Re: [luv-talk] Fwd: local government
From: "Rohan McLeod"
Well referendums are usually to change the constitution; so I am interpreting "governmental recognition" as 'constitutional recognition'. Whether constitutional recognition of local government would necessarily increase their power, would seem to depend on the proposed change.
The local governments seem to work in a grey area now, as far as I understand it. It starts with the election process which is violating the most basic of all democratic rules, the "one man one vote" rule. "I want to have a say where I pay my taxes" does not cut it. If so, Coca Cola, Apple and Shell should be allowed to vote for the Australian Parliament. (Or they are getting exempt from paying taxes;-) Well, we already sell the position of the City of Melbourne Mayor to some Chinese property businesses. 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. A constitutional amendment to recognise the role of local governments could be good if it cuts back some of these irregularities. I wonder why they exist here and are not thrown out by now. Did nobody go to court to defend his democratic voting rights? Regards Peter
Hi, On 19/02/2013 9:38 AM, Petros wrote:
From: "Rohan McLeod"
Well referendums are usually to change the constitution; so I am interpreting "governmental recognition" as 'constitutional recognition'.
Yes, a dangerous change that can only take place by way of a successful referendum motion.
Whether constitutional recognition of local government would necessarily increase their power, would seem to depend on the proposed change.
They operate today under falsely [illegally] against the current constitution. What is proposed will in some ways legitimize their illegal actions. One of the problems with local councils is that they are government sponsored corporations. For starters, the way the local councils impose fines is illegal, the way they calculate rates is illegal too -- 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 Victoria has it's own outdated constitution which hasn't been updated as required [1].
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 -- 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. 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.
I don't disagree that is what corporations do and I don't want any possibility to "legalize" or "legitimize" this situation.
A constitutional amendment to recognise the role of local governments could be good if it cuts back some of these irregularities.
It won't, but 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. This is not just an issue over local governance, it is much more encompassing ... the recognition of Aboriginals for instance, is another area of reform that is not necessary; Aboriginals, like any other Australian person are already protected by out constitution (as are "illegal" immigrants that enter our shores by whatever means). I cannot stress enough, that ANY change to the constitution will be a serious risk to our rights and has the potential to make our entire constitution absolutely worthless. It is simply not worth the risk, no matter what is proposed -- and that is irregardless of whether or not you agree with the any assertions that have been made above or at the following link. [1] http://www.religiousword.com/2012/04/the-1975-victorian-constitution-is-inva... -- Kind Regards AndrewM
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
Hi, On 20/02/2013 4:30 PM, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
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.
If they are acting illegally today (as I believe), then there are two courses of actions: 1 - wind up local councils or make them comply with the law [we are over governed anyway] or 2 - adjust the law so that the councils can continue doing as they please .... for better or worse, more likely worse if you want my opinion;
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 ?
The Australian Constitution sets out what can be taxed, by whom and under what circumstances, this includes rates that are charged by councils [and limits (perhaps by omission only, I don't know) what can be charged as well].
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 ?
Essentially they are allowed to get away with charges beyond that which they are entitled (the councils) and both state and federal governments are not taking action against the unlawful practices of the councils. If the councils collect more money, then the state and federal governments see that as a bonus.
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 ?
It conflicts with the Australian Constitution.
-- 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' ?
Not quite, a Victorian Act was passed, they (local councils) rely on that "law" to determine the rates they charge land owners. It is my understanding that the Victorian state law was passed without the authority of Royal assent [1] -- currently Victorian laws do not get Royal Assent as they are a "law unto themselves" these days; this as a result of their own unconstitutional law that avoids the rules of the Australian 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 ?
It's probably too early to be sure about what exactly will be proposed, submissions only just ended this month (February 15 to be precise). But the goal is to provide a referendum which will be used /on the face of it/ to give local councils recognition as "local government" authorities.
-- 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 ?
That one is beyond my knowledge at this time.
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."
We can't be certain of anything other than changing the constitution is a risk -- use current laws if there is fraud and/or corruption taking place, do not risk destroying our constitution. It is much safer to simply say "NO" to any and all referendum, that is to stay on the safe side of the argument, rather than risk losing rights to hidden agendas of any kind (whether understood or not). There is also a proposal (not sure where it is at) for recognizing Aboriginals in the Australian Constitution.... this again, is completely unnecessary as EVERY person in Australia is already "protected" by our existing constitution as it stands today, again, any interference with it is risky at the very least.
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 "?
As I understand it, if a change is made to the constitution, then they'll ensure that it is worded in a way that lessens or removes a great deal of the protections that have been built in to protect the people. The government (any government) doesn't care about the people as much as they care about being in government and the power that goes with that privilege.
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';
We actually DO have a "bill of rights" it is little known, but it relates to our heritage and how the laws prior to federation apply to this land. We do not have our OWN bill of rights though, we don't need one either. This website [2] explains some of the things that I understand on this matter. I don't profess to be an expert on this matter, but I do strongly believe in keeping the Australian Constitution unchanged. [1] http://www.comlaw.gov.au/content/whatisit#assent [2] http://www.clrg.info/constitution-facts/ -- Kind Regards AndrewM Andrew McGlashan Broadband Solutions now including VoIP Current Land Line No: 03 9012 2102 Mobile: 04 2574 1827 Fax: 03 9012 2178 National No: 1300 85 3804 Affinity Vision Australia Pty Ltd http://affinityvision.com.au http://securemywireless.com.au http://adsl2choice.net.au In Case of Emergency -- http://affinityvision.com.au/ice.html
participants (3)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Petros -
Rohan McLeod