On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Andrew McGlashan wrote: .. The Victorian constitution recognizes local goverments: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca1975188/ Section 74a: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca1975188/s74a.html Anongst others it states: (b) is constituted by democratically elected Councillors as the governing body I am not a lawyer either but I doubt whether councillors voted in by business representives can be considered "democratically elected". Regards Peter

Well, it certainly does not represent "the demos". Local government is certainly the last bastion of "property rights" determining voting. Property conditions existed in the Legislative Council of Victoria for some time as well.. "Incremental changes were made to the rules governing membership and voting qualifications for the Legislative Council between 1908 and 1950. In 1908 women were granted suffrage for Legislative Council elections. In the same year, property conditions for voters were relaxed to £10 of freehold property or a £15 annual lease. In 1922 Legislative Council Members first received a wage (£200 per year), the minimum age for a Member was reduced to 21 years of age in 1937 and in 1950 universal adult suffrage was adopted in the Legislative Council." c.f., http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/publications-a-research/informatio… All the best, -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 0432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 03:04:27PM +1100, Lev Lafayette wrote: They look like a species of Citizen's Electoral Council or Lyndon Larouche style nutters, with the usual right wing paranoia and conspiracy theories. if they're not a branch or splinter group or even a rebranding of the CEC, they deserve to be treated the same (i.e. ignored and or laughed at) The headings on their highlighted articles are a giveaway "Tax is Voluntary?", "Licenses are Illegal?", "Fines are Unlawful?". As is their Jan 2010 announcement of Monkton's tour "Lord Christopher Monckton is touring Australia to debunk the pseudo science behind Climate Change." couldn't find anything about Prince Philip and his genocidal conspiracy with the WWF to take over the world, and nothing about flouride and bodily esssences either. but that could be because i didn't spend more 5 minutes looking at the site. And what's with the lion and unicorn in the Coat of Arms at the top of the page? Australia's CoA has a kangaroo and an emu. the lion & unicorn is the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom. I guess it's an indicator that they're pro-royal monarchists....but they can't even get that right - Queen Elizabeth II's relevance to Australia is as Queen of Australia, not as Queen of the UK.. FWIW, i'm anti-republic but only because i don't want a president, not because i'm in favour of the royals. a Queen 20000km away and a mostly-ceremonial head of state is better than a local Pres. Especially after the Constitutional Crisis of 1975, a GG knows that their place is to do nothing of any real note. A president is likely to think they can and should be doing things. craig -- craig sanders <cas(a)taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #61: not approved by the FCC

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 05:05:44PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: i have read further. complete waste of time. they're only "relevant" if you believe their self-serving misinterpretations of both law and constition. could have fooled me. it looked like a typical right-wing nutter's web site. all the usual talking points, the usual self-serving misinterpretations and simpleton straw-man logic, and the usual childish "but i don't wanna pay tax it's not fair" whining. true enough, the constitution does not recognise political parties. it neither prohibits nor endorses them. parties are annoying and have partially subverted the representative nature of the australian democracy, but they're not unconstitutional. there's no definition of HOW a rep. should represent their constituency. what the loony right ignore on sites like this is that the constitution does not forbid elected reps banding together according to interest or ideology, or to get something of value (the votes of other reps, for or against particular Bills in the House) in exchange for their own. parties are, at worst, a flaw in the system....but it's better to have them out in the open where the public can see what's going on than to have the same stuff going on in secret. and just as with independant - no party - reps, if the voters think that they haven't been represented properly, they get to vote in someone else in the next election. General Ripper certainly thought so. craig -- craig sanders <cas(a)taz.net.au>

Craig Sanders wrote: I didn't hear about that one -- with pandas, or kayfabe?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 03:52:31PM +1100, Brent Wallis wrote: so far, so good. can't disagree at all, at least about human persons if not non-human entities - in fact, i was going to make the same point. no, they should not. a company is not a person. granting them voting rights as if they were a person not only undermines democracy, it's actively destructive of it. yes, yes, i know. companies are made of people. so is soylent green. companies are, by definition, made up of multiple people - who, then, gets to vote on their behalf? or do they get one vote per owner/shareholder? per board-member? per employee? are volunteers counted? craig -- craig sanders <cas(a)taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #391: We already sent around a notice about that.

If a company (or sole trader) leases business real property then you'll find that the business pays the property rates of the land it leases, unlike a residential property.