Constitution and Local Government .. “UPDATE” .. 5
June 2013 .
Rule of Law to
govern must be contrasted against the “rule” of
tyrants and dictators!
In Australia
the Rule of Law established for our country 110 years has been corrupted by
party politics without our consent – that means the political party system is
corrupt. The correct way to fix it should be through the courts, but, the State
courts are also corrupt!!! Decisions are often based on the corporatised style
of “government” called the Australian system of government which causes our
constitutional freedoms and rights to be refused.
Please ask yourself: “Who
then are the tyrants and dictators in this country?”
Also ask: “What am I
doing about that, and how do I join other concerned people?
Constitutional
change to S 96 … to bring “Local Government” into the Constitution.
The federal government has just released the following Bill
into Parliament. (Quote):
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION
(LOCAL GOVERNMENT) Bill 2013.
96 Financial assistance to
States and local government bodies
During a period of ten years
after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament
otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State,
or local government body formed by a law of a State, on such terms and
conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
(End of quote)
The underlined part is to be added to the constitution if
referendum approval is provided in September. The Bill says it will start after
“Royal Assent” is provided! BUT …
Consider whether the Bill is legitimate in that there is no
lawful Parliament - Lower and Upper Houses – nor is there a lawful G-General. Since
2003 the act of the WA Governor to prorogue Parliament is deficient due to the
fact he stands there in “power” without a WA constitutional change authorising
his appointment in a new WA constitutional setup which (now) supposedly exists
without the lawful/constitutional Crown (of the UK).
[Check the Acts
Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 (No 65 of 2003) in WA, and, check what requires a
referendum in WA if repeal of a constitutional setting of this nature is
proposed in WA!]
Corruption of Commonwealth constitutional arrangements is a
consequence of the WA changes as the (now!) “Governor” is not lawfully there.
He had no authority to prorogue the Senate members of Western
Australia in the Commonwealth Parliament in either
the 2004, 2007 or 2010 leadup to elections. Why is this corruption not
discussed by media?
What does this mean to you and I as we try to live in Australia ? Further …
What are the likely consequences if the proposed
constitutional change is approved?
- Power
to
- The
door is opened to constitutional recognition of “local government”. BUT … do we actually have true
“government” at this level? NO! Are we not going to muddy the waters
with THREE “levels of government” arguing about who does what! It’s a mess with TWO level of
“government” without a third one!
- People do not trust the councils! Transparency and efficiency is doubtful to say the least. More power to councils through federal funding is a serious issue!
- Grants of federal funds to State governments occur now .. with some terms and conditions, so, why not grant money through the States to the councils now? The need for the proposed change must have some other motive! What is it?
- We are
over governed now! So, why cement into the constitution a third tier we
all rejected in referendums held in 1974, and again in 1988. It doesn’t make sense!
The Attorney-General
would have us believe nothing else will change, but I have no confidence in his
statements to the public, nor in the push to get more federal power.
Councils in the
action – unlawfully. Public
money for political purposes is not allowed.
Is your council giving to the Municipal Association of
Victoria [MAV ] to support a YES vote? If so, how lawful is that, and, what are you
doing about it?
I have emailed the
Whitehorse City Council Mayor, placing this before him:
Last week
the Leader newspaper provided detail of an intended payment of $50,000 from
council to the MAV to support a YES vote in the upcoming referendum.
Given the
statutory constraints on council in the LGA, Section 3 - to serve the
community - then Whitehorse Ratepayers & Residents Assoc. says this
money spent hardly serves the community!
It is a
discriminatory attitude to support one side of the community argument, and it
is unacceptably "political" to spend ratepayers public money in
this way.
I would appreciate your attention to
this as a matter of public concern for the Protected
Disclosure Act 2012 enables people to make a "disclosure" about
improper conduct by Councillors and Council officers. One such disclosure is
listed as: • A substantial mismanagement of public resources. I look forward to your response within 7 days.
“Without direct funding from the Australian Government for
local roads and community infrastructure, councils would not be able to provide
all the services that our communities need,” Mayor Lewis said.
“Councils simply can’t afford to fund the growing list of
services that have been passed on to local government in recent years without
Commonwealth support. We need the vote of every MP to ensure the
Constitutional Alteration Bill is passed and every Australian has the
opportunity to vote on this important issue at a referendum.”
To allow councils to continue to receive federal funding
directly without it having to be administered by State Governments, the Federal
Government is proposing to include the following additional words in Section 96
of the Constitution:
…the Parliament may
grant financial assistance to any State, or
local government body formed by a law of a state, on such terms and
conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
“It is acknowledgement of the reality that the Commonwealth
partners with local governments to deliver local roads, sporting fields,
libraries, child care and other community services,” Mayor Lewis said.” (End of
quote)
Ask why States cannot be provided grants with terms and
conditions to permit local roads and community infrastructure .. and for ALL
the services that our communities need?
Ask why should councils try to afford funding a growing list
of services that have been passed on to local government (by other
governments?) without support from them?
Ask why should the State be removed from administering funds
to its own department? Don’t forget,
municipal councils are creatures of statute of the State. And, the State should remain totally responsible
for them. VOTE NO to the referendum.
Municipal
Association of Victoria [MAV ]
has improper part to play.
It is reliably reported that at the 2012 State council
of the MAV it was resolved to issue a
"voluntary levy" on all member Councils as a contribution to funding
the national "Yes" campaign in the event that the referendum were to
proceed. The methodology used for calculating the levy for each Council is
based on population and revenue.
So, are my “rates” also a “voluntary levy”? What happens if a council does not pay?
Public
Meeting on 25 June 2013 … “Voting,
democracy and transparency”. Whitehorse Ratepayers & Residents Assoc.
has arranged for Mayor Munroe to speak at a public meeting on 25 June 2013 .
Discussions on council TRANSPARENCY,
Council elections, S 96 referendum, etc.
It will be in the MU Hall, 8 Main
Street Blackburn at 8.00pm . Diary date it, and, tell others to be there.
Support the efforts of this organisation, be ready with questions for the Mayor,
and make sure a good number attend as this is an important public event.
Rates. Tell me if you (or a
friend) are facing council legal action, being taken to court for not paying
“rates”. If you are unable to pay rates, or have chosen not to, let me know
too.
There
are workings by RVI towards a Class Action, and, it will be of
interest to you.
It is important you
send me your email to get on the Class Action interest list, and get to see
your friends are added there too. Send
details to: peterjil@iinet.net.au
This will not commit you to financial obligation, however, finances are
needed at the moment to kick initial legal directions into proper place.
Support funds can go into the Commonwealth Bank BSB
063146 A/C 10274393 and will only be spent on the work to move this CA forward
– and particularly, with my approval.
Consider the CEO has
told the Rates Manager “make sure Olney pays his rates!”
Council lawyers gave until 31 May 2013 to me to make payment of rates and charges. BUT
… I made an offer to council which is responding to council calling me “owner”.
For more info. … Google www.realaussienews.com/site3
I am still waiting for WCC
to answer my specific questions – including how it establishes I have “liability”
– before I pay “rates” this year.
Council’s legal hounds were provided
a letter of concern as council has not been transparent at this stage.
Agenda 21. Environmental sustainability agenda by UN
forces affecting councils. This is done through ICLEI, and a recent ICLEI
gathering reported “attendees dismayed over growing grassroots opposition to
Green agenda”. Well, I hope you consider the impact of Agenda 21 and stop it in
its tracks. Check to see what your council is committed to with “sustainability”
in its agenda, and for why?
RVI …VOTE NO
campaign.
Ratepayers Victoria
is active with a Vote NO campaign. The material below is for your use as ONE
way to discuss the issue with other family members and friends. At present not
too many people are aware of the constitutional change in mind, so it is very
useful to get the message out at an early date and to share wise thoughts
across the nation.
Use ‘Facebook’, ‘Twitter’ and any social media means to
spread the message for a NO vote on the day.
Consider carefully why it is the federal government is not
properly using State means to provide funds to councils now! There is NO NEED for this constitutional
change.
Pass on this ‘Update’ to others in your connections,
and more widely.
I look forward to
keeping you "in the loop". Meantime, keep in touch with me.
Contact: Peter
Olney .. peterjil@iinet.net.au
Ph: (03) 9874 0784.
REFERENDUM - 14 SEPT 13 .. VOTE
NO .. VOTE NO.
Why is the federal
government wanting to have power to pay directly to councils?
What is the
consequence of approving the government referendum proposal?
How can we stand
against unfettered federal power? Vote
NO. Vote NO.
A third tier of
government was refused in 1988 at referendum - the people spoke!
This will be the
third attempt by the federal power hungry politicians to alter the constitution
– Ie. 1974, 1988, and now!
If this new
referendum is passed:
1.
a means for
federal power to over-ride State power is established!
2.
the legal
door is opened to a third level of “government”.
3.
the door is
also opened to the ultimate demise of the sovereign States as our life
experience is that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.
4.
what “terms
and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit” will likely be tied to the federal
funds provided to councils?
5.
there is NO
guarantee of certain federal funds to councils!
Remember well:
1.
the
federation of States has a purpose – to protect you from tyrants!
2.
States can
be provided federal money through S 96 now, so why the power grab?
3.
there is NO
reason for federal power to be exercised in State affairs.
4.
a Westminster
5.
the
Constitution sets out there are only TWO levels of government.
6.
the
deception/s provided by government/s is a sad legacy in this country - we have
to be wise and more than careful about this matter.
Ratepayers and
residents are involved – all property owners will be affected.
A submission was made
by Whitehorse Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc. to the Expert Panel
last year. See the Expert Panel Final Report - submission 240.
Ratepayers Victoria
Inc. supported the submission. To the above thought provoking
and important aspects
to the referendum proposal must be added an article in the Sydney Morning
Herald by Chris Berg – which gives far-reaching material!!!
Chris highlights government tyranny “The bill authorises the
government to spend money on 415 areas of public policy without having to ask
Parliament for permission ever again” So, the question has to be asked about
intentions and transparency of federal Parliament? Put another way, Don Chipp
of Australian Democrats continued saying we have to “keep the b………. honest”. The only way to do that is to again VOTE NO.
For more vital material to use on councils then Google www.realaussienews.com/site3
No comments:
Post a Comment