit specified in any
Order in Council made for the purposes of
this sub-section from time to time; and
(b) must be the same for each Councillor.

(4) An Order in Council may specify that amounts
and limits higher than those specified for the
purposes of sub-sections (1) and (3) are to apply
to Mayors.

(4A) A Mayor is not entitled to receive an allowance as
a Councillor if she or he is receiving an allowance
as a Mayor.

(4B) An Order in Council may specify that different
amounts and limits are to apply in respect of
specified categories of Councils.

(4C) In paying an allowance under this section, a
Council must make the payment in the manner
specified in the Order in Council that specified the
amount of the allowance.

74B. General provisions concerning allowances

(1) A Council does not have to pay an allowance
under section 74 or 74A to a Councillor who does
not wish to receive it.

(2) A person is only entitled to receive an allowance
under section 74 or 74A while she or he holds the
office for which it is payable.

75. Reimbursement of expenses

A Council may reimburse Councillors or members
of Council committees for necessary out-of pocket
expenses incurred while performing duties
as a Councillor or committee member.

— Governor in Council Orders published in the Government Gazette —

Gazette:G26 Summary:Local Government Act 1989 S74 – Amending the Councillor & Mayoral Allowances for Greater Dandenong, Port Phillip, Whittlesea Page
Issue Date:30 Jun 2005
Download Gazette: http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/Gazettes2005/GG2005G026.pdf

Gazette:G26 Summary:Local Government Act 1989 S74 – Amending the Councillor & Mayoral Allowances for Greater Dandenong, Port Phillip, Whittlesea
Issue Date:30 Jun 2005
Download Gazette: http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/Gazettes2005/GG2005G026.pdf

Gazette:G13 Summary:Local Government Act 1989 S27 – Ministerial Order fixing Allowances for Councillors in Country Areas
Issue Date:29 Mar 2001
Download Gazette:
http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/Gazettes2001/GG2001G013.pdf