Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Janet H. Thompson on February 5, 2010 at 10:52am

Thank you, Fiona and Barnaby. We're already active in putting together submissions, and contacting others that have been affected. This is a huge opportunity to progress the fight against the erosion of private property rights.

Without surety of property tenure, our country will be nothing.

Thanks again for all your hard work. We appreciate it more than words can say.

Kind Regards,
Janet

Permalink Reply by Carol Petith on February 5, 2010 at 11:01am

Hi Fiona
I thank you for your interest. I hope that the interviews will also extend to the outskirts of Sydney and anywhere that there is land affected by the Native Vegetation Act and other such acts that destroy the true meaning of land ownership. Without land ownership being identified as being beyond such Acts then we will always have problems. Government should not be able to place restrictions over private land other than by a payment to buy a covenant or a restriction. Why should government be able to bully landowners by implementation of smart theft.
Water and carbon and whatever they decide. This is communism.
Thank you agan Fiona.

Permalink Reply by Peter Lockhart on February 5, 2010 at 1:34pm

Yes Fiona it is great to see that you and Barnaby have succeeded in persuading the Senate to hold an inquiry related to the loss of their personal rights and also the other area's referred to in your discussion,but any enquiry must include ALL Australians not just farmers.
Kind Regards Peter

Permalink Reply by Janet H. Thompson on February 11, 2010 at 11:49am

Can details be posted on here? Appreciate you, Fiona!

Permalink Reply by Ian Strawbridge on March 14, 2010 at 10:53am

Hi Fiona,

It would be appreciated re hearing and submission information. A bit of additional info below!

Property rights go much deeper than farmers rights, it is about all landowners rights and its quite simply this - if you buy a book you pay for it and that includes all gst, taxes,etc - you can then read it, you can burn it, throw it away, its yours to do what you like with - especially in that no more taxes are applicable - yet the Government believes that with a property that this should not be the case. Yet, fee simple property title DOES give this right not to have addional charges levied. Its been buried, however I believe it still exists and should be honoured by all levels of Government - Including councils that according to the referendum in 1998 legally should not exist - a mandate was given by the people that we did not want them recognised and they should have gone the day after - yet the state Gov enacts the local gov act. Surely we all should abide by the rules?

We own 38+ hectares. In NSW that means an additional tax is imposed by the Livestock Health and Pest Authority (LHPA) - the old Rural Lands Protection Board (RLPB) just because we have more than 10 hectares of land! Mind you we are zoned residential have an inperpetuity conservation in place and cannot run livestock - yet the LHPA rates are derived by the humber of Livestock our land can carry!

There was an enquiry into the RLPB rating system and as expected it did not question the legality of notational assessment – an excise tax by definition as it is a step in production on a farm. An excise tax cannot be charged by the state government under our (the peoples) constitution. Under the constitution I am claiming that the RLPB rate is an excise tax and is illegal. (The constitution preamble says that the State Government have to prove otherwise) It should also be noted that the High Court of Australia decided that 'State Governments couldn't raise any excise taxes, so therefore LHPA rates (an excise tax) is unlawful.

The Fee Simple Tenure protects the titleholder from involuntary debt against the property (the purpose for its existence). Debts against the property for unpaid charges could only arise while the acceptance of the service continues. Any other interpretations of the charges referred to in those Acts would be a breach of the Fee Simple contract.

It also does not address my rights not to be discriminated against – greater than 10ha pays these rates under 10ha does not : Section 52 Placitum (ii) “the Taxation power” that we are being discriminated against - as being residential landholders, we note that other residential landholders in general are not levied a tax in this manner – the Queensland equivalent of RLPB was abolished after a court challenge therefore Queensland residents do not have it either - yet we do. The constitution forbids such discrimination of the Queens subjects :-
117 Rights of residents in States
A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.
3) Section 109 of the Australian Constitution 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."

I have asked Andrew Stoner to put a question on notice for Parliament. Its below for your info...

"Hi Andrew, If you could ask the question in parliament on my behalf of Ian Macdonald and the current premier - 'Why is the NSW Government still disregarding the law of the land with an unconstitutional charge being applied to landholders who have more than 10 hectares of land? That is the LHPA rates are an excise as they are a step in production.

Why is the Government ignoring the land rights of property ownership under fee simple title - does the Government acknowledge private land ownership or not?'

Thankyou in advance, Ian Strawbridge"

As it is on notice hopefully they won't be able to duckshove it as in previous examples...

Regards, Ian Strawbridge
Ellenborough, NSW
Extremely disgruntled landowner...

Permalink Reply by Lynette McDougall on March 14, 2010 at 11:42am

There was an enquiry into the RLPB rating system and as expected it did not question the legality of notational assessment – an excise tax by definition as it is a step in production on a farm. An excise tax cannot be charged by the state government under our (the peoples) constitution. Under the constitution I am claiming that the RLPB rate is an excise tax and is illegal. (The constitution preamble says that the State Government have to prove otherwise) It should also be noted that the High Court of Australia decided that 'State Governments couldn't raise any excise taxes, so therefore LHPA rates (an excise tax) is unlawful.

An excise tax, as defined in the Commonwealth Excise Act, is payable on goods mentioned in that Act – tobacco, alcohol and petrol. How can a tax levied on landholders be an excise? An LHPA rate is not an excise as excise taxes apply only to goods produced, not on the land on which they are produced.

The Fee Simple Tenure protects the titleholder from involuntary debt against the property (the purpose for its existence). Debts against the property for unpaid charges could only arise while the acceptance of the service continues. Any other interpretations of the charges referred to in those Acts would be a breach of the Fee Simple contract.

Where do you get that idea from? The State has the power to make laws that give it the power to levy taxes, whether the land holder agrees with them or not. It’s a statutory charge that applies to all property that the law says it does.

Including councils that according to the referendum in 1998 legally should not exist - a mandate was given by the people that we did not want them recognised and they should have gone the day after - yet the state Gov enacts the local gov act.

The referendum in 1998 was about taking local governments OUT of the control of the States and giving their control to the Commonwealth. That’s what the people did not want. State constitutions allow for the creation of local governments in their respective States, and allow the States to make laws for the local governments, which then allows the local government to make their own local laws.

the Queensland equivalent of RLPB was abolished after a court challenge therefore Queensland residents do not have it either - yet we do

The Queensland Rural Lands Protection Board was abolished when the Rural Lands Protection Act 1985 was repealed when the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 commenced on 1 July 2003. A new body called the Land Protection Council was established in its place (Section 186 of the Land Protection Act refers). Its abolition had nothing to do with a court challenge.

Local councils are responsible for the day to day administration of the Land Protection Act with respect to compliance matters relating to the control of pest plants and animals.

The constitution forbids such discrimination of the Queens subjects :-

Section 117 of the Constitution has nothing to do with one state not being able to do something if another state is not doing it. It means that one state’s laws that are applicable only to residents of that state do not apply to residents in another state.

And Section 109 doesn’t come into play either, because that means that where there is a Commonwealth law for a particular matter, the State’s law is invalid.

Permalink Reply by Ian Strawbridge on March 14, 2010 at 1:58pm

Thankyou Lynette for your interpretation of "things" as you see them...

An excise can be defined as a step in production if you read it completely it states that if you have stock then IT IS a step in production and therefore classed as an excise. This interpretation was in relation to the Constitution not the excise act. It is a side point in relation to this notional assessment nonsense as my land cannot run stock yet it is charged as if it could. Very wrong!

If you look at my book example it is quite clear and concise and does not matter if the state invents new laws - I am not in agreeance with them if they have effect on my land nor did I enter into any binding contract to say that I would accept them! That is my right as a free man who owns his property outright under fee simple title!

The sooner everybody stands up to this dictatorial government about their rights the better off we will all be.

Fee simple is the basis of our property ownership or are you suggesting that we no longer have ownership rights? Fee simple title should overide any laws that prohibit you using your land in any manner you see fit. Otherwise what is the purpose of land ownership - so you are allowed merely to set foot on it? Guess again!

As for s117 I suggest your interpretation is different to how I and many other people see it!

In short - either we are going to have Land ownership rights or we are not - hence my question to Parliament. I would suggest that by the amount of activity in this area by people that we have a good chance of gaining back what is rightly ours. Always remember that the Government is there on our behest not the other way around - as is the constitution a document of the people for the people.

Permalink Reply by Lynette McDougall on March 14, 2010 at 2:47pm

The stock you are raising on the land would be considered the step in production, not the land. So the ban on States charging an excise would be if they wanted to charge an excise on each head of stock you sold. It would not relate to the land on which you raised them.

If that were the case, then States would not be able to charge land tax on land that was used to produce anything, and they have been doing so for many years, so if your understanding were correct someone would have taken the States to the High Court long before now and got land tax overturned.

Why not give it a try if you feel so strongly that State government taxes are against the Constitution.

Permalink Reply by Terry Wood on April 12, 2010 at 11:28am

Dear Fiona
Thank you Fiona and Barnaby for getting the Inquiry going
After reading some of the submissions from the Senate Inquiry, it appears that some property owners have had their property value decreased, but only if they objected.
This is astounding as the NSW Valuer General's Department has the Value of Land Act to follow and the 4 Definitions “Land Improvements” means (a) the clearing of land by the removal or thinning out of timber, scrub or other vegetable growths.
Yet some property's have had an increase in native vegetation have also had in increase in value by this Department, which is contrary to the definition in the act. Is this department actually doing its job in valuing property's or just increasing the value in line with inflation figures and if the values that the State have are over inflated could this be a bigger problem for Australia in the future than the Lehman Bros collapse.
Also you might want to inquire into the other States and Territories valuations as well.

Regards
Terry