Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Hi,
On 19/02/2013 9:38 AM, Petros wrote:
From: "Rohan McLeod" They operate today under falsely [illegally] against the current constitution. Well that would seem to be implied by a proposal to change the constitution. What is proposed will in some ways legitimize their illegal actions. So their actions are in conflict with the Australian constitution directly; or some state or federal law ?
One of the problems with local councils is that they are government sponsored corporations. So as corporations they are sponsored by state government or the federal government ?
For starters, the way the local councils impose fines is illegal, the way they calculate rates is illegal too Sorry just so I am clear what is being contended; By ' illegal' is here intended, conflict with the Australian or Victorian constitutions directly; or some state or federal law ? -- the latter they are relying on an Act of the Victorian government which is invalid. Victoria has it's own outdated constitution which hasn't been updated as required [1]. I am reading this as 'they are relying an Act of the Victorian government which is in conflict with the Victorian constitution' ?
The local governments seem to work in a grey area now, as far as I understand it. Absolutely, but a change to the constitution by way of a referendum is likely to simply rubber stamp these and other grey areas and cause us much more to be concerned about Andrew would it be possible for you to summarise the relevant proposed changes ? -- a real loss of rights for us and a real increase of actual power for the local council corporations.
Well, we already sell the position of the City of Melbourne Mayor to some Chinese property businesses. I am reading this as " the Melbourne City Council sells the position of City of Melbourne Mayor to some Chinese property businesses" is this correct ? and how does it occur ? Welcome to the Chinese Democrazy! It works on the similar base over there, governments and business side by side for the great mutual benefit of the biggest and the best. Correct me if I am wrong, the Chinese national government is only elected in the sense, that the governing committee is elected by the membership of the Chinese Communist Party; what the situation is in the various provinces I have no idea; I believe Hong Kong has an elected government of some sort. A constitutional amendment to recognise the role of local governments could be good if it cuts back some of these irregularities. It won't, Sorry I'm missing something here; what change is proposed and how can we be certain, it won't "cut back some of these irregularities." but it will cause significant damage to our rights under the Australian Constitution instead. Many apologies Andrew but again; what change is proposed ?and how can we be certain, it " will cause significant damage to our rights under the Australian Constitution instead "?
Unfortunately, ANY change to the constitution will put the whole constitution at risk. Why ?; this seems quite an extraordinary contention; you will need to explain what you intend and why you think it is true . ...........snip I cannot stress enough, that ANY change to the constitution will be a serious risk to our rights What rights ?; I wasn't aware the Australian Constitution guaranteed any rights; wasn't that the reason that some group or other was advocating inclusion of a 'bill of rights'; in the Australian constitution , for precisely that reason ? and has the potential to make our entire constitution absolutely worthless. It is simply not worth the risk, no matter what is proposed Since this the second time you have stated this; it is obviously something you believe in; perhaps you can explain the basis for this belief ?;
regards Rohan McLeod