130624-Banyule Funding Issues - Etc

7/28/2019 130624-Banyule Funding Issues - Etc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/130624-banyule-funding-issues-etc 1/22

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Banyule City Council & councillors 24-6-2013http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au [email protected] Fax 94991391.Ref; Banyule local funding issue. AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERNSir/Madam,

as a ratepayer I object to the reported financial contribution by Banyule City Councilto support a "Yes" vote for the amendment of the constitution.I urge you to log into the speech of Senator Dean Smith , WA outlining issues regarding socalled constitutional recognition.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P53KCZDzSD4&feature=youtu.be >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P53KCZDzSD4&feature=youtu.be

The Hansard record of this speech is reproduced below.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST , I hold the view that s101 Inter-State Commission would bethe appropriate vehicle to deal with municipal/shire council funding, this as then any funding will

be broadly based upon the opinions of experts, and not subjected to any political demands fromCanberra, whomever may be in power.

I request that each councillor considers what I have set out below, so possibly each councillor may grasp that indeed Senator Dean Smith (WA) made clear that any government authoritycould be a local health centre, or whatever, and actually the Commonwealth may bypassmunicipal/shire council altogether, and then municipal/shire councils may be far worse off.

I will also quote below my 20 June 2013 correspondence to Ms Julia Gillard PM.

In my view, ratepayers are entitled to have councillors making informed decisions and set out tothe ratepayers on what basis it has supported and financed a YES campaign.As Senator Dean Smith outlined what are the real financial benefits, if any, for any s96 funding.And, why at all risk federal government funding where and a huge expense for a referendumwhen all that is needed is for the Parliament to pass legislation to authorise the s101 Inter-StateCommission to deal with Road for Recovery and other programs. Then any politicalinterference is prevented.Also, any undue paperwork the Commonwealth may insist upon can then also avoided.

Not politicians handing out monies for their political benefits but non-political experts of the Inter-State Commission is what we should promote to ensure sustainable funding.What in effect may eventuate is that the commonwealth may seek to micromanage Statedepartments rather than to fund municipal/shire councils because councils are not strictlyState Authorities/Departments unless they are under the Crown (like NSW and Qld since

p1 24-6-2014INSPECTOR-RIKATI ® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

PLEASE NOTE : You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P53KCZDzSD4&feature=youtu.be




http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/









2012) and as such Banyule City Council may be financial supporting a Yes campaign thatin the overall may be adverse to its own future funding, as a corporate entity.QUOTE 20-6-2013 correspondence to Ms Julia Gillard PM

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Ms Julia Gillard PM 20-6-2013

C/o [email protected]

Re issue of amendment to s96 if justified, etc

Madam,

previously, I provided as an extensive submission to and followed this up with

QUOTE

Committee Secretary 4-2-2013Joint Standing Committee on ConstitutionalRecognition of Local GovernmentDepartment of House of RepresentativesPO Box 6021 Parliament House

Canberra ACT. 2600 Australia. [email protected]

Re: WHERE IS MY COMPREHENSIVE SUBMISSION?

THE DETAILS IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO CONFIDENTIALITY!

Re; Presentment to the House of Representatives joint select Committee on the Constitutional recognition of Local Government

To the Committee Secretary

END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National AustralasianConvention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS .-

We want a people's Constitution , not a lawyers' Constitution .END QUOTE.Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. CARRUTHERS:This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.

END QUOTE.Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-

That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton hasdescribed, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. ThisConstitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar tothis, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance orrejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, andit is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have tounderstand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the wholetime of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5

http://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=0113a1ca2dc1d261b6751e041631197cb134&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]





http://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=0113a1ca2dc1d261b6751e041631197cb134&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]






commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not beappreciated by the people.

END QUOTE

I will now address some issues and to some extend quote the Framers of the Constitution as towhy no referendum is needed nor justified..

I did note that Anne Twomey now stated (16-1-2013) there are 2 levels of government, where aslong ago, I recall, on Q&A she referred to 3 levels of government (including municipal councils)..What I read so far, up to part of the submission by the law Council is very clear they haven't gota clue what they are talking about, in a great extend.Lets grab some issues:Regardless if it is the Commonwealth or the States in the end the monies to fund municipalcouncils is taken from the pockets of the ratepayers/taxpayers.

Nothing what the Commonwealth will provide will come from other sources, such as that the political parties will make up the shortfall.So, if say 6 billion dollars is funded by the Commonwealth, then the 6 billion dollars is extractedfrom taxpayers. If the Commonwealth were not to fund municipal councils but hand the 6 billiondollars to the States then it still would come from the taxpayers. As such the money pie is beingdivided either by the state or the Commonwealth but is always extracted from the taxpayers.Therefore, what we are talking about is if internal State matters should become dictated by theCommonwealth, and so like the Hobart Hospital funding becomes a political issue, where

pending which party is in power municipal councils may or may not be funded, or we leave it tothe States to address their own internal matters as the Constitution was intending to provide for..We then come to the issue should there be a Commonwealth Grant Commission or not?In my view, it has no constitutional validity. I will attend to this below.

.Professor George Williams then argued that the Roads to Recovery program would likely bedeemed unconstitutional, well I differ to this point of view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST , not

being a so called " constitutionalist lawyers ". the term constitutionalist lawyers is really anOXYMORON ..A lawyer cannot truly understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of theconstitution, as it is contradictory to what the ordinary person would understand/comprehend.It was noted that the first speakers didn't then refer to the s101 Inter-State Commission at all.whereas I view each demonstrated by this to fail to properly set out what is applicable and howwithout a referendum the Roads of Recovery program can still continue constitutionally validly,

albeit without the involvement of a Commonwealth Grants Committee.As far as I could find the Hansard transcript of Wednesday 16 January 2013 does not reveal anyreference to s101 or the Inter-State Commission! This may underline none of the people at thathearing, including the Senators, etc, properly considered what the constitution stands for in thatregard. I understand that the Commonwealth with agreement of the States has discontinued theInter-State Commission, but no such powers existed for the Commonwealth and the State to doso and hence the Commonwealth of Australia itself is clearly at fault in that regard also, as arethe States. We now have to consider the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and alsonote that they made clear that the parliament could provide additional powers to the Inter-State



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5










Commission. The Roads of Recovery program could be deemed to fit the Trade and commerceclause and as such could be dealt with by the Inter-State Commission.We must also keep in mind that CoAG (Council of Australian Governments) really is alsounconstitutionally taking the constitutional powers of the Inter-State Commission.

HANSARD 25-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Commission obligatory.

END QUOTEAndHANSARD 25-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. HIGGINS .- But the Inter-State Commission must be absolutely independent of Parliament.

END QUOTE.HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. HOLDER: We want something which shall have two parts, which shall be democratic in the fact thatit is based on the people's will, and that in it every personal unit of the population shall be recognised and hisindividuality preserved, and that, on the other hand, shall be a true Federation, in that each State unit shall

also have its individuality preserved and its independence assured. I do not think we can afford todispense with either of these two things. We cannot afford to dispense with the guarantee of the personalindividual rights of every citizen of the Commonwealth, nor, on the other hand, can we afford to dispensewith the individual or separate rights or interests of each of the separate States-if my hon. friend Mr.O'Connor prefers that term. We cannot neglect to provide for their due recognition. The next principle I shalllay down is this: That in dealing with this federal authority we should confer on it no powers which itcannot exercise more wisely and well and effectively than the States can exercise those powers. I wouldeven go a step further, and lay down as the principle which should govern our conduct: To the States all thatis local and relating to one State , to the Federal authority all that is national and inter-State.

END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR .-But that money could not be spent upon any object the Federal Parliament thoughtfit.

Mr. HOLDER .-I want an expression of opinion which shall be authoritative on the point. I see that,according to the provision I have quoted, there is power given to the Federal Parliament to borrow money onthe credit of the Commonwealth, and I say again that I do not know of any limitation of the expenditure of that money except the limitation which would be specified in the Loan Act authorizing the borrowing of themoney. Of course, these words cover the raising of the money for the building of railways for instance, and insuch a case the limitation would be the terms of the Loan Act. But is there anything anywhere to prevent aLoan Act being passed by the Federal Parliament authorizing the raising of a certain sum of money, the

proceeds of which loan might be divided according to the terms of the Act among the states according to their needs, or upon some other principle?

Mr. GLYNN .-The first three lines of clause 52 affect that point.

Mr. ISAACS .-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order, and good governmentof the Commonwealth," not of the states.

Mr. HOLDER .-The passage to which Mr. Glynn refers me is as follows:-

The Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power and authority to makelaws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, with respect to all or any of thematters following.

Well, that includes the borrowing of money.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5










Mr. ISAACS .-It is the Commonwealth as distinguished from the state that is to borrow; the money is onlyto be borrowed for the purposes of the Commonwealth.

Mr. REID .-Look at clause 81, where it is clearly set out that-

All revenues raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth, under theauthority of this Constitution, shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for thepublic service of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges provided by thisConstitution.

Mr. HOLDER .-With all due respect, I do not think that that clause applies.

Mr. REID .-Yes; it covers every appropriation issued from the Treasury.

Mr. HOLDER .-I do not think so. I think clause 81 deals with revenue.

Mr. REID .-You receive revenue, and you appropriate money for expenditure.

Mr. HOLDER .-I do not suppose it is intended that the term "Consolidated Revenue Fund," used inclause 81, shall include both revenue and loan money. We are surely going to keep these two separate.

Mr. REID .-There is no provision of that sort.

Mr. HOLDER .-Then I would suggest that words should be inserted in order to provide that loan moneyand revenue shall be kept separate . I hope we shall have a Loan Account and a Consolidated RevenueAccount, and by no means mix up the two. I take it that clause 81 does not refer to any loan fund at all, butsimply to revenue. The term "Consolidated Revenue Fund" defines it clearly. Of course, I am not expressing alegal opinion in a chamber of lawyers such as this is. I should be unwilling to do that. I simply rose with theobject of putting forward these points with a view of obtaining a statement of authoritative opinion in regardto them. It appears to me that the clauses I have mentioned imply the possibility of some assistance beingrendered to a state in difficulties. It seems to me that, as no assistance could be rendered out of revenue,some assistance might be rendered out of loans, or there might be a guarantee of a loan, [start page 1115] or some other way of rendering financial aid to a state that might be devised. But I hope Mr.Henry will withdraw his motion, because to state the matter so broadly as that the Commonwealthshall come to the aid of a state might, I am afraid, lead to very serious reckless financing on the part of some states under some possible conditions.

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-My honorable friend (Mr. Holder) has put the matter with his usualclearness, and has very convincingly shown that at any rate there is very considerable doubt as to the questionwhich has been exercising our minds, as to whether it would be an implied power in the Commonwealth tocome to the assistance of a state in financial straits. And, therefore, if the existence of the power is involved indoubt, it would be exceedingly desirable that some provision-I do not say the provision moved by myhonorable friend, who is not wedded to the particular words of his amendment, or any other-should beinserted, so as to make it clear that that power exists. Now, I was very glad to hear Mr. Isaacs express hisdesire to eliminate from this discussion, although we may use the word "insolvency," all idea of its beingsuggested that we contemplate the actual insolvency of any particular state. We cannot discuss a subject likethis without using the common words "bankruptcy" and "insolvency," and if we have to speak of statebankruptcy, or state insolvency, we do not mean to impute that any state of the Commonwealth, underany set of circumstances, is likely to repudiate its obligations.

Mr. ISAACS .-Such a thing is absolutely impossible.

Mr. SYMON .-Therefore, while we use the terms "bankruptcy" and "insolvency" as applying to apossible state of things which we wish to avert, it is not to be imagined for a moment that wecontemplate that such a state of things is going to exist, but we mean that a state may be in such acondition of strait, or the Treasurer of that state maybe in such a condition of administrativeembarrassment, that it may be necessary to have re-course to the Commonwealth for assistance insome shape or other. Now, I also desire to say that I do not think it is necessary to determine, and it willbe impossible for this Convention to determine, whether or not this implied power exists in theConstitution. There might be, and no doubt would be, a strong difference of opinion upon the subject,and even if we, assembled here, were unanimous on the subject, that fact would not assist the final



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5










determination of the question when the exigency arose. But I agree with Mr. O'Connor thatundoubtedly in the distribution of the surplus, and in dealing with the financial condition of the states,the Commonwealth would be animated by a desire to see that the states were placed in a position tomeet all their engagements. The difficulty which Mr. Henry sees, and to which he directs his amendment, isas to the condition of things during the five years' interval-during the bookkeeping period-when there is anexpress appropriation of the surplus moneys. During that time Mr. Henry fears it is possible, withoutmentioning any particular colony, that the Treasurer of one of the states might be unable to see his way tomeet his public engagements.

Mr. REID .-He could adopt Mr. Walker's proposal for capitalizing discrepancies.Mr. SYMON .-That is one of those delightfully scientific proposals that appeal to the mind of the

statistician and the financier more than to the mind of a humble layman, and I am sure that if there is onemember of this Convention competent to solve the problem of capitalizing a financial discrepancy it is Mr.Walker. However, I have pointed out what seems to me to be the difficulty to which Mr. Henry has addressedhis amendment, and I feel that Mr. O'Connor's [start page 1116] argument, powerful as it is in reference to thecondition of things after the expiration of the five years, is absolutely without force as applied to the conditionof things to which Mr. Henry's amendment is directed. But I go further than that, and I take up the view whichwas dealt with by Mr. O'Connor on the broad ground-and that is the position to which I wish to direct theattention of members of the Convention-of whether it is politic or right to introduce this amendment into theConstitution. If this power is implied in the Constitution, then the amendment merely asserts and makesabsolutely clear a power which the Commonwealth might exercise if the necessity arose. On the other

hand, if it is not implied in the Constitution, it seems to me that it is a power that ought to be in theConstitution, so as to enable the Commonwealth to do what I believe it would be the disposition of theFederal Parliament to do, namely, to come to the aid of any state which sought its interference toprotect that state from financial disaster or financial strait. I admit all the possibilities on the twogrounds put by Mr. Holder-that there is a possibility of this provision leading to reckless financing onthe part of the states, and also the other ground that it imposes an obligation on the Commonwealth,and a difficulty with which the Federal Parliament and the Federal Executive may have to deal. Butthose two things do not seem to me to outweigh the advantage of having this power clearly expressed inthe Constitution, to enable the Federal Parliament to give that assistance which might be absolutelyessential to the stability and even to the existence of a particular state. Now, I will suppose the case of astate in which such a condition of things has arisen. But again, I say, I do not believe that such acondition of things would ever occur in any of the states of this Commonwealth. Still, suppose a stategot into financial embarrassment, and there was a tendency towards, or a talk of, repudiation, why

should not the Federal Executive and the Federal Parliament, in the interests of the Commonwealth,come to the assistance and relief of that state? Would it not be infinitely better that the Commonwealthshould exercise a power of that kind than that it should allow a blemish to be put on the honour andgood faith of the entire Commonwealth, which would result from any one state repudiating itsobligations? I admit that there are disadvantages and inconveniences on the one side, but on the otherthere is the great principle that it is the duty of the Commonwealth to maintain the existence, theintegrity, and the solvency of every state. And I do say that that is the function of the Commonwealth.

Mr. REID .-Then it had better be put in the Bill, and let the people know what they are doing. If theyare going to enter into a contract of that sort, the people had better know it.

END QUOTEAndHansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Dr. COCKBURN .-The whole proposal is foreign to the spirit of the Constitution. The Constitutionlays it down that the Commonwealth is to deal equally with all the states whether it is in the matter of taxation, of bounties, or of trade, and we may as well strike out the provision that all taxation shall beuniform throughout the Commonwealth if we are to contemplate that after the taxation has been raised the

proceeds may be handed over to any one colony. The thing will not bear a moment's investigation, and I hopethe honorable member will not press his proposal to a division. It is a pity that the amendment has been

brought forward. There is no possibility, nor does any one contemplate the possibility, of any of the states being in a worse financial position than they are in at the present time. On the contrary, I believe that their financial position, good as it is now, will be infinitely improved.

END QUOTE



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5










.Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. ISAACS .-I am not prepared to answer that question, but when we look at clause 52 we find thesegoverning words on the very forefront of that clause-

That Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution , have full power and authority tomake laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth.

We see there that the Commonwealth is named as distinguished from the states . We have our Constitution framed in this way with a Senate to guard what? The interests of the states, so that theCommonwealth shall not intrude one inch into what is retained as the executive rights and jurisdictionof the states.

END QUOTE

We have however that the Commonwealth basically is extorting from the State powers it is notgranted in the constitution by using s96 grants whereas the States should stand up and make clear not to handover any powers and the Commonwealth then is bound to hand over the surplus of monies to the States anyhow.The Road of Recovery program, I view, is unconstitutional because it is not a constitutional valid

body. It purports to divide monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds to what it deemsappropriately under the watchful eyes of the political masters, where in fact the Federalgovernment is prohibited to distribute any monies other then "uniform" throughout thecommonwealth. Hence, the Julia Gillard deal with treacherous Andrew Wilkies to fund HobartHospital to keep her in power is precisely that.The Framers of the Constitution specifically provided for s101 Inter-State Commission and asthey made clear there always shall be an Inter-State Commission that will have the powers over the distributing, etc, of funding regarding Trade and commerce. Hence, the Roads to Recovery

program should be dealt with by the Inter-State Commission. its experts then could allocate on anon political basis to the needs of each State, and so its communities.S96 is not the right vehicle for this, as it is misused and abused by the Federal government to flexits political powers. We need to keep s96 for pure real emergencies for a State and nothing else.As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, Parliament could provide other and additional

powers to the Inter-State Commission, to deal with other matters that it held could not beappropriately funded in a "uniform" manner..Therefore, there is no need to amend s96 , because all the Parliament needs to do is to providelegislation to empower the Inter-State commission to deal with certain issues and the problemsare resolved. Well, that is financially, but it also means (as I understand Anna implied to) that

political muscles cannot be used to interfere in municipal councils conduct.You would have a non-political body of experts that would be dealing with the funding of avariety of masters without political interferences and so no pork barreling. (Such as Hobart

Hospital)

Lets consider what the Framers of the Constitution intended regarding the Inter -StateCommission, albeit these are quotes and best is to read the entire Hansard references to this issue.

HANSARD 25-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. BARTON .-

If it is necessary to give the Parliament power at all, Parliament should have that power in an unrestrictedform, so as to enable the Inter-State Commission to execute and maintain the trade and commerce provisionsgenerally

END QUOTE



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5











Mr. HIGGINS .-I did not mean to do so. I was merely about to refer to it in reply to the honorable member'sinterjection. My suggestion is this : It is now put to us that we must make the appointment of the InterState Commission obligatory. I agree that you must make it obligatory if you preserve the clause in itsentirety, retaining the words [start page 1523] I in the opinion of the Inter-State Commission," but I hope thatwe shall not retain those words. With regard to the Inter-State Commission, if they have merely to deal withmatters arising under the provision in regard to freedom of trade and intercourse and preferential rates, therewill not be enough work for them to do.

Mr. OCONNOR .-Their powers would be much larger than that.

END QUOTE


Mr. HIGGINS .-But the Inter-State Commission must be absolutely independent of Parliament.

Sir GEORGE TURNER .-I take it the Inter-State Commission would be appointed by Parliament.

Mr. OCONNOR .-By the Executive, you mean,

Sir GEORGE TURNER .-Well, they would be appointed probably by the Executive, and it isquestionable whether they would be removable except under certain conditions . I think we are mixing upquestions which ought to be kept separate. When we come to discuss the tenure of their office, I shall be

perfectly prepared to leave them fairly independent. At the same time, there is no necessity to pay highsalaries to men who will only work a portion of the year. I make these remarks in reply to Mr. Higgins, whoseems to think it is necessary to have a permanent body drawing high fees.

Mr. HIGGINS .-I did not say there should be a large staff. What I said was that the Inter-StateCommission should be independent of Parliament, and have no fear in consequence of any action theymay take.

END QUOTE


Mr. MCMILLAN .-You would give certain status to the-members of the commission?

Sir GEORGE TURNER .-If an Inter-State Commission is appointed, it should have a fairlyindependent tenure, something like that of the Railways Commissioners. I do not believe in having anInter-State Commission which is to be a mere farce, or a parliamentary puppet which could be turnedout of existence. That would not be a proper provision to put in the Constitution. I do not go the length thatMr. Kingston goes in saying we, in the Constitution, should appoint an Inter-State Commission. I am quitewilling to leave the matter optional. Having done that we still leave to Parliament powers to make laws

providing for the execution of the Act in regard to trade and commerce, and to forbidding preferences. But Iwould leave it to the Inter-State Commission to carry out those laws from time to time. In the first or secondyear of the existence of the Federal Parliament, it would be impossible to draw a hard-and-fast line which

would be applicable ten years afterwards. We are new country with new developments, and as years go on,what might be just and proper now might in the future become improper and unjust. I, therefore, think weought to give power to the Federal Parliament to constitute the commission, and leave the carrying out of thelaws to a body with a proper tenure.

END QUOTE


The CHAIRMAN .-The amendment to strike out "may" will be withdrawn for the present, in view of putting the proposal of Mr. Kingston to insert "There shall be" before "the."



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5










Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think there may be some difficulty about this. If it be stated in theConstitution that there shall be an Inter-State Commission , having certain powers, I am not sure that itmight not be interpreted to mean a direction to the Commonwealth to appoint a commission at once. Thatwould not do. It is intended that the powers of the commission shall be within the limits of the Constitution asdefined by law. That might raise a difficulty of interpretation, and I suggest to Mr. Kingston that be shouldleave it-"Parliament shall constitute an Inter-State Commission." I was not in the chamber when Sir GeorgeTurner spoke, and he will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand he seems to think that the Inter-StateCommission should merely have such powers as the Parliament may grant to it. I think the Inter-StateCommission should have some of the powers expressed in the Constitution in regard to water traffic.

Sir GEORGE TURNER .-What I said was, that I thought Parliament should declare. generally inregard to trade and commerce, and that the Inter-State Commission should be practically anindependent body to carry out the law of Parliament from time to time; that law being, of course, in theConstitution.

Mr. BARTON .-We are about to say that an Inter-State Commission shall be appointed to execute andmaintain the Commonwealth provisions relating to trade and commerce. I understand that the general sense of the Convention is that the restriction to railways and rivers should disappear; that the Inter-State Commissionshould deal with commerce throughout the states without any restriction. Then the clause would read:-

The Parliament shall make laws constituting an Inter-State Commission to execute and maintain within theCommonwealth the provisions of this Constitution relating to commerce. [start page 1526] That seems to me

to be the charter of the Inter-State Commission.Sir GEORGE TURNER .-Would you add "and the laws for the time being passed by the Parliament"?

Mr. BARTON .-I think that is un-necessary. They will have to maintain the constitutional provisionswith regard to trade and commerce. It is obvious that we must give a certain amount of discretion toParliament, and Parliament having a commission already in existence will not pass any laws relating totrade and commerce without leaving the determination of those laws to the Inter State Commission. Itmay be only a difference of form, but I think there would be no advantage in adding the wordssuggested. We are giving in the Constitution power to the Inter-State Commission to execute andmaintain within the Commonwealth the provisions relating to trade and commerce. Then we have inMr. Grant's amendment the determination of certain other matters confided to the Inter-StateCommission, and I understand that the Right Hon. Sir George Turner consented yesterday to havesimilar words inserted in his clause. It is clear then that the provisions we are inserting in theConstitution in relation to trade and commerce will be under the jurisdiction of the Inter-StateCommission, and that is really all we want. We might go further and make some provision as to thelaws, but that is unnecessary. It is inconceivable that Parliament would pass laws, and take away fromthe Inter-State Commission the power of adjudicating on them. What I do want to impress on honorablemembers is that there is no necessity to say that there shall be an Inter-State Commission . If we say thatParliament shall constitute an Inter-State Commission, then we make it clear that it is the Parliament,and not the Executive, that is deal with the commission in the first instance and to define its powers. That is necessary, as we might otherwise find the Executive Government taking this as a direction to appointan Inter-State Commission before a statute had been passed, and then there might be some trouble with theHigh Court.

END QUOTE


Mr. BARTON .-All they can do is to maintain the provisions relating to trade and commerce. They willhave nothing to do with the question of telegraphic rates.

Mr. GLYNN .-It has been laid down in America that the Inter-State Commission could get from Parliament power to exercise control over the telegraphic rates.

[start page 1528]

Mr. BARTON .-Parliament could give them that power, but it is not likely that it will do so.

END QUOTE



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5











Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-Perhaps I might make a suggestion to the committee which will enableus to pass on to other matters . If a vote were taken on the proposal that the word "shall" be substitutedfor the word "may," so as to make the clause read "Parliament shall," and if that be decided in theaffirmative , it might be taken as a direction to the Drafting Committee to redraft this and the followingclause, so as to provide for the desires that have been expressed by the committee during the debate, whichare very easy, on this occasion, to gather. It would not be a very difficult matter to redraft these clauses tomeet the views of the committee.

Mr. HIGGINS .-We want a test vote as to whether it shall be obligatory or not on the Parliament to appointan Inter-State Commission.

Mr. BARTON .-Yes, and if such a vote is carried, as far as I can see at present, the DraftingCommittee would be likely to put the two clauses together in some such shape as this:-

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as theParliament front time to there deems necessary, but so that the commission shall be charged with theexecution and maintenance within the Commonwealth of the provisions of this Constitution, and of anylaws made thereunder, relating to trade and commerce.

That is to be the charge of the commission, but the extent of the powers of adjudication anddetermination necessary to enable them to carry out their charge must, from time to time, be left to theParliament, as any one must admit.

Mr. REID .-We do not object to that.

Mr. HIGGINS .-Is it quite clear as to railway rates coming under the trade and commerce clauses?

Mr. BARTON .-There is no question about that

END QUOTE


Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).- The point which I wish to make is this: Should not the Inter-StateCommission be constituted under the Constitution instead of being the creation of the FederalParliament, as it is intended in some respects to control the judgment of the Federal Parliament?

Mr. BARTON .-I think the Federal Parliament would be obliged to appoint the Inter-State Commissionanyhow. Otherwise, Sir George Turner's clause and that of Mr. Grant could not be put into operation.

END QUOTE


Mr. BARTON .-They need not be rail-way experts necessarily. Their powers would be defined by theParliament, and there would be an appeal to the High court.

Mr. ISAACS .-It seems to me to be superseding the powers of the Parliament. I am afraid of it.

The amendment striking out the words and upon rivers flowing through, in, or between two or more states"was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN .-The clause now reads-

There shall be an Inter-State Commission to execute and maintain within the Commonwealth the provisionsof this Constitution relating to trade and commerce.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5










Dr. QUICK (Victoria).- The clause as it stands seems somewhat restricted. It does not take intoconsideration Sir George Turner's clause. I understand that the object was to give the Inter-stateCommission jurisdiction to determine what are preferences and discriminations which are unjust toany state.

END QUOTE


Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- This ought to be considered a little more. The question is now whetheryou are setting up this Inter-State Commission in rivalry to the powers of the Federal Judiciary.

Mr. BARTON .-We are going to provide for appeals from the Inter-State Commission to the HighCourt.

Mr. SYMON .-That may get over the difficulty, but you have to be very careful in a general clause like thisto keep it as narrow as possible.

Mr. BARTON .-I would not dream of giving these powers to the Inter-State Commission unless therewas an appeal to the High Court.

END QUOTE


Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).- That is the reason why I suggested a redrafting of the clauses. Itwill probably take this shape:-

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as theParliament from time to time deems necessary, but so that the commission shall be charged with theexecution and maintenance within the Commonwealth of the provisions of this Constitution, and of anylaws made thereunder relating to trade and commerce.

That would meet my honorable friend's objection. There is no real conflict between the clauses.

Mr. DOBSON .-My point is, can the Parliament give away the powers to the Inter-State Commission whichwe, by Sir George Turner's amendment, have conferred on the Parliament.

Mr. BARTON .-You cannot give the execution and maintenance of these provisions, but the question of adjudicative and administrative powers are to be vested by Parliament.

The clause was agreed to.

END QUOTE

While the Federal Government seemed to be bend on funding for religious issues, it may onlydemonstrate the contempt it shows to the constitution. And it somehow then demand others torespect the rule of law it denounces?

While those in the Parliament may be partisans to a political party, when appointed as a advisor (Minister) to the Governor-General then the duty lies first and foremost to advise the Governor-General to what is in the best interest of the Commonwealth and its people, even if this iscontrary to the parties doctrine. Compliance with the legal principles embedded in theconstitution must always stand above party politics.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTON .- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by theParliament of the United Kingdom . That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because theprovisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies , and the details of enactment by whichthose principles are enforced , will all have been the work of Australians .



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5










END QUOTEAndHANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTON .- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for anExecutive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.

END QUOTE.

In my view, an amendment of s96 may boost the ego's of councillors that somehow they nowhave a certain standing , but we must ask if this does not reverse certain principles embedded inthe constitution?


Mr. ISAAC.- Yes. What I wish to point out is that we must be careful that we do not in this rough-and-ready fashion bring about the reversals of principles already laid down in the Bill.

END QUOTE

The issue is not what the current Federal Government may in tend but what in time to come someother rough Government may seek to do to use the amendment.

As I have set out extensively in my published books (no need to do it now again) the amendmentof s51(xxvi) of the constitution was deceptively obtained and now twisted to a meaning never assuch set out to the aboriginal people nor the overall electors. Indeed, where was the admissionthat since federation aboriginals who had State franchise voted in federal elections, and thereforeany legislation contrary to s41 was ultra vires.I have no doubt that likewise s96 will be a tool to obtain results not at all put to the electors for the referendum..All it needs is to have a political party appointed its own colour judges to the High Court of Australia and they will bow to their political masters and twist and infringe upon the constitutionas if there is no tomorrow.This, even so the Framers of the constitution stated:

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention )QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON .-

We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:

END QUOTE

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention ),

QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of

justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE


Sir JOHN DOWNER .-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states onterms that are just to both.

END QUOTEHANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5










Mr. BARTON .- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but underit; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to theConstitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions , then by slowdegrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that theguarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, thecourt you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as

will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action , the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphereof the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE

As I have so often stated, in Iran they have a constitutional body and we in Australia still haven'tmanaged to have this, hence the need for the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN , a constitutionalcouncil that advises the Parliament, the People, the Government and the judiciary as to the truemeaning and application of the constitution.

Wed never should accept that the Government of the day can play games with their powers

ignoring unconstitutional exercise of powers, because no appropriate body is in place to holdthem accountable..The High Court of Australia cannot be deemed to be the Guardian of the Constitution as it only

power is derived from when a person/body institute legal proceedings to challenge a issue onconstitutionality. otherwise the High Court of Australia is render powerless to protect anyinvasion into constitutional limitations. And, even when a person seeks to file an applicationregarding alleged unconstitutional conduct then it may bow to its political masters in Canberraand den the application for filing as I experienced, on 18 and 19 February 2003, and again on 18and 19 March 2003, as to the unconstitutional invasion into Iraq. (My books set the details outand so no need to repeat the same.)

As I commenced from the start of this writing, my submission was never published and one hasto question this! what on earth was in the submission that required it to be concealed from thegeneral public?I for one will encourage every elector to vote NO in regard of any amendment of theconstitution, in particular regarding s96, as unless and until we have a transparent system in placewhere every submission (other then confidential submissions) are published as to be available for all people to read, we cannot speak of a FAIR and PROPER presentation as to what the proposedamendment is really about.The Framers of the Constitution held that it was imperative that the media would be able toreport matters, other then closed committee meetings, so that thew people would be fully aware

of what was intended to be achieved. I for one cannot state this is eventuating with the current proposed amendment for a referendum. therefore, I would urge every person to vote NO in the proposed referendum to amend the constitution.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit )

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

(Our name is our motto! )



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5










END QUOTE

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=DEAN%20SMITH%20Date%3A18%2F06%2F2013%20%3E%3E%2019%2F06%2F2013%20Dataset%3Ajournals,orderofbusiness,hansards,hansards80,notices,websds,senators,practces,orderss,websenguide,procbull,broadcastSen;rec=3;resCount=DefaultQUOTE Wednesday, 19 June 2013 Page: 26

Senator SMITH » ( Western Australia ) ( 12:25 ): I rise this afternoon to speakon the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013. If the Senate will indulge mefor a brief moment, I note that yesterday's date, 18 June, marked exactly one yearsince my first speech in this place.

Senator Joyce: Hear, hear!

Senator « SMITH » : Thank you very much, Senator Joyce. Given my longstandinginterest and commitment to maintaining the integrity of Australia's federated structure,I can think of no better way to mark that occasion than to outline some of the dangersto that structure that are contained in this constitutional bill. I want to acknowledgethe heartfelt and genuine support of Senator Joyce and others for this important issue.However, I will be voting against this bill.

For a long time I have opposed the constitutional recognition of local government onthe basis that it would distort the federal structure, give rise to unforeseen andunintended consequences and lead to an eventual eclipse of the states and theireventual irrelevance as a balance against the centralised power of the Commonwealth.I will come to the detail of those arguments shortly.

First, however, we need to ask ourselves: why are we preparing to hold areferendum in just 87 days' time on an issue which, frankly, does not loom large in theday-to-day thinking of many Australians? After all, there is no massive groundswell of community opinion demanding constitutional recognition of local government. There isno pressing crisis in our system of government or in our federation that demands thisreform. Despite the rhetoric from some of this proposal's more fervent supporters,there is no threat to the services currently being provided by local government acrossAustralia. So why this referendum and why now?

I believe a clue as to why this push is coming now lies in an examination of thesupporters of this proposal. It is very difficult to identify public supporters of thisproposal who are not either members of parliament, mayors, councillors, employees of local governments or the various local government associations that represent localcouncils. In other words, the chorus of enthusiasts for this proposal starts and endswith political elites, most particularly those who have a vested interest in furthercentralisation of power in Canberra and local councillors who labour under themisguided belief that this change will mean more funding and greater influence fortheir councils. In fact, I believe these changes have the potential to neuter councils,but I will come to that shortly.

Let us start at the beginning. Let us remember that this referendum was born in themidst of a deal the Prime Minister did with the Greens and Independent MPs in aneffort to cling to office after the 2010 election. The policy imperatives have never really



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F241710%22;querytype=;rec=0

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=DEAN%20SMITH%20Date%3A18%2F06%2F2013%20%3E%3E%2019%2F06%2F2013%20Dataset%3Ajournals,orderofbusiness,hansards,hansards80,notices,websds,senators,practces,orderss,websenguide,procbull,broadcastSen;rec=3;resCount=Default#HIT2%23HIT2

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe5d%22;querytype=;rec=0











http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe5d%22;querytype=;rec=0









been argued by this government. This is a referendum that is being driven by politicalnecessity, not a desire for substantial constitutional reform. Indeed, supporters of thisreferendum proposal seem to be deeply confused about why we need constitutionalrecognition of local government at all.

The Australian Local Government Association, the peak body to which the Gillardgovernment will funnel $10 million in taxpayers' money in order to campaign for a yesvote, says that constitutional recognition of local government is needed because the

Williams and the Pape decisions in the High Court have posed a direct threat to councilfunding from the Commonwealth. ALGA says that the only way around this is toformally recognise local government in the Constitution. So I was rather surprisedwhen, in the course of questioning during senate estimates, Senator Lundy said thatthe Williams decision was 'not one of our justifications at all'. Senator Lundy's view isindeed borne out by the wording of the government's bill and the accompanyingexplanatory memorandum, neither of which mentions the High Court or the Williams orPape decisions. So we have a situation where the two strongest proponents of constitutional change—the Labor government and ALGA—fundamentally disagreeabout why this change is needed at all. If they cannot agree, why should the Australianpeople be expected to take a risk and change a Constitution which has served ournation so well since 1901?

Those supporting this change have sought to disguise what they are doing byclaiming the change is minor or that it is 'just a few words'. When it comes to wordingin the Constitution, many of us know that one word can and will make a difference.Indeed, there is an avalanche of opinion from respected constitutional experts andthose with long experience in constitutional interpretation which says that what isbeing proposed is anything but minor. I trust the views of the former High CourtJustice Ian Callinan, who has said:

The proposal will, if adopted, enable the Commonwealth government to side line the states

and divide and rule a multiplicity of clamouring councils swollen in ego and, inevitably in

bureaucracy. Anyone who would believe that local autonomy and democracy will be

enhanced would be delusional. Instead, the flow of funds and accordingly the preference for

project over project, and their implementation will be micro-managed by Canberra. The

marginalised states will be denied the capacity to design and implement the infrastructure

that the states require, and, in addition to the demarcation disputes in the High Court

between the states and the Commonwealth, there will be endless litigation between the

states, the Commonwealth and the new empowered local authorities as to who is entitled

to do what and equally importantly, where.

Those are not my words but the words of a respected High Court judge. I trust therespected constitutional scholar, Professor Anne Twomey of the University of Sydney.She wrote:

A constitutional amendment that permitted the Commonwealth to make grants to local

government, ‘on such terms and conditions as the [Commonwealth] Parliament thinks fit’,



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5










would provide a further means for the Commonwealth to interfere with and potentially

override State policies. It would therefore undermine the federal system of government.

Along with many Australians and many in this chamber, I trust the opinion of formerPrime Minister John Howard, who was elegant in his simplicity when he provided hisview to the Spigelman expert panel on local government recognition. He said:

Whilst I respect very much the role of local government in our community I am not

disposed to support a constitutional change.

The historical evolution of our Constitution has been one of colonies agreeing to form a

commonwealth. To use the clumsy jargon, local government units are 'creatures' of the

states.

In my opinion even a casual reference to local government in the Constitution would end up

having legal implications far beyond what might be advocated by the proponents of such a

change.

I also trust the views of the other Liberal and National Party senators who will bestanding up for their states and their local communities by opposing this grab forpower.

One need not think that it is only conservatives who are opposed to theconstitutional change this referendum would propose. Gary Johns, a former Keatinggovernment minister, advocates a no vote. Professor Cheryl Saunders, laureate

professor at the University of Melbourne law school—someone generally considered tobe on the left of the political debate—has said, simply:

This is not a good idea. It is correct, as several premiers have argued, that it undermines

the authority of the states in areas of state responsibility.

I also trust the views of the state governments of New South Wales, Victoria andWestern Australia, all of which oppose this referendum. I hold great hope that they willsoon be joined by the Queensland government.

Nor do all local councils speak with one voice on this matter. In my own state of Western Australia, I am aware of several councils which are ardently opposed toconstitutional recognition of local government, among them those of the City of Nedlands, the town of Cambridge in Perth, the Shire of Plantagenet in WA's GreatSouthern Region and the Shire of Dalwallinu, to name but a few. In my view,opposition to constitutional recognition of local government will only grow stronger inthe next 87 days—because its supporters cannot give the people of Australia a singlegood reason to support it.

When you look behind the vapid sloganeering and ALGA's platitudinous claim that tovote no is to vote against local communities—a claim which makes no sensewhatsoever—you are not left with very much at all. How do I know this? When the WA



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5










Local Government Association and the City of Perth wrote to me and asked me tosupport this bill, I replied with a series of questions. I asked those questions in goodfaith—because, if we are to have a fully informed debate, I believe it is important tofully consider all the issues. I asked the City of Perth for information: a list of themoneys currently received directly from the federal government by the City of Perth; alist of the current and future projects which depend on constitutional recognition of local government in order to proceed; a list of previously planned projects which havenot proceeded due to local government not being currently recognised in theConstitution; a copy of the legal advice referred to in their letter which claims that thisreform proposal will not reduce the power of states over local communities; a copy of any economic modelling they had or had seen demonstrating the economic benefit of constitutional recognition of local government; a copy of the minutes of the meeting atwhich the City of Perth's position on the proposed referendum was agreed to andadvice as to whether or not that decision was unanimous; advice as to whether or notthe City of Perth supports the creation of independent, publicly funded yes and nocommittees for the purpose of preparing cases to be put before electors; andinformation about what quantum of ratepayers' funds, if any, they had alreadycommitted or expected to commit to the campaign to recognise local government inthe Constitution.

I grant you that that was quite a list. But the essence of those questions is the needfor supporters of this referendum to justify the need for the proposed change. In oursystem, the burden of proof should always rest with the prosecution. If we make thischange, what will the benefit for the community be? If we do not, what projects will beprevented from going forward? I sent the letter to the City of Perth and to the WesternAustralian Local Government Association on 3 June. Last week I received a reply fromthe Lord Mayor of Perth, and I thank her for that. WALGA has, as of this moment, nothad the courtesy to reply to my letter. The City of Perth's answers were far fromcomprehensive; however, I was pleased to note that they do not plan to contributeany ratepayers' funds to the forthcoming campaign.

When we come to identifying projects or services that were under threat because

local government is not recognised in the Constitution, the City of Perth evaded theissue. Likewise, they were unable to clearly identify new projects, services or initiativesthat were dependent on local government recognition to proceed. I am confident thatany replies I receive from other councils in Western Australia will also struggle toidentify any such projects. The reason for that is that, despite the spin, this proposedchange to our Constitution is not about services and it is not about lower rates forratepayers or better run councils or better local services—it is about the federalgovernment expanding its influence, having more control over local councils andsidelining the states, all at the expense of local decision-making in local communitiesacross our country.

Worse still, so many mayors and local councils around Australia are supporting thisbecause they naively believe that somehow it will result in more money for theircouncils and give them greater status. In fact, it will reduce their power in the face of the federal government and very possibly reduce their funding too, especially if stategovernments, knowing that the federal government has a constitutional power to fundcouncils, decide to reduce their own funding.

Even the wording of the proposed alteration is suspect. The proposed change doesnot refer to local councils; it refers to funding being provided to local governmentbodies. If passed, this referendum will create a veritable lawyers picnic as everyonerushes off to court to get a judicial interpretation of what constitutes a localgovernment body. What happens when there is a ruling that schools, hospitals and



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5










other community services run at local levels constitute local government bodies? Itwould give the federal government licence to run many, many things.

This is surely the most rushed, ill thought through constitutional reform propositionever put to the Australian people. This bill has never been reviewed independently bythe parliament. This government is rushing the bill through this place because it knowsthat if we had time to stop and understand the consequences the Australian peoplewould run a mile from this proposal, just as they will run a mile from this government.

Further proof of that point, if it were needed, came this week when Minister Albaneseand the Attorney-General announced the Gillard government's nefarious plan to buythe referendum result through blatant misuse of taxpayers' money. ALGA will be given$10 million to wage its campaign for a yes vote. Those who advocate a no vote willhave to make do with just $500,000. This is one of the Gillard government's mostscandalous decisions—and, when you consider the performance of this government,that is a very big statement.

The government stacking the deck by, in effect, funding only one side of the debateis a total breach of the basic principle of fairness that has always underpinned ourdemocracy. Whatever their views on the constitutional recognition of localgovernment, all Australians would share the view that the upcoming referendumcampaign should be conducted in a fair manner. This lopsided funding of the yes case—using the money of taxpayers who will vote no—is an absolute outrage and adisgrace to our most cherished democratic principle, that of fairness.

When we last had a referendum in Australia, in 1999 on the republic issue, thenPrime Minister John Howard ensured that equal public funding was made available toboth the yes and no campaigns. This was despite his own clear personal preference forthe no campaign. In marked contrast to John Howard's approach, Julia Gillard hasdone a grubby deal with the Australian Local Government Association in agreeing tofunnel taxpayers' money into what will be a blatantly political campaign. Former PrimeMinister John Howard set the standard for fairness in these circumstances—and JuliaGillard has not been able to meet it. The government's decision to weight funding for areferendum campaign in this fashion is entirely without precedent. The government's

justification of using the House of Representatives vote on this bill to arrive at itsfunding formula is laughable. If we want proof that this change is intended toundermine the states, witness the way the government is clearly ignoring the views of the Senate—the states house—in this debate.

The Leader of the Opposition has written to the Prime Minister and called on her toreverse this decision. As he correctly notes in his letter, funding one side of the debateover the other by a factor of 20 to one looks like the government is trying to buy theresult it wants. Indeed, I believe that is exactly what the government is doing. TheLeader of the Opposition's letter to the Prime Minister says:

… it is not up to the Government of the day to pre-determine the outcome of any

referendum question: a referendum is a decision for the Australian people to make.'

He is quite correct. Any referendum must be conducted in a spirit of absolute fairnessand with both sides being given the opportunity to put their views; not with adesperate Labor government trying to stack the deck in its own favour. This lopsidedfunding scheme is nothing more than the government trying to drown out the critics of this reform.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5










Truly great thinkers have a way of remaining relevant beyond their time. In closingmy contribution, I reflect on the words of John Stuart Mill, from his 'On Liberty' essayof 1869:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary

opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had

the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

Labor senators and those on the cross bench would do well to reflect on the wisdom of those words and urge the Prime Minister to adhere to the very basic principles of democratic fairness and decency in our nation and ensure that equal funding isprovided to both the yes and no referendum campaigns.

As Senator Brandis commented earlier, it is a glory of the Liberal Party that all voicesare able to be heard on issues that are contentious in our party. It remains the mostnotable differentiator between our own party and the Australian Labor Party. In myfirst speech, a year ago today, I prayed for conviction in the words I speak andcourage in every action. With all my heart and with all the political principles I hold

dear, I reject this bill and the dubious motives that drive it.

Debate interrupted.

END QUOTE

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=DEAN%20SMITH%20Date%3A18%2F06%2F2013%20%3E%3E%2019%2F06%2F2013%20Dataset%3Ajournals,orderofbusiness,hansards,hansards80,notices,websds,senators,practces,orderss,web

senguide,procbull,broadcastSen;rec=1;resCount=DefaultQUOTE Wednesday, 19 June 2013 Page: 65

Senator SMITH ( Western Australia ) ( 16:33 ): I have a great deal of sympathy forSenator Brown from Tasmania and Senator Gallacher from South Australia. To havebeen dragged into this chamber to defend the indefensible this afternoon took greatcourage. I have never heard a more lacklustre, more lazy, more lame or more loosedefence of any government decision than this decision—

Senator Carol Brown: Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, I raise a point of order. I object to Senator Smith's comments. He is misrepresenting my contributiontoday.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.

Senator SMITH: I have never heard a more lame, lacklustre, lazy or loose defenceof any government decision in the 13 months that I have been in this Senate than Ihave heard this afternoon. Unless I heard incorrectly, I do not think I heard the words'fairness', 'fair go', 'democratic values' or 'integrity' from any of the speakers on theother side with regard to this matter. That was a shameful exercise in our democracy.We heard Labor senators talk about the government's prerogative to fund thecampaign. I want to hear about the government's responsibility to fund the campaign



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5


http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FF49%22;querytype=;rec=0







http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FF49%22;querytype=;rec=0







equally. We heard about Labor senators defending the decision to allocate fundingbased solely on the decision of the House of Representatives. Labor senators could noteven defend their own role in the democratic process.

Senator Jacinta Collins: That is not true. That is a misrepresentation.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Collins, you are aware thatunder standing order 197 it is disorderly to interrupt except to call attention to aquorum, privilege or a point of order.

Senator SMITH: Labor senators also talked about facts and myths. Let me shareone fact and it was reported in The Australian on Tuesday, 18 June, by Christian Kerr.It said:

The row erupted as a brief by the West Australian Local Government Association emerged,

containing the admission that 'Refining the Constitution will create a slightly broader head

of power for the federal government' but omits to mention grants would be tied.

Let me share another myth. The first chapter in this deceit is the decision not to fundequally the yes and no campaigns. The second chapter in this deceit is to set up thereferendum task force unit using $1.6 million of Australian taxpayers' money—not asecret, it was in the Senate estimates process. When I challenged the government togive me a guarantee that this $1.6 million sub-branch of the yes campaign would notbe used to promote just one side of the argument, this is what I was told. The officialsaid:

We would be providing the normal support to the minister on a range of tasks.

I said:

But you are the referendum taskforce unit. To an outside observer it could look like you are

becoming an advocate for the referendum proposal. Is that true? So is $1.6 million being

allocated to advocate for the referendum?

The official said:

The taskforce is there to provide support to the government to deliver the referendum.

She said, further on:

The taskforce, as I said, is a part of the department, so in the same way as the department

is established to serve the requirements of the government, so is the referendum taskforce.

We in the taskforce will implement government policy, which is to facilitate the running of a

referendum.



5

10

15

20

25

30

5

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FGB6%22;querytype=;rec=0






http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FGB6%22;querytype=;rec=0







This deceit does not have one chapter; it has two. That is what we know today. Whatwill we know tomorrow?

I think it is worth considering for a moment what the government's decision earlierthis week means. We know there is $10 million for the yes campaign and $500,000 forthe no campaign—and I add that money does not necessarily mean you have the mostconvincing argument. If we look at the 1974 referendum on the same issue and at thenational vote that was achieved for both the yes and no campaigns, we see the

funding allocation looks much fairer, with $4.6 million for the yes campaign and $5.3million for the no campaign. If we look at the 1988 referendum result, we see therewas $3.3 million for the yes campaign and $6.6 million for the no campaign. Integrityand fairness must be integral to this process. But, when I asked the government atSenate estimates, 'Can you guarantee that the process will be fair,' this is whatSenator Lundy had to say:

It is certainly our intention to have a fair process. I cannot be any more specific than the

officers, but we will do what we can and make it as fair a process as possible.

I said:

Great, so fairness means that you will guarantee that the activities of the referendum

taskforce—

Senator Lundy interrupted:

No, I will not say anything specific, but I am telling you it is the intention of the

government to make this a fair process.

This was the exchange at estimates on 30 May. It continued:

Senator SMITH: So you cannot specifically—

Senator Lundy: No.

Senator SMITH: You cannot specifically guarantee fairness?

Senator Lundy replied that she was happy to take that on notice. So she took it onnotice on 30 May and, at the beginning of this week, Australians found out that whatthe government was doing was not enshrining fairness but damaging the fabric of our

democratic process.

There is much for this Labor government to be ashamed of, but surely this must bethe most shameful moment of all. But there is a redeeming feature. This particularelement of this particular debate means the referendum secret is no more, andAustralians will now be forced to examine the facts, which speak for themselves: Laborcannot be trusted to govern our country; Australians should not trust them to changethe Constitution. That is as clear as it can be, as clear as it can get.

The bipartisanship that has often been talked about is close to being in tatters, andit should be. The good faith of many people has been breached, including the good



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5










faith of the Leader of the Opposition and the good faith of the Senate. I think it is timefor the Australian Local Government Association and the Western Australian LocalGovernment Association to distance themselves from this particular element of thecampaign and call for equal funding of the yes and no campaigns. That is the rightthing to do, that is a fair thing to do and it is in keeping with the Australian character.

END QUOTE

For the above, I oppose Banyule City Council to use ratepayers monies to fund any Yescampaign, as well seek Banyule City Council to withdraw any publications it may have maderegarding a Yes campaign, and if anything set out to the ratepayers the relevant details (regardingthe benefits, etc, for Banyule City Council) as to the proposed amendment of the constitution, asSenator Dean Smith requested from Perth council.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit )

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

(Our name is our motto! )


PLEASE NOTE : You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax0011 61 3 94577209 E il INSPECTOR RIKATI@ h l hl k S l h l

5

10

15

5






Documents

130624-Banyule Funding Issues - Etc