Barnaby Is Wrong

9 May


From the Australian:

SENATOR Barnaby Joyce says he will vote in a referendum to recognise local governments in the constitution and allow federal funds to flow directly to them.

But he has slammed the federal government’s timing of the announcement and its failure to say what the exact wording of the referendum will be.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard launched the “yes” campaign for the referendum on Thursday

At the federal election on September 14 voters will be asked to decide whether local councils and shires should be recognised in the Constitution.

Mr Joyce told reporters in Sydney on Thursday he would vote “yes” but questioned why the government had announced the referendum now.

“They’ve announced a dopey wedge that’s actually going to compromise our capacity to get up financial recognition of local government,” he said.

“They’re trying to create a distraction and this is why people don’t like politicians and get so cynical.”

No, people don’t like politicians because we have learned … and they daily continue to prove … that everything they say and do is just a smokescreen.

A smokescreen of words, camouflaging an unrelenting self-interest.

“Financial recognition of local government”, they say?

Bollocks, I say.

This referendum is about nothing more, and nothing less, than enabling the bureaucrats and politicians in Canberra to bypass the State governments.

In other words, to further increase the centralising power of the Federal government –

Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore described the referendum as “necessary” but about a “non-contentious” change.

“This referendum is essential to ensure that the Commonwealth parliament has the power to provide direct financial assistance to local government,” Ms Moore said in a statement.

I say “No” to this referendum proposal.

Indeed, I would generally say “No” on principle to any referendum proposal suggested by politicians and/or bureaucrats.

The only referendum that is likely to be worth even thinking about voting “Yes” to, would be one suggested by the general public.

Which is why I am a supporter of Swiss-style Direct Democracy.

Where the people are recognised in the Constitution, and have the power to force a referendum on the topics that they think are important.

Such as revoking the laws passed by politicians.


From Quadrant (h/t Twitter follower @HiggsBoson4) –

While, at first reading, this proposal might have a benign appearance, a little thought reveals that the proposal restricts the state governments.

The idea of “democratic recognition” being included in the Constitution has the effect of limiting the power of the state government to fulfil its governmental responsibilities in such way as the state parliament chooses.

The “independent” panel’s discussion paper presents two possible proposals as follows:

Each state shall, and each Territory may, establish and maintain a system of local government bodies directly chosen by the people.

Each state shall, and each Territory may, provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government elected in accordance with the laws of the state or Territory.

Each of these proposals is an attack on state sovereignty. If either is appropriate at all, the place for it is the state constitutions, not the Commonwealth Constitution. Inclusion of either in the Commonwealth Constitution would limit the states’ power on how their governmental responsibilities should be administered….

Recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution has been rejected three times. The first was when the Constitution was drawn up, the second was at referendum under a Labor government in 1974 and the third was at a referendum under a Labor government in 1988. There is now an opportunity to appreciate the reasons for the three previous rejections, the reasons for now rejecting the proposal a fourth time and voting “No”.

As I was saying …

42 Responses to “Barnaby Is Wrong”

  1. mick May 9, 2013 at 5:01 pm #

    Anyone who has had anything to do with local government would quickly realise that local government is the most corrupt form of government in the nation. Consider the Land and Environment Court decision last week which in its decision slammed Gosford Council for not having fixed its zoning regulations long ago. Indeed the issue of residential homes being turned into Function Centres has been in the shire for over a decade and has been highlighted in the local paper time and time again:

    1. Why did they not fix it? Because Gosford Council has a business relationship with the real estate industry whose interests are pursued despite not being in the public interest and being harmful to anyone who live near one of the hell houses in question.

    2. Why does the real estate industry have any interest? Because a weekend rental to a family brings in $400 whilst a weekend rental to a bucks group up to 25 participants brings in $2000 or more. It is clear.

    So lets all be careful to not throw the baby out with the bath water. What we need is for the Commonwealth to make senior staff and elected members (councillors) accountable for mischievous and corrupt conduct. This is not happening and because the state government turns a routine blind eye nothing much ever changes other than the players.

    What did Gosford Council do after the decision and before the formal ruling has even been posted? What else, run a motion to try and circumvent the decision. What else. This is what happens when lawless people are given the reigns of power.

    Whilst I totally agree with the removal of 1 layer of government I would not wish to see Dracula be put in charge of the blood bank. I would prefer to see the state government take over the role of local governments with a Board picked from the community, with no more than 1 third business interests thereon, to suggest policy. The final decision would then be left to the state government, not vested interests which consider residents and ratepayers as the providers of funding and collateral damage where the interests of their business mates are at stake.

    The problem with the Central Coast has always been APATHY. Its all too much trouble. I don’t want to speak up and be seen to be a dissenter. Let somebody else fix it. I’m going to the club tonight so no time to attend a meeting. In the end we get what we all deserve. GET INVOLVED or shut up and enjoy being abused.

  2. Kevin Moore May 9, 2013 at 5:04 pm #

    If a referendum is to be held how is it possible except by deception to change anything?

    According to Educational Speaker Winston Shrout –
    From Solutions in Commerce

    “1. Local Governments in Australia are corporations, eg: the Coffs Harbour City Council is a corporation registered on the Australian Business Registry with the number of 79 126 214 487.

    2. State Governments in Australia are corporations, eg: the NSW Parliament is a corporation registered on the Australian Business Registry with the number of 89 288 775 026

    3. The Federal Government in Australia is a corporation, ie: the Commonwealth of Australia is a corporation registered in the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission with the number of CIK (0000805157) SIC: 8880. CIK is the Credit Suisse Asset Management Income Fund, Inc. (the Fund) – is a diversified, closed-end investment company.

    The Fund’s investment objective is to seek current income through investment primarily in debt securities.SIC is the “Standard Industrial Classification” and the SIC Code of 8880 has the “Industrial Title” of “American Depositary Receipts.”

    The Commonwealth of Australia is a “debt security”, packaged up as a “corporation”.

    Do the People of Australia know their country is owned by a “closed-end investment company” in Switzerland?

    What does that make the People of Australia? Personnel or merchandise?”

    What this must mean is that all Australians are considered to be corporations or corporate entities incorporated into the Commonwealth of Australia as corporated. The legal system operates by Statutes/Acts or in other words decrees or edicts, which are only applicable to corporations or corporate entities, and not to flesh and blood, living, thinking men with natural God given rights. Everyone registered is given a corporate name on a certificate at birth, the name is a legal fiction. All fictions are lies.

    The Commonwealth of Australia registration number (CIK 0000805157) is not a country, but a privately owned foreign corporation, which is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission?

    The Reserve Bank of Australia (NRET 066 319 864), the bank that creates all our money, is a privately owned foreign corporate bank.

    “Our Banking System Operates With Zero Reserves”


    Extract from a letter

    On 3rd September, 1986 a referendum of the whole of the Australian electorate was held.

    Question (3) 199A read, “each state shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local governments, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the state and empowered to administer and to make by-laws for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the state.”

    The referendum was not carried. It obtained a majority in no state and an overall minority of 3,084,678 votes.

    Despite the negative result of that referendum of the people, and in direct defiance of the electorate of New South Wales, in 1993 the New South Wales government passed The Local Government Act as legislation of the New South Wales government.

    Your council has no constitution and relies totally on the Local Government Act for its lawful authority.

    The Local Government Act legislation did not become law until it had received royal assent from the then Governor of New South Wales, Peter Ross Sinclair, on the 1st July, 1993.

    Peter Ross Sinclair received his commission as Governor of New South Wales on 8th August 1990. That commission was granted to Mr. Sinclair by the ‘Queen of Australia’ under ‘our sign manual’ and the public seal of New South Wales.

    The High Court of Australia in the Sue-v-Hill case (June1999) ruled Britain to be a foreign power.

    The title “Queen of Australia” was created by the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 which can only be and is a titular title, both in nature and in fact, as clause 2 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia states, “The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom”. As clause 2 is within the first 8 covering clauses and outside of the Constitution, which itself is at clause 9, it therefore cannot be changed as per section 128 of the Constitution.

    The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a letter dated 4th August, 2003 stated, “ The Queen in her role as Head of State of the United Kingdom and as such advised by British Ministers, has no executive power exercisable within the Commonwealth of Australia”.

    For the Queen in clause 2 to appoint Governor Generals and Governors she must use ‘The Great Seal of the United Kingdom’ and to use this and the Royal prerogative she must have an order from the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. The “Queen of Australia” had none of the above and I therefore believe has no valid authority to issue such commissions.

    The Chief Justice of the High Court, the Hon. Murray Gleeson in his book “The Rule of Law and the Constitution” (ABC Books 2000) stated at page 6 “the sovereignty of our nation lies with the people, both as a matter of legal principle and as a matter of practical reality”.

    In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division London, case # CH/2004/APP/0447 The Hon. Mr. Justice Lightman said “As soon as Australia became independent the 1900 Act ceased to have any effect as an exercise of sovereign power of the United Kingdom.” The 1900 Act referred to is… ‘an Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK)’ which is legislation of the United Kingdom parliament and contains the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia at clause 9.

    I believe that it is not legally possible for the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to change clause 2 of the Constitution and in doing so remove the lawful sovereignty from the people of Australia and give it over to the titular, ‘Queen of Australia’.

    In conclusion, I would strongly recommend you closely investigate the above and if in fact the Local Government Act 1993 did not receive valid royal assent, then clearly you and your council have no legal authority. To continue claiming authority whilst not in possession of such authority could have serious consequences. I can confirm for you that various legal proceedings are at a very advanced stage and you may have little time left to confirm your position.

    • mick May 9, 2013 at 5:30 pm #

      Kevin: You miss one important point about local government in particular and government in general. That is that all to a greater or lesser extend ‘choose’ not to obey the law. They intentionally lie, cheat and pervert that which was put in place for the benefit of all. The example I gave in regard to my own misfit council is a taste and this group of cut-throats together with their stoolie senior staff should have been sacked and dragged through the courts many years ago.

      What you miss is that government in Australia is a mates club. There is no real division of state and all 3 levels are well known to each other. And then you have the so called ‘independent’ press which has commercial alliances which own it and commercial advertising interests which constrain it. So you get sanitised and biased reporting.

      What is right and what is wrong is only a matter of perspective. When you own the game you do as you like until such time that you go too far and are caught out or when you upset your mates and get shafted. Double standards but effective. The rest of us are but pawns in the game.

    • Phil Curtis May 9, 2013 at 9:42 pm #

      Hi Kevin

      I am very much interested in this invalid local government issue.


  3. Kevin Moore May 9, 2013 at 7:22 pm #

    Millions of Australians Deal With “Government” Every Day.

    Whether income tax, carbon tax, drivers licence or marriage license, liquor legislation or car registration – not forgetting GST… Dire threats & penalties loom should one dare step out of line…yet

    Is who we think of as Government really Government..?

    Which Commonwealth is Government from..?
    Who are you dealing with?
    Onus rests on those claiming government authority to prove it.

  4. Sum Hung Gui May 10, 2013 at 1:03 am #

    Property Rates are illegal in Australia

    • mick May 10, 2013 at 9:17 am #

      So do you pay your rates?

      • Sum Hung Gui May 10, 2013 at 1:39 pm #

        Yes, I’m a Mortgage holder, the former owner of the House I bought didn’t there were over $7000 in back Rates owing which were taken from the estate settlement after he passed away, I’ve heard of similar instances where the owner was able to successfully defer the rates with council agreement but again, anytime the property is sold the council rates are automatically deducted from the sale

        • mick May 10, 2013 at 3:45 pm #

          My intent was to see if you paid rates given that you hold the collection of rates (which is a tax) illegal. I was trying to make the distinction of what is legal and what governments can force its citizens to do. As we all know the law is there to be used by those who can afford the hefty bills and the rest of us have to be happy being plundered. That is how the system works.

        • bushbunny May 10, 2013 at 7:51 pm #

          Actually, I got behind in my rates, (around 3,000 dollars with water and land rates) and I was thinking of standing for local council. (You can’t if you owe .50 cents) However, I used the equity in my house to get a Seniors Loan, (through AFL) that compounds interest, but I organised to pay my rates almost in advance by B Pay every fortnight. It costs me $120 per month, plus water rates. Another $240 per year. Not cheap when you own your own house, no rent assistance from the government. I want the Fed government to pay pensioners more, as we have insurance, and maintenance, etc. So – I don’t care if they put local government into the constitution, but I agree, some of the councillors are less than perfect and financially benefit from their situation on council. Look at Richard Torbay eh? But what other option do I have? We do get a reduction in land rates, and water rates are now included in the government subsidy. But it is only $400 per annum. We have sewerage and waste disposal on top of this that is almost as much as our land rates.

          • mick May 10, 2013 at 9:43 pm #

            I’ll resist the temptation not to bite but need to state that local councils are the most corrupt and wasteful in the country. I would not miss one of them. They need to go.

    • Tel May 11, 2013 at 12:03 pm #

      You are correct that “property rates are illegal” however, very few people own any property. If you look closely you probably have what is called Torrens Title and that is basically a lease agreement.

      If you happen to own fee simple property, then good for you.

      • bushbunny May 13, 2013 at 1:44 pm #

        I beg you pardon. The old title and qualified titles maybe so, but Torrens actually replaced them. They had to check right back to who owned the property, and often the house or land was given as a crown grant. I know, I owned a qualified title and it was converted to Torrens, at great expense I might add.

  5. Kevin Moore May 10, 2013 at 5:57 am #

    Some more thoughts on government –

    Consent is the agreement of one Party to a claim presented by another. In the absence of consent of all parties, Justice does not exist.

    To quote Lysander Spooner —

    1. “No man can delegate, or give to another man, any right of arbitrary dominion over himself; for that would be giving himself away as a slave. And this no one can do. Any contract to do so is necessarily an absurd one, and has no validity. To call such a contract a “constitution,” or by any other high-sounding name, does not alter its character as an absurd and void contract.

    2. No man can delegate, or give to another man, any right of arbitrary dominion over a third person; for that would imply a right in the first person, not only to make the third person his slave, but also a right to dispose of him as a slave to still other persons. Any contract to do this is necessarily a criminal one, and therefore invalid. To call such a contract a “constitution” does not at all lessen its criminality, or add to its validity.These facts, that no man can delegate, or give away, his own natural right to liberty, nor any other man’s natural right to liberty, prove that he can delegate no right of arbitrary dominion whatever — or, what is the same thing, no legislative power whatever — over himself or anybody else, to any man, or body of men.”

    In my opinion not voting means not consenting. Statutes can not apply to, nor have force over a non voter unless he/she is, 1.tricked., 2.volunteers., 3. the force of the pirate Ship of State is applied to Force him or her to consent. Piracy is defined in Websters 1828 dictionary as “The act, practice or crime of robbing on the high seas; the taking of property from others by open violence and without authority, on the sea; a crime that answers to robbery on land. Other acts than robbery on the high seas, are declared by statute to be piracy. See Act of Congress, April 30, 1790.”

    The nature of consent

    The Roman court system needs your consent (by tacit agreement or by declaring you incompetent) in order to underwrite their bonds and making money. But what do we exactly mean by Consent?

    Consent to the Bar and the Crown (Bank) is vital, not only to underwriting the value of any bonds created through their courts, but it is integral to making their administrative process both
    legal and lawful as a valid agreement. But how then does this work when we do not consent, or we refuse to comply? Well in the case of when a man or woman stands their ground, respecting the law and states for the record that they do not consent to any punative sentences or orders, but they shall comply only under duress and necessity to any administrative procedure during the court procedure, then any bonds are rendered worthless- and the court process to the bank is a giant waste of time.

    However, when a man or woman is tricked by disinfo into not respecting the law and refuses to comply to some administrative process (excluding sentencing) by not appearing, then the court can use its trustee powers to declare the man or woman delinquent and therefore incompetent. When this occurs, the court may legally steal the energy of the man or woman as consent literally as if you signed your name or stood in court and agreed. Thus, the very worst action any man or woman can do it deliberately place themselves in dishonor as it makes the process for the court straightforward and simple.

    Statute Law is Admiralty Law — “Hence, under the corrupted Roman Law of the ROMAN CULT living men and women are considered VESSELS subject to JURISDICTION of the SEE (Sea) with the WATERMARK of all nations with diplomatic recognition (CONCORDATS) of the SEE (Sea) set at the highest mountain peaks–hence all land is therefore “Under the Sea” and PROPERTY of the SEE (Sea).” See –


    15B Application of Acts in coastal sea
    Coastal sea of Australia
    (1) An Act is taken to have effect in, and in relation to, the coastal sea of Australia as if that coastal sea were part of Australia.
    (2) A reference in an Act to Australia, or to the Commonwealth, is taken to include a reference to the coastal sea of Australia.
    Coastal sea of external Territory
    (3) An Act that is in force in an external Territory is taken to have effect in, and in relation to, the coastal sea of the Territory as if that coastal sea were part of the Territory.
    (3A) A reference in an Act to all or any of the external Territories (whether or not one or more particular Territories are referred to) is taken to include a reference to the coastal sea of any Territory to which the reference relates.
    (4) In this section, coastal sea:
    (a) in relation to Australia, means:
    (i) the territorial sea of Australia; and
    (ii) the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea of Australia and not within the limits of a State or internal Territory;
    and includes the airspace over, and the sea‑bed and subsoil beneath, any such sea; and
    (b) in relation to an external Territory, means:
    (i) the territorial sea adjacent to the Territory; and
    (ii) the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea adjacent to the Territory and not within the limits of the Territory;
    and includes the airspace over, and the sea‑bed and subsoil beneath, any such sea.

    Sedes Sacrorum (Latin Sedes for seat/see, Sacrorum for holy) otherwise known as Santa Sede and the “SS” also known in English as “Holy See” refers to the legal apparatus as a whole by which the Roman Catholic Pope and its Curia [ Court ] of Bishops claim historical recognition as a sovereign entity with superior legal rights.

    Re church paedophiles , or more correctly child molesters [Moloch?] seeming to be above the law — “Absolution” Websters 1828 dictionary definition —– “in the civil law, an acquital or sentence of a judge declaring an accused person innocent. In the canon law, a remission of sins pronounced by a priest in favour of a penitent.”

    Rules made by people with the same natural rights as myself do not give them a quasi judicial right to punish me by fining or other punishment such as siezure [stealing] of my property. Man made law is an attempt by those who think that they are God, but do not know God, to usurp the authority of God . It is madness!

    The Australian Parliamentarians pray “The Lords Prayer” but as is evident recognise no authority higher than themselves other than their owners – the Banks which create a debt out of thin air, call it money and then the lend the debt to Parliament and thus the nations citizenry. Not issued into circulation is the interest owing on the debt. The National and State Government Debts are therefore a non repayable loan. Banks and the people who own them are the Babylonian God of Parliament…

    No one has ever by any open, written, or other authentic and voluntary contract, united themselves as a firm, corporation, or association, by the name of the Commonwealth of Australia, or the people of the Commonwealth of Australia, and authorised agents to contract debts in their name. Yet politicians deem that all who earn an “income” are liable for the debts that the politicians themselves incurr. Politicians work for the banks and are compelled to have you assume that they own your ‘income’ so as to enable payments to be made on the debts that they themselves borrowed.

    Exodus 22:25 “If you lend money to My people, the poor with you, you shall not be as a money-lender to him; you shall not put interest on him. If you indeed take the outer garment of him as a pledge, you shall return it to him by sundown….”

  6. Kevin Moore May 10, 2013 at 6:53 pm #

    I have come to the conclusion that there is a Jewish – Catholic alliance.


    Michael Hoffman

    “……..The “conservative” mania for proclaiming a movement for restoration of Christian culture inclusive of Talmudic rabbis, is a betrayal of the wisdom and vision of every Biblical prophet and every Christian saint. It is on the basis of this desperate craving for looking good in the eyes of the world and its media empire, that Pope Benedict XVI, the much-heralded paladin of Christian tradition, ventured into two synagogues, one in Cologne and the other in New York, not to admonish, warn and preach, but to pray with rabbis who worship not God but themselves; an esoteric fact of which the former Cardinal Ratzinger, the “brilliant theological scholar,” is only too cognizant……..”


    Click to access Final%20Conference_Program.pdf

    The Society of Jesus has been a leader in the Church’s efforts at dialogue with Jews, including the role the Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea played in hammering out the groundbreaking declaration Nostra Aetate during Vatican II. Yet, the history of the relationship of this “tragic couple” has been often filled with bias and animosity, even though the Jesuit founder, Ignatius of Loyola, declared that he would consider it God’s special grace to be of the same Jewish lineage of Christ and even though Jesuits of Jewish ancestry had played a crucial role in the foundation and development of the Jesuit Order. Driven by a desire for deepening the understanding and friendship between the Jewish people and the Society of Jesus, the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College is hosting this international conference on the history, nature, dynamics, and current status of the relation between Jews and Jesuits. This conference brings together scholars of different backgrounds to converse on this topic from an interdisciplinary perspective: biblical exegesis, history, literature, philosophy, theology, and spirituality. ……………………
    …………..The Center for Christian-Jewish Learning is devoted to the multifaceted development and implementation of new relationships between Christians and Jews that are based not merely on toleration but on full respect and mutual enrichment. This defining purpose flows from the Mission of Boston College and responds to the vision expressed in Roman Catholic documents ever since the Second Vatican Council.

    The building of new, positive relationships between Jews and Christians requires sustained collaborative academic research. Therefore, under the Center’s auspices scholars and thinkers representing diverse Jewish and Christian perspectives engage in intense and ongoing study of all aspects of our related yet distinct traditions of faith and culture.

    Educationally, we are committed to the goal that “Jews and Judaism should not occupy an occasional and marginal place in [Christian religious education]: their presence there is essential and should be organically integrated” (Notes, 2). We are convinced that Jews and Christians enrich and deepen their respective identities by joint educational endeavors. The Center is thus dedicated to conducting educational research and to offering programs, both in the university and the wider community, in which Christians and Jews explore their traditions together.

    In short, the Center applies the scholarly resources of a Catholic university to the task of encouraging mutual knowledge between Christians and Jews at every level (Notes, 27).
    [Notes = Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, Notes on the Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Teaching in the Roman Catholic Church (1985).]

  7. Kevin Moore May 11, 2013 at 3:45 am #

    This book I thought is worth considering –
    Book Description
    Publication Date: September 10, 2010
    Big Oil… pulls back the covers to expose a centuries-old cabal of global oligarchs, whose control over the global economy is based on hegemony over the planet’s three most valuable commodities: oil, guns and drugs- combined with ownership of the world’s central banks. Henderson implicates these oligarchs in the orchestration of a string of conspiracies from Pearl Harbor to the Kennedy Assassination to 911. He follows the trail of dirty money up the food chain to the interbred Eight Families who- from their City of London base- control the Four Horsemen of Oil, the global drug trade and the permanent war economy. “Big Oil… is an extraordinary expose of the powers and events that are exacting a heavy toll on us, the people”. – Nexus New Times Magazine. Australia. “Big Oil… is hair-raising and a masterpiece which deserves not less than the Pulitzer Prize in Journalism. This book should be a requisite for every American to study.” – Dr. Carlos J. Canggiano, M.D., Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus May 11, 2013 at 9:26 am #

      Thanks! This paragraph summed it up nicely –

      “Don’t listen to what Canberra says. The local government referendum has nothing to do with local communities or anything like that. It’s a power play – part of a long-running campaign by the Commonwealth to free its spending decisions from parliamentary scrutiny and undermine the states.”

      • mick May 11, 2013 at 10:15 am #

        Maybe so Blissful. But then the most corrupt of our 3 layers of government is LOCAL GOVERNMENT. The bastards lie, cheat and do not follow their planning documents leaving it to the the courts to stop them as the other 2 layers of government refuse to become involved. And when you look at the huge cost of going to the Land and Environment Court it becomes clear how local government can act corruptly and ignore citizens when they complain about illegal behaviour…..because they can.

        Personally, it will be a good day’s work if local government is cut out of the loop. it can’t happen fast enough.

        • The Blissful Ignoramus May 11, 2013 at 2:05 pm #

          I don’t think it’s about cutting local govt out of the loop, but rather, the state govts, i.e., another incremental step towards centralisation of all power with the Feds.

          • bushbunny May 13, 2013 at 1:45 pm #

            I agree Blissful.

  8. Tel May 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm #

    I say “No” to this referendum proposal.

    Hmmm, I agree that this isn’t ideal, but I guess it is a matter of whether it is better to take what you can get, or hold out for what you want. I think that politically independent local government would be a good idea for Australia and there are a number of logical points to that:

    * Decentralization is what we need.

    * Having state government force amalgamation of councils is outrageous.

    * Having state government redistribute funds between councils is outrageous.

    Now there’s the problem that the Commonwealth gets to provide direct funding, and thus can buy the council and thus bribe them to impose any dingbat policy the faceless Canberra managerialists dream up this week. I agree that’s a problem, but it is part of a deeper problem that the “scope of work” applied to Canberra is ill-defined. Basically, in my mind, the job of Canberra is national defense, and that’s about it. They got their taxation powers by argument of necessity for national defense purposes, but they don’t use the money for that purpose. This is the real problem with politics in Australia.

    In essence, what has happened is that national defense gets top priority (because it pretty much has to) and then the money leaks out the side to lower priority tasks (like wealth transfer) without being quarantined. This was pointed out in parliament when income tax was first established on the outbreak of World War One. It has only gotten worse since then.

    I’d be tempted to vote “yes”, on the basis that we don’t usually get what we want. The problem of pruning back Canberra will remain either way around. If the states wanted to make an effort to get back their powers they could do, but only by coordinating with each other and stonewalling where necessary… they show no interest in attempting this, and I doubt it will happen.

    • mick May 11, 2013 at 2:12 pm #

      Canberra will “prune” itself back when it runs out of money and faces growing opposition to unpopular taxes (those worse than incomes taxes, GST and the Medicare Levy”. They’ll try it on but remember what happened to the Howard government when it got too cocky and thought it could destroy the lower and middle classes with its Work Choices” (even the name is a sick joke) so that it could put even more money into the bank accounts of the wealthy. The only question is will both sides of politics act in a bipartisan manner when this time comes. This will signal that voters need to vote for INDEPENDENTS to break the Woolies/Coles duopoly of government.

      As I said before, local government is the most corrupt by far of all 3 layers of government. It is more government by the real estate industry and vested business interests as the ‘people’ serve the sole purpose of providing the funds. After that they are ignored and plundered. So why would you ever want to give them more power and money than they already have?

      • Tel May 12, 2013 at 8:01 am #

        The voters get what they vote for. Democracy is far from perfect, if residents can’t be bothered checking up on who they vote for, they can sit and blame themselves.

        At least if local government is legally protected from outside interference then SOME people will have good governance.

        • mick May 12, 2013 at 1:29 pm #

          Yee of little understanding. It does not work that way.

  9. Tel May 11, 2013 at 12:21 pm #

    Not speaking as an expert, but now I think about it, does the Commonwealth actually have the power to impose this as all (even with a referendum)? I mean, the states all agreed to the Australian Constitution, but did they agree to all future referenda creating additional powers?

    I would expect that each state would need its own referendum in order to create this power, because what is really happening here is modification of each state Constitution rather than any modification at the federal level.

    That said, it’s unlikely the High Court would strike it down.

    • mick May 11, 2013 at 2:20 pm #

      YES,YES, YES. Does local government have the power to IGNORE its planning instruments and do whatever it wants? Can it just ignore the rules and do what it wants? Of course it can. I was told this by Justice Tim Moore when I attended a Changing the Planning System workshop and asked this question. Moore twice stated “council may do as it likes” when asked this question. The only time this does not apply is when a citizen with deep pockets takes the matter to court and winds a decision as happened only a week ago with regard to the much plundered “short term letting” where the real estate industry and some private investors were renting family homes out for commercial functions like bucks, hens, parties, schoolies, etc. FUNCTIONS which were never permitted under the zoning. Councils have know that this was illegal for at least a decade but IGNORED their very clear planning instruments. It was not until the matter went to court that councils pulled back a bit. And then the first thing they have done, before the decision has even been printed, was to change the law. And you want to give this sector more power!!! The real estate industry will love you.

  10. Kevin Moore May 11, 2013 at 4:39 pm #

    The Referendum and the Socialist agenda –
    The Programme begins:

    Jeremy Lee, who has continually warned us what is happening to this nation, published in 1995 “Local Government, Amalgamation, Regionalisation & the Hilmer Report” where the programme was spelt out. It was a programme that came with the arrival of the Whitlam Federal Government in 1972, and the plans for its completion were anticipated somewhere before the end of the century.
    The programme included:
    · A large reduction of the number of Local Authorities in Australia by amalgamation:

    · The formation of REDOs (Regional Economic Development Organisations) made up in part of the amalgamated Authorities, with a mixture of elected councillors permanent government commissioners and nominees from various industry and social organisations, including trade unions in policy implementation under central direction;

    · The replacement of the existing States with the proposed REDOs, through the redirection of funds from the financial monopoly the Federal Government has acquired;

    · The replacement of the Crown, with its reserve powers, by a republic;

    · The Introduction of a National Competition Policy, as set out in the Hilmer Report; and

    · The Integration of the Australian economy into a global model in which the World Trade Organisation – the operative arm of the GATT – is the principal decision-maker about productive, trade and workplace practices in Australia.

    • Tel May 12, 2013 at 8:08 am #

      I think Australia is already integrated into a global trade environment, and that’s only going to get more entrenched. The point is we are very good at some things (wool, wheat, wine, minerals, etc) and crap at a lot of other things (making cars for example). Trade is the only logical way to compensate for specialization.

      At any rate, borders are permeable. The drug trade taught us this. The people smugglers teach us this. Trade will happen regardless, we just get to choose whether to exert a little control, or no control at all.

      As for amalgamation of local authorities, that can be done (and is being done) by state governments, precisely because those local authorities have no legal existence of their own, they exist only as a department of state government. This is not true in the USA for example, where cities have their own incorporated status and thus cannot be forcibly amalgamated.

      • mick May 12, 2013 at 1:38 pm #

        “Trade is the only logical way to compensate for specialization.”

        If you think that Australia is a good trading partner you are not looking at the form. We exports mainly minerals and some agriculture whilst importing almost everything else. One doesn’t have to be real smart to see that once China stops buying, if prices nosedive, then Australia is dead in the water. We are already seeing signs of the chaos. with iron ore at $130 (down from $180) the budget is not going to balance and the forecast is that deficits are going to widen despite governments on both sides trying to pay the deficit off. We are all going to be feeling what the GFC has done to the rest of the world and apathetic Australians are going to suffer.

        Sounds a bit like doom and gloom but only the fool refuses to see the climate for what it is. I’m willing to bet that pigs will fly before we trade ourselves out of the poo because we have permitted most of our manufacturing to be killed off whilst we all revelled in the cheap goods from China. Sorry guys the party is almost up.

  11. Kevin Moore May 11, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

    Julia Gillard Aust PM
    A message from Prime Minister Julia Gillard

    Commitment to the United Nations is one of the three pillars of Australia’s foreign policy.
    I am proud of Australia’s record at the United Nations. We are a founding member of the organisation. For Australia, a country with a long democratic tradition, the values of the United Nations Charter are central to how we conduct ourselves on the world stage and we strongly support the rules-based international order which the Charter underpins.
    In the complex, inter-connected world in which we all live, countries cannot address the major challenges of today on their own. Australia seeks to be part of the solution to these challenges. We believe in the power of working together across national boundaries to forge creative solutions to common challenges. We respect good international citizenship. We value the United Nations as the forum that brings nations together to discuss and find ways to address peacefully the globe’s most pressing challenges.
    The importance of the Security Council to the maintenance of international peace and security is as great now as it ever has been. Not since the founding of the United Nations have we faced such uncertain times, when the contours of a new world order are emerging but not yet apparent.
    The Council needs members who are not only willing to support it with words, but also through deeds. Australia is a long-standing, reliable and consistent contributor to the UN’s work on preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping and peacebuilding. We have participated in more than 50 UN and other multilateral missions across the globe. We have led missions in our own region, in Timor-Leste, Solomon Islands and Bougainville, Papua New Guinea. We are the largest non-NATO contributor to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
    The Council also needs members who can work effectively and cooperatively at the United Nations. Australia is a strong democracy built on a diversity of peoples from across the world. We are home to ancient, Indigenous cultures. We have embraced millions of migrants and refugees. We are a country of the Asia-Pacific region, an island continent bridging the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Our history and geography combine to give Australians a unique perspective: a perspective of both the North and the South. We would bring that unique perspective to the Council.
    Our close partnerships with our neighbours, most of whom are developing countries give Australians a deep understanding of the vital importance of development to human dignity and to stability. Australia is rapidly increasing its aid budget to meet today’s development challenges: our aid program has doubled in the past five years and will double again by 2015. We are building partnerships to create development opportunities for the world’s poorest. We are intensifying our efforts in the global fight to eradicate extreme poverty and achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
    Australia is at the forefront of efforts to address todays pressing global challenges. We are assisting small island developing states and others most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, taking a lead role in advancing disarmament and non-proliferation efforts and continuing our long-standing efforts to promote respect for international law.
    I believe in our campaign for a seat on the United Nations Security Council in 2013-14 because I know that Australia has the capacity, energy and experience to make a strong, positive contribution to the Councils vital work. I seek your support in this endeavour.
    Julia Gillard
    Prime Minister of Australia

  12. Kevin Moore May 12, 2013 at 9:05 am #

    The socialisation plank inserted in the ALP platform at the famous 1921 conference.
    “…….Mr Baddeley, now deputy premier of NSW, said, after approving of the Socialisation objective: “If our friend [i.e. another speaker], has in mind the idea that we are going to function under the parliamentary methods that exist today, I am against it.”………

    “…………Mr A.C. Willis, now chairman of the Commonwealth Coal Authority, supported Mr Scullin: “The position today in Russia is that although they have a soviet form of political government, that is only intended to serve them in the transitory period. ….they are building up behind it what will be the real government of Russia — The Supreme Economic Council……………….”
    “Now when our land to ruins brink is verging, in Gods’ name let us speak while there is time!
    Now, when the the paddlocks for our lips are forging,
    Silence is crime.”

    • mick May 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm #

      Priceless Kevin.

  13. Richo May 13, 2013 at 12:01 pm #

    While I am a fan in-principle of Switzerland’s direct democracy my concern would be that it would quickly become hijacked by lobbyists and astro turfers. One of the first issues to be voted on would be to legalise marijuana (as happened in Switzerland) gay marriage would be next, hardly the most pressing issues. It would also have to be tightly managed so people are not bombarded with multiple questions across different issues concurrently (with potentially huge ramifications), which means it could take years for an issue to even be considered.
    So yes a nice idea in theory, but in reality you are just hand balling the agenda from governments to lobbyists.

  14. Kevin Moore May 14, 2013 at 8:54 am #

    The Fabian Socialist Contribution
    to the Communist Advance
    by Eric Butler
    “…who, remembering that those (policies of high taxation and centralisation of credit) were the demands of the Manifesto (issued by Marx and Engels in 1848), can doubt our common inspiration.”
    – Professor Harold Laski, famous Fabian Socialist theoretician in his
    Appreciation of the Communist Manifesto for the Labour Party (1948).

  15. Kevin Moore May 14, 2013 at 10:52 am #

    “…….While many students of revolution and subversion are familiar with the tremendous financial assistance to revolution in Russia by the international financier, Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., New York, and his associates, insufficient attention has been directed to the relationship between the same type of financiers and Fabian Socialism.

    In her autobiography, Our Partnership, Mrs. Webb reveals how she and her husband were helped to finance the London School of Economics by the Rothschilds, Sir Julius Wernher, and similar financiers.

    Sir Ernest Cassel, the influential German-Jewish financier, and associated with Kuhn, Loeb and Co., was the biggest financial contributor to the London School of Economics.

    In 1920 he saved this Fabian enterprise from serious financial difficulties with a donation of £472,000.

    In The Quarterly Review for January, 1929, Professor J. H. Morgan, K.C., wrote:
    “When I once asked Lord Haldane why he persuaded his friend, Sir Ernest Cassel, to settle by his will large sums on . . . the London School of Economics, he replied, ‘Our object is to make this institution a place to raise and train the bureaucracy of the future Socialist State’.”

    It would take a large work to outline the tremendous world-wide influence of the London School of Economics during the time it was dominated by such outstanding Socialists as Professor Harold Laski. Apart from the fact that its teachings have penetrated Universities in all parts of the world, it is interesting to note the number of key Government advisers of the English-speaking countries who were trained at the London School of Economics…..”

    • mick May 14, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

      I am happy to vote for Katter but I would vote against any move to give local government more power or money. This sector already squanders much of ratepayer funds and corruption and influence of local business interests are ignored by both the ICAC and the state government who both turn a blind eye despite being in full knowledge of what continues to happen.

      Theory is great but those who think that local government needs to replace state government are not looking at how the sector works………or should I say doesn’t work. it is a dog’s breakfast and makes Greece look like Westminster.

  16. Kevin Moore May 14, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

    “No method of procedure has ever been devised by which liberty could be divorced from self-government. No plan of centralisation has ever been adopted which did not result in bureaucracy, tyranny, inflexibility, reaction arid decline Unless bureaucracy is constantly resisted it breaks down representative government, and overwhelms democracy. It is the one element in our institutions that sets up the pretence of having authority over everybody, and being responsible to nobody”
    – – President Calvin Coolidge of the United States in 1926.
    “The Leader”, Longreach,(Queensland) of July 6, 1973, carried the headline:
    The report underneath quoted at length the comments of the Queensland Labor Party’s shadow Minister for Local Government, Mr. Ted Baldwin, at the annual conference of the Western Queensland Local Government Association.
    Mr. Baldwin said that the establishment of Regional Councils would result in the States being “phased out”. He said that “State Governments are a luxury which Australia can no longer afford”.Mr. Baldwin’s statements were a frank outline of the Whitlam Government’s strategy of by-passing the Federal Constitution and destroying the States by the creation of Regional Councils financially subservient to the Canberra bureaucracy. At the 1973 Premiers Conference, Prime Minister Whitlam used the Commonwealth’s financial monopoly to deny the States the money they were entitled to receive, informing the Premiers quite frankly that he was withholding this money in order to use it to take over areas which were traditionally State responsibilities.
    The essence of Socialism is centralisation of all power. The Communists proclaim Socialism as the first necessary step for the creation of the Communist State. As a Labor Party candidate for Parliament, Mr. Whitlam, like his colleagues, was required to sign the pledge to “support and advocate at all times the party’s objective-the socialisation of industry, production, distribution and “exchange”. “The Sydney Morning Herald” of July 26, 1972, quotes Mr. Whitlam as having said that “It would be intolerable if a Labor Government were to use the alibi of the Constitution to excuse failure to achieve its socialist objective- doubly intolerable because it is just not true that it need be.”
    Mr. Whitlam is a member of the Fabian Socialist Society, a movement which since the days of its pioneers, the Webbs, George Bernard Shaw and others, has preached that the Marxist objective of the Socialist State can best be reached along a road of gradualism. Mr. Whitlam and his fellow Fabian Socialists are well aware of how most direct assaults on the Federal Constitution-Dr. Evatt’s 1944, 1946, and 1948 referenda, and Bank Nationalisation-were failures. A strategy had to be devised for by-passing the Constitution, of eventually making it appear irrelevant. “Regionalisation” is one of those concepts which has an attraction if only looked at superficially. It enables a programme of gradual centralism to be fostered under the guise of decentralisation. And it shrewdly seeks to exploit the desperate financial situation of Municipal Government, increasingly burdened with both debt and inflation. “.
    It was following the defeat of Dr. Evatt’s 1944 Powers Referendum that the Fabian-Socialists started to turn to regionalisation as a major strategy for by-passing the Federal Constitution and eroding the powers of the States. The great Lord Acton, famous for his axiom that all power tends to corrupt, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, also observed that”Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigrec of ideas.” The pedigree of the Whitlam Government’s regionalisation strategy goes back to the days when Dr. H. C. Coombs, a long-time Fabian Socialist, a product of the notorious London School of Economics, was Director of the Commonwealth Department of Post-War Reconstruction.
    In 1949, just prior to the change of Government at Canberra, when the Menzies-Fadden Government replaced the Labor Government, the Department of Post-War Reconstruction issued a publication, “Regional Planning in Australia-a history of Progress and Review of Regional Planning activities throughout the Commonwealth”. These and similar publications, some never publicly circulated, provide the blue-print for current Labor-Socialist strategy, which aims at replacing Local Government with centrally-controlled Regional Governments-in reality, Departments of the Commonwealth Government – and then vesting such regional bodies with responsibilities currently belonging to the States………………..”

    • mick May 14, 2013 at 2:45 pm #

      Strewth Kev. Give it a break!!

      You mention “the desperate financial situation of Municipal Government”. What you fail to mention is the extreme waste, mismanagement and vested interests.

      My own council spends a huge amount of ratepayer money on its army of propaganda writers and (mean nothing) report writers. This is misuse of valuableratepayer funds which should be used for the provision of SERVICES….something which was promised by NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell when he was campaigning. Funny how we have heard nothing more since that time and how services have not improved. And then we have truck loads of council staff wandering the shire with pretend jobs at best. We had a Today Tonight report 2 years ago where one such crew was followed for 3 days. The total work output was clocked at 20 minutes for the 3 days. Impressive isn’t it!!

      So maybe reconsider your support of local government. It is a sham which nobody takes responsibility for. I would not put 1 single dollar more into it as I can find better things to spend my money on.

      • Kevin Moore May 14, 2013 at 4:56 pm #

        You miss the point Mick.

        “No method of procedure has ever been devised by which liberty could be divorced from self-government. No plan of centralisation has ever been adopted which did not result in bureaucracy, tyranny, inflexibility, reaction arid decline Unless bureaucracy is constantly resisted it breaks down representative government, and overwhelms democracy.

        • mick May 14, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

          Whilst I get the point I make the point that the absolute worst of the worst is local government. Think about it: you pay $2500 in rates and get a garbage service and a pittance in infrastructure. The infrastructure supplied is woeful when compared to the rates collected because most of the money is being consumed by public servants who do not have the same interests as you and I and who do not care other than making it appear that they are doing a good job when they are playing their game of politics….at our expense. If people were not ignorant then they would refuse to pay and bring the sham to an end.

          Personally, I would rather have community representatives to distribute the funds, making sure that any such board did not have any more than say 25% business representation on it. And as for state politics we don’t need it at all!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: