DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

                                                                                                                                                                Registry: Southport

                                                                                                                                                                Appeal No.D257/12

 

 

First Appellant:                                                Bruce Jeffree

First Respondent:                            Gold Coast City council

OUTLINE OF ARGUMENT

Date of document:          10 May 2012

Appellant:                          Bruce Jeffree

Address:                               206 Tierney Drive, Currumbin Waters, Qld 4223

Telephone:                        0417787954

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Respondent:      Gold Coast City Council

Address:              Bundall Road Bundall,

And to: Woods Hatcher Solicitors Suite 2, Level 2, 15 – 21 Via Roma Isle of Capri Qld, 4217

Telophone:        07 55045366

Fax:                        0755045377

 

Your Honour

 

I come before this Court in the understanding that it presides under CHAPTER III of the commonwealth Constitution 1900 UK and/or provisions of common law and wholly reject any other purported jurisdiction.

The Appellant relies on all submissions but not limited to those made in the supporting affidavit sworn 13 May 2012. 

As an unrepresented litigant, I rely upon the assistance of many persons in the attempt to properly and orderly present my case to the Court and beg the indulgence of the Court to also assist me where it can.

 “In interlocutory matters, the court will normally be slow to terminate proceedings summarily because of defective pleading by an unrepresented litigant, at least where it appears that there is a viable cause of action which, with appropriate amendment and a little assistance from the court, could result in a pleading being placed in proper form: Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534 at 536.”

That the High Court of Australia has provided that in order to understand the Constitution one should refer to the intentions of its makers in the matter and the Appellant relies upon Hansard to outline the intention of the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution 1900 UK in much of the pleadings herein:-

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)

QUOTE

Constitutional interpretation

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at Fordham University in 1996, Professor  Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:

"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation [54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion."

END QUOTE

KING v. JONES ; McEWEN v. HACKERT ; JONES v. JONES. (1972) 128 CLR 221

Barwick C.J.(1), McTiernan(2), Menzies(3), Walsh(4), Gibbs(5) and Stephen(6)JJ.5QUOTEBarwick C.J.(1).

 

Quote

There are some basic propositions of constitutional construction which are beyond controversy. The words of the Constitution are to be read in that natural sense they bore in the circumstances of their enactment by the Imperial Parliament in 1900. That meaning remains, beyond the reach of any Australian Parliament, subject only to alteration by the means provided bys.128 of the Constitution.

 

The connotation of words employed in the Constitution does not change though changing events and attitudes may in some circumstances extend the denotation or reach of those words.

 

These propositions are fully documented in the reported decisions of this Court which has the task of finally and authoritatively deciding both the connotation and the denotation of the language of the Constitution. (at p229)

End Quote

 

 

 

Outline of Argument

From onset, the Appellant challenges the right for the State Parliament of Queensland to alter the State Constitution under the provisions of section 51.(xxxvii) without a State referendum which such section provides:

S.51. (xxxvii) “Matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or State, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law:”

In this section, it is submitted, the constitution provides for the Commonwealth to accept a matter referred by a State or States but does not give power to the State or States to refer a power without referendum by the State in so far as the Parliament of any State has no constitutional power to alter its constitution.

 

1.            That any claim by the Respondent regarding the lawful conduct of Council to act as a government being local or otherwise under the purported local government Act 1993 is challenged on the basis that and including but not limited to:-

a)         The Appellant submits that the Local Gov Act of  1993, 2009, 2010 were purportedly enacted without referendum of the majority of the electorate and do not have Royal assent or letters patent - as required and therefore, it is submitted, are unlawful;

b).        The Appellant requires the opportunity to see the original documents that establish these acts attained Royal Assent or issued letters of patent if the Respondent claims they exist;

(i)         The Appellant requires the opportunity to see the true copy of the notation in the official government gazette as required by law and when (if at all) the said local government acts were officially placed in the gazette.

(ii)        That in any event, the State Government of Queensland does not have the Constitutional power to alter the State Constitution without referendum and/or if the Respondent points to State Constitution head of power then the Appellant requires to see where State referendum required the Parliament of Queensland enact any purported local government Act/s.

(iii)       And/or such purported local government acts of 1993, 2009, 2010 otherwise offends the provision of Sections 106, 109 and or 128 of the Commonwealth constitution Act 1900 .

c).        The Appellant requires the Respondent to present any evidence of facts that show the council has any interest in the Appellant’s property, as the Appellant does not believe any exists;

d).        The Appellant denies the council is a third party interloper or debt collector? And requires to know what precisely is its interest if any in the Appellant’s property?

e).        The Appellant has not seen or been presented with any law that evidences or that shows a third party interloper or a debt collector  can make a lawful claim against a property it has no interest in, and submits that none exists.

f)          The Appellant has not seen or been presented with any law that evidences or that shows the Appellant can be  compelled to conduct business with any party without a contract  and without due consent, and doesn't believe any exists.

g)         The Appellant submits as evidence the purported local Government 1993 Act which purports to empower the Respondent to be able to independently sell the Appellants property without a court order and or in the absence of a court order and may act independently of a court or court order to disposes the Appellant of his property and relies on the following provisions to make such submission:

h)         And the applicant in these proceedings,  had not knowingly, willingly, voluntarily entered into any contract with the Respondent council.

            Quote from the purported local government Act 1993:

            Power of sale

636.(1) The local government may, under this Division, sell the land on which the rate was levied.

Unsold land acquired by local government

642.(1) If land offered for auction under this Division is not sold at auction and—

(a) the local government does not enter into negotiations under section 641 (Sale by agreement after auction) with the highest bidder at the auction; or

(b) the negotiations are unsuccessful;

the land is taken to have been sold at the auction to the local government at the reserve price, unless it is held on a tenure that the local government is not competent to hold.

           

h).        THE REAL PROPERTY Act of 1861 at section 3 provides:-

3. Interpretation of certain terms.-In the construction and POT the purposes of this Act and in all instruments purporting to be made or executed thereunder (if not inconsistent with the context and subject matter) the following terms shall have the respective meanings hereinafter assigned to them that is to say

“Land’ shall extend to and include messuages tenements and hereditaments corporeal and incorporeal of every Bind and description whatever may be the estate or interest therein together with all paths passages ways waters water courses liberties privileges easements plantations gardens mines minerals and quarries and all trees and timber thereon or thereunder lying or being unless the same are specially excepted ‘Grant ”shall mean the original grant of any land of the Crown by the Governor for the time being “Proprietor” shall mean any person seised or possessed of any freehold or other estate or interest in land at law or in equity in possession in futurity or expectancy.

 

44. Estate of registered proprietor paramount.-Notwithstanding the existence in any other person of any estate or interest whether derived by grant from the Crown or otherwise which but for this Act might lie held to be paramount or to have priority the registered proprietor of land or of any estate or interest in land shall except in the case of fraud hold the same subject to such encumbrances liens estates or interests as may be notified by entry or memorial on the foIium of

the register book constituted by the land grant or certificate of title of such land but absolutely free from all other encumbrances liens estates or interests whatsoever? except the estate or interest of a proprietor claiming the same land under a prior certificate of title or under a prior grant, registered  under the provisions of this Act and except as regards the omission or misdescription of any right of way or other easement created in or existing upon the game land or the wrong description thereof or of its boundaries.

 

46. Surrendered deeds and instruments dated prior to existing certificate of title not to be produced.-So soon as any land shall have been brought under the provisions of this Act no transferee or mortgagee shall be entitled to the production of any deed or other instrument surrendered by the proprietor or any memorandum of transfer or other instrument dated prior to the existing certificate of title of such land unless such instrument. be recorded in the register hook and upon the existing certificate of title as an encumbrance lien or interest affecting the said land.

 

57. Remedy when mortgagor or encumbrancer is in default, Power to sell.-In case default shall be made for the space of one calendar month in payment of the principal money or interest or any part thereof secured by any registered bill of mortgage or if default shall be made in the observance of any covenant that may be expressed in such bill of mortgage or that is therein as against the mortgagor declared to be implied as hereinafter provided.

 

i)                    The Appellant submits that the Respondent does not fit the criteria of the above stated 1861 property Act and therefore has no interest in the Applicants property.

 

j)          The Appellant submits sections 636 (1) and 642 (1) of the purported local Government Act 1993 as evidence that the purported Act is unconstitutional in that it seeks to bypass the provisions of Section III of the Commonwealth Constitution which provides for determination by the independent judiciary to disposes a property owner of his/her property.

 

The High Court in Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] HCA 44; 80 ALJR 1606; 229 ALR 223 (5 September 2006) at 125

            The time has come for this Court to draw a line and to forbid the practice that has emerged in New South Wales, for it is inimical to true judicial independence and impartiality. When viewed in context, the acting judicial commission in question in these proceedings was not an ad hoc, special one for particular purposes. When the line is crossed, this Court should say so. It should not postpone the performance of its role as guardian of the Constitution. The challenge to the validity of the legislation should be upheld.”

 

k)         In this, it is respectfully submitted that the high Court confirmed not only the independence of the Judiciary but called upon the judiciary to uphold such independence, and to uphold the provisions of the Constitution (Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 UK) and the Appellant so applies to the court to that affect that it does uphold the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 UK.

 

(i)         Further, the High Court declared all courts to be GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION and the Appellant so requires this court to act as guardian to constitutional provisions of both State and federal constitutions and uphold the intentions of its framers as an intention of all constituents of past, present and future as, it is respectfully submitted that the will and/or intention of its framers can only be found in the Constitution/s and not by any act of parliament.

 

(l)         Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. ISAACS.-The court would not consider whether it was an oversight or not. They would take the law and ask whether it complied with the Constitution. If it did not, they would say that it was invalid.         

They would not go into the question of what was in the minds of the Members of Parliament when the law was passed. That would be a political question which it would be impossible for the court to determine.

END QUOTE

 

2.         That the Appellant humbly request this matter be trialed by judge and jury for reasons that include but not limited to:

(a)        that it is in the public interest; and

(b)        that the decision of this trial will or may affect all rate payers throughout the Commonwealth of Australia.

(c)        the Appellant claims this is his common law right.

(e)        further claims under natural justice.

3.         From onset, the Appellant has not and does not object to pay for council services that are within the provided services of a Body Corporate which are confined to a services rendered but objects wholly to moneys collected under the guise of rates and/or charges for services rendered disguised as taxes and/or fraudulently which include, but not limited to:

(a)        Demand for payment any monies to Purchase of shares in registered companies such as but not limited to allconnex water;

(b)        Demand for payment any monies to Purchase of properties including but not limited to Tipplers, golf courses or investment properties;

(c)       Demand for payment any monies to Invest and or place such moneys into interest bearing accounts for the purposes of the so to say money markets and/or any other such purported investments for the purposes of profit;

(d)        Demand for payment any monies to Purchase infrastructure, parklands, buildings, car-parks and other such purchases which are and remain State Government issues;

(e)        Demand for payment any monies to Contribute to other infrastructure items such as but not limited to public transport which include but not limited to the $120 Million dollars to the Light Rail Project on the Gold Coast;

(f)         Or otherwise make demand for payment of monies to use such monies for any reason other than to affect the immediate services to the community of the Gold Coast City Council a services rendered within the parameters of a body corporate.

3.         The Appellant submits that none of the Respondent’s (Gold Coast City Council) charges are reflected upon a service charge but is likened to or is taxation calculated upon the value of the Appellant’s property and/or upon the value of properties and/or is otherwise fraudulent.

3. (a)    That the Respondent in its purported charges for services rendered in the guise of rate charges which it is submitted are otherwise a tax imposed then such collection and withholding of all amounts outside a services rendered is fraudulent and/or unlawful and/or because the Respondent Council causes to prepare a billing to the Appellant based on the value of his improved property then all such charges are unlawful.

3. (b)    The Appellant submits that the Respondent Council is a Body Corporate and not any form of government to impose laws or taxation and especially a Land Tax.

4.         That it is also submitted that should that be the case and it is submitted that it is, then by the Respondent charging the Appellant a remuneration based on the value of the Appellant’s property value then that remuneration/demand for payment is based upon a Land Tax.

5.         That it is also submitted that should that be the case in that the Respondent charges a Land Tax and it is submitted that it is then such charges of Land Tax by the Respondent Council are unlawfully applied as Land Taxation is an exclusive power of the Federal Government as otherwise, all taxation by Council is unlawful.

6.         That the Respondent has been told on more than one occasion that and/or made aware now that:

(a)        any collection of money from the Appellant and/or the Gold Coast community may not be collected as a tax or any other purpose other than that of services rendered to the local community and that only.

(b)        That it is submitted that any item/s in the budget not strictly within an immediate service rendered to the Appellant and/or the local community as within the meaning of a body corporate is unlawful including but not limited to:

(i)         the purchase of property, infrastructure, shares, investments, lending of monies, hold budget surplus funds or otherwise use public moneys for purposes outside the lawful application of a body corporate.

(c)        As such activity is unlawful, unconstitutional and/or otherwise fraudulent.

7.         It is submitted that the Respondent does and continues to collect public money as a tax and not strictly as Body Corporate levies from the Appellant and such activity it is submitted is unlawful and/or fraudulent.

.

7.(a)        Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.- 5

Taxation; but so that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.

7.(b)     As rate charges by the Respondent Council are not uniform with other councils throughout the Commonwealth then any notion of legitimacy of purported Local Government taxation then by the fact that it is not uniform then it is Ultra Vires.

8.        That the Respondent holds and continues to hold public money amounting to $10 Billion dollar surplus or more and/or otherwise hold such funds in the guise of property, shares, infrastructure, loans, investments or otherwise denies the Applicant from the lawful use of the Appellants lawful portion of that money and does so, it is submitted, unlawfully and/or fraudulently.

 

9.         The said purported local government Act 1993 avails the Respondent Council to charge for a minimum charge as follows:

 

 “minimum general rate levy” means an amount fixed as the minimum amount payable as a general rate or differential general rate for all or any rateable land in a local government area; “rate” means a rate or charge mentioned in section 559(1) (Power to make and levy rates and charges), and includes any interest accrued, or premium owing, on a rate or charge mentioned in the section; “rateable land” has the meaning given by section 553 (What land is rateable?);

 

            ˙Power to make and levy rates and charges

559.(1) A local government may, for a financial year, make and levy—

(a) a general rate or differential general rates; and

(b) minimum general rate levies; and

(c) separate rates and charges; and

(d) special rates and charges; and

(e) utility charges.

(2) A local government also may fix general charges.

˙

 

“separate rate” means a rate made and levied by a local government equally on the unimproved value of all rateable land in its area; “unimproved value” of land for a financial year—

 

if the relevant local government has made a resolution under section 555 (Local government may decide to average land values for rating purposes) for the financial year—means the averaged value of the land calculated under Chapter 10 (Rates and charges),”

 

9.(a)     In this, the Respondent is empowered to ignore charge for services only, also land value and charge a “minimum, separate, or special rate charges” as it deems fit which, it is submitted is further evidence of taxation and/or fraudulent behaviour as the choices the Respondent is availed includes Land Value or a Minimal charge but does not provide for a services rendered only.

 

10.       In alleged evidence, the Respondent Council relies not upon the services rendered to the Appellant but a value of his land as provided for by the following purported legislative requirements of the Valuation Land Act 1944:

 

Part 1 (General), Division 2 (Averaging of valuations); or

(b) for a mining claim—is the amount specified under section 566 (Unimproved value of mining claims); or

(c) in any other case—has the meaning given by the Valuation of Land Act 1944;

 

10.(a)   The Appellant further submits that the purported Act 1993 provides the Respondent to budget for a “corporate plan”:-

 

            Requirements of budgets

433.(1) The adoption of a budget, or an amendment, that does not comply with this section is void.

(2) Each budget of a local government—

(a) must be developed consistently with its corporate plan and operational plan;

 

10. (b)  As such, it is submitted that a “Corporate Plan” encompasses just about anything that comes under a corporate business and as such, any moneys collected by the Respondent Council are not restricted to a services rendered that is otherwise a limitation to a Body Corporate but a blank cheque so to say to spend public monies for just about any purpose involving business, investments, shares, commitments, donations, loans and any other purpose open to private enterprise.

 

10.(c)   Further, that section also provides for the budget to be developed “consistently with its corporate and operational plan”. In this, it is submitted that the budget is not only for the operational plan but includes any other expenditure outside its operational budget.

 

11.       The Appellant also challenges the following provisions of the purported Local Government Act 1993 which is as follows but not limited to:

 

Roles of local government

20. In exercising its jurisdiction of local government, a local government has—

(a) a law-making role for local laws; and

(b) an executive role for—

(i) adoption and implementation of policy; and

(ii) administration of local government; and

(iii) enforcement of its local laws.

 

General limitations on exercise of jurisdiction

30.(1) A local government has no jurisdiction to make a local law—

(a) that the Parliament could not validly make; or

(b) purporting to exclude or limit the future repeal or amendment of the law.

(2) A local government also has no jurisdiction to do anything else that the State cannot do.

˙Inconsistency with State law

31. If a State law and a local law (whether made before or after the State law) are inconsistent, the State law prevails over the local law to the extent of the inconsistency.

 

Local governments are bodies corporate etc.

35. A local government—

(a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession; and

(b) has a common seal; and

(c) may sue and be sued in its name.

 

General powers

50.(1) A joint local government has, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, all the powers of an individual.

(2) A joint local government may, for example—

(a) enter into contracts; and

(b) acquire, hold, deal with and dispose of property; and

(c) make charges for services and facilities it supplies; and

(d) do other things necessary or convenient to be done in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

(3) A joint local government also has the powers given to it under this or another Act.

(4) A joint local government may exercise its powers inside and outside its territorial unit.

(5) A joint local government may exercise its powers outside the State and outside Australia.

 

Interstate cooperation

60.(1) If a local government’s area borders another State or a Territory, the local government may—

(a) enter into arrangements, and make contracts, with a person (the “responsible person”) responsible for any jurisdiction of local government in an adjoining part of the other State or the Territory; or

(b) acquire and hold land in the adjoining part and construct any

facility on the land; or

(c) contribute to the cost of the responsible person exercising its jurisdiction of local government.

(2) The local government that holds property in another State or a Territory for any purpose under subsection (1) may dispose of the property when it is no longer required for the purpose.

11.(i)    It is respectfully submitted that no State government can hold and/or maintain jurisdiction in any land/property in any other State and as such, Councils (and the purported local government) being able to hold and/or have jurisdiction in any other State should be deemed unlawful.

 

            INTERSTATE COMMISSION – SECTION 101 OF THE CONSTITUTION

 

It is submitted that the Inter-State Commission by section 101 of the Constitution always must exist, albeit twice only for a few years (the last at 1987) did the Inter-State Commission exist.

The Framers of the Constitution held that when you put together a body of experts of the (s101 Inter-State Commission), such as say in regard of the railways, then this body of experts would be competent to know what would be in the best interest of each State and its decision should not be subject to political maneuvering but should only be subject to appeal on error of law. (extract in part from Mr. Schorel-Hlavkas Bolg).

 

Section 101 of the Commonwealth Constitution 1900 UK

 

“There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.”

 

11.(ii)  The Appellant submits that the State Government of Queensland cannot make any law that is inconsistent with section 101 of the Constitution by empowering a purported local government to be able to affect business with another State.

 

Liability for State taxes

11.(iii) 108.(1) A local government is not liable to pay a State tax in relation to a transfer or other arrangement made to implement a local government matter under this Division.

(2) In this section—

“State tax” means stamp duty or another tax, fee, duty, levy or charge imposed under an Act.

 

11.(iv)  Matters relevant to good rule and government

408.(1) A matter that, in a local government’s opinion, is directed to benefiting, and can reasonably be expected to benefit, its area, or a part of its

area, is taken to be conducive to the good rule and government of its territorial unit.

(2) The matters that may be of benefit to a local government area include, for example—

(a) promoting or contributing to economic development of a part of the area; and

(b) promoting or attracting commerce, industry or tourism in or to a part of the area; and

(c) promoting or providing opportunities for employment in a part of the area; and

(d) promoting or helping the supply of services to a part of the area; and

(e) helping the finances of the area’s local government; and

(f) helping the exercise of the jurisdiction of local government in the area.

 

11.(v)   Application of Part

409.(1) This Part does not apply to an enterprise (an “exempt enterprise”) declared by regulation to be an exempt enterprise.

(2) However, if the exempt enterprise is undertaken as a joint venture with someone else, this Part applies to the enterprise unless—

(a) the local government is authorised to conduct the enterprise under another Act; or

(b) the joint venture is with any of the following—

(i) the State;

(ii) a government entity;

(iii) another local government;

(iv) another Australian government, an entity of another Australian government or a local government of another State or a Territory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

†                                               Division 2—Enterprise powers

˙                                                                                                                            1Engagement in or help to enterprises

410.(1) A local government may engage in or help an enterprise if the enterprise concerns a matter that, in its opinion, is directed to benefiting, and can reasonably be expected to benefit, its area or a part of its area.

(2) A local government may exercise a power under subsection (1) (the “enterprise power”) either alone or with another entity.

(3) A local government may do all things necessary or convenient to be done to exercise an enterprise power.

 

 

 

 

˙Specific enterprise powers

411.(1) For the purpose of exercising an enterprise power, a local government may—

(a) form or take part in forming—

(i) a company limited by shares that are not listed on a stock exchange (a “permissible company”); or

(ii) a partnership; or

(iii) an association of persons; or

(b) be a member of a permissible company, acquire and dispose of

shares, debentures and securities of a permissible company and take part in the management of a permissible company; or

(c) be a member of a partnership or other association of persons and take part in the management of the business of a partnership or association of persons; or

(d) commercially exploit its property rights (whether tangible or intangible).

 

11.(vi)  Special rates and charges

567.(1) A local government may make and levy a special rate or charge on rateable land if—

 

(2) The special rate or charge may be made and levied on the bases the local government considers appropriate.

 

11.(vii) Land must be categorised for differential general rates

 

572. A local government may make and levy a differential general rate on land for a financial year only if all the land in its area has been categorised under this Part.

 

11.(viii) Purposes for which powers may be exercised

577. An authorised person may exercise the powers mentioned in section 578 (Power of entry) only for the purpose of—

 

(a) deciding the categories into which rateable land in a local government area is to be categorised or the criteria by which it is to be categorised;

 

11.(ix)  Resolution to remove valueless land from land record

593.(1) A reference to a particular parcel of rateable land in the land record of a local government may be removed, on the local government’s resolution, if—

(a) rates levied on the land by the local government for at least 3 years are overdue; and

(b) the overdue rates total more than the unimproved value of the land; and

(c) the land is considered to be—

(i) valueless; or

(ii) of so little value that, if offered for sale, it would not realize the overdue rates.

 

11.(x)   Restoration of valueless land to land record

594. If—

(a) a local government gives a notice of intention to acquire land under section 648(1) (Local government must first give notice); and

(b) before the end of 6 months after the giving of the notice to the owner of the land, the overdue rates for the land are paid to the local government; the local government must restore reference to the land in the land record.

 

PART 5—LEVYING AND PAYMENT OF RATES

†                                               Division 1—Levying of rates

˙                                               Levying rates

604.(1) A rate may be levied only by a rate notice given to—

(a) for a utility charge on a structure or land that is not rateable land—the person at whose request the service is supplied; and

(b) in any other case—the owner of the land on which the rate is levied.

(2) A rate notice must specify the date of its issue.

(3) A rate must be levied—

(a) for a utility charge for supply of a water service based on the quantity of water supplied during a period as calculated by measurement at intervals—at the intervals the local government considers appropriate; and

(b) in any other case—for the whole, a half or a quarter of the relevant financial year, as the local government considers appropriate.

(4) Except for a charge mentioned in subsection (3)(a), rates must be levied on all persons liable to pay them for the same period of a financial year.

(5) In this section—

“person” includes—

(a) for a utility charge under subsection (1)(a)—any of the following—

(i) the Commonwealth;

(ii) a Commonwealth instrumentality, agency, authority or entity;

(iii) a division, branch or other part of a Commonwealth instrumentality, agency, authority or entity; and

(b) in all cases—the State and a government entity.

 

619. A local government may give, or join in giving, benefits (other than discounts) as inducements for the prompt payment of rates.

 

632.(1) When a local government resolves to make and levy a rate, it also may resolve that, for all or specified classes of land, the amount levied will not be more than the amount of the rate levied for the previous financial year increased by a specified percentage.

(2) The resolution may specify different percentages for—

(a) different land or classes of land; or

(b) different rates.

 

Power of sale

636.(1) The local government may, under this Division, sell the land on which the rate was levied.

 

Unsold land acquired by local government

642.(1) If land offered for auction under this Division is not sold at auction and—

(a) the local government does not enter into negotiations under section 641 (Sale by agreement after auction) with the highest bidder at the auction; or

(b) the negotiations are unsuccessful; the land is taken to have been sold at the auction to the local government at the reserve price, unless it is held on a tenure that the local government is not competent to hold.

 

Judiciary not disqualified from adjudicating

687. A Judge, Magistrate or justice is not disqualified from adjudicating in a proceeding to which a local government is a party merely because the Judge, Magistrate or justice is, or is liable to be, a ratepayer of the local government.

 

˙Constitution and limits of local government need not be proved

688. It is not necessary for the plaintiff in a legal proceeding started by, for or against a local government to prove—

(a) the local government’s constitution; or

(b) the limits of the local government’s area; or

(c) the limits of a division of the local government’s area.

Corporate structure

701.(1) A local government must have a corporate structure appropriate for the conduct of its affairs.

(2) The corporate structure must be approved by the local government by resolution.

 

11.(a)   The following section, it is submitted, undermines and may even render the 1993 local government Act unlawful as it contradicts the requirements of section 31. Which provides:

 

(31)“If a State law and a local law (whether made before or after the State law) are inconsistent, the State law prevails over the local law to the extent of the inconsistency”

            And

            General limitations on exercise of jurisdiction

30.(1) A local government has no jurisdiction to make a local law—

(a) that the Parliament could not validly make; or

(b) purporting to exclude or limit the future repeal or amendment of the law.

(2) A local government also has no jurisdiction to do anything else that the State cannot do.

 

11.(b)   Section 50.(5) provides an action that the State Government cannot do which is as follows:

(5) A joint local government may exercise its powers outside the State and outside Australia.

 

11.(c)   As no State of the Commonwealth can exercise such powers as prescribed in section 51. of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK then, it is submitted that section 50.(5) of the purported local government act may offend the provisions of the said Constitution 1900 UK.

 

            The Legislation Handbook (© The STATE OF QUEENSLAND), Department of the Premier and Cabinet 2004) provides:

“The Queensland Parliament’s plenary power is subject to the Australian Constitution. Under the Australian Constitution only the Commonwealth Parliament may make laws about a particular list of matters. Also, in relation to another list of matters, if the Commonwealth Parliament makes a law, the law overrides a State law on the same matter, and the State law is invalid to the extent it is inconsistent with the Commonwealth law.”

 

However, the purported local government Act 1993 at section 559. (1) provides:-

               

            Power to make and levy rates and charges

559.(1) A local government may, for a financial year, make and levy—

(a) a general rate or differential general rates; and

(b) minimum general rate levies; and

(c) separate rates and charges; and

(d) special rates and charges; and

            (e) utility charges.

(2) A local government also may fix general charges.

11.(d)   It is the further submission of the Appellant that since council is a body corporate -a corporation with a business name, an ABN number, and registered as a corporation -it is necessary for council to act pursuant to federal law for corporations within the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).Within the said Act, at S 95A, we can see council is responsible to respect the following: "price" includes:

(i) a charge of any description; and

(ii) in relation to goods or services--any pecuniary benefit, whether direct or indirect, received or to be received by a person for or in connection with the supply by the person of the goods or services.

11. (e)  In further evidence that the Respondent overcharges and/or fraudulently sets its charges may be found in section 619 of the purported local government Act where it avails such charges to be set up and above a services rendered.

            Quote

“619. A local government may give, or join in giving, benefits (other than discounts) as inducements for the prompt payment of rates.” End quote

 

11.(f)    In these “inducements” it is submitted that any purported budget that factors in “inducements” is not a budget to reflect solely a services rendered.

11.(g)   The letter from the Mayor Ron Clarke dated 30 June 2010 clearly indicates that Council Rate charges are indeed a tax where at page two paragraph one he states:

Quote:

            “For all intent and purposes the general rate is a form of tax.”

            Unquote

 

12.       The purported local government Act 1993 is hereby under attack as being Ultra Vires at both levels of Government – State and Federal due to but not limited to the reasons herein described.

 

12.(a)   HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE 20

Dr. COCKBURN:

All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary 30 which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.

END QUOTE

 

12.(b)   I refer to Hansard on the Constitutional debate regarding the issue of Ultra Vires:

 

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law which is ultra vires; And

 

Mr. SYMON.-Do you think acquiescence would make a law if the law passed by the Commonwealth Parliament was ultra vires?

 

Mr. GORDON.-It would until the law was impugned. If the state did not impugn that law it would remain in force. It is a law, and it could be allowed to be valid by the force of acquiescence.

And

 

Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law if it is ultra vires.

And

 

Mr. GORDON.-It would be law by acquiescence. It would remain a law until it was attacked.

And

 

Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?

And

 

Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right.

And

 

Mr. GORDON.-

Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised.

                And

 

13.          Herein, I formally raise the issue of Ultra Vires pertaining to the purported Local Government Act 1993 (and so too any other associated act) as being unconstitutional as such Act/s seek to establish a third tier of government whereas the Commonwealth Constitution provides for a two tier government within the commonwealth of Australia. And

 

13. (a)   No State Parliament since federation can change its constitution without first going to referendum and as no referendum was enacted in Queensland pertaining to a change in the State Constitution to provide for Local Government then the 1993 Act (and so too all purported Acts) should be deemed Ultra Vires and the Appellant submits that it is Ultra vires

 

13. (b)  Alexander Hamilton, Authority quote: (http://quotes.libertytree.ca/quote/alexander_hamilton_quote_71c2)

 

“No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A  Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.”

 

13.(c)   As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that if the legislative provision (it is not law once it is ULTRA VIRES) remained ULTRA VIRES because the High Court of Australia declines to declare it INTRA VIRES then at most a Referendum could provide the kind of legislative powers required to enact such legislation but not retrospective. As such, only legislation passed after such amendment to the Constitution was provided for by a Section 128 of the Constitution referendum could be applied but not made retrospective either.While people often are convicted by retrospective legislation this clearly is contrary to the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution , who did not want people acting within the law be made by hindsight criminals. As after all then no one could rely upon what might be the law.

            13.(b) is a reference from Mr. Schorel;-Hlavka date 20-5-2012

 

14.       The Appellant also submits that land taxes imposed are not only unconstitutional regarding the exclusive power of the Federal Government to impose land taxes but are also outside the provisions of the State Parliament of Queensland to enact any law that is outside its lawful right to impose itself. The Appellant submits the ‘LAND TAX INFORMATION FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 TO 2009 WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS:

 

 1. What is land tax?

Land tax is a yearly tax on the total unimproved value of Queensland freehold land owned by landowners as at midnight on 30 June. The unimproved value of land is the value of the land excluding improvements (e.g. a house). The Office of State Revenue (OSR) administers the Land Tax Act 1915.

Land tax is not imposed on a calendar year basis. Although the tax is calculated on land owned at a particular point in time (30 June), it is levied in respect of the financial year immediately following the point in time at which the liability is established. For example, land tax for the 2008-09 financial year is based on land owned as at 30 June 2008.

2. What land value is used for land tax?

Land tax is assessable on the taxable value of an owner’s land. The taxable value is the relevant unimproved value of the land less any exemptions and deductions.

The relevant unimproved value of land during the relevant financial years of 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 is the capped value or the lesser of

1. the unimproved value of the land that applies for the financial year (see Question 3); or

2. the averaged unimproved value of the land for the financial year.

 

   The average unimproved value is;

1. the averaged unimproved value for the current and previous two financial years; or

2. if the unimproved value for the 3 years is not available, the unimproved value of the land     multiplied by the averaging factor for the financial year.

The capped value of the land for the relevant year is 150% of the relevant unimproved value of the land for the previous financial year.

A capped value only applies if;

• the land is not subdivided land that qualifies for the 40% discount on unimproved value under section 3CA of the Land Tax Act 1915; and

• the land is a freehold parcel of land that had an unimproved value as at the previous 30 June; and

• the uncapped value of the land is more than 150% of the relevant unimproved value of land for the previous financial year.

3. Who determines the unimproved value of land?

The unimproved value of land for calculating land tax and local government rates is determined by the Department of Natural Resources and Water (NRW).

 

15.        As such, it is submitted that if the State of Queensland coul only impose land taxes for ‘unimproved land’ and as the Appellants property is an improved property then the State of Queensland cannot impose or legislate to impose any land taxes upon the Appellants property.

 

16.        Further, it is submitted that the provisions of State Legislation provides that the value of a property of unimproved land must be of equal or greater value than $600,000 of which does not fit the criteria of the Appellants property. And that any taxation upon the Appellant’s property would offend the provisions of FEE SIMPLE.

 

            ˙Inconsistency with State law (As referred above)

Section 31 of the purported local government Act 1993 provides: If a State law and a local law (whether made before or after the State law) are inconsistent, the State law prevails over the local law to the extent of the inconsistency

 

16.(a)   At Section 5 of the Land Tax Information for Financial Year 2008 – 2009

 

 What are the land tax thresholds for 2008-09?

Land owned by an individual

An individual may be liable for land tax if the total unimproved value of the freehold land owned by that person as at 30 June 2008 is equal to or greater than $600,000.

 

17.        The Appellant also relies upon item 6 of the said Land Tax Information at item 6 which provides exemptions which include: Quote

“Land owned by or in trust for any person or society and used or occupied by that person” Unquote

 

18.        The Appellant owns and occupies the property in question.

 

6. Are there any exemptions?

A number of exemptions from land tax are provided by the Land Tax Act 1915. Some of the more commonly encountered exemptions are outlined below.

• Land owned by or in trust for any person or society and used or occupied by that person or society solely as the site of a building owned and occupied by a non-profit society, or a non-profit club, or a non-profit association.

• Land owned by an exempt charitable institution and used predominantly for qualifying exempt purposes, e.g., education, religious activities, relief of poverty, care of the sick.

• Land used for premises or facilities for residents of a retirement village.

• Land comprised of one parcel and used substantially as a principal place of residence (“PPR”) by a person who owns no other land in Queensland (a deduction may apply in other cases, see question 7).

           

Individuals (other than trustees or absentees):

Taxable value

$0 - $599,999

$0

$600,000 - $999,999

$500 plus 1.0 cents for each $ more than $600,000

$1,000,000 - $2,999,999

$4,500 plus 1.65 cents for each $ more than $1,000,000

$3,000,000 and over

Flat rate of 1.25 cents for each $ of taxable value

 

 

19.        The Appellant further submits that the Federal Government has the Constitutional and legislative power (as an exclusive power) to impose a Land Tax on commercial property and not private property and as such, pursuant to fee simple, no taxation can be imposed on private property.

 

20.        The Gold Coast City Council has never claimed in direct terms that it is imposing land taxes. However, as previously stated by the Appellant that by calculating the levies of rates on the value of the Appellants property, the Respondent never the less imposes a land tax and therefore, it is submitted, imposes a land tax and although not totally relevant for the purposes of the property held by the Appellant, the fact that the Respondent imposes a high view levy on properties above the fourth floor in a high rise then should be seen as an imposition of property or land tax and therefore unlawful.

 

21.        The Appellant further submits that as Council may impose sections 567 of the purported local government Act 1993, the Respondent may also impose a special rate or charge as it deems appropriate and therefore should be seen as conclusive evidence by this Honourable Court that the purported Rate charges are in fact a tax.

            Special rates and charges – as provided by the purported 1993 Act:

Quote

567.(1) A local government may make and levy a special rate or charge on rateable land if—

 

(2) The special rate or charge may be made and levied on the bases the local government considers appropriate.

            Unquote

22.        Should this Honourable Court deem my submissions to be correct then I humbly request that the Court find in my favour and by Court order declare that:

 

(a)    All Council Land taxation is invalid and or unlawful;

(b)    Local Government Act 1993 is invalid and otherwise Ultra Vires;

(c)    That all Council taxation be returned to the Appellant in so far as is the Appellants proportion;

(d)    That Council reassess all charges to reflect services rendered afforded by council to the Appellant and include no other monetary or other impositions.

(e)    That the Respondent has demanded, collected and held monies paid by the Appellant without proper consideration and thereby has done so fraudulently.

(f)     That moneys collected from the Appellant under the guise of rate charges and used to commit funds to the Light Rail project of on or about $120 Million be returned to the Appellant proportional to the Appellants share.

(g)    That all funding from the Federal Government to the Respondent Council is unconstitutional.

 

22. (a)  The Referendum in 18 May 1974

Local Government Bodies – The fourth proposal sought to amend section 51

of the Constitution to give the Federal Government power to give financial

assistance to lend and borrow money for any local government body. The people voted NO.

22.(b)   In the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of local government – final report 2011 at page 2:-

Quote

Recent Commonwealth programs have shown that the Commonwealth can deal effectively with issues of national importance through a direct funding relationship between the Commonwealth and local government. The decision in the Pape1 case created doubts about the constitutional validity of direct grants to local government and has potentially undermined the ability of the Commonwealth to act in the national interest in this way. All members of the panel consider that it is appropriate that the Commonwealth’s right to have a direct funding relationship with local government, when it is acting in the national interest, be acknowledged in the Constitution.

End Quote

 

22.(c)   On the same page, the report continues:

            Quote

At the same time, several members of the panel remain concerned that financial recognition per se does not currently enjoy sufficient support either among stakeholders or the general community to give a referendum a high enough prospect of success in this Parliament, even if the two conditions proposed by the majority are satisfied. They share a concern that proceeding to another unsuccessful referendum would damage rather than advance the interests of local government.

End Quote

 

22.(d)   Further, on page 3 of the same report:

            Quote

            the proposed negotiations with the States, and hence the need to address present State and

other views that constitutional amendment to validate continued direct funding to local

government is not necessary at this stage, or that alternatively, programs such as Roads to

Recovery can be funded via the States within current provisions of the Constitution.

End Quote

 

22.(e)   As such, it is submitted, that by these admissions in the said report, the Commonwealth does:-

(i)         affords sums of money to Councils (local government;

(ii)        Admits to such activity being unconstitutional

 

22. (f)   On page 4 of the said report, further admissions are made which are as follows:

            Quote 

The Commonwealth has created a number of programs under which grants are made directly to local councils. Three programs are of particular significance for local government throughout Australia: the Nation Building Roads to Recovery program, the Regional Development Australia Fund and the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. A fourth program, Low Carbon Communities, will start soon. Many local councils, particularly in rural areas, consider these programs ‘crucial if local government is to remain financially sustainable in the long-term’2 and are concerned that the constitutional validity of the programs is now in doubt.

 

The Commonwealth has long asserted its ability to make grants directly to local councils, in effect, without restriction as to subject matter. That ability was called into question and, in the view of many constitutional lawyers, substantially undermined by the decision of the High Court in 2009 in Pape. The basis for constitutional validity hitherto asserted by the Commonwealth was rejected by the High Court in that case. Some other basis must be identified to support each specific program of grants.

 

The panel consulted a wider range of constitutional law experts than was available to the Senate Select Committee. It is clear that many constitutional lawyers regard the Commonwealth’s position as aspirational and unlikely to meet favour with the High Court.5 Others assess the risk as small.6 For present purposes, it is sufficient that the panel express its view that there is a very real doubt about the constitutional validity of direct grant programs that do not fall under a head of Commonwealth legislative power.

 

The second reason against the indirect route is the fact that it fails to recognise local government as a legitimate third tier of government in the Australian system. Although this is an issue of status, it is clearly of great significance to local councils throughout Australia.                 ‘Emphasis added in bold and underline.’

           

The panel notes that, until the decision in Pape in 2009, the Commonwealth had long acted on the basis that it could make direct grants on any subject matter, and continues to do so.

End Quote

22.(g)   It is respectfully submitted that by the admission of the Commonwealth in the said report that “until the decision in Pape in 2009, the Commonwealth had long acted on the basis that it could make direct grants on any subject matter, and continues to do so” is or should be seen as a total admission of unconstitutional conduct.

 

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. WISE

.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question -and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain.

If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.

            END QUOTE

 

22.(h)   At page 7 of the same report, a further admission is made:-

            Quote  

Furthermore, in addition to the effect of financial recognition on the availability of resources for local government, the very insertion of an express reference to local government in Australia’s foundational political and legal document, even of this limited character, provides recognition of local government as the third tier of government in Australia.

End Quote

 

22.(i)    In this, “even of this limited character, provides recognition of local government as the third tier of government in Australia” is of profound admission in that, as the Appellant understands it, such statement admits that a third tier (local government) does not exist in Australia but is being peddled, so to speak as a legitimate institution in spite of constitutional provisions and the expressed will of the electorate.

 

22.(j)    Finally, there is the issue of whether a State Parliament may change its constitution without referendum. At page 102 of the same report:-

            Quote

Local government advocates have argued that the protections for local government in State constitutions are further weakened because State constitutions can, as a general rule, be changed in the same way as an ordinary Act of Parliament. A referendum is not required, as it is for changes to the Australian Constitution. The only exception is that some State parliaments have ‘entrenched’ some provisions regarding local government in their State constitutions. By entrenching a provision, a State parliament determines the way that the provision can be changed in the future. According to some, however, there remains a legal question over whether any entrenched provisions, particularly those dealing with local government, would be upheld under a legal challenge.

End Quote

 

22.(h)   The notion that any State Parliament may change its constitution is challenged by the Appellant as extensively argued within this document as section 106 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that at Federation, the States became subject to the Commonwealth Constitution and as at Federation in 1900, all State parliaments ceased to be able to alter the Constitution outside referendum.

 

            HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

            Quote Dr. COCKBURN:

All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference:

When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.                                     Emphasis added

END QUOTE

 

 

Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408)

"Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham, “sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it -  and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio."

 

23.        In outlining the argument but not limited to, the Appellant relies upon the following:

(i).       In no section within the Australian Constitution is there provision for the Federal or State Parliament to establish a third level of government save for the provision of S.128 which avails for the expressed permission of the people via a Federal Referendum and as the 1988 and previous referendums denied both the State and federal Governments to “Establish and maintain a system of local government” then any enactment of a local government Act is, it is submitted, remains Ultra Vires. Also;

(ii).       The High Court of Australia ruled that “State Governments could not raise ANY TAX”, and because of this the ‘State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol’ was removed.

(iii).       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 the Commonwealth of Australia is one imposed by the Federal Parliament through the Commissioner for Taxation.

(iv).       “John Winston Howard, Peter Howard Costello & ’Commissioner for Taxation’ Michael Joseph Carmody all stated before the introduction of the “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”. End Quote

Hansard  21-9-1897  Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN:

Quote

“ Unless we have some great civil war, which will confuse all the issues and blur all the party lines in Australia, and which I hope we shall never have, we shall have the same parties here as existed from the first in America. Parties will be clearly defined: there will be those who wish to see local government , home rule, and state entity preserved; and those who wish to see all these safeguards of the liberty of the people blurred, confused, and obliterated in a central government, which will be situated at[start page 952]a place too far distant for the people of Australia ever to be able to ensure effect being given to their views. I thoroughly believe that this last proposal may be looked upon as, indeed, a proposal for finality. It is a final proposal for the extinction of the senate, of state rights, and of liberty.”                  Emphasis added

End Quote

24.       I humbly request that this Honourable Court deem that the submission herein are accepted as made in good faith and to the best of my knowledge to be true and correct.

25.       I DO NOT give my consent to hearings being conducted in a court de-facto, and insist that any matter in relation to the above be heard in a Court de jure under common law jurisdiction, and, that judgment be by way of agreement from a jury of my peers being four (4) in number with a “judge” adjudicating.”

 

Signed this day  9 June 2012

………………………………………..

Appellant: Bruce Jeffree