Direct Election of Lord Mayor under review

MELBOURNE ratepayers would no longer be able to elect their lord mayor under a controversial proposal to return the power to elected city councillors.

Herald Sun

A motion will be brought before Melbourne City Council tonight on whether to ask the State Government to consider abolishing the direct election of the mayor and deputy.

Council sources say if the change were put to the State Government and enacted, it could weaken Lord Mayor Robert Doyle's chance at another term in office.

Critics of council's current voting system claim that candidates with a high public profile and financial support are more likely to win direct elections, and not necessarily the best candidate.

The direct election of the lord mayor by ratepayers has been in place since John So won office in 2001.

There has been no review of the system since then.

The State Government passed legislation last week for the City of Melbourne to have regular electoral representation reviews conducted by the Victorian Electoral Commission.

That legislation was requested by council.

The motion before the Future Melbourne committee, meeting tonight, calls for public consultation over whether people would be required to vote in person, bringing local government elections in line with state and federal practices.

A second motion also brought by Councillor Jacqui Watts calls for the State Government to consider matters including:

ABOLITION of the direct election of the lord mayor and/or deputy lord mayor.

INCREASING requirements of election funding and disclosure provisions.

ABOLITION of deeming provisions and amendment to the company nominee provisions.

Both motions will be voted on tonight.

Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell said the electoral representation reviews gave the local community the chance to influence their council's electoral structure.

"Local government is the level of government closest to the people and this Bill increases the opportunity for the community to have more input," she said

UPDATE: The City Council has voted against the proposal to hold a public inquiry and review of the City of Melbourne's electoral system. Whislt The Lord Mayor wants to prevent the public from reviewing his position this should not prevent the State Government from proceeding and providing opportunity for public review.

SCAM WARNING: TecSavy Skype (03) 9016 4321

We recently purchased on line telephone number (03) 9016 4321 from SKYPE we thought it was a good number but it turned out to be a nightmare .

The number was previously registered with a group called TecSavy based in the USA (Although we have reason to believe it is in fact based in India or some other overseas country) They offer too good to refuse computer support services for a subscription of $100. If you subscribe they install software on your computer so their technicians can assist in any configuration issues. They also have your credit card number and other personal data that you provide when you subscribe.

TecSavy's US telephone number is +1.425.998.0460, When we called this number we received a recorded message by the US authorities warning subscribers not to provide any personal details or credit card information as the company my be associated with identity theft.

All emails sent to this company are also bounced.

We have reported this matter to the authorities and telecommunications provider.

If you are contacted by a company by this name or using (03) 9016 4321 as their Australian contact try and get hold of any contact information you can and report it to the police.

UPDATE: We did a DNS Internet provider search on TechSavy and the web of deceit became even clearer. They uses the services of a group called privacyprotect.org to mask the ownership of the web site. The addresses they used was listed as a Post Box in Queensland with a message that they do not receive any mail at that address (Why would you have a PO box and not receive any mail?) The telephone contact was in Denmark and the fax line in India. we called then Denmark number and we got a recorded message from a woman with an Indian Accent. It turns out that at every step there was false and misleading ICAN records. This is something that ICAN must look into as we soon discovered that http://Privacyprotect.org is used by a hots of doggy web sites to mark the owner of the web. We suspect in fact that TecSavy and privacyprotect are one and the same company. They certainly use the same server.

Update 2: Mirosoft published warning to users of fake engineers scam

Microsoft is warning its customers of a new scam that employs "criminals posing as computer security engineers and calling people at home to tell them they are at risk of a computer security threat."

The tech giant said that victims of the scam lose on average $875 after "the scammers tell their victims they are providing free security checks and add authenticity by claiming to represent legitimate companies and using telephone directories to refer to their victims by name.

Funds are stolen by the scammers using "a range of deception techniques designed to steal money," Microsoft said in a statement detailing the scam.

TOEFL vs IELTS Review

Both TOEFL And IELTS testing systems are seriously flawed in design and execution. They both are accused of marking inconsistencies designed to force the test taker to resit the exam.

There are numerous antidotal evidence about students who pass the IELTS or TOEFL tests and can not put a sentence together yet native English speakers who have studied in University constantly fall short a point of two from the required target.

We recently reviewed the TOEFL Test, which in Australia cost US$200 (Plus a $5.00 international conversion fee). The TOEFL Tests is very US centric with reports that the assessors, who are based in the USA, mark down students who have an accent they are not familiar with. As if to speak English you need to have proper tone that is a US or proper British accent, of course when it comes to the Australian Accent the American assessors hear that as a monotone accent. Points lost straight up.

The other aspect of comcern about the TOEFL test is that it is a very computer and time based assessment. Your really scored on your ability to access and understand the idiosyncrasies of the test itself not English.

The speaking test is very artificial. In a general conversation you are speaking to a live audience, with that comes feedback that you receive from the audience itself. It could be in the form of a perons reaction or facial expressions. With the TOEFL test it is like talking into a answering machine and recording a short statement or two about a topic that is once again very American in its content.

Similar concerns have been expressed about TOEFL assessors marking down Australian English as an error. Such as the use of colour as opposed to color or Neigour as opposed to neighbour. In discussion with a number of test takers there was an emphasis on learning the method of the test as opposed to the quality of English comprehension.

The assessors also know if you have purchased any TOEFL exam preparation test kits, which, if you have, will give you a potential heads up in the TOEFL scoring system.

The examiners collect a lot of statistical information before test, information that could compromise the integrity of the test results itself.

If you find yourself in the inevitable position of falling just below your target mark, and they know what that is, you have to pay an additional US$60.00 (Plus the $5.00 international transfer fee) per module. The published results are noted for their inconsistencies and lack of detail. Unlike the online sample test where you can get a report on exactly what you passed and where you fail, this information is not provided by for the actual TOEFL test. Which all makes the exam assessment that much more subjective.

English testing systems such as TOEFL and IELTS are big business, with government regulators using them as a means of approving or rejecting applications for further study or employment.

So which test is best? In our view both are just as flawed as each other.

They certainly do not provide a consistent test assessment and the management of both systems appear to be designed more around failing students in order to extract the greatest income and profit. TOEFL in Australia is cheaper then IELTS ($205 compared to $339) But TOEFL is way to time based and computer centric. Your writing skills assessment is a test of your typing skills. Mine, I know are bad, mainly because of poor eyesight to hand co-ordination.

What Australia needs to do is develop its own English language testing system. One that is designed for Australia and uses Australian context and Australian examples.

Why are we paying royalties to overseas companies when we could be keeping the profits in Australia?

The government has a long way to go in address this situation. Much more independent monitoring and review need to also made to ensure that the integrity of the testing regimes is maintains and not tainted.

Melbourne the unwelcoming City - Metro Stasi Ignore Our Human Rights

Just how unfriendly is Melbourne to Foreign students? Not only do we rip them off with IELTS testing, with reports of tens of thousands of students sitting the IELTS test every month and being charged twice as much as is charged in the UK, Ireland and the US. But they are also being exploited by the State Government public transport authority. Denied student concession to travel on public transport.

One student I know purchased a concession ticket not knowing that student concession did not apply to foreigners. No one explained the system and their level of English was low. They were here after all to learn English and to experience Australian life.

The student was stopped by the metro stasi and detained for questioning. Something that is very frightening for a foreign student who has little command of English and comes from a country where enfrocement authorities can be brutal and generally try to extract bribes.

Our Metro statsi ignored their human rights and in breach of government policy failed to obtain the services of a translator before questioning the student. Instead of giving the student a warning and information about our transport system in their own language they issued an infringement notice and a demand for payment of $160 fine. Welcome to Melbourne.

Shorten: Survey of one confirms what we know is true

Assistant Treasure Bill Shorten in his survey of one has conformed what we all know to be true. Retail and service providers have failed to pass on the win fall of Australia's high dollar to consumers. Prices of goods and services have not come down down down as the cost of purchase and profits from overseas services become cheaper.

A decade ago when the Australian dollar was low in value businesses were quick to pass on the costs of petrol and overseas manufactured goods to the public. Petrol broke though the one dollar a liter barrier and the costs of goods increased in compassion to the the Australian Dollar. Overseas travel became that much more expensive as the Australian dollar had to work twice as hard.

Today the opposite is the case. The Australian Dollar is twice as much in value yet the prices of goods and services has not gone down. Petrol remains high.

The extent of profit taking and opportunism is shown clearly in the English Language testing system. The cost of sitting an IELTS test in Australia is twice that of charged in the United States, UK and Ireland. The profits being paid to the the overseas licencing coping Seek Learning have doubled in value at Australia's expense. Instead of going up $20 from $310 to $330 the costs of sitting the IELTS test should have gone down.

It is this pocketing of the win fall and the failure to pass on some of the benefits of having a high dollar that has contributed to the decline in retail in Australia. With an in crease in the value of the dollar the cost of buying on line overseas sourced goods and shipping them to Australia has become much much more competitive and consumers are voting with their keyboards boycotting Australian retail outlets.

Add to that the cost of rent in shopping centers or the cost of parking within the City of Melbourne and extended hours parking restrictions apply and the landlords and City Council are also contributing to the economic inflationary pressure impacting retail in Melbourne. Instead of passing on the benefits oif a high dollar small retail outlets have the opportunity to use the win fall profits to off set other high costs associated with running a business in the city. Sure the City Council has discouraged shopping in the CBD. The CBD is no longer the place to shop. Services can be sourced on line and the consumer has to some extent greater choices. But this only applies where there is real competition but in prices and services offered.

organisations like Seek learning's IELTS have a legislative monopoly. Even though the Department of Immigration and Citizenship have began to recognise other accredited service providers the Skills assessment authorities such as the CPA and others continue to only acept IETLS as the only means of assessing English language requirements. If level of English is the aim of the skills assessment then why are they only prepared to accept IELTS as the only means of assessment. If alternative language assessments are available and accredited then why are not not being recognise.

Bill Shorten like that of many in Australia know all too well the price ripp offs we see day to day.

It is only by exposing the profit takers and subjecting them to real competition that the benefits of a high dollar will be passed on to residents.

Victoria's Count Back System of Shame

The City of Melbourne has concluded the count back of the 2008 Municipal Election ballot to determine who will fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Councillor Peter Clarke.

The successful candidate was Jackie Watts (Peter Clarke’s number 2 on his ticket).

Over 6,000 votes that should have been counted were excluded from the count.

Raising further concern about the system of Proportional representation used in Victoria’ municipal elections.

Whilst the result of the count back are not brought into question the method used in the count back is very much questioned..

Under the system adopted there are seven councillors elected to the Council with a quota of just under 1/8 of the total vote. The total vote divided by (the number of vacant positions plus one) minus one. Of which Peter Clarke represents one eighth.

Peter Clarke was not elected on the primary vote and relied on the distribution of preferences from other candidates. Clarke's surplus votes were also distributed on assisting the election of other councillors who were elected later in the count.

Peter Clarke had a primary vote of 5511 votes at full value (1.000)

He received an additional 3205 votes at full value and 18 fractional value votes following the distribution of preferences from excluded candidates and other candidates surpluses. Total value 8734

The quota for election was 7415. Clarke’s surplus of 1319 which was distributed to other candidates, remaining in the count, according to the voters nominated order of preference.

Under the VEC rules the recount only took into consideration the votes that formed Clarke's original quota, they failed to take into consideration other unused residual votes that remained on the table, effectively a full quota of votes was ignored in the recount. Votes which could have determined the outcome of the recount and the candidate who filled the casual vacancy.

By only considering Clarke's original set of ballot papers that were used to elect him the system has double counted some votes and excluded other votes which legitimately should have been counted.

The formula that should have been used should have proportioned Clarkes original set of ballot papers so that they together equal quota (Quota divided candidates total value of votes) times the value of the each vote.

This value should have then been added to any remaining residual value that had not been used at the conclusion of the original count brining the count to its final conclusion. In a full preferential ballot this should equal two quotas minus one. (Taking into consideration and exhausted votes that failed to express a valid preference for any continuing candidate.

All unelected Candidates should have been reactivated and include in the recount and value of the votes outstanding redistributed according to the voters nominated preference until a candidate has reach the original quota value.

This is not the process that the VEC or the legislation applied. They only considered the ballot papers that made up Clarkes original quota votes that when combined with the other residual votes could have produced a different result. But excluding the residual votes from the count these voters have been denied equal representation.

By Way of a theoretical analogy

The ALP number 3 Senate Candidate Jacinta Collins may have been elected on the back of preferences from the DLP who preferenced Jacinta Collins then preferenced Family First or some other candidate ahead of the ALP’s other candidates. The DLP vote when they were excluded from the Count continued on to elect Collins in the original election.

If Collins position subsequently became vacant and count back was used to fill the casual vacancy, under the VEC rules the ALP’s number 4 candidate would be elected but not on merit or on in accordance with the voters chosen candidate. The DLP vote would have been transferred to the Family First Candidate not the ALP and this vote could have resulted in Family First reaching quota before the ALP number 4 candidate. In a fair accurate system Family first’s Steve Fielding should be elected on the count back.

The City of Melbourne count back has highlighted some serious flawed in the system of proportional representation that has been adopted.

Flaws that were introduced by poor legislation drafting and designed to facilitate an outdated manual counting process. With the use of computer based technology it is possible and highly desirable that the system is reviewed and the rules amended to reflect more accurately the voters choice. Our system of Proportional representation and the count back rules, as they currently exist, is not really proportional but semi proportional at best.

If we cannot fix the system so that it accurately reflects the voters choice then we might as well do away with preferential voting which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to count and adopt a similar cheaper party list system as is used in Europe.

If we are going to retain the preferential voting and the associated expense of counting it then it should be accurate.

Questions raised as to the integrity of CPA English Skills Assessment Regime

In what is if ongoing concern to overseas students and foreign professionals studying and practicing in Australia, the CPA (Certified Professional Accountants) has recognised IELTS as its preferred and accepted English Language Test.

In recent correspondence to the CPA we received a reply that indicated that whilst the CPA is considering accepting TOEFL as an alternative skills assessment they are only prepared to do so where IELTS testing is not available. This would appear to be discrimination and anti competitive giving IELTS an unfair advantage in the market place .

On what basis the CPA can argue that TOEFL is acceptable under some circumstances and not all is difficult to understand to support. Maybe the CPA has a sponsorship arrangement with IELTS and Seek Australia who owns IETLS in Australia, maybe there is some unknown or undisclosed reason why they seek to lock TOEFL out of the market?

The Federal Government has rightly acted to ensure that there is competition in the English Language Testing market. Both IELTS and TOELF are recognised by the Federal Government as acceptable tests for English competence in immigration why not skill assessment?

If it’s good enough for one its good enough for all.

Clearly, in the absence of the CPA's ability to self regulate, the Government will have to act to ensure that all registered skills assessing authorities recognise and accept of all accredited English testing systems.

There could even be a case for class action in the various Appeals Tribunals or even the High Court to try and force the CPA into accepting TOEFL accreditation.

Anyone concerned about this should contact us to discuss further action.


Dear Anthony

Currently, the IELTS test is considered as one of the standard English tests recognised in Australia. CPA Australia together with the other two assessing authorities made the decision to require the IELTS Test Report from applicants to prove their English proficiency. However, we may in future consider other English tests, e.g. TOEFL for applicants who reside in areas the IELTS test is not available.

Kind regards,

Tracey Huynh | Qualifications Advisor | Qualifications Assessment Unit

Member Advisory & Information Services | CPA Australia

IELTS already overinflated set to increase by 5%

The Australian IELTS fee charged to foreign students and alike in Australia is set to increase by 5% to $330.00 come August 2011. the same test costs $180 in the UK, USA, Ireland and Ukraine.

There is no justification for the rip-off with substantial profits being paid to off shore entities and Seek Learning who in partnership with Australian Universities own the IELTS testing regime in Australia.

The high costs is used to buy support and extra income for Australian Universities. Students visiting Australia deserve a better deal. They have to pay high rents, get no concession in travel or any benefits other than an Australian education and the limited possibility of securing Australian residency after they graduate.

Those students who need English testing should look into TOEFL which is now accepted as an alternative English language test assessment. But do not expect parity, TOEFL costs $200 but is still $40 more expensive to do in Australia and other counties.

TOEFL not much better: Charging Australia 25% more than other nations

Following on from our IELTS Ripp-Off testing espose (It has produced nearly as many hits than the Snedden 15 year old bikini model issue). We are pleased to announce that the Australian Labor Government has acted to recognise TEOFL (The American based English language testing system) as an alternative test in terms of foreign students visiting Australia or immigration. Although some assessing authorities such as CPA are slow to adopt competition.

The TOEFL test costs Australia $200 per test and is some $117 dollars cheaper the the IELTS, which currently ripps off Australia by charging $317. (The cost of the same IELTS test in other nations such as the US, UK or Thailand is much cheaper costing around $180).

TOEFL is not better in the comparison stakes.

Whilst overall cheaper then IELTS, TOEFL charges Australia 25% more than does in other countries. For example in the UK, Ireland, Thailand and the US the TOEFL test is around $160-$165.

Why is the cost of both tests so much more expensive in Australia than in other Countries?

The Answer is because there is no real competition and Australia has not questioned the costs charged overall. It costs more to leave Australia then it does to pay the overpriced and inflated test fees.

Why is it important you may ask?

Well Australia, Melbourne in particular, has become dependent to the Overseas student market.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported, back in February 2011, that "Student visa applications from outside Australia fell 32 per cent in the last six months of last year compared with those of the same period in 2009, which in turn had fallen 22 per cent compared with the same period in 2008. The drop is frightening for universities because they have become dependent on fee income from foreign students to subsidise domestic students as the real value of government funding has declined."

We have been milking the student migration system for a decade ripping off students. Its not small bikies either. With hundreds of thousands of people sitting English languate testing in Australia each year it is big business a 100 million a dollars a year industry. It not just the test ot is the support, pre-testing and training that adds to the profit margin. It is surprising the media have not picked up on the excessive dispartity charges, but then they also have a stake in the pie though sponsorships, endorsements and advertsing as do politicans, political parties and the like., Foreign students do not have a vote but they do vote with their feet and their wallets.

The English threshold level has been set much higher, making it that much harder for migrant applications to succeed.

With the slowdown in Immigration and the tightening up of the skill assessment, English testing has become a means of discriminating against foreign students wishing to migrate to Australia.

Students are very much aware of the price comparisons between Australia and overseas. They are foriegn students after all. The fact that it is more expensive to sit the same test in Australia then else where sends the wrong message about Australia. It leaves a sour taste and ever lasting impression on the foriegn student experiance of living in Australia a message that is being projected beyond our shores.

Clarke calls it quits as he takes on the design of greener pastures.

Melbourne City Councillor, Peter Clarke, has called it a day and has given notice of his intention to quit the Council having served just over one and a half terms. Peter Clarke has accepted a generous offer from his good friend and Premier of Victoria, Ted Baillieu, to head up the Urban Renewal Authority. A position that comes with twice his salary as a Councillor, his own office, secretary and plenty of opportunity for international travel. Why would you hang around a powerless and non influential City Council when you can enjoy the trappings and benefits of a plum position that has little accountability or oversight?

Clarke's pending resignation, which takes effect in three weeks time, will cause grief for the City Council and the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC). The VEC must contact all candidates within 14 days of the vacancy occurring to ascertain who is willing and able to continue be elected in a count back of the 2008 City of Melbourne Council ballot. They then have a further 14 days in which to determine the winner and results of the election.

This sounds fine and in theory should be a straight forward exercise given that all the preference votes were transcribed and recorded electronically, but it is not as straight forward as some might think. It is unclear if in fact the VEC has designed, developed and tested its software to process the count back as required under Schedule 3A of the Local Government Act .

The method of calculating the results of a count back are messy in deed.

Analysis of the provision of Schedule 3A has highlighted a number of discrepancies in the way the Count back is to be counted. With votes being redistributed at an overall higher value then should be. Some votes will be counted twice in the process of determining who is elected.

The problem lies in the drafting of the rules and the formula used to determine the transfer value of ballot papers deemed to have contributed to the quota that elected Peter Clarke back in 2008. How ever drafted the rules should be sacked and never allowed to get near the legislative drafting computer again. The main problem being the interpretation of clause 12. Another problematic clause is clause 10 (3) and the definition of "necessary".

It will be interesting to see what changes the VEC will try and implement to facilitate an electronic count and if those changes are in fact necessary or just desirable. Of course if it can be established that the changes implemented were not necessary in order to conduct a computerised count then they cannot be adopted without causing a jurisdictional error - which could lead to possible challenges in the courts.

Preliminary Analysis indicates that there are two main contenders for the vacancy that will be created. First is Dr Jackie Watts, who was second on Peter Clarke ticket, the other possible contender is a second Green's candidate - Rohan Leppert.

We will wait with baited breath to see just how open and transparent the recount process is and if Candidates will have the same rights to appoint scrutineers to oversee the recount process. A scrutineer can only do their job if they are given access to the detailed information records and transfers of the votes. Thankfully copies of the preference data-files were published back in 2008 so it should be possible to independently verify the results of the count back election before hand.


HOW MUCH WILL IT COST

It depends on how much the Victorian Election Commission will charge the City of Melbourne for the recount. This is another issue that is worth watching more closely.

Given that the VEC is the only organisation that can conduct the count they can overcharge the City of Melbourne, as they did when the rate payers were slugged $200,000 to develop the counting software in the first place back in 2002.

Thanks to a poorly negotiated contract by Alison Lyons, the City of Melbourne retained no IP rights or value for its investment. It was just money transferred from the General Rate Revenue to the VEC developers pockets.