Ian,
I find your reasoning on the GST to be a trifle inadequate.
Show me anywhere on the ballot paper where it says that anyone was voting for a GST at
the
last Federal election. I thought that legally we were choosing the possibly least
unwanted representative out of a group of unwanted representatives for a single
electorate
and for a single state.
Show me anywhere on any ballot paper since 1900 where it says we were voting at a
lawfully
called referendum for a previously unconstitutional Westminster System of Government,
or
a previously unconstitutional Prime Minister. If you can't, such things don't even
have a
nominal lawful existence, let alone a genuine legal existence. At these polls we were
rather voting for a single person or a small group of persons of highly dubious value
to
hold positions in Parliament where their sole duty was and is Legislative (ie
lawmaking
within clearly pre-specified limits).
Even if you hold to this technically incorrect argument of a Westminster System being
acceptable within our Constitutional Contract, how does a much less than 50% primary
vote
and a less than 50% preferrenced vote for an unconstitutional political party translate
into an Australia-wide endorsement for the GST? The votes of people who rejected the
preference system were in turn rejected by the Electoral office, so even the near 50%
vote
is quite misleading. The Electoral Office has presumed to place itself above the
people
from whom it ultimately receives its very limited authority, and this may make its
actions
subject to prosecution under the Treason Act 1351.
The people are the ultimate source of all political power. Were we asked in a lawfully
called referendum about the GST? From the feedback I hear, we would have voted no, if
asked. Even if we had been asked at the last election, Howard and his cronies clearly
don't have the lawful constitutional authority to ask us, any more than would Beazeley
and
his cronies. On many separate legal grounds, they hold de facto positions only, and
certainly their positions are not de jure (legal). They were not even lawfully sworn
in
by a Governor General who had valid Letters Patent to grant him such authority from the
Queen.
Show me anywhere where any SIGNED CONTRACT exists where it says that the people EVER
agreed to a GST. Legally, such a contract must involve the signatures of the all the
people of Australia and their contracting Queen. Even in their current de facto
positions
of authority, Howard and his cronies are at best subservients to the people. Their
clear
legal duty, even in this de facto position, is to obey the will of the people and
not to
obey the will of the money lenders. They have no lawful authority to impose upon us
what
we do not want. Our Constitution fully confirms our traditional rights as a Sovereign
People who have merely contracted out the routine aspects of our Government to a Chief
Contractor / Queen..
Oh, just one more thing, the GST legislation defies the Australian Constitution on a
number of grounds, the least technical of which is Section 55, which says that laws
shall
deal with one subject of taxation only. To impose taxes on both goods and services in
one
act of Parliament, is clearly unlawful. For politicians to defy the constitution would
seem to render them liable for prosecution under the still valid Treason Act 1351.
Perhaps somebody cares enough about the Law to see this important law enforced on the
matter of GST, though the Treason Act 1351 could easily be enforced on endless other
Constitutional breaches as well. Even back in 1900 we had two separate
unconstitutional
Prime Ministers (William Lyne and then Edmund Barton) and an unlawfully large number of
Ministers of the Crown (nine cf seven) appointed, before there was even an elected
Parliament.
John Harris
Ian Green wrote:
> Hi Noel, and John,
>
> We had an election on the GST, and the GST won. So there is little
> justification for the statement that the Australian people united, do not
> want it. (Though clearly the 'pro' and 'anti' are both close to 50%.)
>
> However, what we did not necessarily vote for is the 48.5% withholding tax
> that comes with the "New Tax System" package. I would have no argument
> against people such as yourself campaigning for civil disobedience on the
> registration of everyone who might receive a payment from a business or
> suffer a 48.5% withholding tax (regardless of the industry one is in).
> Example, a university student or a retiree mowes a lawn for a small
> business. Neither are required to register for GST because of having less
> than $50,000 p.a. turnover, but the withholding tax rule states that unless
> the small business registers for the Australian Business Number any business
> they deal with can withhold 48.5% of any payment owing to the small
> business. Likewise, the student or retiree is under the risk that the small
> business will, because they have an ABN, withhold 48.5% of the total payment
> from them, because they don't have an ABN.
>
> According to the leaflets that came recently inserted in the local
> newspaper, the only exclusion from this requirement is consumer to business
> transactions, because the consumer is not expected to be registered for the
> ABN and therefore don't have a mechanism for submitting the withheld taxes
> to the government on a regular basis. Is this another case of government
> assuming that all Australians and Australian businesses are like them (in
> their corporate and government offices), earning at least $50,000 p.a.? Of a
> certainty, in places like Geelong, that is the exception rather than the
> rule.
>
> Another *surprise*, is that every company must also register for the ABN, as
> if the ACN (Australian Company Number) were not enough. This requirement, is
> also at pains of the threatened 48.5% withholding tax. The fact that the
> vast majority of businesses in Australia have not yet registered for an ABN
> is evidence enough that this is a surprise to those who thought that only
> those businesses with more than $50,000 p.a. turnover are required to
> register for the GST and that this was the only reason to register for an
> ABN. When we read the fine print, we realise that the ABN and GST
> registration are two entirely separate matters. The ABN is simply the
> government's tax surveillance mechanism, like the Australia Card proposal of
> thirteen years ago.
>
> Maybe you can follow this up?
>
> Regards,
> Ian Green
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Direct Democracy Forum
> http://ao.com.au/ddf/
> http://www.DirectDemocracyForum.com/
>
> "Every person a member of the legislature!"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Mc Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, 27 March 2000 7:53 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Fwd: Australia Wide Demonstrations on GST
>
> >X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Mar 26 20:22:14 2000
> >Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:17:27 +1000
> >From: John Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
> >X-Accept-Language: en
> >Subject: Australia Wide Demonstrations on GST
> >
> >Dear Undisclosed Recipient,
> >At a recent conference, the idea was formulated that there should be
> >orchestrated
> >Australia wide, peaceful statements in every town and city stating that
> >the people do not
> >want the GST (on 10-12AM, 8th April this year). Perhaps you have already
> >heard through the grapevine? Attached are two single page pamphlets that
> >could be used
> >either intact, or in modified form, for these demonstrations. The legal
> >basis for these
> >demands has been outlined in earlier documents on the Constitution that
> >you should have
> >received.
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >John Harris
> >
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
