CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS

The Government is committed to pursuing meaningful change in the Constitution – change that unites the nation and reflects the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians by:

• Recognising the unique history and culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
• Reflecting the nation’s fundamental belief in the importance of equality and non‑discrimination by removing references to race; and
• Acknowledging that additional effort is needed to help close the gap in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ disadvantage.

The Australian Constitution is the foundation document for our laws and our government, but is silent on the special place of our first Australians.
Successful constitutional change will not occur without the support of the majority of Australians. More time is needed to build the necessary support for a successful referendum.
To build the momentum needed for successful constitutional change, on 13 February 2013, the House of Representatives passed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012. It is anticipated the Bill will be considered by the Senate before the end of February.
The Act of Recognition will be an important step towards achieving constitutional change to recogniseLink to external website Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.  The Bill includes a statement of recognition of the unique and special place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that largely reflects the wording suggested by the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The Bill contains a sunset date of two years.  This will allow the campaign to continue to build momentum and will provide an impetus for a future parliament to reassess how the campaign for change is travelling and timing for a successful referendum.
Under the legislation, a review will be carried out to consider levels of community support for amending the Constitution and proposals for constitutional change, taking into account the important work that has been done by the Expert Panel.  The review will conclude six months before the sunset date and be tabled in Parliament.
The Government knows that support from across the Parliament is a prerequisite for a successful referendum and is pleased that Parliament is united in supporting the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill.
It is in the spirit of bipartisanship that the Government has worked with the Opposition to establish a Parliamentary Joint Select CommitteeLink to external website on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to progress constitutional recognition.The Committee considered the Bill as its first task and reported to Parliament on 30 January 2013, unanimously recommending that the Bill be passed.
The Committee is further tasked with building a secure, strong, multi-partisan Parliamentary consensus around the timing, specific content and wording of referendum proposals for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Information on the work of the Committee can be found on its websiteLink to external website.
The report of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples will form the basis of the Committee’s work. The Expert Panel was appointed in December 2010 to consider, consult and advise the Government on how best to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution and on possible options for change that would likely get the support of the majority of Australians at a referendum. The Government received the Expert Panel’s report in January 2012.
The Government is investing $10 million to help build public awareness and community support for change. This important work is being led by Reconciliation Australia, supported by a reference group of business and community leaders. The funding is supporting community groups and activities to provide Australians with the opportunity to learn more about constitutional recognition.
The Government encourages all Australians to learn more and get involved in building support for constitutional change.
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibilities/indigenous-australians/programs-services/recognition-respect/constitutional-recognition-of-indigenous-australians
ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE POLITICS HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT:themikiverse@gmail.com

Read More

MELBOURNE CORPORATION v COMMONWEALTH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth
Court	High Court of Australia
Full case name	The Lord Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Melbourne v The Commonwealth and Another
Date decided	13 August 1947
Citation(s)	(1947) 74 CLR 31; [1947] HCA 26
Judge(s) sitting	Latham CJ, Rich, Starke, Dixon, McTiernan, Williams JJ
Case history
Prior action(s)	none
Subsequent action(s)	none
Case opinions
(5:1) any Commonwealth law that is otherwise valid under a head of power in s51 or some other part of the Constitution if it denies the existence or ability of a State to govern itself or the federal structure of the Commonwealth or singles out any one State

Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31; [1947] HCA 26 (13 August 1947), also known as the Melbourne Corporation case or the State banking case, is an important case in Australian constitutional law. It stands for the proposition that there are limits on the scope of express Commonwealth legislative powers which can be implied from the federal character of the Constitution.
The Melbourne Corporation principle is an implied limit on Commonwealth legislative power under the Constitution of Australia. This is due to the express federal nature of the governmental structure described by the Constitution in having a federation of states combine into one Commonwealth.
The principle renders constitutionally invalid any Commonwealth law that is otherwise valid under a head of power in s51 or some other part of the Constitution if it:

1. Denies the existence or ability of a State to govern itself or the federal structure of the Commonwealth; and
2. Singles out States.

A recent case of Austin v Commonwealth (2003) conflated the original 2 limbed test of the original case into an expanded 1st limb so that a commonwealth law that affects a state's ability to administer itself is constitutionally invalid.
This constitutional protection is one of the few reliable protections in the Australian Constitution against legislative and executive power, the other main protection being the Chapter III Separation of Powers Doctrine.

See also

• Re Australian Education Union

External links

• Full text of the decision
• Anne Twomey, 'Federal Limitations on the Legislative Power of the States and the Commonwealth to Bind One Another', Federal Law Review, Vol. 31 No. 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Corporation_v_Commonwealth
ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE POLITICS HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT:themikiverse@gmail.com

Read More

AUSTIN v COMMONWEALTH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Austin v Commonwealth
Court	High Court of Australia
Full case name	Austin v The Commonwealth of Australia
Date decided	5 February 2003
Citation(s)	(2003) 215 CLR 185
Judge(s) sitting	Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ
Case history
Prior action(s)	none
Subsequent action(s)	none
Case opinions
(5:1) Confirmed one-limbed Melbourne Corporation principle that there are limits to the Commonwealth's ability to control the states. Commonwealth provisions cannot burden a state's structural integrity - its ability to exist or carry out its essential functions (per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ) (4:2) The Commonwealth imposition of a superannuation tax surcharge on judges was invalid. (per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ)

Austin v Commonwealth (2003) 215 CLR 185, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with issues of intergovernmental immunity and discrimination of states against Commonwealth power.

Background

Austin was a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales who was challenging a Commonwealth law which imposed a superannuation contributions surcharge on judges. The Commonwealth law was part of a wider scheme imposing a superannuation charge on higher income earners, equalising the tax burden on judges vis-a-vis other high income earners. The surcharge was not imposed on states directly as employers because it could have infringed section 114 of the constitution, which outlaws taxation of state property. If a person was a judge since before 1987, the charge was not imposed as the liability to pay the charge could have run to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The New South Wales government, in response, amended the charge system to lower the burden that would have to be paid.

Decision

Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ rejected the separate discrimination limb found in the Melbourne Corporation principle. In their view, if Melbourne Corporation is read carefully, it is more concerned with a state's ability to function i.e. the structural integrity limb of the principle was paramount. For a law to infringe the Melbourne Corporation principles it must ultimately infringe the state's structural integrity. While they reject the two-limbed principle, they do not offer an alternative, instead conflating the principles into a single principle of structural integrity. In applying the facts, the majority stressed the importance of judicial remuneration in attracting suitable judges and securing their independence. They found this tax effectively forced the states to adjust their remuneration in order to safeguard judicial standards i.e. increase judges pay. For this reason, they found the law impaired the states' ability to exercise their essential functions.
In a separate judgment for the majority Gleeson CJ found the discrimination element of the Melbourne Corporation was part of a broader principle of structural integrity. Hence the two-limbed test in Melbourne Corporation is reduced to a one-limbed test. The Commonwealth's imposition of the charge forced states to alter their remuneration arrangements, which impaired their constitutional status and integrity.
McHugh J was the only judge to endorse the two-limbed Melbourne Corporation principle. He thought the two-limbed test was well-settled and there was no need to alter it. On application of the first limb (discrimination) he found the Commonwealth law in singling out (and thus discriminating against) state judges placed a burden upon the states and was thus invalid. His reasoning thus implicitly links the two limbs of the test.
Kirby J agreed with the majority's assessment that the Melbourne Corporation principle is actually reducible to a one-limbed test. However on application of this one-limbed test, he found that the burden on states of having judges with higher tax liabilities (i.e. a high state remuneration burden) was not heavy enough to impair state functioning. The effect, he argued, was marginal at best. Kirby J noted that the other judges exaggerated the burden on states, and were sensitive to issues of judicial pay. He also pointed out that judge's salaries are subject to a wide variety of taxes and charges, asking how this single charge could affect a state's capacity to carry out its essential functions. Thus, while he dissented on the outcome, Kirby J agreed with the majority on the law.
Overall, the court confirmed its interpretation of the Melbourne Corporation principle, that it is a one-limbed principle concerning the structural integrity of the states and their ability to exercise their functions.

See also

• Australian constitutional law

References

• Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v_Commonwealth
ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE POLITICS HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT:themikiverse@gmail.com 

Read More

TAMI PEPPERMAN EVICTION SCANDAL

U.S law expert, tami pepperman, who has assisted many people with their harrassments from the criminally corrupt government was evicted from her home this morning by members of St Joseph County Sheriff's Office.

This act took place despite the fact the matter is still pending in the court systems and no notice of eviction was served. Not only that tammi, was lied to in the call and was told that officers were there to serve papers. No papers were served at all.

Listen to internet radio with Critical Mass Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Many people from around the world are shocked and disturbed at the behaviour of the Sheriff privateers, who tammi described as being "armed to the teeth" which unfortunately is becoming normal behaviour when dealing with people.
Their logic is because they were ordered to or a body of words allows them to then guilt or innocence is no longer an issue.
They are apparently only following orders.
Just like the Nazi's.
Rest assured that this is not over.
Feel free to send your thoughts and best wishes to tami in the thread below. She works incredibly hard for many people so lets rally round our mate in her time of need.

ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE POLITICS HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT:themikiverse@gmail.com 

Read More

EVIDENCING SCANDAL - ONE BANK REPRESENTATIVE AT A TIME...

ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE POLITICS HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT:themikiverse@gmail.com

Read More

THE COUNTY COUNCIL IS A TRUST - LIABLE FOR YOUR BILLS! - BY WHITE RABBIT

ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE POLITICS HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT:themikiverse@gmail.com

Read More

PETER RYAN RESPONDS TO "NOTICE TO PETER RYAN, DEPUTY PREMIER OF THE STATE OF VICTORIA"

Dear Crag,

Thank you for your email.

Please note that your message has been received. Given the nature of the matters you raise I have asked the Department of Justice to look into this issue and respond to you directly.

Kind regards,

Peter Ryan

_______________________________________________________________

The Hon Peter Ryan MLA
Deputy Premier of Victoria
Leader of the Nationals
Minister for Police and Emergency Services
Minister for Bushfire Response
Minister for Regional and Rural Development

ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE POLITICS HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT:themikiverse@gmail.com

Read More