Council Rates and Land Tax

[cava]

I was at a meeting of the Melbourne Community Law Resouce Group (MCLRG) recently, which is a group that teaches grass roots law and Australian Constitutional law matters. And was pleased to find out that there are currently moves to abolish council rates in the shire of wellington, east gippsland.

The basis for the argument, is relatively simple, in that once land is owned as a "Fee Simple Title" it cannot have any imposts levied against it - effectively traditional law pre 1900.

The ramifications of this action are, potentially, mind numbing and would affect all property owners, councils and state governments. It effectively gives power back to the community.

Whilst on the outset, this may appear to be fanciful, it must to pointed out that the MCLRG is the group that, amongst other issues was instrumental in stopping the Victorian Government from proceeding with a toxic waste dump at Mildura, and the sale of the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme. All on the strength of Common Law and the Australian Constitution!

Following, for your information, is a copy of the peoples mandate that they hope to get implemented.

cava



To the Wellington Shire Council
To the Governor of Victoria
To the Members of the Victorian Parliament

I, ................................................... a sovereign man/woman of the Commonwealth of Australia, acting within my full capacity as one empowered to make free election, hereby express my will and do mandate that the Wellington Shire Council and the STATE OF VICTORIA acknowledge and respect that where property ios held in Fee - Simple Title, the Wellington ShireCouncil and the STATE OF VICTORIA may not levy rates, charges, taxes or any other imposts upon such land .

I further state my will and mandate that the Wellington Shire Council and the STATE OF VICTORIA shall seek to fund the services it has a duty to provide to the community of the Wellington Shire by way of Bills of Exchange drawn on the National estate in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth, including but not limited to the Commonwealth Constitution and the Bills of Exchange Act 1909.
This Mandate is to be carried into full effect within ninety (90) days of delivery.

Dated this .................day of ...............in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Six
Address.......................................................................
......................................................................................
Postcode...............

Signed

 

[sailor]

the Wellington Shire Council and the STATE OF VICTORIA shall seek to fund the services it has a duty to provide to the community of the Wellington Shire by way of Bills of Exchange drawn on the National estate in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth, including but not limited to the Commonwealth Constitution and the Bills of Exchange Act 1909.

What does this mean?

 

[cava]

What does this mean?

My understanding is that, the people/shire can borrow from the commonwealth at 0% interest for infrastructure and using Australia's wealth as security. Apparently, this is what used to happen prior to WW2.

cava

 

[sailor]

Cava, do you know why this practise has stopped?

 

[cava]

Cava, do you know why this practise has stopped?

I am not sure sailor, however the cynic in me, would lead me to believe that private enterprise (the banks and financiers) have a vested interest to wrest as much out of any situation as possible.

 

[dave99]

Hi Cava,

The Crown "owns" all Australian land. Ownership in "fee simple" is simply an unconstrained right to occupy the land forever. It does not convey absolute rights against the government (i.e. allodial title).

Even an estate in fee simple is still subject to government action such as taxation and compulsory acquisition, and the police or sherrif may enter your land with a warrant. Also, if you die without an heir, the Crown may take back possession of the land.

So I am not sure how the MCLRG have got the idea that a fee simple title does not permit taxation. The right has always been there, but taxes were not levied as much as now before 1900. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple for more details.

- Dave99

 

[cava]

It's an interesting situation Dave99, and one that I will be watching quite closely.

I must admit when I hear what they have accomplished, I am very impressed. And I do not, generally, impress easily. Certainly the shadow attorney general of VIC takes note of their advice and the police do not dismiss their protestations lightly.

However, on another issue, the police, sherrifs, councils etc do not have an automatic right to access your property 'IF' you have a sign at your property line stating that "Admittance is by invitation only" and sighting high court rulings George v Rockett 1990 and Plenty v Dillon 1991. It's interesting reading and renovated my ideas on what I had always been lead to believe.

cava

 

[dave99]

Hi cava,

I had a read of those decisions, they are quite interesting.

You are right, police or sherrif don't have any automatic right to enter your property. They must have a warrant issued by a judge. It doesn't matter what signs are on your property - it is private property regardless. Also, these decisions confirmed that a search warrant must be quite specific, and the police must show the facts that form the basis for their suspicions, before a warrant can be issued. They cannot just get any warrant they like.

But I reckon the right to obtain a warrant for entry to property still exists in the Court's opinion. However you slice it the police still have a right to search in some circumstances.

Cheers - Dave99

 

[cava]

Dave99, You write as someone, with some detailed knowledge. Are you a legal eagle? Or just someone with an enquiring mind?

cava

 

[dave99]

Hi cava, No I'm not a lawyer, although my partner is and I have some good friends who are as well.

Have always been interested in how it works though, even though I went into IT!

- Dave99