Archive for November, 2012

Farm Direct Markets SA….How you can help!

November 25, 2012

I need your help please.

I have put a lot of work, many hours and a little more money than I can afford into doing all I can to support our struggling farmers and growers, the concept of “Farm Direct” Markets for the suburbs are well received by the community, and a great help to our producers.

It all started with a rally to get people to buy local, which was held on 25th of August, costing me many of hours of work and over $1000 in costs, thousands attended, but many local growers were told not to attend, seems self interest in the Industry was more powerful than I could have known.

The outcome was a huge rally, thousands of people, but those producers who endured the pressure and attended on the day, sold out of produce before we ran out of customers.

The community wanted access to cheap local produce, they want to support our farmers and producers, and the growers loved the idea of having places to sell their produce for a fair price, so they could pay their bills and stay on the land.

“Our nation needs to stand up for its long term fresh food future in any event”

The Ideal of “Farm Direct” became a reality, and the first Market opened up in Enfield on the 15th of September, only to be met with council opposition, in their words from pressure from the local retail industry (Coles/Woolworths) seemingly unhappy that their goal to own 100% of the market between them would be hampered by these new markets.

Gawler Markets were not enduing the same issues, as it was out of town, and more so based on the “Farmers Market” tradition, to explain; “Farm Direct” is about supporting farmers and growers, in where they can work together to sell both, their own and neighbouring farms produce.

Council red tape, slowed the new market concepts growth, complete redevelopment of whole shopping complexes, was total overkill, and we simply refused to comply. They even tried to close the new market based solely on the fact customers were provided with samples of the produce, because what if we dropped the knife used to cut up the fruit and veg, even though we met all the health and safety requirements, seems a tap 10 feet away, needed to be replaced with each stall holder having its own water supply?

Enfield and Gawler remain, and as of the 23rd of November we now have “Salisbury Farm Direct” & “Hindmarsh Farm direct” markets, Salisbury is the best option to grow to meet the demands of the north, simply based on area, infrastructure and parking, but we need help!

To market such an Ideal is a financial Burdon, we can’t achieve in the short term, word of mouth will grow the market, but we are left with one important issue to address, the Riverland growers hardest hit by government mediocracy, need to bring larger quantities, to make it profitable for them,, and state government red tape, does not allow then to return with unsold produce, so we need to ensure the community is aware of the markets existence.

Once we have all these markets up and running, we will be able to ensure that all south Australian farmers or growers in need, have a place to sell their fresh produce, therefore ensuring their survival on the land, and their ability to resist take over by foreign investors, and avoid dodgy growing contracts.

This will be a huge win for the state as a whole, we protect the long term viability of our growers, and the community gains access to the best produce at affordable prices, and combined with the existing “Farmers Markets” we can sure up our food bowl for future generations.

To finalise this we need the support of the media, the people and eventually the government and local councils, once this is achieved, it will become a blueprint for other states to follow.

Please show your support, write and spread media articles, talk back radio, printing up flyers, letting friends and family know, sharing our social networking pages, writing letters to the editor, tell people how cheap and fresh the produce is, and coming along to any of the markets, there are no losers with this concept, other than the duopoly who are there to feed only corporate greed and inferior imported produce.

GAWLER; Gawler park open air market 485 Main north rd. Evanston Sundays 7.30am until 1.00pm

*ENFIELD; 9.00am every Saturday 445-449 Main north rd. Enfield (Enfield plaza)

HINDMARSH; Opened on the 23rd November to run every Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 9.00am until 4.00pm corner of Manton st & South Road, our smaller market until we access the local councils position

NEWTON; TBA

*SALISBURY; Opened 24th November 2012 Parafield Airport, from 8.00am until 2.00pm every Saturday, expanding on demand.

ARNDALE; TBA

 

http://www.markmaldridge.com/FARM-DIRECT-MARKETS-SA.html

https://www.facebook.com/freshfoodaustralia

Mark Aldridge “Independent Candidate”

08 82847482 / 0403379500

Advertisements

What is “The Australian Constitution:

November 8, 2012

What is the Australian Constitution?

The Constitution of Australia is the supreme law under which the Australian Commonwealth Government operates. It consists of several documents. The most important is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The Constitution was approved in referendums held over 1898–1900 by the people of the Australian colonies, and the approved draft was enacted as a section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), originally an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

“The Australian people helped write and pass the constitution as a document to protect the people and the integrity of our system of politics and justice”

Royal Assent was given by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900, upon which date the Constitution became law. It came into force on 1 January 1901 by virtue of a proclamation issued by Queen Victoria on 17 September 1900, pursuant to section 3 of the Act.

The Statute of Westminster 1931 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Passed on 11 December 1931, the Act established legislative equality for the self-governing dominions of the British Empire with the United Kingdom, freeing Australia from legislation of what was becoming a foreign power, the UK.

The Australia Act 1986 removed the power of the United Kingdom parliament to change the Constitution as in force in Australia, and the Constitution can now only be changed in accordance with the prescribed referendum procedures.

Australia referred to two Acts at the same time, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments in Australia and the United Kingdom to come into effect simultaneously, because of uncertainty as to which of the two parliaments had the actual authority to do so, or maybe because neither wanted to wear the consequences.

The Australia act and the previous Statue of Westminster 1831, slowly took the power away from the queen to invalidate legislation, or makes demands on our parliament, something very few Australians were privy to.

“These acts also took away the powers of the queen to sack either representatives or the government, which empowered those who enacted the Act, rather than improved the position of the people or the nation as a whole”.

The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act made Australia an independent nation (though it had been a de facto independent for many years before then), while the Australia Act was written to sever the last remaining constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom.

Under Australia’s common law system, the High Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia have the authority to interpret constitutional provisions. Their decisions determine the interpretation and application of the constitution.

Changes to the constitution are only possible by referenda, where the people directly vote on any proposed changes, while the constitution itself protects the Australian people against its own governance, and provides power to the judiciary, over recent years both the courts and the government have attempted to water down those protections.

Since the enactment of the Australia Act, it appears the governments have come to believe they can now write legislation that tries to skip around the protections inherent in our constitution, in fact it is also worth noting that the judiciary also at times forget the importance of this founding document, clearly showing a preference to back government legislation even when it clearly is outside the powers of the government to so write.

The very fact that the constitution is out of sight out of mind, and in fact very much unknown to the people of Australia, in recent years parliament and our court system act as if it no longer exists, the words “The constitution no longer applies in this court” have been heard by my ears on many occasions, yet when legislation is questioned in the high court, it has become a regular occurrence to see poorly written legislation fail.

What the people of Australia dare not forget, is the constitution was written by us, to protect not only the people but to ensure a fair system of justice, the very fact that our present parliament and indeed our prime minister have turned their backs on our founding document, diminishes their position, not the protections and value of the Constitution itself.

“In recent times attacks on our constitution have been many, the demise of our property rights, commercialising water, the existence of local government, any taxation imposed that is not issued by the federal government like for instance council rates, the structural biases in our electoral system, inequity in laws between the states, legislative attacks on minority groups and many more”.

The government register all their departments as corporate entities, like the NRM (National resource management) which at law appears to mean we must be in contract with these government departments or supposed local governments, before we interact with them, yet the legislation that empowers such organisations provides them powers that appear beyond the scope of our government to so issue.

You will also find by way of a simple Google search that the Australia government has also become a corporate entity registered in the US, the governments answer to this unique situation is one of “We have to register our nation to be able to do business with other nations”, what a load of garbage, Australia has successfully dealt with other nations, as a sovereign nation, without the need to be dictated to.

I will make note at this stage on the need to consider an easier method of the protection and understanding of our rights, simply because years of casual study still leaves the air of uncertainty for even those considered experts on the issues of civil and human rights, let alone acceptance of our legislative agenda.

“A simplified bill of rights that can become a high school subject, and become retrospective on current legislation, appears the most educated way forward.”

The greatest issue facing our long and short term future is the known fact that those in a position to bring change, and those we elect to protect our best interests, are the very same people working to take your rights and liberty’s away.

Our present Prime Minister Julia Gillard did not take the oath under the schedule of our constitution to be sworn in as prime minister, an issue which our constitution deems “Representatives incapable of sitting”

Section 46;  Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 42 Oath or affirmation of allegiance  

                  

Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor‑General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution. 

 

The question worthy here, is if our own prime minister can become ignorant of our founding document, then are we the people left with no protections in our own country?

 

On 3/9/1988 a referendum with the following context (provided by the AEC) was put to the Australian people. It was (3) Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988. The legislative proposal was,

“119A. Each State shall provide for the establishment & continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State & empowered to administer, and to make by-laws, for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State.”

 

The result of this referendum was the people voted NO, yet local government now write law, without the right, the knowledge or the capacity to police or administer, tax their constituents (rates), issue fines, and cover local business in expensive red tape.

 

Yet these organisations never existed before the Constitution, they were not involved in public debate when writing the constitution, and their attempts to be recognised or even continue to exist, were knocked back by the Australian people, so not only do they have no right to exist, any legislation that attempts to empower them is invalid, if indeed the constitution still holds any value.

 

We see headlines that the councils are considering taking people’s homes for non payment of the Taxes, yet if like me you read high court cases, the outcomes beg to differ, so could it be considered that most law being used is only as valid as the peoples lack of knowledge, or have our rights genuinely been taken by stealth.

 

The constitution also covers taxation, in fact not so long ago, the high court acknowledged that only the federal government could collect taxation,

 

“The High Court of Australia ruled that “State Governments could not raise ANY TAX” and because of this the ‘State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol’ was removed.”

 

Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and confirmed by the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that the power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.

 

So consider some of the massive costs that affect our lives, starting with Councils, who charge us rates and believe they have the ability to dictate local policy, is a state government cannot tax its people, how can the local council tax us, or are they bluffing?

 

“John Winston Howard, Peter Howard Costello & ’Commissioner for Taxation’ Michael Joseph Carmody all stated before the introduction of the infamous “Goods and Services Tax”, Quote:  “Local government Council Rates will attract no GST because Council Rates are a tax and we can’t tax a tax”, similar questions could be asked about land tax!

 

“If the Parliament of the State did not have the powers to empower local government before the Referendum, they were most certainly prohibited from having them after the Referendum.”

 

Note; A ‘rateable person within the meaning of the local government act 1995’ did not exist at the time of the federation of the states into a commonwealth. It can be seen then, that since ‘local government’ did not exist at the time of Federation, then there can be no continuance of local government or its laws beyond the NO of the Australian people?

 

When as citizens we try to grasp exactly what our rights are, we are not only confronted with a mired of information, it is the interpretation of words and understanding of precedents that empowers self determination in our judicial system and our ability to deal with government, something I consider the sole domain of societies wealthy, leaving us at the mercy of misinformation and what could easily be described as “Stand over tactics”.

 

So let’s look through a few more sections of the constitution, and consider whether its ideals are still protecting us as a sovereign nation, and if indeed our representatives are still acting in both the constitution and our best interests.

 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 80

Trial by jury

The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.

Yet we see trial by jury denied in many cases, where indeed it can only be denied by the mutual decision of both parties to an action.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 47

Disputed elections

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.

The Parliament no longer hear such cases, and state electoral legislation now allows disputed returns to be heard by a single judge, overriding once again our constitutional protections, in a case I held in 2010, the outcome “Regardless of the conduct of an election, a general election cannot be invalidated” even when the election under common law strayed so far from the legislative protections it was not an election at law.

Going further, the aforementioned case evidenced tens of thousands of missing names, tens of thousands of missing ballot papers and over 25 offences of the protections of the act itself. (Full details under the article “Democracy the whole truth” on my website

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 117

Rights of residents in States

A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.

Therefore issues like the trial of the basics card in underprivileged areas, is again legislation that offends this Act, it also implies that the bill of rights enjoyed by the Victorian residents, by way of this section, applies to all Australians, which would undermine most recent legislative changes, which all have sections that are ignorant of the protections we deserve, or would apply under a bill of rights.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – CLAUSE 5

Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3]

This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

If referenda are of value to the constitution and its primary goals, then referenda results apply across the Nation in every parliament and court.

I have heard the words many times in all levels of our court system “The constitution does not apply in our courts” begging the question, “can our courts exist without it?”

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 8

Qualification of electors

The qualification of electors of senators shall be in each State that which is prescribed by this Constitution, or by the Parliament, as the qualification for electors of members of the House of Representatives; but in the choosing of senators each elector shall vote only once.

The constitution allows one vote, not a vote that can be devalued and or passed on, without the will of the elector being known, in fact recent election conduct, has exposed that an electoral commission may “guess and electors intent beyond that they have marked” allowing a single vote to be transferred, even if the electors mark determines a different result of their will. (see result of court of disputed returns 2007 SA supreme court acting as)

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 109

Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Yet go to court over say a speeding fine, to find the devise that is telling the court you were committing an offence, does not comply with commonwealth legislation, but it does comply with state legislation, and the later is upheld, we indeed have issues.

Recently in the courts I proved a current devise did not comply with law, state or commonwealth, yet the outcome was the fine still stands, so has the law become an ass?

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 128

Mode of altering the Constitution [see Note 1]

This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first‑mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first‑mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first‑mentioned House will not agree, the Governor‑General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first‑mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one‑half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor‑General for the Queen’s assent.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

If the people say NO, that means NO, if the constitution is to be altered, then we have the final say, we the people, the terms are simple.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 100

Nor abridge right to use water

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.

 

AUSTRALIA ACT 1986
– SECT 5
Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of

Westminster not affected

Sections 2 and 3(2) above:

(a) are subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and to the Constitution of the Commonwealth; and
(b) do not operate so as to give any force or effect to a provision of an Act of the Parliament of a State that would repeal, amend or be repugnant to this Act, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, the Constitution of the Commonwealth or the Statute of Westminster 1931 as amended and in force from time to time.

It appears parliament misunderstood the application of the Australia act 1886, because the act does not impede but rather support the protections and separation of powers that accompanied its proclamation.

The mere fact the Australia Act took away the powers of the queen under the constitution, did not with its application take away any of the people’s rights under the constitution.

The debate surrounding the introduction of the Australia Act were based around the removal of the queens powers found in the constitution, but did not go as far as affecting the schedule, or in fact the oath, and in respect an Act that changes the substance of the constitution, ought to have been approved by the people as part and parcel of the protections the constitution awarded in any respect.

With our a clear referenda supporting the Australia Act, it seems debatable such an Act is valid without consent by referenda, but in any respect its affects do not and never could support the current actions of state, federal of local governments.

As a sovereign nation, we have never had to stand up for our rights, other than the eureka stockade where many stood proud for our right to vote, so it is time now to stand behind our constitution, to demand its protections are upheld, and to look for an educated way forward in respect of our rights and liberties.

My position is we need to make our rights and liberty’s known, a new bill of rights attached to our constitution, which spell out in lay terms exactly what protections we have, to ensure our judiciary and our representatives also know the limits of their actions.

 

 

Mark M Aldridge

Independent candidate for South Australia

THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONS VALIDITY……(local government and law)

November 4, 2012

THE AUSTRALIAN CONSITUTION, DOES IT EXIST?

 

The question relating to recognition of local government/councils must be asked!

Statement #1:

The High Court of Australia ruled that “State Governments could not raise ANY TAX” and because of this the ‘State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol’ was removed.

It can be clearly seen that the authors of the Constitution were not allowing for any Parliament other than the Federal Parliament to impose a tax. Therefore, the only land rates/tax that can be imposed within Australia is one imposed by the Federal Parliament through the Commissioner for Taxation.

Unless we receive a “Rates Notice” from the ‘Commissioner for Taxation it is INVALID and UNLAWFUL.

Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and from the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that the power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.

Since parliaments of Australia has no powers under the Australian Constitution to impose taxes, which has been, determined where The High Court of Australia ruled, “State Governments could not raise ANY TAX” and therefore, “Land Tax” is unlawful.  The state governments will have to lodge an appeal to the High Court of Australia to overturn the previous decision before they can legally impose such tax upon the people or have the federal Government hold a referendum to alter the constitution.

Section 109 of the Australian Constitution states:

“When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”

 

Because the Parliaments of Australia are subject to the Commonwealth Parliament and also subject to the Commonwealth Constitution, the states cannot lawfully impose a ‘Land Tax’, ‘only the Commonwealth Government holds such taxation authority’.

“The very same applies to local governments continuance and application of rates and taxes issued on their behalf”

(State governments cannot be awarded powers from the commonwealth that are not theirs to hand over)

Until the State’s of  Australia can provide a legal authority either from the High Court of Australia; or from the Federal Government giving authority to raise taxes, to comply with your intentions would be in breach of the law itself, that you are bound to uphold. When you present such legal authority we will certainly provide the information you request.

Statement #2:

COUNCILS ILLEGAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

 

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE ILLEGAL UNDER THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION DETERMINED BY TWO REFERENDUMS

 18 May 1974 & 3 September 1988

The Australian Electoral Commission on their CD “Australian Referendums 1906—1999” have advised the following points:-

  1. “Under the Australian Commonwealth Constitution any powers not delegated to the Commonwealth are the prerogative of the States UNLESS THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY DENIED.”
  1. The Referendum on 18th of May 1974

Q4. Local Government Bodies – The fourth proposal sought to amend section 51

of the Constitution to give the Federal Government power to give financial

Assistance to lend and borrow money for any local government body.

  1. The people voted NO.
  1. Q4. The referendum was NOT carried.

One State recorded a YES vote (NSW), however; nationally only 46.85% of electors voted YES.

TODAY WE HAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING LOCAL GOVERNMENT INDIRECTLY THROUGH LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL WILL OF THE PEOPLE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXING  THE PEOPLE AGAIN WITH OUT LEGAL AUTHORITY.

  1. The Referendum on 3rd of September 1988

                Q3: Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988.

Q3.To alter the Constitution to recognise local government

  1. The people voted NO.
  1. Q3. The referendum was NOT carried.

No States recorded a YES vote. However; nationally only 33.62% of electors voted YES.

  1. The legislative proposal was, “119A. – Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in

Accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make bylaws, for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State.”

  1. Unlike a plebiscite, a referendum is binding on the government.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

 

The Commonwealth Government is funding Local Governments directly contrary to the Constitution.

All local government has been constitutionally illegal since 3-9-88 when there was a referendum to incorporate local Government into the Australian Constitution, and prior to the referendum, there has never been any implied legality.

This means that all local government authorities now operate without a lawful head of power. The legal bind is that states cannot retain legislation that condones any form of local government.

Thus all levels of government are operating illegally ignoring the instructions of the people.  If the government will not obey the Constitutional Will of The People and thus democratic law, why should the people obey parliamentary law?  The precedence has been set.

FURTHERMORE Local Government Rates are deemed a tax thus no GST is applicable.

Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and from the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that the power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.  No states have authority under the constitution to impose a tax. Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and from the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that “The power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.”  Thus Local Government Rates being a tax are unlawful and in breach of the constitution.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT RECOGNISED WITHIN THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION AND WAS REJECTED

AT REFERENDUM OF THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE IN SEPTEMBER 1988 THEREFORE LOCAL COUNCIL HAS NO LAWFUL BASE

 

 Thus Councils Should Be Dismissed And Local Government Department Administrators Appointed Permanently.

1.       In no section within the Australian Constitution is there provision for the Federal or State Parliament to establish a third level of government without the permission of the people via a Federal Referendum.

2.       The High Court of Australia ruled that “State Governments could not raise ANY TAX”, and because of this the ‘State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol’ was removed.

3.       It can be clearly seen that the authors of the Constitution were not allowing for any Parliament other than the Federal Parliament to impose a tax. Therefore, the only land rates tax that can be imposed within Australia is one imposed by the Federal Parliament through the Commissioner for Taxation.

4.       Unless we receive a “Rates Notice” from the ‘Commissioner for Taxation it is INVALID and UNLAWFUL.

5.       Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and from the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that the power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.

6.       The Courts of Australia have long held that council rates are a tax. Yet, under the Australian Constitution, the Parliaments of the States do not have the power of taxation.

7.       “John Winston Howard, Peter Howard Costello & ’Commissioner for Taxation’ Michael Joseph Carmody all stated before the introduction of the infamous “Goods and Services Tax”,

        Quote:  “Local government Council Rates will attract no GST because Council Rates are a tax and we can’t tax a tax”.

 

8.       The organizations known as ‘local government’ did not exist at the time of the federation of the states into a commonwealth.

9.       A ‘rateable person within the meaning of the local government act 1995’ did not exist at the time of the federation of the states into a commonwealth. It can be seen then, that since ‘local government’ did not exist at the time of Federation, then there can be no continuance of local government law.

10.   Since ‘local government’ did not exist at the time of Federation, then there can be no continuance of ‘local government’ law. Similarly, as ‘local government land rates tax’ did not exist at the time of Federation there can be no continuance of ‘local government land rates tax’ from that time to now.

11.   Following a recommendation of the Constitutional Commission of Inquiry (1985 – 1988) a Referendum was held in September 1988. (“The Constitutional Commission found that there was no basis in law, contained within the Constitution for the provision of ‘Local Government”). They found that barely 50% of the population even knew of the existence of the Constitution, let alone its contents, and that only a few percent of those under 25 years of age knew of its existence at all.)

12.   Question 3 from the referendum was:  A Proposed Law; ‘To alter the Constitution to recognise local government.’  Do you approve of this alteration?

13.   The specific (federal Referendum) proposal was:-

(3) Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988…. 119A, “Each state shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the state, and empowered to administer, and make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the state”.

“Note; the word CONTINUANCE, implies the Australian people voted NO to the existence and continuance of local government, full stop”

14.   It was recognized that the Parliaments of the States did not have the power to establish a third tier of government via ‘local government’ and an amendment to the Constitution was necessary for them to obtain these powers.

15.   If the Constitution had to be altered to allow for the establishment of ‘local government’, before there could be a continuance of ‘local government from the time of federation, then it is clear that these powers did not exist at the time of the Federation of the States into a Commonwealth.

16.   Therefore, if the Constitution had to be altered to allow for the “establishment and continuance” of ‘local government’ these powers did not exist at the time of Federation or sections 106 to 108 of the constitution would have applied and the constitution would not have had to be altered.

 

17.   For the Constitution to be able to be changed, there must be a majority, (either for or against), in each state and a favourable majority must be returned in a majority of States.

The Australian Electoral Commission advice:-

“Referendum results – 3 September 1988”

“(41) Local Government”, being totally reject by 3 084 678 votes of the Australian people.

“Question 3”.

“A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognise local government.”

“Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

“The Constitution recognises government at the Commonwealth and State levels but makes no mention of local government. Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988 sought to give such constitutional recognition to local government.”

18.   “Obtained majority in no State and an overall minority of 3 084 678 votes.

19.   Therefore the continuance of Local Government in defiance of the referendum vote of the people is unlawful?  Thus the Ministers would be acting in accordance with the Australian people’s referendum results if they dismissed any local Council.  In fact it is encumbered upon them to explicitly follow the instruction of people’s referendum and dismiss all councils.

20.   No other conclusion can be derived from this result other than that Local government was not legally recognized by the people of Australia, who are the Government of Australia through their agents in Parliaments.

21.   The Parliament of the State did not have these powers before the Referendum, and they were most certainly prohibited from having them after the Referendum.

22.   This was confirmed by the Parliament of NSW Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee (No 5), Report 19, Local Government Amalgamations, December 2003 which states on page 51, at 4.78: “Local Government is not recognized in the Australian Constitution. In 1974 and 1988 constitutional recognition of local government was considered in referenda to change the constitution but neither referendum was successful.”

23.   The members of the various Parliaments of the States and the Commonwealth are the elected representatives of the people of Australia. They are not there as representatives of the Parliaments, but as elected servants of the people. Twice, in 1974 and in 1988 the people of Australia (the Government) told their elected representatives that they did not wish to constitutionally recognize local government.

24.   Since the people do not wish to recognize ‘local government’, and since the Constitution does not recognize or grant the power to establish a third level of government, then under Section 109 of the Constitution it was illegal for any Parliament of  Australia to enact the Local Government Act’s.

25.   The 1988 Referendum was a public act under the Federal Constitution. Sections 106 and 108 subject the Constitutions of the States to the over-riding authority of the Federal Constitution and Section 118 requires that full faith and credit be given throughout the Commonwealth of Australia to the laws and public acts and records of every State. If full faith and credit is given, there appears to be NO LEGAL WAY any States can overturn the specific outcome of a Federal Referendum

26.   The Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act of 1906-1973 is a Commonwealth of Australia Act. The Schedule of the Referendum Act provides the wording of the “Writ for Referendum” and includes the words:

27.   “We (the Electorate) command that you (the parliament) cause a proposed law entitled… ……… to be submitted, according to law, in each State to the electors qualified to vote for the election of Members of the House of Representatives” (for each of the six states). It is clear that a “Writ” directs that a Federal Referendum must be by way of a vote state by state. This has the same effect as a state referendum, but under the Federal Act, by doing so invokes Section 109 of the Australian Constitution as an authority that over-rides any inconsistency in the legislation of the States.

28.   Since the state parliament’s of Australia has no powers under the Australian Constitution to create a Third Tier of Government, and since they were twice told by the people they serve that the people did not wish to recognize Local Government, then the enactment of the Local Government by-laws and and state government legislation relating to local government/councils is illegal.

 

29.   The Constitution was formatted to protect the Australian people from a number of things, and also to give the people of Australia the ability of Self Determination of Government.

I make note at this stage, that the above issue is one that has opened the door to many similar issues, as a direct result of the people being unaware of their rights, all be them confusing and hard to understand for the lay person.

The judiciary of this country make a habit of undermining what little rights the Australian citizen is entitled to, using such words “The constitution has no place in the courts” yet the constitution Act is what empowers the courts, and clearly by way of Clause 5 of the Act.

NOWHERE DOES IT PERMIT THE PARLIAMENTS, OR THE JUDICIARY, TO OPERATE OUTSIDE THESE GUIDELINES.

Here is a brief list of other offending statements and actions seen on a regular basis in Australian courts and parliaments, which attack the core values of our constitution.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 80

Trial by jury

The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.

Yet we see trial by jury denied in many cases, where indeed it can only be denied by the mutual decision of both parties to an action.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 42

Oath or affirmation of allegiance

Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor‑General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution

Juliar Gillard ignored section 42, as have several representatives, which makes a mockery of our highest laws, and clearly shows many supposed representatives are not elected and or have any right to hold office. (full article on my site http://www.markmaldridge.com

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 47

Disputed elections

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.

The Parliament no longer hear such cases, and state electoral legislation now allows disputed returns to be heard by a single judge, overriding once again our constitutional protections, in a case I held in 2010, the outcome “Regardless of the conduct of an election, a general election cannot be invalidated” even when the election under common law strayed so far from the legislative protections it was not an election at law.

Going further, the aforementioned case evidenced tens of thousands of missing names, tens of thousands of missing ballot papers and over 25 offences of the protections of the act itself. (full details under the article “Democracy the whole truth” on my website

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 117

Rights of residents in States

A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.

Therefore issues like the trial of the basics card in underprivileged areas, is again legislation that offends this Act, it also implies that the bill of rights enjoyed by the Victorian residents, by way of this section, applies to all Australians, which would undermine most recent legislative changes, which all have sections that are ignorant of the protections we deserve.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – CLAUSE 5

Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3]

This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

If referenda are of value to the constitution and its primary goals, then referenda results apply across the Nation in every parliament and court.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 8

Qualification of electors

The qualification of electors of senators shall be in each State that which is prescribed by this Constitution, or by the Parliament, as the qualification for electors of members of the House of Representatives; but in the choosing of senators each elector shall vote only once.

The constitution allows one vote, not a vote that can be devalued and or passed on, without the will of the elector being known, in fact recent election conduct, has exposed that an electoral commission may “guess and electors intent beyond that they have marked” allowing a single vote to be transferred, even if the electors mark determines a different result of their will. (see result of court of disputed returns 2007 SA supreme court acting as)

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 109

Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Yet go to court over say a speeding fine, to find the devise that is telling the court you were committing an offence, does not comply with commonwealth legislation, but it does comply with state legislation, and the later is upheld, we indeed have issues.

Recently in the courts I proved a current devise did not comply with law, state or commonwealth, yet the outcome was the fine still stands, so has the law become an ass?

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 128

Mode of altering the Constitution [see Note 1]

This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first‑mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first‑mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first‑mentioned House will not agree, the Governor‑General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first‑mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one‑half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor‑General for the Queen’s assent.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

If the people say NO, that means NO, it the constitution is to be altered, then we have the final say, we the people, the terms are simple.

 

Mark Aldridge Independent Candidate