Larry Hannigan’s Australia
Larry Hannigan’s Australia
Council Rates/Taxes are Illegal -
Condensed letters to a council [Oct 2010 – Feb 2011] on “rates/tax”, with law points which may assist you. Council’s responses are “the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic) is being followed”. This is a “mantra” which doesn’t answer my requests/questions and/or my points of law. Please consider using a similar approach to your council.
1st letter. Seeking to establish whether agreement exists between the parties. I said: “I accept the offer from Whitehorse City Council [WCC] to me to pay council “rates” (a tax) in the document noted above and that my acceptance is conditional upon …
1. That WCC demonstrate that there is a contract between the Whitehorse City Council (a corporation) and my person (the man) – a sovereign individual.
2. That the WCC give full disclosure (as required by law) regarding the services offered by the municipal council, and, that each of these services have been separately accepted by me for the sum disclosed, or value stated.
3. That WCC demonstrate manifestation of intent on my part to a contract by the placement of my signature on a contract between me and the municipal council.
4. That WCC show me that a tax raised by it (a corporation) on the said property
is lawful under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and that such a
tax is chargeable against me as the “property owner” -
be by way of agreement from a full jury of 12 of my peers, with a “judge” adjudicating.”
2nd letter. Seeking to establish the idea there is NO third tier of “government” allowed.
“I reiterate, my letter of 13 October 2010 required council to relate with me on
specific services it provided to me – or purported to be service to the above property
-
Please appreciate that references council make to the Local Government Act 1989 [LGA] are of no value unless council is able to demonstrate that there was a referendum of the people approving a third tier of government, as “local government”, at a date subsequent to 1988, when a constitutional (Australia wide) referendum on the issue for establishing AND/OR for continuing a system of local government was held and the people said NO. I say that NO State statute law can lawfully introduce a third tier of government.
I conclude this letter by noting that successive rate hikes started in 2006/07 with (for me, a pensioner) a large/huge 11.86% increase, and then a further 9.7%, and then 6% or more each year since .. and all of these rises have been cumulative! Therefore, I am not willing to be exposed to the monopolistic dictatorship from council any longer, and I now come to stand with my rights at law – some of which are enumerated above.
In the event that there is no rebuttal to the facts provided in this letter within 14 days then it will be considered as the truth of the matter for later clarity in any court if need be.”
3rd letter. Seeking to establish the federal law for corporations applies to council. “In my email dated 25 October 2010 I again said that the reality is council is a corporation, which follows from information provided in your letter of 6 February 2007 – advising me that “the (council) entity is a body corporate”. You referred to the Local Government Act 1989 [LGA] in that letter and I reflect that pursuant to the Local
Government Act 1989 (Vic), at S 3, “Definitions”, we see:
“corporation” includes
(a) any body corporate, whether formed or incorporated within or outside the State of Victoria;
and …
Since council is a body corporate -
Within the said Act,
at S 95A, we can see council is responsible to respect the following:
"price" includes:
(a) a charge of any description; and
(b) in relation to goods or services-
"services" includes any rights (including rights in relation to, and interests in, real or personal property), benefits, privileges or facilities that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred in trade or commerce, and includes, but is not limited to, the rights, benefits, privileges or facilities that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred under:
(a) a contract for or in relation to:
(i) the performance of work (including work of a professional nature), whether with or without the supply of goods; or
(ii) the provision of, or the use or enjoyment of facilities for, amusement, entertainment, recreation or instruction; or
(iii) the conferring of rights, benefits or privileges for which remuneration is payable in the form of a royalty, tribute, levy or similar exaction; or …
So, in simple terms, a contract is required (at law) between the parties. I therefore reflect on the fact that in my email dated 13 October 2010 I asked you to demonstrate (to me) that there is a contract between the Whitehorse City Council and myself (the real man) – with my signature upon that document. You have not done as requested, therefore, I am reasonably able to conclude there is no contract established between us.
Further, since no state statute can stand against a federal statute (or the Constitution), as Section 109 of the Constitution spells out, then those parts of the LGA, as state statute, wherein the third tier of government and the operation of “local government” councils is supposedly established – charging rates/tax – then they are invalid.
I am now gracious to consider Council’s “Rates Notice” as an offer by it to provide to me (unspecified) services to my property. My email of 13 October 2010 advised I would consent to that offer if there was disclosure of certain facts. But, the facts have not been disclosed, therefore there is presently no offer and acceptance – there is no lawful contract between the parties.
I therefore counter-
Council has indicated it would claim unpaid balance against the property. But, that is not possible as there is no contract with me for the larger sum “invoiced” by it on one hand, and the fact that council is NOT a third tier of government able to forcefully exact money is noted on the other hand. I also say that there would be a knowing act of fraud if council tried to claim, leading to the common law offence of abuse of a public office (with 3 years incarceration) as well.”
4th letter. Seeking to reiterate the lawful position to the Manager -
“There are many provisions within the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) which apply to council in the said Act. I now cite Schedule 2 in the said Act (for an example) as “unfair” practices are part of the picture, as is the need for a clean/lawful contract.
Therefore, to cause rates/tax to be levied upon me or on my property from a so-
However, I have come to offer the position that council agree with me on just terms for the specific services I and my property may require – without unfair practice – for a fair price. I say that such a position is the responsible task you have in front of you.”
Letter 5. Seeking to argue that the legal advice to council is flawed.
“I reflect that for legal advice to suggest the Victorian legislation in the Constitution
Act 1975 (Vic) can usurp the Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) to make “local government”
lawful in Victoria as a third tier of government is ludicrous. Section 109 of the
Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) is clear in that NO enactment of State legislation on
the same matter can ever over-
I also reflect that for legal advice to hold that as a consequence of Section 74B
of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) municipal councils can make local government laws
is a matter of concern in that I have established with you that the entity -
Further, for the Whitehorse City Council CEO, Ms N. Duff, to threaten me as she did
in her letter dated 5 May 2008 with sale of my property to recover so-
If council does not lawfully handle my offer to the corporation in my careful letter
dated 8 November 2010 before 7 January 2011 then I will consider that my counteroffer
to it has been rejected. Such a position means there would still be no contracting
between the parties -
I am sending a copy of this letter to all councillors as they are the ones responsible for all operations of the body corporate [Whitehorse City Council corporate entity] as if they are “Directors” – as reflected in the letter dated 26 July 2006 from Ms Jenny Russell, Team Governance.”
Letter 6. Seeking to make room for constitutional understanding to the council CEO.
I outlined what had been provided in letter 1 – 6, and then I said ..
“Meantime, I have made contact with the Municipal Association of Victoria. It advises me there is NO third tier of government in Victoria (or other States) – which confirms what I have been saying to council for some time.
I now refer you to the Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth by Quick & Garran, a reference (extrinsic material) manual used by the High Court of Australia in constitutional matters in this country. In that manual, at page 791, it is clear that: (Quote) THE INTERPRETERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. "The Constitution, like every other law, is directly binding on every individual and every governmental agency within the Commonwealth. Every person, every officer, every political organ, has the duty of complying with its provisions,
AND MUST in the exercise of that duty interpret its provisions, in the first instance, to the best of his (her) ability and on his own responsibility". (End of quote)
When you have time I am happy to further this discussion, but meantime, do not belittle me with your “opinions”. I appreciate there is a cost to write letters, as is a cost involved in court action. BUT, when officers of council will not act according to constitutional right standing then do not expect me, a responsible sovereign person, to back off.
In my email dated 24 January 2011 I said: “I therefore advise of my intention to
make a payment more in line with my counter offer shortly. This will mean that it
is offered in good faith to maintain essential services in the community, as managed
by council.” Councillors know my intentions and I expect them to manage and instruct
you, their CEO, according to the law of the land -
I will therefore make an honest and in good faith payment offer to the corporate entity for the essential services it might offer/provide to me, and at my property, through the next twelve months for the (as yet unspecified) essential services I require. Notwithstanding, if the offer is rejected, then I claim that the corporate entity has NO legal standing to harass or to intimidate me for either “unpaid rates” or for “interest on unpaid rates” in the future
as there is no contract between the parties.”
Letter 7. Seeking to establish past rulings in the High Court of Australia apply to us.
“I believe my approach to this “rates” matter has been judicious and careful to instruct you thus far. It is clear to me that councillors, as “Directors” of the corporation, and the CEO as manager, are not up to speed in law issues. Therefore, I offer a few more insights for you (and your legal advisors) as follows:
In the High Court of Australia case Sydney Municipal Council V Commonwealth [1904] HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904) it held that:
-
I believe we all agree on that.
-
We would agree on that too.
-
This goes to the authority of the State to charge tax on the property -
-
The State is NOT sovereign pursuant to the Imperial Constitution Act 1900 since the law of our land sets the people of the Commonwealth in that position.
-
Which means we must look for that State authority!
The High Court of Australia (full bench) rulings in The Commonwealth of Australia V The State of New South Wales and Another [1923] HCA 34; 33 CLR 1 (9 August 1923) and Fejo V The Northern Territory of Australia [1998] HCA 58 (10 September 1998), holds a property held in fee simple title is a contractual arrangement between the current owner and the previous owner of that property, and no fees, charges, rates (taxes), or
permits can be levied or imposed by any third party .. including councils.
To assist us further the Court has particularly defined “Taxation” as “the compulsory
exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes, enforceable by law,
and not a payment for services rendered. See Matthews v. Chicory Marketing Board
(Vic) (1938) 60 CLR 263 at 276; State of Victoria v The Commonwealth (Pay-
Since “taxation” is the province of the Commonwealth pursuant to the Constitution
Act 1900, at S 51(ii), and it has legislated accordingly, then we must all consider
what is an “compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes”
-
Council has repeatedly held that it has the right to charge rates, and in the time we have corresponded it has not identified detail of any legal argument to support its position. Therefore, if I get one more “council mantra” letter to the effect that it relies on the Local Government Act 1989 I will ask the originator of the letter whether a crime pursuant to the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) for abuse of public authority has happened … bearing in mind that you are all now brought to a place of understanding of the original law and of limit of authority of the State (and of council) in this matter.
Once again I act in good faith and approach the doors of council on or before 15
February 2011 with a payment, as an ex-
The very basics of my position with the local municipal council are shown above.
While the arguments are “legal” they can be understood by most ordinary people, so
do not lose heart. The task is to work at the same or similar concerns with forthrightness.
I wish you all well as we work to reclaim our constitutional standing -
Item 01: Local Government Act 1993 is Worthless
Item 02: The Validity of Local Council By-
Item 03: Council Land Resumptions
Item 04: Council Rates/Taxes are Illegal -
Council Rates/Taxes
are Illegal -
Item 05: Have You Received a Summons?
Item 06: Councils and the Constitution
