Another potentially interesting forum hi-jacked by the loony religious right.

Oh well, move on Elizabeth. There are intelligent posters elsewhere.

Cornflower

"For a house I was building in Brisbane, the Council purported to tell me what I could do with the INSIDE of a new house as well as the external envelope, structure, style and features."

In the light of seriously-pending climate change and the subsequent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most people expect and are demanding that government at all levels enact and enforce strict building codes. The days of individuals building Mac mansions emitting whatever levels of pollutants they please, or landowners exploiting the land they are in reality only short-term custodians of for personal profit, are or should be well and truly over.

We all have to make personal adjustments in the interest of the common good. Mistakes will occur along the way and there will always be some people with genuine grievances over specific issues, which, with sensible negotiation and good will on both sides, can I'm sure in most cases be overcome through striking a reasonable compromise. But as for the wholesale moaning over loss of liberties, I say get over it and just be thankful we've got governments rising to the task.

If you think the rest of us would agree to a Bill of Rights that winds back this much-needed, future-oriented legislation, think again. It won't happen.

othercon

"The money spent on the welfare payments for one refugee could feed an entire village in the motherland."

This statement indicates a total lack of understanding of refugee issues. Refugees do not leave their 'village in the motherland' because of poverty. They do so because they fear for their lives.

Feeding the village is not in itself going to make it any safer. Deporting asylum seekers back to danger and death, which Australia to its very great shame has done in the recent past, should never be an option for any civil society whose citizens overwhelmingly believe in respecting human rights.

Despite the huge language and cultural adjustments facing refugees, they receive no more than the same limited welfare assistance given to other citizens. A large proportion of refugees exist on bridging visas where they are not entitled to any welfare support at all and are not allowed to work to support themselves, even though the majority want to and are perfectly capable of doing so. They are forced into a situation where they have to rely on the charity of refugee support groups, which is very demeaning when they want to be independent and support themselves.

I hope your obscure linking of refugees and welfare payments hasn't been influenced by the ubiquitous Canadian email and its erroneous claim, kicked along by ignorant shock jocks, that refugees are treated more generously than pensioners. It's a total lie and has been officially repudiated by both sides of government.

About two years ago, an argument was put to Justices Pain and Talbot, that unless and until the Land and Environment Court complies with the “Kable Principle” enunciated by the High Court in 1996, and confirmed twice in 2006 and 2007, then it had no jurisdiction, to adjudicate on Land Issues. A learned gentleman from Queensland argued recently on behalf of the Hudsons, in the Land and Environment Court, that all charges laid under an Act are indictable offences and must be tried by a jury. The Land and Environment Court, is by its Constitutional Act, equivalent in rank to the Supreme Court in New South Wales. It was argued that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits discrimination absolutely, and as a consequence, any “court” that does not offer a jury, is not legitimate. Both Justices Talbot and Pain rejected that argument.

The Land and Environment Court should not overrule or confirm an elected body’s decision, except on the verdict of twelve electors. One mans opinion is worth nothing. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights all people are equal before the law, and entitled to have their opinions given equal weight, in a fair, just and impartial tribunal established by law. The Court of Appeal, when Justice Keith Mason was president, was asked by Peter King, and Dr John Walsh of Brannagh, Barristers at Law, to consider the legality of the Land and Environment Court, in the light of the “Kable Principle”. The Court insisted the client abandon that argument. The Appeal failed anyway. Brett Walker failed to get it reconsidered in the High Court.

In the “Kable Principle” four out of six Judges on the High Court Justices McHugh, Gummow, Gaudron and Toohey, said the States are not free to legislate in respect of courts. If the High Court would file an application to enforce its opinions, the decision on the Islamic School would be overturned, as not made after due process. The Land and Environment Court cannot offer Due Process, as required by the Constitution. Perhaps the Federal Court of Australia

Peter the Believer

I am one of the researchers for the Hudson case referred to. Our 1000's of hours of research are focused on Land Ownership Rights. The importance of land is that the rights attached uphold and preserve every free right we have in Australia. Only crimes committed under the Crimes Act can remove our rights. We have been battling for over 5 years and momentum is growing, Legal people are gradually asking questions.

I am the spokesperson for this group & have a newsletter out today on this exact issue. flora at reachnet dot com dot au. if you want an email copy. It goes out to over 700,000 people currently and growing.

I will abbreviate for space.

1.High Court can only rule over cases coming from common law courts. Land & Environment, magistrates, Family Law, etc. are all civil law courts. Unknown to Common Law jurisdiction. However, common law is superior.

2. Panels, commissions, boards, etc which are not Chapter III courts through the Judiciary Act CAN NOT make judicial and punishable rulings over anyone in this country - Harry Brandy vs Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission.

3. In 1995, Federal government used the Bill of Rights 1668 to make sure they were protected in the Parliament. If they can use it, so can we.

4. Labour govt complicit in every removal of right since 1973 – would prefer to trust a mad dog.

5. Council is major remover of rights under instructions from state.

6. Twice Aus public have been asked to allow Constitutional recognition – twice refused outright – smart Aus people!

IMPORTANT – WE DO NOT OWN FREEHOLD LAND, WE DO NOT OWN TORRENS TITLE LAND.

THE USE OF THOSE WORDS IS DECEPTIVE AND COMPLICIT IN THE THEFT OF OUR LAND OWNERSHIP RIGHTS.

We own A Grant in Fee Simple. Learn about it or lose it

cornflour – flora at reachnet dot com dot au – answers there for you

1. We lose our rights because don't know what they are and how protected under constitution.

2. Give them to government via registration processes. Eg. Rate Notice – never pay unless a bill, rate notice is never bill. Cannot be forced into a contract – rate notice is contract.

3. Assume government can do what they do and so eventually agree, eg again rates – Notice comes out, we have 72 hours to respond. Usually don’t . No correspondence or complaint is deemed as our agreement. Or we just pay and “willingly” enter into contract at that time.

4. Trespass – all government acts tell you they have entry rights. Yet HC has clearly stated as late as June 2008, not even policemen can enter without the authority of a proper warrant under Crimes Act. Not under the Local Planning Act or any other pseudo authority. Neither can they serve a summons past a gate which carries a trespass sign, or they are punishable by law. Can’t even enter a car!

5. If police can’t, what makes council think they are superior?

6. Always ask the question – Show me the law! And they never, ever can. I know because myself & others have been trying to get an answer from councils and government all over Australia and not one person has received any lawful legitimacy.

Under One God

The Aus people agreed to unite under one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth 9th July 1900. WE the people are the Commonwealth. The Constitution is our protection – not parliaments. Parliament is there specifically and only to protect and administer the assets of the people – that being the land known as Australia.

We have a pseudo government in place, who have stolen our words, our meanings and created phony country with our assets. At all times it is our agreement and our apathy that allow it to happen.

Bronwyn – my apologies, but you need to start learning truth or learn to do without.