RRC 15/01/26
- agentorangechild
- Jan 15
- 4 min read
Updated: Jan 28
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
I do not accept that the matters I raised have been properly addressed, nor that Council is entitled to refuse review in the manner asserted.
For clarity, my request was not a challenge to the validity of the rate notice itself, but a request for review of Council’s administrative handling of hardship, communication processes, and the escalation of enforcement — including the decision to refer the account to external collections while engagement was ongoing.
I also formally correct the record as follows:
239 Kerrigan Street, Frenchville QLD 4701 is our principal place of residence.
I do not believe Council’s records or handling of this account reflect that status. Any assessment, communication, hardship consideration, or enforcement decision made on the basis that this property is not our principal place of residence is therefore based on an incorrect premise and must be reviewed.
Please confirm in writing:
That Council records correctly reflect 239 Kerrigan Street as our principal place of residence; and
The date on which this was recorded or corrected.
Further, I note the following for the record:
Hardship and disability considerations
Council has obligations to act reasonably, proportionately, and with regard to hardship. Recommending financial counselling while refusing to assess hardship, escalating to external collections, and declining to guarantee written communication is not a hardship response.
Payment arrangements
The assertion that arrangements were refused solely due to “previous payment history” is not, in itself, a lawful basis to deny a payment plan. Payment proposals were made in good faith during a period of financial and medical instability. Escalation occurred while communication was ongoing.
Delegation to Collection House
Referral to a collection agency does not remove Council’s responsibility for this account. Council remains the decision-maker and retains discretion regarding enforcement, review, and arrangements.
Written communication
Given my circumstances, I reiterate that written communication is required. “Endeavouring” to comply is insufficient where disability and trauma are involved. This request is reasonable and proportionate.
Review refusal
Council’s statement that “no further review will be completed” is noted. This correspondence therefore forms part of the administrative record demonstrating that Council declined to review hardship handling, communication processes, enforcement escalation, and a material factual error regarding principal place of residence.
I will continue to correspond in writing only. Please confirm the appropriate internal escalation or review pathway, noting that external collection activity does not preclude Council review or intervention.
Note to Council if you are reading here…
“The very hardship you are relying on was caused by long-term harm for which the State bears responsibility.”
Email received from council 27/01/26
Escalation via Council Portal
27/01/26
Dear Chief Executive Officer,
I am lodging a formal complaint regarding the handling of my rates account by Council’s Revenue team.
This complaint does not dispute the existence of the rates debt. It concerns process, procedural fairness, and refusal to consider relevant information.
My concerns are as follows:
In late 2025, I requested a short-term payment arrangement. I did not receive any notification from Council confirming whether this request had been approved or declined, nor any clear direction as to next steps. Despite this, subsequent correspondence asserts that I “failed to attend to payment.”
In January 2026, I therefore requested a full review of notices, communication, and decision-making, specifically because I had not received confirmation or notification from Council regarding the outcome of my payment plan request. Council has now stated that no further review will occur and that the matter is “finalised,” despite this request.
Council failed to take into account relevant hardship considerations, including longstanding health-related financial instability linked to toxic remnants of war (TRW), which directly explain the payment pattern relied upon to deny discretion.
By way of context, I note the recent statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, Dr Marcos Orellana, confirming that toxic remnants of war can cause long-term and intergenerational harm affecting health, livelihoods, and economic stability:
Council also failed to consider significant, recent compounding circumstances occurring during the relevant period, including:
two military-related deaths in my immediate family (my father-in-law on 25 February 2025 and my brother on 1 July 2025); and
the fact that I have been medically unable to work since February 2025, which materially affected my financial position.
The correspondence dated 27/01/26 states that no future requests for payment arrangements will be approved, indicating a rigid, blanket refusal rather than an individualised assessment.
I am concerned that Council has:
failed to take relevant considerations into account,
failed to provide clear notification regarding a payment plan request,
applied policy inflexibly,
prematurely closed review pathways, and
redirected the matter to debt collection while review was sought.
I request that this complaint be reviewed at an executive level, independent of the Revenue team, and that I be advised of the outcome.
Please confirm receipt of this complaint and the process by which it will be assessed.
Due to Trauma everything must be in writing.
Warm Agent Orange Burns regards,
Danielle Stevens
Geneva AP1 Article 77 Protected Person
We will always be a child of a Vietnam Veteran
A formal complaint has been lodged with the International Criminal Court for Crimes against Humanity. The final submission was the 1st of July 2025.
Council Complaint Reference: 1109204
(Acknowledged by Rockhampton Regional Council on 28 January 2026)
Comments