Tag Archives: constitution

Say NO To These Sneaky, Power-Grubbing BureaucRats

5 Jul

Advertisements

Vote NO To Stop The Bastards … AGAIN

4 Jun

Screen shot 2013-06-04 at 10.30.01 AM

Here we go again.

I encourage all readers to visit the nopowergrab.com.au website, and learn why you should vote NO to the referendum question that will be included with your ballot papers at the September election.

Has this referendum been proposed before?

Yes. Similar referendums were put by the Whitlam government in 1974 and the Hawke government in 1988. The 1974 referendum lost by 53.15 per cent of the total vote and
was only successful in New South Wales. The 1988 referendum lost with 66.39 per cent of the total vote and lost in all States. At both referenda the Australian people rejected Canberra’s power grab.

The fact that both of the major political parties support this referendum proposal, is yet another reason Why People Of Conscience Cannot Vote For Abbott.

Bankers’ Trojan Horse In Carbon Tax: Expert Confirms Breach Of Constitution

18 Apr

Your humble blogger recently sought legal advice from a prominent constitutional barrister, specifically concerning clauses 109A and 110 of the Clean Energy Act 2011.

Regular readers know that I have argued from before the release of the draft legislation in July 2011 ( Our Bankers’ Casino Royale – “Carbon Permits” Really Means “A Licence To Print” ), that the so-called “carbon tax” is in truth nothing more than a cleverly disguised, banker-designed and promoted derivatives scam ( Ticking Time Bomb Hidden In The Carbon Tax ).

Like the mortgage-backed derivatives that blew up the world financial system in the GFC, carbon-unit-backed derivatives are simply the next form of wholly unregulated, unmonitored, shadow banking artificial “money” creation that has had bankers licking their lips in anticipation from the moment the(ir) draft legislation was released:

14 July 2011, Business Spectator — Australian banks are eyeing opportunities to cash in on the proposed carbon tax by developing new financial products and services that capitalise on a market seen to be worth billions of dollars annually, according to a report by the Australian Financial Review.

Australian financial firms that have experience in European carbon markets, such as Macquarie Group Ltd, Westpac Banking Corp Ltd and ANZ Banking Group Ltd are particularly keen to establish their presence in the Australian market….

ANZ’s head of energy trading said the value of the derivatives carbon market would dwarf the $10 billion initially raised by the government, according to the AFR.

I have now been informed by the eminent barrister referred to above, that I am right.

If it is judicially accepted that the Clean Energy Act 2011 is a bill “imposing taxation”, then the two cleverly worded little clauses buried within 1,000+ pages of legislation that I have long identified as those that specifically allow the shadow banking industry to begin creating and trading (unlimited quantities of) carbon dioxide derivatives, are, in the barrister’s opinion, in breach of section 55 of the Constitution:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 55

Tax Bill

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

As we have seen previously, there are numerous other areas of the legislation whose constitutionality is highly questionable and thus contestable, under section 55 and other sections too.

Indeed, a number of constitutional experts such as Professor Greg Craven have publicly affirmed as much.

Unfortunately, I am advised that private citizens have no legal standing to mount a challenge against the legislation in the High Court.

[EDIT: For the reason that private citizens are not directly subject to the legislation. This perhaps answers the question many have asked, as to why the government still refuses to release a definitive list naming who exactly are the “biggest polluters”. If those who will have standing to challenge the legislation in the High Court do not have confirmed proof of this, it would appear that they could not prove legal standing in order to file an injunction to prevent the bankster scam starting up in the first place. Doubtless this key information will not be made known until after the government has sent out billions in “compensation” bribes to households in May, and parked $10 billion in the banksters’ Clean Energy Finance corporation in such a way that it cannot be retrieved.]

Those in the best position to mount a legal challenge, who do have standing before the High Court, are the State governments.

Sadly, as we have also seen, the Liberal-National Premiers of NSW and Queensland are even more vile, despicable liars than Julia Gillard.

Having campaigned heavily for our vote on the back of a solemn promise to “fight” the carbon tax if elected, Barry O’Farrell and Campbell Newman have now shown their true colours.

As two-faced standard bearers.

For the predatory, parasitic banking industry that they depend on to help finance their election campaigns, thanks to our rigged and decrepit system of governance that means political parties do not get their hands on the public cash in proportion to their share of the popular vote, until after the vote count has been determined at each election.

For a political leader to promise not to foist a predatory bankster scam on the public, and then do it, is an unforgivable crime against basic human decency and integrity, and, an unforgivable violation of public trust.

But to present yourself as a saviour, and plead for our vote with a promise to fight a predatory bankster scam, only to weasel out of actually doing anything to fight it once elected, is, in the firm opinion of this citizen blogger, a far worse crime.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that on this issue, Julia Gillard is arguably one rung higher from the bottom of the rancid sewer that is politicians’ “integrity”, than Barry O’Farrell, Campbell Newman, and any other politician who has deceitfully gained political capital by falsely presenting themselves as an opponent of and a fighter against the banksters’ CO2 derivatives scam.

UPDATE:

Speaking of constitutional expert Greg Craven, here’s an excerpt from a column he has written for The Australian today –

“MEAN” is never a good word. There are mean dogs, mean great-aunts and mean parking inspectors. They all bite professionally, and enjoy their work.

Right now, there is a mean electorate out there. People have never liked politicians. But this is the first time that the popular mood has graduated from profound disdain to frank sadism.

Take X-rated state election results. Kristina Keneally was the bad premier of a bad government, but the last act of public vengeance rivalling her defeat was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Anna Bligh was the fairish premier of a decrepit government, but she copped worse.

Federally, in terms of a normal electoral cycle, the Gillard government should now be contemplating whether a third term will be merely tough or downright heroic. Instead, ministers stockpile cyanide pills along with press releases.

It is easy to dismiss all this as the result of poor leadership, bad policy and weak personal hygiene. But the reality is that Australian politicians everywhere are now faced with a terminally jaded electorate, less inclined to pass judgment than automatic sentence of death…

#^&%(^$! oath.

UPDATE:

By Abbott’s own words, Liberal Party premier of NSW Barry O’Farrell and Liberal party premier of QLD Campbell Newman stand condemned.

From the Brisbane Times:

When quizzed on his personal integrity, Mr Abbott said he had strived throughout his two decades in politics to be authentic, and that people should never allow things within their control to break their promises.

Challenging the CO2 derivatives scam in the High Court is well within the control of the State premiers.

Yet they have brazenly broken their pre-election promises to the electorate.

Despicable scum.

Campbell Newman Does A Barry

28 Mar

Click to enlarge

NSW Election Campaign. February 24, 2011.

Barry O’Farrell:

“I don’t support a carbon tax, the Premier does,” Mr O’Farrell said.

“The premier’s advisers say carbon taxes will cost families another $500 a year on their power bills.

“I don’t think that’s affordable.

“If you’re talking about reducing the cost of living pressures you can’t support a carbon tax.

“I won’t and I’ll go to Canberra to argue that point if I’m elected premier.”

[Mr O’Farrell] called on voters to voice their anger when they vote, saying a new coalition government would “send a shiver up the spine of every federal ALP backbencher sitting in a marginal seat”.

“The coming poll is the only opportunity that families and small businesses have across NSW to try and stop this carbon tax dead,” Mr O’Farrell said on Friday.

QLD Election Campaign. February 24, 2012.

Campbell Newman:

The carbon tax is bad for Queensland. It’s bad for jobs. Frankly, if the carbon tax is introduced it will make it even harder for us to achieve our four per cent target. But that’s why I’m here today, to say that we will fight every single day, if we’re elected, as the Government of Queensland, to fight against this tax; that even if the tax is introduced, we will work with Tony Abbott and state premiers to fight the tax still.

We hope that Queenslanders will see the opportunity in this election campaign, but particularly on the 24th of March, to send a signal to Labor – who are so caught up in their own activities and their battles at the moment – send a signal to Canberra, to Labor that you don’t want the carbon tax and that’s why people have on the 24th of March an opportunity to actually send that signal to vote against a carbon tax.

Both Barry O’Farrell and Campbell Newman made clear promises during their election campaigns, to fight against the carbon tax.

Numerous constitutional experts have said that the carbon tax legislation can be challenged in the High Court, ideally by the States, under section 114 of the Constitution (amongst others).

Many NSW voters, including this blogger, have petitioned Barry O’Farrell to action this, and make good on his campaign promise. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no further response from Premier O’Farrell.

Nothing … zip … nada … has actually been done to “fight” the carbon tax, by any Liberal-National State Government (NSW, VIC, WA, and now QLD).

It appears that Premier O’Farrell is as untrustworthy as Julia Gillard.

Promise one thing before the election.

Do the opposite after the election.

Queensland’s new Premier Newman made an identical promise before the election.

Will he now “do a Barry” after the election?

* I urge Queenslanders to directly petition their local MP, and Premier Newman, informing them of Your Will that the new Queensland State Government should challenge the carbon tax in the High Court. You can use the sample petition below:

Dear [insert State MP’s Name],

I know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament.

My communication to you concerns the [insert State name] State Government budget, and possible impacts on the budget arising from the Commonwealth’s Clean Energy Future legislation.

Constitutional barrister Bryan Pape and other legal experts are on public record indicating that the [insert State name] State government has grounds to challenge the Commonwealth government’s Clean Energy Future legislation, under section 114 of the Australian Constitution.

IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to cause the [insert State name] State government to challenge the constitutionality of the Commonwealth’s Clean Energy Future 2011 (ie, carbon tax) bills in the High Court.

Yours faithfully,

[signed]

[insert your full name, address, and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.]

Details for contacting your State government Premier and local State MP’s below:

QLD

NSW

VIC

WA

SA

TAS

NT

The Simple Way To Tell That The Mining Tax And Carbon Tax Are Unconstitutional

22 Mar

“By their words you shall know them.”

What is the biggest red flag alerting you to the likelihood that a government bill is unconstitutional?

When the wording of a government bill repeatedly insists that it is in compliance with a section of the Constitution.

Or, when the bill repeatedly insists that it does not do something, or is not something, that would constitute a breach of the Constitution.

Because if it were in keeping with the Constitution, then there would be no need whatsoever to say anything.

This is not just the rational surmising of your humble blogger.

A constitutional law expert agrees.

From Yahoo!7 News (emphasis added):

Government facing mining tax revolt

… [Macquarie University’s] Dr [Margaret] Kelly not only thinks Fortescue will get a hearing but that it has a decent shot at winning the case.

“Given the shortness of the Act, the lack of definitions in the Act, and the very general nature of the Act, then I, if I were the Commonwealth, wouldn’t be as hopeful as apparently the Prime Minister currently is,” she said.

She says challenges made under section 114 of the Constitution would attract serious consideration by the High Court.

The fact that each of these acts purports to say the Act does not impose a tax on the property of the states, I think, quite clearly raises that question unambiguously.

“The acts in their various forms also raise the question of, is this really a tax as opposed to being, as I say, a pecuniary penalty or some kind of fee?

“That too is a constitutional question.”

Dr Kelly is right.

In the 425 page (!?!) Explanatory Memorandum to the 288 page Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011, we find the following (emphasis added):

Imposing the MRRT

3.31    The MRRT is imposed by three different imposition Bills. One imposes MRRT to the extent that it is a duty of customs [section 3, MRRT customs imposition Bill]; one imposes MRRT to the extent that it is a duty of excise [section 3, MRRT excise imposition Bill]; and one imposes MRRT to the extent that it is neither a duty of customs nor one of excise [section 3, MRRT general imposition Bill]. This reflects the constitutional requirement that laws imposing duties of customs shall deal only with duties of customs and that laws imposing duties of excise shall deal only with duties of excise (see section 55 of the Constitution). However, there is only one assessment Act.

“This reflects the constitutional requirement” does it?  Utter bollocks!  What it “reflects”, is Australian governments’ now standard method of circumventing the clear wording and plainly obvious intent of the authors of the Constitution. I for one have no doubt whatsoever that when the authors of our Constitution wrote section 55, they certainly did NOT do so with the intent that every new tax, customs duty, or excise duty, should require the separate drafting and passage through both houses of Parliament of multiple, interdependent but at the same time, mutually-contradictory bills defining the new impost as being (1) not a tax, (2) a duty of customs, (3) a duty of excise, and (4) neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise. To suggest otherwise is risible, and would be to assume that the authors of the Constitution wanted to make it as complicated and difficult as possible for government to impose genuine taxes, customs duties, and excise duties. No dear reader – the true reason why Australian governments (both “sides”) use this multiple interdependent but mutually-contradictory bills technique, is plainly obvious: their new imposts are not taxes, customs duties, or excise duties. They are unconstitutional money grabs … and they know it.

3.33    MRRT is not imposed on property belonging to a State. That ensures that the MRRT complies with section 114 of the Constitution, which prohibits the Commonwealth from imposing a tax on any kind of property of a State. In practice, this will only have an effect to the extent that a State mines its own taxable resources. In that case, the State will not be subject to MRRT.

Sorry BrownGilSwan.

Sorry Big Three multinational mining oligopoly PM-removers and tax-dodge designers.

Your saying so, does not make it so.

Indeed, the opposite is true.

Your saying so, almost certainly makes it not so.

Previously, we have seen exactly the same blatant Constitution-sidestepping ruse used in the 19 different bills and 1,000+ pages of the Clean Energy Future 2011 legislation:

Charge payable

(10) If a carbon unit is issued to a person in accordance with this section, the person is liable to pay a charge for the issue of the unit.

(11) Subsection (10) has effect only so far as it is not a law imposing taxation within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.

Note: See also:
(a) Part 2 of the Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Act 2011; and
(b) the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—General) Act 2011.

Compare …

Clean Energy (Charges – Excise) Act 2011

A Bill for an Act to impose charges associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011, so far as those charges are duties of excise

And compare …

Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge – General) Act 2011

A Bill for an Act to impose charges associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011, so far as those charges are not duties of excise

The government’s bills for the mining tax, and the carbon tax, are not unlike a spoilt domineering child trying to get its own way.

Fingers inserted in ears.

Eyes screwed tightly shut.

And insisting, “It IS it IS it IS it IS it IS!”

Or, “It’s NOT it’s NOT it’s NOT it’s NOT it’s NOT!”

Basic rule of life, dear reader.

Listen very, very carefully to a government’s words.

Then ask yourself, “What is the opposite of what they have said?”

The opposite, is far more likely to be the truth.

Conversations With The Constitution

21 Mar

Sometime in 2004, your humble blogger was waiting for a flight at Melbourne airport and went in search of something interesting to read.

Leading constitutional law expert Professor Greg Craven‘s cleverly written “Conversations With The Constitution: Not Just A Piece Of Paper” made a long wait for a short flight highly entertaining, frequently amusing, and genuinely enlightening.

Professor Craven has now added his voice to that of constitutional barrister Bryan Pape, and the legal counsels of self-made Aussie miners Clive Palmer and Andrew Forrest, in publicly stating that the Green-Labor government’s mining tax, and carbon tax, are indeed open to challenge as being in breach of the Australian Constitution.

Interestingly, Professor Craven indirectly refers to the very same sections of the Constitution that your humble blogger has long cited as having been deliberately circumvented by the government in legislating their new “taxes” (emphasis added):

Constitutional law expert Greg Craven said it was also likely the MRRT would face twin legal challenges by states and mining companies.

The Australian Catholic University vice-chancellor said the states could challenge the new laws on the grounds that they interfered with resources rights.

A mining company could argue the tax interfered with its property without just terms, he said.

There are a lot of arguments that could be raised,” he said.

“It’s a little bit like the carbon tax, there are some laws that are born to be challenged because they are so complicated.”

It is very likely it will end up in court but what will happen there is much more unpredictable.”

Professor Craven said such a legal challenge could potentially take years to resolve.

As we have seen previously (“GilSwan Conned – Mining Tax The Greens’ Pit Of Despair”), the mining tax is a farcical Trojan Horse, designed by the Big 3 multinational miners, for the Big 3 multinational miners, in a secret and corrupt exclusive deal with Gillard and Swan, to increase the Big 3 foreigners’ oligopoly in Australia at the expense of their much smaller, locally-owned competitors.

And of course, regular readers know only too well that the carbon “tax” is nothing of the sort, but is in plain matter of fact another Trojan Horse; it is a CO2 derivatives scam, designed by bankers, for bankers.

Now that both “taxes” have been railroaded into law by the Greens and Labor, it has fallen to Mr Palmer and Mr Forrest to take up the legal fight against these laws, in the national interest:

Billionaire miner Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest says he is close to mounting a legal challenge to the Gillard government’s mining tax.

Mr Forrest said his listed company, Fortescue Metals, was not opposed to paying tax, but the minerals resource rent tax was “poorly designed” and biased against smaller miners.

“The minerals resource rent tax is unfair, narrowly based, complex, inefficient and will reduce investment and future jobs in the Australian mining industry,” a spokesman for Mr Forrest told The Australian Online.

“As Fortescue has previously advised, the company has engaged senior counsel and will commence legal proceedings after the legislation has been enacted and legal opinion has been finalised.”

The Australian Online understands Mr Forrest will urge smaller miners from the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies to join the proceedings.

Mining magnate Clive Palmer, who has vowed a High Court challenge against the government’s carbon tax, is yet to decide whether he wants become involved.

“One person can only do so much at one time,” he told The Australian Online.

“If I thought the mining tax bill was unconstitutional, I would mount a challenge.”

Finance Minister Penny Wong said she believed the mining tax would survive the challenge.

“We have sought legal advice and I am confident the minerals resource rent tax will withstand any challenge,” Senator Wong said.

However, Liberal Senator Mathias Cormann said the tax was likely to be scuttled.

“I have no doubt that Labor’s dodgy mining tax will be thrown out by the High Court just as their dodgy Malaysia people swap deal was thrown out by the High Court,” he said.

We shall see.

I for one have little faith in the wisdom, impartiality, or integrity, of the befrocked, high and mighty, “progressive” “intellectual” lawyers (need I say more?) who have risen above the ranks of their parasitic, ambulance-chasing brethren to preside over Australia’s so-called “justice” system. Like those special turds, that always float to the top.

Nevertheless, we live in hope. It would be very pleasing to see motions of injunction successfully filed against both “taxes”, prohibiting the government from handing out “compensation” payments etc, until after the legal challenge/s have been decided.

Indeed, it would be a sweet, sweet irony if a legal injunction stayed the executioner’s sword being brandished by this government over the economy … just as their 4-years-and-counting delay in the FWA investigation into Labor MP Craig Thomson has stayed the executioner’s sword being brandished by the Australian public over this government.

No Excuses, Mr O’Farrell

5 Mar

Yesterday, your humble blogger received a public undertaking from Premier Barry O’Farrell, that he would consult the NSW State Attorney General with a view to a legal challenge by the NSW State Government to the Federal Government’s carbon tax.

Today, a gentle reminder for Mr O’Farrell of his pre-election commitment to the people of NSW.

Feb 24, 2011:

I’ll fight against carbon tax: O’Farrell

NSW opposition leader Barry O’Farrell says he will go to Canberra to argue against a carbon tax, if the coalition wins the state election.

He was speaking during a live leadership debate with Premier Kristina Keneally, who is in favour of setting a price on carbon.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced on Thursday that a carbon price will start in Australia on July 1, 2012.

“I don’t support a carbon tax, the Premier does,” Mr O’Farrell said.

“The premier’s advisers say carbon taxes will cost families another $500 a year on their power bills.

“I don’t think that’s affordable.

“If you’re talking about reducing the cost of living pressures you can’t support a carbon tax.

“I won’t and I’ll go to Canberra to argue that point if I’m elected premier.”

Mr O’Farrell, the High Court of Australia is in Canberra.

And your most powerful argument against the carbon tax, is the Australian Constitution, section 114 in particular:

States may not raise forces – Taxation of property of Commonwealth or State

A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

In October 2011, constitutional barrister Bryan Pape publicly stated that State governments have legal standing to challenge the Commonwealth’s Clean Energy Future Bills 2011, given their impact on state-owned electricity generation and distribution assets.

But it is not just state-owned electricity assets that will be impacted by the carbon tax.

As we discovered in my in-depth research of the Federal Government’s NGER Register of “biggest polluters” ( The “500 Biggest Polluters” Exposed – Everything The Government Is Not Telling You ), the carbon tax will also impact on many other state-owned enterprises and utilies, including public hospitals and health care facilities, public transport, state rail networks, water utilities, state universities, state forests, and more.

Section 114 of the Constitution is clear. The Commonwealth cannot impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

Mr O’Farrell, you campaigned on a clear anti-carbon tax platform; pledged to take up the fight against the carbon tax in Canberra; and urged NSW voters to elect you as their representative to pursue that fight:

O’Farrell calls for NSW carbon tax revolt

NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell has joined the chorus calling for a people’s revolt against a carbon tax, saying the March state election is a chance for voters to send a message to Canberra.

During a visit to a shopping centre at Cranebrook, in Sydney’s west, Mr O’Farrell said the yet-to-be-determined price on carbon would raise annual energy bills by $500, and increase grocery and petrol prices.

He called on voters to voice their anger when they vote, saying a new coalition government would “send a shiver up the spine of every federal ALP backbencher sitting in a marginal seat”.

“The coming poll is the only opportunity that families and small businesses have across NSW to try and stop this carbon tax dead,” Mr O’Farrell said on Friday.

“To stop this tax needs every voice and every vote and the poll on the 26th of March gives people an opportunity to do that.”

Mr O’Farrell, your campaign promise worked:

ALP deserters ‘spooked’ by carbon tax

JULIA Gillard’s carbon tax may have saved two high-profile NSW ministers from a Greens’ assault in inner Sydney, but the move exacerbated the revolt against the 16-year-old Labor regime in its own heartland.

In western and southern Sydney, mining areas and long-established industrial towns, factory workers, two-car families and low-income households swung more heavily against Labor than the NSW average.

Echoing their federal leader Tony Abbott, incoming Coalition MPs in NSW argue that traditional Labor voters were spooked by the prospect of job losses, higher petrol prices and rising household power bills from a carbon tax.

Mr O’Farrell, you have made a promise.

You have a case to argue.

You have no excuses.

P.S. Please inform Mr O’Farrell and your local MP (or your own State Premier) that it is Your Will that the State Government should challenge the constitutionality of the carbon tax legislation in the High Court. Sample letter and contact details here.

%d bloggers like this: