Really Not Part Of The Plan

EXCLUSIVE:

by Allan Essery

Sustainable Development? Part 3

In support of its deception the United Nations through its pseudo-scientific educational programme claims that private ownership of property, including both urban and rural, facilitates environmental degradation.

Acceptance by many of this bizarre UN teaching were caught up in ''Group-Think''.  Group-think is almost always associated with feel good philosophies and is the irrational consensus thinking that aggressively rejects alternatives.  This is the mentality that causes large numbers of people to accept a bizarre belief  that a tax on carbon dioxide can control the climate.

Most Australians would agree that care of the environment is necessary and the development of a locally designed sustainability programme arrived at by democratic process would be acceptable. State governments such as the New South Wales and Victorian governments in particular rejected that and moved to an ecocentric sustainability policy which has been designed by a foreign entity, namely the UN, and is monotored by a foreign entity, again the UN and poses a fundamental and ongoing threat to the sovereignty and democracy of NSW and Victoria and all of their residents.

The rights of private land owners are increasingly being eroded under the guise of environmental concerns generated by the United Nation's fradulent Agenda 21 and associated programmes.  Instead of defending the fundamental importance of private property rights, the NSW and Victorian governments have actively worked against landholders by introducing so much green tape that it is leading to properties becoming unusable and worthless. In addition, green laws are preventing the clearing of woodland regrowth and undergrowth and that will directly contributed to the increasing fierceness and uncontrollably destructive nature of bushfires as we have just witnessed.

In order to implement their green laws, State Governments will make local councils agents for Local Agenda 21, promoted by the International Council For Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) which was created and monitored by the UN. The UN is fully aware that to achieve its intended goal of 'World Government' it must first succeed at a local level.

Federal and State Government plans to empower local councils to force Agenda 21 upon it residents in defiance of the Commonwealth and State Constitutions and two referendums that make such empowerment illegal would be seen by any responsible person to be an abandonment of democracy.  Given that local council do not have legislative authority it is surprising that they undertake a widespread adoption of Agenda 21 without challenge. It is frightening that both levels of government and local councils have made a decision to treat their constituents with utter contempt by NOT seeking democratic endorsement of Agenda 21 during the normal electoral process or by referendum.

 

In a demonstration of amazing ignorance of the law and/or arrogance, the CEO of the Victorian Melton Local Council, Kelvin Tori, during an open council meeting claimed,  ''The rates and charges that council impose are imposed under the power granted to council by the State of Victoria, under the Victorian Constitution.  Local Government is recognised within the Victorian Constitution which gave rise to the Local Government Act 1989, and confered to local government some of the powers of the State.  That would include the power to impose rates and charges.''

Now, that statement brings to light a major problem for Mr Tori and the Melton Council.  In the 1988 referendum there were three questions. Look at questions 1 and 3.

Question 1 was in regard to recognition of local councils as ''Local Government'' in the Federal Constitution.  Question 3 was, ''Each state shall provide for the establishment & continuance of a system of local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the state, and empowered to administer, and make by-laws for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the state.''

Sixty six point seven percent (66.7%) of voters said NO and the referendum was soundly defeated.  That meant NO to the establishment/recognition of  'local government', NO to a system of 'local government' bodies and NO to elections in accordance with the laws of the state for 'local government' and NO to the empowerment of 'local government' to administer laws or make by-laws for their respective areas.

The referendum failed to reach a State majority which means there was no mandate for it to have been implemented anywhere, not in the Federal Constitution and not in the State Constitution. The Victorian Local Government Act 1989 and cannot be legally enforced. Local councils remain ''local councils'' that are in fact ''Incorporated Bodies'' complete with Australian Business Numbers (ABN) and the requirement to pay taxes. 

Comments

[Vivienne]

1.

Great article Allan, what I want to know is, how do they get away with it, after all isn't it illegal?

Where and who are the defenders of our constitution?

[Allan]

2.

Vivienne, you question is a very good one because there seems to be a great reluctance to challenge the blatant abandonment of democracy and the thumbing of the collective political nose at the rights and wishes of the Australian people. I'm sure you understand the saying, "treated like a mushroom".

There is a document that is provided to shire councils telling them that what I am saying is a myth. It stresses that the councils are legally "Local Government" and legally correct in levying taxes and fines and it is illegal for you and I refuse to pay those taxes and fines.

The problem is that nobody has bothered to challenge that claim and until they do then it will remain in circulation and unscrupulously take advantage of the ignorance of the general public and their failure to challenge because they are bluffed into thinking they can't win.
In addition, the judiciary, from magistrates to judges appear to support that stance.

I recently asked one of the organisations that regularly email me, with their blurbs that tell me they are going to change the world if I donate $50, why they don't challenge this epic abandonment of democracy. The answer was they it would need someone to run the case and they were busy with other useless endeavours. A gutless cop-out of monumental proportions.

I may be banging my head against the wall but myself and others will keep on keeping on because is embarrasses those that know the injustice that is being perpetrated and it keeps them ducking for cover.

[Arjay Martin]

3.

If you are sick of unjust laws - like the 'association laws' in Qld - then do something about it - start by signing my petition to restore freer elections in this country - the petition limits my costs if I lose in this effort - I'm risking a lot in order to help the many from completely falling off this slippery slope - the least you can do is put your name on a petition. Thank you for your time and help, Arjay Martin. https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Make_Australias_Elections_Free_and_Fair_End_Political_Discrimination_Call_a_Fresh_Election_for_Charlton/

[Allan]

4.

Arjay Martin, I am disappointed that you had the lack of grace and bad manners to chose to turn my posted article into a political platform to air your grievances with the AEC.

I find the blurb on the referenced link to be immature and irrelevant to this post. Your call for a "return" to freer elections is indicative of your lack of understanding that nothing has changed about elections in Australia. The only thing that has changed is that you apparently lost for the second time in a row. Does that not tell you something????

You, like many others, only wish to play by the rules if they favour you. When you lose you blame everyone else but yourself and want to change the rules to suit your narrow view.

If you are disgruntled by the existing rules of elections in Australia then post your own article centred around your immature disillusionment.