It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australian (Let’s call it CCA) “was created to amalgamate the Australian colonies into a Commonwealth, and to set the rules by which the Commonwealth would be governed by the people as a self-governing colony. It was styled under the format of the Westminster Parliamentary system and clearly established the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and the Parliament of the States. It also clearly established the powers and responsibilities of both those parliaments. It allowed the provision for certain alterations of those powers, while specifically restricting alteration of certain others. Such alteration of the way in which the Commonwealth of Australia would be governed by the people was strictly limited to alteration by way of referendum of the population. THERE IS NO OTHER MEANS BY WHICH OUR SYSTEM OF SELF-GOVERNMENT CAN BE LEGALLY ALTERED.” So there is no way our Constitution can be changed without a vote of approval from The People, because when The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australian was written there were no local councils and the only was a local council can be added to our system is a vote of approval from the people.
“The Courts of Australia have long held that council rates are a tax. Yet, under the Australian Constitution, the Parliaments of the States do not have the power of taxation. "John Winston Howard, Peter Howard Costello & 'Commissioner for Taxation' Michael Joseph Carmody all stated before the introduction of the infamous "Goods and Services Tax", Quote: "Local government Council Rates will attract no GST because Council Rates 'ARE A TAX AND WE CAN'T TAX A TAX'.” “Also, the High Court of Australia ruled that "State Governments couldn't raise ANY TAX", and because of this the 'State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol' was removed. It can be clearly seen that the authors of the Constitution were not allowing for any Parliament other than the Federal Parliament to impose a tax. Therefore, the only land rates tax that can be imposed within Australia, is one imposed by the Federal Parliament through the Commissioner for Taxation. Unless we receive a "Rates Notice" from the 'Commissioner for Taxation it is INVALID and UNLAWFUL. In view of the above, this proposed action can only be withdrawn.”
“Since the 'Local Government Act 1993' did not exist at the time of Federation, there can be no continuance of that Act. Since the Parliament of the State of New South Wales did not have the power to impose a land rates tax under the Local Government Act of 1993 (or any other Act) at the time of Federation, there can be no continuance of that power.”
“Question 3 from the referendum was: A Proposed Law; 'To alter the Constitution to recognise local government.' Do you approve of this alteration? [Annexure C] The SPECIFIC (federal Referendum) proposal was: (3) Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988…. 119A, "Each state shall provide for the ESTABLISHMENT AND CONTINUANCE of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the state, and empowered to administer, and MAKE BY-LAWS FOR, their respective areas IN ACCORDANCE with the laws of the state" (emphasis added). It was recognized that the Parliaments of the States did not have the power to establish a third tier of government via 'local government' and an amendment to the Constitution was necessary for them to OBTAIN these powers. If the Constitution had to be altered to allow for the ESTABLSIHMENT of 'local government', before there could be a CONTINUANCE of 'local government from the time of federation, then it is clear that these powers did not exist at the time of the Federation of the States into a Commonwealth. Ergo, if the Constitution had to be altered to allow for the "establishment and continuance" of 'local government' these powers did not exist at the time of federation OR SECTIONS 106 TO 108 OF THE CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE APPLIED AND THE CONSTITUTION WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO BE ALTERED. For the Constitution to be able to be changed, there must be a majority, (either for or against), in each state, and, a favourable majority must be returned in a majority of States. The 1988 referendum was not carried. It obtained a majority in no State and an overall minority of 3,084,678 votes. [Annexure D] No other conclusion can be derived from this result other than that Local government was not legally recognized by the people of Australia, who are the Government of Australia through their agents the Parliaments. The Parliament of the State did not have these powers before the Referendum, and they were most certainly prohibited from having them after the Referendum.” “Since the people do not wish to recognize 'local government', and since the Constitution does not recognize or grant the power to establish a third level of government, then under Section 109 of the Constitution it was illegal for the Parliament of New South Wales to enact the Local Government Act of 1993.”
Taxation: “Section 112 allows that: "After uniform duties of customs have been imposed, a State may levy on imports or exports, or on goods passing into or out of the State, such charges as may be necessary for executing the inspection laws of the State…." Section 113 allows for some control over 'all fermented, distilled or other intoxicating liquids.' The Constitution SPECIFICALLY makes taxation the power of the Commonwealth. Nowhere does it allow a provision for the Parliaments of the States to impose a tax. As previously stated, "John Winston Howard, Peter Howard Costello &'Commissioner for Taxation' Michael Joseph Carmody all stated before the introduction of the infamous "Goods and Services Tax, Quote: "Local government Council Rates will attract no GST because Council Rates 'ARE A TAX AND WE CAN'T TAX A TAX'. Also as stated, the Courts of Australia have long held that council rates are a tax. Yet, under the Australian Constitution, the Parliaments of the States do not have the power of taxation.” Section 55 of the Commonwealth Constitution states: "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. Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only." Therefore, since the Local Government Act 1993 deals with a great Variety of subject matter, as well as land rates tax, the Parliament of New South Wales, and the organization calling itself 'local government is left with two choices: 1. They can remove all other subject matter from the Local Government Act 1993, leaving only the matter of taxation, (which would render all other 'local government' laws invalid, but still be in conflict with the sole right of the Commonwealth to impose a tax); or, 2. They can remove the subject matter of land rates taxation from the Local Government Act, 1993, (which would render all their subject matter technically valid in relation to taxation, but not valid in relation to a third tier of government). In either case, as previously stated, the Courts of Australia have long held that council rates are a tax. Yet, under the Australian Constitution, the Parliaments of the States do not have the power of taxation. Unless we receive a "Rates Notice" from the 'Commissioner for Taxation it is INVALID and UNLAWFUL. Unless this is done, the proposed action can only be withdrawn.
“The Taxation Office Henke: And of course the first thing we found was that there was no such animal. The fact is nobody had ever actually created the Taxation Department. The constitutional basis on which our money was taken off us was never done. And in October 1999 before the federal court, we actually proved that it had never been done. Here was something which should have been absolutely fundamental. If you or I set up new a company and didn't register it or didn't file the right papers, or didn't appoint people the right way, we would be in court and fined, and yet here we have the most influential and important department in the country which had no legal existence. Well we went into courts, we fought now some nine High Court cases, numerous cases in other courts, and we sought to apply the very simple standard, that if the people had to obey the law then the Taxation Offices had to obey the law and we discovered that the courts were not prepared to make the Taxation Offices obey the law. The courts were not prepared to say, "This is not legally done the right way, it must be fixed." The courts allowed the Taxation Offices to carry on illegally and in one fell swoop they demonstrated that the true function of the courts was not justice, it was not all of the separations of powers etc which they like to protest is their true guide, but they were simply an executive instrument whose job it was to safeguard the revenue and the money coming in to pay their own salaries. Bryant: The courts are an instrument of government, they are set up in the constitution as an instrument of government, although they are supposed to be independent. How can you have an independent court, say an independent High Court when the politicians, in particular a prime minister, appoints the judges? How can they be seen to be independent? Siminton: If an entity is not a legal entity, is that not one and the same as saying that it is an illegal entity? To which the Australian Federal Police, on a transcript tape which we will be making available shortly on our website said, "Yes, that is correct". I think from memory it is the 1899 Crimes Act currently represented as the 1914 Crimes Act, that actually stipulates that if you interact with, or encourage, a known illegal entity it is is a seven year jailable offence. And here we have on the website, a document stating that our Australian Taxation Office is illegal. Henke: The constitution under section 51 gives the government the right to make laws for peace, order and good government. Yet in the Ryan case in the high court about two years ago the high court ruled that we were not entitled to fair and just tax laws. And that's the statement by the chief justice of the high court. Now if fair and just tax laws are not laws for peace, order or good government, what are? And what people seem to forget is that just about every major revolution in history started on the basis of unjust taxation. Bryant: Taxation, whethere it is based on transactions whether its debits, credits or whatever, is based on all transactions without exception, without any exclusion, everybody pays an equal amount of tax. People who have avoided tax to a larger degree - the mega corporations - all those people will have to pay their fair share of tax, and that's not happening at the moment, the mums and dads pay all the tax.
Henke: When our tax system was first set up we had a system which taxed most of the business in this country. Today most of the business in this country is done by overseas owned companies, who in turn pay their taxes overseas but not in Australia. The result is that you've got to collect more and more tax from the ordinary taxpayer, from the small man, from the ordinary punter in the streets and that of course, gets more and more unfair. Phil Faulk: The Goods and Services Act of 1999 Section 165.55 talks about Commissioner having disregard in making declarations for various purposes. And those purposes are such things as, and there's several listed, (a) treat a particular event that happened as not having happened. Well that's interesting, an amazing piece of legislation that gives the commissioner a veto right over and above tangible things that would have happened. Nik Faulkner: Now this seems to me to be a clear example of where the parliament has made a law that allows the commissioner who administers the law, to lie or to set somebody up in a position which is not correct. Now to me that is unconstitutional. We only have the laws to obey and if a person obeys those laws then they cannot be found to be at fault, but under that act of the GST 165.55, it means that if you acted lawfully, the commissioner can actually make a statement saying that you acted unlawfully, and you have no right to do anything else other than to comply with his direction”