Here is the latest piece of tyranny: Victoria’s Local Government Act 2018, Bill:
https://larryhannigan.com/government-state/13-victorian-local-government-act-2018-submissions/
What the Bill does is to transfer a massive amount of state power to local councils. Thus, councils become “authorities” in their own right (section 68), with the power to make local laws for any matter which the council has a function or power. These local laws may be enforced by the police: section 327. For example, in accordance with section 151, councils may compulsory acquire any land that may be required by the council.
Is there some sort of knock down constitutional argument against this? This is the first weapon that actionists call on:
https://www.change.org/p/daniel-andrews-dump-victoria-s-local-government-act-2018-bill-that-will-give-councils-authority-status?utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_signer_receipt&utm_campaign=triggered&share_context=signature_receipt&recruiter=31314222
However, the Australian Constitution is thin on rights, being only an enabling document to get the state together and get commerce flowing, and was not written by people who had been through a war for their independence. Sections 106, 107 and 108, essentially save the full powers of the colonial states, subject to the requirement of the consistency of federal and state laws (federal taking precedence): section 109. This gives the states considerable power, certainly enough power to create local councils, and maybe to kill all blue-eyed babies, as jurisprudential authorities such as A. V. dicey and sir Leslie Stephen (1882), hypothesised. Arguably, mass immigration, through demographic displacement is doing that now.
It is argued by actionists that the Australian Constitution does not permit a third tier of government beyond the federal and state systems. There is no mention of councils in the Constitution. But then again, the founding fathers did not consider that women would be voting either, and look at what we have now, joy that it is. Simply consider: The Victorian constitution, Constitution Act 1975, section 74 A (1)states: “(1) Local government is a distinct and essential tier of government consisting of democratically elected Councils having the functions and powers that the Parliament considers are necessary to ensure the peace, order and good government of each municipal district.”
Now, consider section 74 B (1): “(1) Parliament may make any laws it considers necessary for or with respect to— (a) the constitution of Councils; and (b) the objectives, functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of Councils; and (c) entitlement to vote and enrolment for elections of Councils; and (d) the conduct of and voting at elections of Councils; and (e) the counting of votes at elections of Councils; and (f) the qualifications to be a Councillor; and (g) the disqualification of a person from being or continuing to be a Councillor; and S. 74B substituted by No. 55/1988 s. 3. s. 74B Part IIA—Local Government Constitution Act 1975 No. 8750 of 1975 89 (h) the powers, duties and responsibilities of Councillors and Council staff; and (i) any other act, matter or thing relating to local government administration.” I know that our side has an unreasonable belief that “The Law” will deliver all that is true and just, but please look at who is in control. Then, feel the fear wash over one.
The argument to counter is that states have a power to delegate power to entities that they choose, and thus, this is not contrary to the Constitution. The absence of a mention does not imply that there is a constitutional ban to the thing not mentioned. Again, consider women voters, where the court just redefined the term “man” to meet the politics of the time. The US Supreme court even found a right to homosexual marriage in their constitution, sleeping there for all those years. clearly in law, what goes is what the elites want, and they will define words to suit what they want. Our High Court, which has been centralist from the beginning will back this. I have argued this so many times at this site, that I need not do so today. Hence, it is unreasonable to put much faith in a High Court challenge, although it still should be done for the record. But, that is a last ditch stand, not the first.
What is needed now is for ordinary people to get off their butts and fight as if their properties depend upon it, because trust me, down the track this legislation will be used as a political weapon, just like native title. In other words, stop hoping that the magical constitution will solve everything and that the judges will go our way. They probably will not. The time to get a grass roots fight going is NOW! If people do not fight to the end on this one, all is surely lost. Take lessons from the Left, and take to the streets (lawfully) and protest to the full capacity of your legal rights. Your freedom is disappearing by the second.