05 September 2014

Stonnington may compel hundreds of home owners to sell

Maria Sardellis and Prahran business owners and residents opposing the use of this property for a new park. 
 Factory owner Maria Sardellis and other Prahran business owners and residents concerned for the future of their properties. Photo: Angela Wylie

Stonnington Council is set to take a landmark vote on a controversial policy that could compel hundreds of home owners and businesses to sell their properties to the city for conversion into parks.

But nearly all owners are being left in the dark about whose properties have been selected, with the council choosing not to publicly release the list of 450 identified sites in South Yarra, Toorak, Armadale, Glen Iris, Prahran and Malvern.

In the first stage of its strategy, the council will decide on Monday whether to apply a new planning control – known as a Public Acquisition Overlay – to five privately owned properties in Prahran, marking them permanently ‘‘reserved’’ as potential public space. The designation gives the council the option of buying the land at some future date.

The Prahran properties are among hundreds of private and publicly owned sites identified in a confidential report commissioned by the council, which is looking to reverse the decline in the amount of open space available in the municipality after years of intense development.

But the policy is bitterly resented by some land owners, who claim they will be left in ‘‘limbo’’ by a government that is laying a claim to their land but has made no formal commitment to buy it.

‘‘The council hasn’t made any offers. They’re saying: ‘We’ll reserve it and when you’re ready to sell, the council will buy it off you’. But if the council decides it’s time, they’ll just compulsorily acquire our property and we won’t have a choice,’’ said factory owner Maria Sardellis.

‘‘It’s all in their hands. In the meantime, our lives get put on hold for 10 or 20 years or however long. Obviously, no one else is going to want that land now.’’

The planning amendment envisions creating a ‘‘pedestrian link’’ between four streets by converting the five properties into so-called ‘‘pocket parks’’, some of which will be separated from each other by distances of up to 50 metres.

A spokesman for the City of Stonnington has stressed that the council is not compulsorily acquiring the properties but using the planning control to ‘‘flag its interest in potentially purchasing these properties in the future’’ should the owners decide to sell one day.

‘‘The application of a[n] [overlay] does not require an authority to then and there proceed to acquire the property and it may be some years before the property is actually acquired by council,’’ he said.

In the interim, owners would still be able to sell their land on the open market.

But veteran Stonnington estate agent Philippe Batters said the designation would act as a ‘‘blight’’ for any affected property, depressing its value and hampering any real chance of selling to anyone but the council.

‘‘It’s going to have a very detrimental impact for owners who get the designation. Plenty of others will be in for a nasty shock if the council turns out to have picked their property to be one of the hundreds that are being considered.’’

Owners can apply for compensation if they believe the designation has caused them financial loss, the council said.

The council’s strategy has identified up to 450 private and publicly owned sites that are suitable for conversion into parks and open spaces, which includes potentially ‘‘undergrounding’’ car parks, decking over rail lines and redeveloping council flats.

The council has no plans to release the complete list of properties identified as ‘‘strategic opportunities’’ that could be designated for purchase over the next 20 years.

Plans are already under way to apply an overlay to two properties in Carters Avenue, Toorak. The Age also understands that several home owners in Armadale were notified last week that an overlay is also being considered for their land, which is next to Toorak Park and estimated to be worth more than $1 million for each block.

Planning expert Professor Roz Hansen said that while Stonnington undoubtedly needs more open space, the council should be focusing on better using publicly owned spaces before jumping to the expensive option of purchasing individual, privately held blocks.

‘‘Creating pocket parks in a highly urbanised environment doesn’t add a lot of amenity simply because they’re so small and have limited use. There are better opportunities reclaiming surplus road space like Melbourne city council has done.’’

Prahran area residents are also concerned that the small, isolated ‘‘pocket parks’’ could become a focus point for anti-social behaviour and crime.

theage.com.au 17 Aug 2014

The fact that the current structure of 'city councils' is unlawful, the people in positions of power are supposed to enact the will of the people, which these corporate criminals do not.

City councils are factually businesses, where in reality they are supposed to be a department of the state, like for example the education department or the wildlife department, as described in the Australian Constitution, and therefore, the 'rates' they charge AND collect are unlawful.

The so called authorities are fully aware of this BUT still deliberately fail to prosecute these white collar criminals, as it is the public that are getting robbed to the tune of a multi billion dollar industry per annum.

Australia has not progressed from colonial past of being a prison island.

To take action against the criminal actions of the people residing in office of a business, masquerading as a 'municipal office' register your interest at:

Darebin council overlooks concerns over chief executive Rasiah Dev to boost rich pay packet

Darebin City Council offices. Darebin City Council offices. Photo: Gary Medlicott
An inner-city council has boosted its chief executive's pay to almost $400,000 a year, despite a leaked internal report saying the council's customer service "lacks functional effectiveness".

Darebin City Council has had a state government inspector overseeing its work since January, after an Ombudsman investigation revealed misuse of council funds, dodgy planning issues and conflicts of interest.

Despite this, and despite an outstanding bullying allegation against him, chief executive Rasiah Dev's last week gained a pay rise from $387,000 to $395,000.

His salary is topped in the metropolitan area only by Melbourne City Council's chief executive Kathy Alexander, who is on about $420,000.

Mr Dev has overseen the council since 2010 and is set to be reappointed next month for up to five years by a majority of Darebin's councillors.

His reappointment would come despite the wide-ranging Victorian Ombudsman investigation into his council in 2013.

The investigation was serious enough to lead to municipal inspector Peter Lewinsky being appointed to keep a watchful eye on the council until 2016.

Mr Dev sent an emotional and highly unusual farewell email to all 1300 Darebin staff two years ago, in which he said he had "lost the will to fight back and decided to quit from local government".

He said he had been interviewed five times by the Ombudsman's investigators, "and then called about 10 times on the phone" by inspectors for more questioning over allegations at the council.

A spokesman for the council confirmed that an investigation had been conducted into the bullying allegation from a staff member against Mr Dev, and had now concluded. "The matter was confidential and we are unable to comment on it," she said.

The Age has also seen a confidential report prepared for the council as part of a restructure, which describes its customer service department as ineffective and lacking linkages with other departments.

"Customer service in its current form is dysfunctional ... and lacks functional effectiveness," it says. The report cites behavioural issues, poor functioning and low morale.

A spokeswoman for the council said that its customer service team had provided "very effective service to our community", and rated well in satisfaction surveys.

theage.com.au 2 Sep 2014
In Australia one of the greatest frauds committed against the 'land occupiers' is something called 'rates '.

The 'authorities' including the judicature are fully aware of this fraud on a grand scale, yet any matters that appear regarding rate from the city council are promptly shut down by corrupt 'magistrates'.

ANYONE sitting in office under the current structure is liable for high treason.

City council are private corporations, whereas they are supposed to be departments of a state, therefore unable to collect tax (rates).

Australia the new Prison Isle, a fascist state bordering on Naziism.

04 September 2014

Fake cell phone ‘towers’ may be spying on Americans’ calls, texts

Reuters / Eduardo Munoz
Reuters / Eduardo Munoz
More than a dozen “fake cell phone towers” could be secretly hijacking Americans’ mobile devices in order to listen in on phone calls or snoop on text messages, a security-focused cell phone company claims. It is not clear who controls the devices.

READ MORE: Tracking everywhere: Private companies offer worldwide spying tools
ESD America, which markets heavily-encrypted cell phones built within the body of a Samsung Galaxy S3, said it was able to locate numerous towers intercepting mobile communications – but does not know who is running them.
Speaking to Popular Science, ESD America CEO Les Goldsmith recently said that the company has used its phone – the CryptoPhone 500 – to map 17 different fake cell phone towers, dubbed “interceptors,” across the United States. Locations include New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, and more.

“Interceptor use in the US is much higher than people had anticipated,” he told the website. “One of our customers took a road trip from Florida to North Carolina and he found 8 different interceptors on that trip. We even found one at South Point Casino in Las Vegas.”
Although these interceptors act as fake cell phone towers, they are not necessary large, physical structures. They could simply be small mobile devices that act exactly like a real tower, deceiving phones into giving up information. Such devices are known as “stingrays,” after the brand name of one popular type of interceptor.

Satellite dishes and cell phone towers atop a roof of a building (AFP Photo / Thomas Coex)
 Satellite dishes and cell phone towers atop a roof of a building (AFP Photo / Thomas Coex)

Once connected to a person's phone, they can bypass the mobile device’s encryption to either listen in on calls or capture texts. In some cases, they are also powerful enough to take over a device or make it seem as if it has shut down – only to leave the microphone on in order to eavesdrop.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been attempting to pry information about government and police use of stingray equipment, but its efforts have been met with resistance from federal officials.

According to Ars Technica, the Federal Communications Commission pledged in August to investigate the “illicit and unauthorized use” of interceptors – with a primary focus on foreign governments, criminals, and terrorists – but denied a Freedom of Information Act request to reveal more data about current stingray use.

READ MORE: NSA search engine allows law enforcement to scour data on citizens

For Goldsmith, determining who is using the interceptors is important. He speculated that the operators could be American agencies or foreign governments.

“What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of US military bases. So we begin to wonder – are some of them US government interceptors? Or are some of them Chinese interceptors?” he told PopSci. “Whose interceptor is it? Who are they, that’s listening to calls around military bases? Is it just the US military, or are they foreign governments doing it? The point is: we don't really know whose they are.”
Outside of national governments, local law enforcement agencies are also beefing up their stingray/interceptor capabilities. In Oakland, California, police are looking to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade their cell phone surveillance system.

Meanwhile, police in Tacoma, Washington have caught the eye of civil liberties advocates after the News Tribune revealed they have been using interceptor equipment to catch cell phone calls for the last six years.

Some, including Mayor Marilyn Strickland, said it was legitimate for police to do so as long as people’s rights were not violated. However, the ACLU disagreed, arguing it was like “kicking down the doors of 50 homes and searching 50 homes because they don’t know where the bad guy is.”

rt.com 3 Sept 2014

Once again all as per plan for the 'police state', where the enemy is NOT (external) terrorism, BUT actually the citizens of the nation, being perceived as a treat to the [corrupt] governing authorities.

iCloud nude leak is very much Apple’s fault: Opinion

Steve Jobs showing off iCloud back in 2011 when it was first announced. Security was said
Steve Jobs showing off iCloud back in 2011 when it was first announced. Security was said to be paramount. Source: AP
OPINION: Apple has released a statement suggesting all customer data on the iCloud storage system is safe and the recent attacks on celebrity phones were targeted. But I’m not convinced. 

In the statement, which lawyers would have combed through extensively, Apple said: “After more than 40 hours of investigation, we have discovered that certain celebrity accounts were compromised by a very targeted attack on user names, passwords and security questions, a practice that has become all too common on the internet.

“None of the cases we have investigated has resulted from any breach in any of Apple’s systems including iCloud or Find my iPhone. We are continuing to work with law enforcement to help identify the criminals involved.”

Targeted attacks? Sure, these attacks against high-profile celebrities were targeted, but there is a clear flaw that has been and will continue to be used against anyone’s iCloud accounts, not just the rich and famous.

Apple refuses to fix this flaw, continuing to use the same login steps that were compromised despite acknowledging that it is common practice.

It is so easy for anyone’s iCloud account to be hacked that I managed to find the answers to a friend’s account security questions within 30 minutes. From here, I could have easily accessed everything on his iCloud — which includes iMessages, contacts, images and videos.

No, I’m not a hacker. I got my mate’s permission to try to find the answers to his security questions.

The two simple questions I had to answer.
The two simple questions I had to answer. Source: NewsComAu
Since he is my friend, I already knew one of the answers, but I searched online for this information, and it was publicly available — so anybody could have accessed it. Answers to both security questions were found on social media. One, on his public Twitter profile, and the other on his private Facebook profile. All I needed to do was follow him, something that doesn’t require his permission. From there, I could see the answers needed in his pictures. Without his knowledge, his digital profile is vulnerable.

While they are fair conditions, the red graphic makes them seem more like warnings.
While they are fair conditions, the red graphic makes them seem more like warnings. Source: NewsComAu
One easy fix for all this should be two-step authentication. This is a process that involves verifying a login via a second method, usually a code in a text message.

Apple does have an option for this, but not only does it not encourage users to use it, it makes it stupidly difficult to activate. But two-step authentication isn’t even forced when logging into iCloud online. This renders it pointless for pretty much anything but purchases.

So as it stands, Apple holds your data in an unsecure way. And the tech giant doesn’t appear to be in a rush to fix this gaping security flaw to make us and our private information safer.

News.com.au has repeatedly approached Apple for a comment but is yet to receive a response.

news.com.au 4 Sep 2014

In light of this information people are still supporting this company?

The company should be taken to court and sued for millions per customer.

02 September 2014

Telstra transparency report shows nearly 85,000 customer data records seen by police, government

POLICE and government agencies accessed at least 84,849 Telstra customer records in the 12 months to July, the telco has revealed in its first full-year transparency report. 

The vast majority of the records — some 75,448 — related to basic customer information, carriage service records, or basic pre-warrant checks, which are used to determine whether customers were still with Telstra.
Customer information can include a customer’s name, address, previous address, service number, connection dates, and date of birth.

Carriage service records can include data on phone, text and internet communications, including when, to whom and for how long communication is made.

The report reveals 6202 records were provided to agencies in response to emergency situations, such as Triple Zero calls, with 598 provided in response to court orders, typically relating to civil disputes.

BIG BROTHER: Why the government wants to keep your metadata
AWKWARD: George Brandis fails to explain what metadata is
Telstra ... have disclosed how much data they have given to government agencies. Picture:
Telstra ... have disclosed how much data they have given to government agencies. Picture: AFP Source: AFP
Some 2701 records were obtained via a warrant, allowing agencies to conduct real-time phone taps or access the content of a customer’s communication.

Companies are prohibited from disclosing information requests from national security agencies such as ASIO, meaning the overall figure is likely far higher than the reported 84,849.

All Australian telcos are required by law to assist government agencies by handing over customer data in defined situations, such as criminal investigations.

Yet Telstra is one of the few companies operating in Australia to disclose the number and types of these requests.

It released its first transparency report in March, following the likes of tech giants Facebook, Google and Twitter.

That report covered the second half of 2013, but the new one is Telstra’s first to disclose an entire year of data.

It comes as the telecommunications industry negotiates with the federal government about a controversial proposal to compel telcos to store customer metadata for two years.

Turnbull attempts to explain metadata retention

Spying and law enforcement bodies say mandatory retention of customer data is vital for fighting crime and terrorism.

Critics within the industry counter that extra storage and retention could cost some telcos hundreds of millions of dollars. Unlike most other transparency reports, Telstra did not disclose how many of the requests it challenged or denied.

But because Australian law allows agencies to undertake a pre-warrant check to finetune their investigations, there are relatively fewer illegitimate requests, it said.

Telstra added that its international arm, Telstra global, received fewer than 100 requests for information.

news.com.au 1 Sep 2014

The police state of Australia is alive and well, thanks to the catch phrase 'terrorism'.

The previous 'enemy' was communism, created by the capitalist bankers of the 'west'.

And still the herd population swallow this political diarrhea.

01 September 2014

Private car park 'fines/payment notices'

Use this fact sheet if you:

  • have received a 'fine' or payment notice after parking in a private car park
  • want to know whether the 'fine' can be challenged

Car park 'fines'

A number of car parks are operated by private companies in New South Wales. The car parks are:
  • Usually attached to a shopping centre
  • Have signs about parking
  • Allow for a few hours of free parking and then charge per hour
  • Require a ticket to be displayed on your car
If you exceed the amount of time allowed for free parking without paying the hourly rate, or you park without displaying a ticket, you may be issued with a ticket on your car. The amount of the fine is usually around $66. This amount increases to $88 if you fail to pay within 14 days. If you continue to ignore the requests for payment, the companies instruct lawyers and/or debt collectors to pursue the money and further sums are demanded. Eventually court action may be threatened.

Letter from Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

You may have received a letter from RMS telling you that your name and address details will be released to an operator of a car park (including Care Park Pty Ltd or Australian National Car Parks Pty Ltd).
RMS was ordered under a 'preliminary discovery order' by the Court to release this information to the car park operator. RMS has tried on several occasions to resist the car park operator's applications to release this information, but has been unsuccessful, so by law they must give the car park company your details. For more information about 'preliminary discovery orders' see http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/gipa/privacy/discovery.html.
If you received a letter from RMS, it is likely that you will soon receive a letter from the car park company demanding payment of a parking 'fine'.

No legal authority to issue fines

Only the government can issue 'fines' so if a private car park describes the ticket as a 'fine' this is arguably misleading. Payment notices that are issued that look like fines may also be misleading.

How can the car park company issue a ticket?

The private car park company posts signs in the car park listing the conditions for parking there. They argue that by parking in the car park you entered into a binding contract. If you do not display a ticket or do not pay for your parking, then they argue that you are in breach of that contract.
While the legal position is complicated, we take the view that even if there is a binding contract - which may or may not be the case - the terms of that contract are unfair and the amount demanded is a penalty rather than a genuine assessment of the private car company's loss.

What can I do if I receive a 'fine'?

If you are being pursued for payment of 'liquidated damages' as a result of allegedly breaching the terms of operation of a private car park you have a number of options:
  1. Do nothing.

    This is not recommended. The private car park may start legal proceedings against you in court and add further fees for doing so.
  2. Write to the company.

    You could send a letter to the private car company disputing the 'fine'. You should use the matters listed in the section below - 'What should I write in the Defence?' to raise a dispute.

    If the dispute is that you were not the driver you will probably be asked to identify who was the driver of the car. It is your choice whether to identify the driver or not. If you can identify them it will make it easier for you to successfully deny that you were the driver. If you have evidence and witnesses that you were somewhere else that will also be helpful. Of course if a lot of time has passed you may not know who the driver was.
  3. Lodge a complaint in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT).

    The CTTT is a low cost consumer-friendly Tribunal. There are no costs awarded against you if you lose. This means that the worst-case scenario is you will have to pay the 'fine'. You may do a lot better than that and get the 'fine' waived.

    If the car park company has threatened to start court proceedings you can stop this happening by lodging a claim in the CTTT. If you go to the CTTT first to dispute the 'fine', the private car park company cannot then start legal action against you in the Local Court.

    Once the CTTT makes a decision it is binding and can be registered in the Local Court and enforced. An appeal can only be made to the District Court. Make sure you comply with all CTTT deadlines and attend all hearings listed.

    You can dispute the 'fine' by completing a General Division Application form using the same information that is listed below in the section - 'What should I write in the Defence?'

    For the CTTT form, information on fees and more information about the CTTT go to www.cttt.nsw.gov.au.
  4. Pay the debt.

    To avoid any risk of legal proceedings you can pay the amount demanded in full. Alternatively, you could offer a partial payment by way of full and final settlement. Any offer of a partial payment should be in writing and headed 'without prejudice'. The offer should clearly state that the amount is offered in full and final settlement of the debt claimed.

What can I do if legal action is started in the Local Court against me?

If the car park company starts legal action you will receive a court document called a Statement of Claim.
If this happens it will be too late to lodge a complaint in the CTTT.  If you don’t defend the claim within 28 days the car park company can get an order from the court that you must pay the money (called a default judgment) and can take action against you to enforce the judgment. Additional costs (including court costs and legal fees) will be included in the judgment.
You can defend the proceedings by filing (completing and lodging) a Defence within 28 days of the date you were served with the Statement of Claim. If you lose the case you may have to pay the legal costs of the private car park. You should therefore seek legal advice immediately if you receive a Statement of Claim.
If you want to complete a Defence yourself see the section - 'What should I write in the defence' - below.

What should I write in the Defence?

In the 'Pleadings and Particulars' section of the Defence form you can use the following statements:
  1. I deny that the car park company (who will be the 'Plaintiff' in the Statement of Claim) is entitled to make the claim against me.
  2. The amount claimed by the Plaintiff constitutes a penalty and is unenforceable and void.

    I refer to and rely upon the general law and say that the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages in excess of a reasonable pre-estimate of loss suffered as a result of the breach
  3. The amount of parking fees claimed by the Plaintiff is extravagant, unconscionable and grossly disproportionate to any loss (if any) that the Plaintiff suffered.
  4. If the fines were for you overstaying the hours permitted in the car park you can say:

    The loss suffered by the Plaintiff (if any) would be an amount commensurate with [insert the hourly rate you were required to pay] per hour for each hour of overstaying.
  5. If the fines were for not displaying your parking ticket you can say:

    The fines do not represent a loss, if any, the Plaintiff would have suffered as parking was free for the first [insert number of hours the parking was free].
  6. If the sign was not clearly visible or you were unaware of the conditions you can say:

    I was unable to read/or understand the terms and conditions because [state reason].
  7. If you were not the driver at the time the fine was issued you can say:

    I was not the driver at the time the fine was issued.

Can I complain about the car park's actions?

You can lodge a complaint with NSW Fair Trading:
Phone: 13 32 20
By Post: NSW Fair Trading, PO Box 972, Parramatta NSW 2124
Online: www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au (Click on'Lodge a complaint' and select 'Lodge a general complaint online')

Will my credit rating be affected?

A debt owed due to breach of contract is not a debt which can appear on your credit report. It will be listed on your credit report if the private car park obtains a court judgment against you.

Where can I get more help?

For more information about how to defend a claim in court, including how to complete a Defence and for copies of this form, visit the LawAssist website (click on the link 'Representing yourself in court? Visit LawAssist' and select 'Debt - small claims'.

31 August 2014

Police Powers, Recording in Public, The Right to Incriminate Oneself


"(Police officers) have no power whatever to arrest or detain a citizen for the purpose of questioning him or of  facilitating  their  investigations.  It  matters  not  at  all  whether  the  questioning  or  the  investigation  is  for  the  purpose of enabling them to ascertain whether he is the person guilty of a crime known to have been committed  or is for the purpose of enabling them to discover whether a crime has or has not been committed. If the police  do so act in purported exercise of such a power, their conduct is not only destructive of civil liberties but it is  unlawful."

Regina v Banner (1970) VR 240 at p 249 - the Full Bench of the Northern Territory Supreme Court

"It is an ancient principle of the Common Law that a person not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police,  or answer their questions. And there is no statute that removes that right. The conferring of such a power on a police officer would be a substantial detraction from the fundamental freedoms which have been guaranteed to the citizen by the Common Law for centuries."

Justice Stephen Kaye - Melbourne Supreme Court ruling - 25 November 2011

"There is no common law power vested in police giving them the unfettered right to stop or detain a person and seek identification details. Nor, is s.59 of the (Road Safety) Act a statutory source of such power."

Magistrate Duncan Reynolds - Melbourne - July 2013

NOTE: None of the above precedents have been overturned on appeal or in the High Court



- Section 7 - Prohibition on installation, use and maintenance of listening devices

(1) A person must not knowingly install, use or cause to be used or maintain a listening device:
(a) To overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation to which the person is not a party, or
(b) to record a private conversation to which the person is a party

ANALYSIS of 1(a)  The person recording is a party to the conversation.
ANALYSIS of 1(b)  A conversation on the roadside between a person and a policeman is not a private conversation.

CONCLUSION:  A person video recording an encounter between himself and police is doing so legally.

(3) Subsection (1) (b) does not apply to the use of a listening device by a party to a private conversation if:

(a) all of the principal parties to the conversation consent, expressly or impliedly, to the listening device being so used, or
(b) a principal party to the conversation consents to the listenin g device being so used and the recording of the conversation:
(i) is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party, or
(ii)  is  not  made  for  the  purpose  of  communicating  or  publishing  the  conversation,  or  a  report  of  the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation.

ANALYSIS of 3  A conversation on the roadside between a person and a policeman is not a private conversation.
ANALYSIS of 3(b)(i)  A recording made to protect the lawful interests of the person recording is legal.
ANALYSIS of 3(b)(ii)  Such a conversation is not private, therefore can be published.

CONCLUSION:  A person recording an encounter between himself and police is doing so legally. That person is also legally entitled to publish the recording to the public, such as on Youtube or other websites.

News media do this every day, recording  people and events without requiring the consent of those being recorded. The media is not subject to any special dispensation by law to do this, therefore members of the public have the same rights to record their encounters with police.

Any policeman who tries to prevent a member of the public doing this is acting illegally and can and should be prosecuted.


The Australian Government Law Reform Commission states the following:

15.89  The  common  law  privilege  against  self-incrimination  entitles  a  person  to  refuse  to  answer  any question,  or  produce  any  document,  if  the  answer  or  the  production  would  tend  to  incriminate  that person.[123]  Although  broadly  referred  to  as  the  privilege  against  self-incrimination,  the  concept encompasses three distinct privileges: a privilege against self-incrimination in criminal matters; a privilege against self-exposure to  a civil or administrative penalty (including any monetary penalty which might be imposed by a court or an administrative authority, but excluding private civil proceedings for damages); and a privilege against self-exposure to the forfeiture of an existing right (which is less commonly invoked).

There are many more references to an Australian citizen’s right to not incriminate himself or produce any document that may tend to incriminate him and this is where motorists should stand up for their rights in this regard.

ANALYSIS:  As  proven  by  the  precedents  set  by  various  judges,  common  law  supersedes  statutory  law. Therefore, whether there are statutory laws compelling a person to submit to providing anything that may tend to incriminate him, the fact remains that a person has the legal right to not provide any material, whether verbal or tangible, if the production of that material would tend to incriminate that person.

That material can be any or all of the following:
  Verbal statements
  Documents
  Data such as computer files
  Breath alcohol samples
  Blood alcohol samples
  DNA samples

CONCLUSION:  No person should ever succumb to any demand to produce anything that may tend to incriminate him, no matter what police or other officials say or threaten. Every citizen  has the common law
right to refuse to incriminate himself in any way.

Obviously any attempt to coerce or forcibly take any material from a person against his will that may tend  to  incriminate  him  should  not  only  make  that  material  completely  inadmissible as evidence in any prosecution, but will possibly render the person who has coercively or forcibly obtained that material to prosecution for violating a person’s common law rights.

Source supplied.