The Goods and Services Tax which was introduced as a New Tax System for Australia may well be unconstitutional.

A close look at Section 51(ii) Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 discloses that the Commonwealth has taxation powers but only so far as the tax does not discriminate against States or parts of States. .

EXAMPLE No. 1
Let us look at a scenario where a grazier at Normanton sends his cattle to Mareeba to be sold. The beast brings in $500.
Of that $500 there is $100 freight. So he pays an extra $50 GST on top of the freight. His net return is $350
The same beast produced at Mareeba, also realises $500, and freight is only $10. The Mareeba man pays $50 GST. He nets $440. The Normanton man therefore pays 14.28% tax at the farm gate, and the Mareeba man pays 11.36% Tax.
This is prima facie discriminatory. Likewise, any inputs into the cost of production at Normanton are loaded with a freight component.

EXAMPLE No. 2

A citizen of Cairns wishing to attend the Olympics buying a ticket to do so, will pay an extra $60 GST on his airline ticket. The people in Sydney, nothing.
A citizen of Perth will pay say $80 GST a Sydney citizen pays nothing.
A citizen of Tasmania will pay almost as much as a person from Cairns.

EXAMPLE No. 3

Take a Holden Car manufactured in Melbourne.
At the factory gate GST tax on $30,000 will be $3000.
The car in the hands of the consumer will be $33,000.
In Cairns after adding on $1,500 freight, the GST tax will be $3150.
The car in the hands of the consumer $34,650.
In Darwin it will be even more.
 

How do we attack this discrimination in an effective and low cost way?

The answer is in the right to be indicted or to indict.

At common law, all disobedience to Statute was an indictable offence. The inclusion of Section 80 into the Constitution was designed to protect citizens from just such rapacious favouring of the capital cities.

At Federation, when the agreement or contract was formed between the people of the Colonies to form both States from colonies, and a Federation, this was a condition that had to be complied with.

The New tax system does not comply with the terms of the agreement and is invalid because of it.

Anyone who refuses to comply with the GST who does not reside in Canberra will have a constitutional defence to put to the jury when he is charged with disobedience to its unlawful demands.

Notwithstanding, the definition of an offence against the GST as a summary offence tryable before a single magistrate, the creeping reclassification of offences from indictable to summary that has occurred gradually, since 1900 is only a subterfuge.

The Justices Act 1886 grants a magistrate or two justices, power to hear offences summarily, however the use of the word may, means that he can do so, if the defendant does not insist upon an indictment.

In 1900, the only summary offences a citizen could consent to be tried by a magistrate for were offences carrying less than a three months term of imprisonment, and even then, a person could insist that he be indicted.

The Commonwealth, in a backdoor way intended to defeat the effect of Section 80 Constitution has redefined summary offences upwards from 3 months to 12 months in the Crimes Act 1914.

To enforce this, they have given a combined executive and judicial power to a single man or woman.

The Doctrine of the separation of powers is a farce under those conditions.

The judicial power of the Commonwealth was intended, by those who made the agreement to create the Commonwealth, to be enforced by a judge after a jury had found the facts of the case.

To pervert this, the Parliament of the Commonwealth, in 1903, contrary to Section 77(i) Constitution passed sections 77A and 77B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to give a discretion to a High Court judge to combine the judicial and administrative functions of a Court in himself.

This perverts the intention of Section 71 which provided that a Commonwealth Supreme Court to be called the High Court should have a minimum of three judges when it sat, so that the jury would have the best brains in the land to direct them on the law applicable to the facts they found.

In 1900 all Supreme Courts sat in original jurisdiction, with juries.

Since the Parliament has no power to define the jurisdiction of the High Court, it also has no power to define how it shall be exercised.

In that, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is correct. The Court system has corrupted itself, with the assistance of a dishonest Parliament.

When the people at the very top, are prepared to continue in corrupt practice, all underlings feel secure.

However, the Parliament of the Commonwealth also passed the Crimes Act 1914. In Part III of that Act it provides the remedy for corruption.

By the State and Territorial Laws and Records Recognition Act 1901 (Cth) the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Q) became federal law, and section 204 of that Act makes disobedience to Statute an indictable offence.

By the simple fact that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is a statute, then the executive government is committing an indictable offence if it attempts to introduce a tax system that discriminates.

Each and every minister could face indictment under the Crimes Act 1914 if there is a continuance with this nefarious scheme.

In Section 13 Crimes Act 1914 the Commonwealth provides that any person may prosecute for a Commonwealth offence, by an Act issued by the Parliament.

An American legal dictionary has described a Court as a " an incorporeal political entity".

Every three years or so, the High Court of Parliament must present itself to the big jury to renew its jurisdiction to make laws for the peace order and good government of the people of the Commonwealth.

Between elections, the Government of the day must conduct itself in accordance with the rules laid down by the Constitution.

Failure to do so, enlivens the jurisdiction of each and every citizen to bring the Government before a petit or little jury of 12 people to have the decisions of those who govern reviewed.

This is the true effect of Section 80 Constitution.

Find an honest judge or magistrate anywhere in Australia and the GST is dead.

I trust you find this proposition interesting.

Yours sincerely

Peter Alexander Gargan

From: Reclaim Australia <info@reclaimaustralia.net>
Please forward to as many people as possible                  back to the top