Local Councils and the RULE of LAW.

By Peter Olney [ ARCRA inc]                                                                
Rule of Law deals with the idea of being governed by law or rules. In Australia these “laws” are our Constitution and entrenched Imperial laws for our peace, order and good government – for our liberty. We either respect that, or, we have other things dictating called tyrants, or dictators!!! It is most necessary these “Matters of state” continue as a community concern – since Constitutions in Australia can only be changed according to the will of the people at referendum, and not otherwise.
We must address how “the powers that be” have (in time) moved constitutional settings without our approval. They claim the WORDS of the Constitution have not been altered! By altering settings through Eg., the purported Australia Act 1986 (Cth), there is change to the Constitution, and therefore, an infraction (violation or legal break) has been created.
The High Court of Australia is required by law to retain ALL aspects of the Constitution .. as it is the constitutional guardian of the law of the land. Therefore, we have work to do to ensure constitutional Rule of Law.
When Rule of Law for governance is founded in a constitution which “we the people” agree to then there is peace.
When there is no respect for the Rule of Law in this way, then tyranny and dictatorhip emerge – a police state exists!
In Australia the Imperial Constitution Act 1900 set matters in place for our governance with both federal and state Parliaments sharing the load in specific detail (see constitution Section 51) and the authority of federal Parliament was limited, as was the authority of the various state Parliaments.
Now, more than 100 years later, the constitutional settings have become corrupted, and there is lack of respect for the Rule of Law in lower courts – for the constitution is said to be of no consequence, and statute law applies! This has happened without the approval of the people through referendums. It is difficult to get referendum changes. Equally, it is difficult to get justice, for, to go to the High Court of Australia is an expensive exercise most people cannot afford.
When the foundational documents of law in the country are corrupted, then the High Court refer to that as an infraction against the constitution. Entrenched law, from Magna Carta and earlier, is our “law of the land” – those laws from the United Kingdom applying here are listed in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1922 (Vic).
What can be said about recent development of the “Australian Government”, as a parallel to the constitutional Commonwealth of Australia, taking our country away from its constitutional roots without referendum approval? Such actions are actually treason. How can this corruption continue without the support of the lower courts in each state? What can be said about the authority of any court which does not respect constitutional Rule of Law? 

Australians are at a cross road. Governments are acting without our consent to a new “system of government”. What will it take to re-establish the Rule of Law for our governance, for our peace and prosperity?
Consider that a “police state” is the alternative to a properly managed constitution! Many think we are there now. Therefore, what can be done to arrest this corruption to our Rule of Law, and where do we want to go as a people without bloodshed? 
These are issues on the table across the world. Control of the military and police, control of the financial economy (money), and control of the people is entwined in these issues, and, we must work through them together. 
Peter Olney.
Responses to Rule of Law
Geoff says:
December 4, 2012 
If the commonwealth constitution is the law and local government lacks the constitutional authority to charge rates [TAX ON PROPERTY] why do the holders of certificate of title in fee simple lose when they challenge local government in the legal arena? There must be a reason. Is it because the certificate of title is not proof of real ownership, is it because we have unknowingly promised [contracted] to pay rates, is it possible local government is not collecting rates [tax], rather, a corporation is sending local residents a bill for services that said residents have already to pay.
petoln888 says:
December 4, 2012 
Firstly, the lower courts are not wanting to rock the boat and determinations are flawed. A QC advises the only way a fee simple argument will win is in the High Court! That should NOT be the case if the lower courts applied themselves to justice.
Second, council appears to be using the notification of change of ownership notice to create a “liability” against the property owner. It has been determined Victorian law has no form to legally engage council as a third party to the property. I think council consider that an unknowing ‘contract’ occurs!!!
Finally, given council IS a body corporate it has NO legal standing to call itself local “government”, for it in not such an entity – even though many believe otherwise. The local municipal council sends a Rate Notice to pay (as a tax invoice), with threat if you do not pay – which is the offence of ‘demand for money with menace’. At this point your wet ink signature is not on any agreement document!
That councils cannot provide written agreement with you for specific services to you and/or your property, and that there has not been a fair price established for the services you require stands against the law for corporate entities. So, where to from here?
Just Sayin' says:
March 19, 2013 
The Oath of Allegiance now given by the Magistrates, Judges, Sheriffs, Police, is made to the Commonwealth of Australia Corporation and because of that “oath” DO NOT represent HRH Queen Elizabeth II and the Australian People or “OUR” legal Constitution. They represent the Corporation and are bound by it’s rules and laws. WE ARE NOT. QC’s and Solicitors will NEVER admit to you where they have sworn their allegiances and their hands are tied anyway from changing that. They can only distort the truth serving the court and be subjected to the Corporation’s laws that have been ILLEGALLY instituted – despite OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS.
[ED: I am advised that upon entry to Parliament the Members are required to use the constitutional oath]
December 8, 2012 at 9:42 pm
There apparently appears to be an area not considered thus far. I think that it really goes to the heart of the issue, it is Agenda -21. My question is “Should it be considered, and if not, WHY Not?”
petoln888 says:
December 8, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Hi Alyn, .. whilst there is material in the woodwork which talks about Agenda 21 it is not such that one can argue in relation to current law, or the unlawfulness of current statute. In effect it is an ancilliary aspect which may come into play another day. Have you managed to get your council to commit to the fact the council is running on Agenda 21? If not, why not? It will help your proposition if you do. Peter.
Alyn says:
December 8, 2012 at 11:46 pm
I refer to “LA-21″ — NOT Specifically Agenda 21, and yes, I have confronted council who maintained that they know nothing about the reference. I also confronted several Politicians at State and Federal Level just to get the same result. I then contacted the person responsible as admin of LA-21 who eventually said that the two Organizations are NOT connected. Strange about that point given that several pages at that time were “identical” in construction. PLUS .. apparently there is a signatory list of Councils who have signed up to administering Agenda – 21 Principals, but NO-ONE had even heard of these.

John Vance says:
January 1, 2013 at 10:14 pm
Agenda 21 is being implimented through councils in Australia using an organisation called ICLEI. My website is concerned about exposing the details of what is actually proposed, and of course, being a convoluted aim, there are lots of items that are not clearly explained, but look towards what Godfrey Bloom and Lord Monckton have been saying is heading towards Socialism, being as close as calling it communism as it can get. Adam Bandt (deputy greens leader and senator) was recently exposed as being focused on Marxists ideals and he studies removal of rule of law. His thought is that governments are looking towards removing rights that they feel are no longer needed for the individual.
For starters I believe the removal of water rights and vegetative restrictions of rural land has been blamed for many farmers suicides, especially during the drought.
ED: I understand farmer Peter Spencer is fighting this issue of vegitation restrictions in the High Court – as compensation has not been made for the “land use” change.
Reply john says:
January 12, 2013 at 5:06 am
Hi Peter, it matters not what State a person resides. Land Tax – termed by them as a land rate to deceive the uninformed public is equally unlawful throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. We, the People of the Commonwealth of Australia reside on the same land mass, therefore, land is no different in Victoria to that in NSW, QLD, WA… There is one Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900…albeit the Act being a British Act, all courts, judges and People and every State throughout the Commonwealth of Australia are equally bound to that fundamental law – the Commonwealth Constitution. State courts prevent wins against land tax knowing well a win would deny Parliaments and their entities from much revenue used to gainer financial rewards also used for courts, judges…much more could be said. We have several matters before the courts and is only a matter of time before their corruption is exposed. 
Reply Mel says:
January 17, 2013 at 8:02 am
There are two ways to attack this council issue – one via the constitutional path, that I imagine would ultimately have to be settled by the High Court and the other via “commerce” or commercial law and the use of Bills of Exchange to settle rate payments. The latter is based on the Bills of Exchange Act, for which apparently there are no precedent cases. However, the Act is being cited in business insolvency cases being handled in part by Mark Pytellek. The Bill of Exchange allows demands by councils and other bodies to be lawfully met without having to pay bank notes (which are themselves promissory notes). The “commerce” approach does not argue but seeks to settle all demands according to contract an equity law, under which our government corporations operate. Will keep you posted, still researching some issues here.
ED: When more info and successes come through the BoE method then one might look further.

Reply Frank Deutsch says: March 10, 2013 
I intend to have the LGA changed and I intend to do this via: http://www.communityrun.org/petition/new
Yes, I fully agree with Peter, that LG has no constitutional right to exist and I far better way for municipalities to be served would be if it was arranged by using a “body corporate” i.e. the “Body Corporate of White Horse Municipality”. [ED: They ARE presently set up as body corporates]
Now, if the LGA restricts Councils to only be able to provide basic services, roads, water, rubbish, etc. the Councils would NOT BE ABLE to initiate such “snout in the trough” schemes, like study trips, long lunches, sister city relations, etc. etc. and the rates that they can raise would stay low. We would be at least 1/2 way there and changing the LGA may be an easier option, but voters nation wide would have to lobby hard.
Below is my initial draft, I welcome comments.
Changes to the: Victorian Local Government Act
Whom are you petitioning?
Victorian Government, Victorian Opposition, Members of Parliament ,Why is this important?
The Local Government Act (LGA) needs to be revisited and revised to ensure “Good Governance” at the local level, i.e. local Councils.
Local Government by Law, ought to be for the “Good Governance” for the local area that Council represents. Unfortunately, too many times this LGC Act is being abused by various Councils and Council Officers/Councilors not for the benefit of the local ratepayers, but for the grandiousement of the Council management.
The Act is not clear enough in it’s description of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, therefore it needs to be amended to make clear that any Council can only be involved in “What concerns the Local Area”. The Act must be revised to ensure that basic services are what Local Council is concerned with. This should take the form of:
1: Local roads;
2. Rubbish/sewerage and water supply;
3. Local Bylaws/traffic management.

Rate rises cannot be above the cost of living increases, ever. The rate burden is usually thrown at the ratepayer that is least able to defend him/herself, i.e. pensioners. people on low incomes.

BTW, I am the spokes person of the newly formed Ararat Rural City Ratepayers Association ARCRA Inc