The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken
The debate over a new federal mining tax has been pigeon-holed into a debate over utility, meaning the affect of the tax on the general living standards of Australians. Such a debate is all well and good, however the ignorance and disregard for the legal, constitutional status of such a tax, is disturbing, although not surprising given that such disregard for the original intent of the constitution extends all the way to the High Court. The bottom line is that the new federal resources rent tax is unconstitutional and is therefore illegal. When Australia federated in 1901, specific and limited powers were delegated to the federal government from the states. Ownership of this mining land was not one of those powers. The land is thus legally owned by the sovereign state in which it is located. You can’t rent out something you don’t own and Section 114 of the Australian Constitution forbids the federal government from taxing state government property. Julia Gillard’s ad nauseam insistence that the resources are “owned by the Australian people” is demagogical nonsense. The federal resources rent tax is yet another example of creeping nationalism, and indeed internationalism. Governmental powers are gradually moved away from individuals and state governments, to the federal government, which then hands them off to international organisations seeking to usurp Australian sovereignty. This is taking place across all governmental activities (eg; Labor’s health agenda, Tasmania Dams, fiscal imbalances etc) and if the process is not opposed now, eventually you will have these resources being taxed by an unelected committee of the United Nations. No, it’s not a crazy conspiracy theory, in fact the Copenhagen crackpot conference late last year sought to have nations sign up to the creation of an unelected UN “government” that would have sweeping powers to interfere in Australia’s internal business, including taxation. Had it not been for Christopher Monckton uncovering and exposing the draft treaty statute before the conference, we may have had foreign, international bureaucrats taxing Australians and telling us how much electricity we can use, with the tax proceeds going straight into the UN coffers. Needless to say, we ought to be outraged at such a prospect, and Australians were. They took their anger out on Malcolm Turnbull and triggered his removal from the Liberal party leadership. Unfortunately though, his successor still seems to give lip service to the lunatic ideology of global warming and says we should bow down to UN global governance if the rest of the world agrees. Nice leadership Mr Abbott. WA Premier Colin Barnett also raises another constitutional point over the new federal resources rent tax. The tax is effectively discriminatory against WA in relation to other states. Such a tax is outlawed under Section 51(ii) of the Constitution. The current Labor government has persistently pursued policies discriminatory against Western Australia, the thinking being that they are electoral dog meat there anyway. WA is now getting back only 65 cents of every dollar its people send to Canberra in GST revenue. Federal Labor is sucking what they can out of WA and sending it to their struggling brethren in the state governments of the eastern seaboard. Premier Barnett has said “Constitutionally I don't believe the commonwealth can tax the resource. Western Australia will not give up its sovereignty over minerals.” Hence, if the tax ever got through the federal parliament, it seems inevitable that it would be constitutionally challenged by the WA government. This is by no means a solution as the High Court has proven it has no regard for the constitution as intended by Australia’s founders. In the past, the court has bent over backwards to give the federal government as much power as it desires. It is up to the Australian people to stop this unconstitutional tax.
|
Search |
|||||||
Mining Tax
Probably a bit late to comment on this but I've just found it.
Interesting interpretations but let me comment on a couple and hence the argument contained in this article:
The first is without doubt true but let's examine what is State property is, particularly in light of the second statement by the Premier.
Go to the Mineral Resources Act of any State and you'll find around Sections 8 and 9 that these State Acts acknowledge that minerals (whether on or below the ground) belong to the Crown not the State. So perhaps then the interpretation needs to determine who represents the Crown; the Federal Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, or the States.
As it stands a State may only apply a resources tax because it is granted the right to apply a bounty by Section 91 of the Constitution.
I could probably go on but let's finally look at the Constitution again at Section 109 which states "When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid."
Like most Australians I am confused by the biased reporting by Government, Mining Interests and Journalists on this subject. It's time that someone presented the complete and truthful facts to the Public from both sides; pity it wasn't done before the election.