Objection to Road Toll Charges for Profit.

When tolls are legitimately charged, they are traditionally seen as user-pays fees intended to recover the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure. This is a form of cost recovery, not strictly a "tax" in the conventional sense, though it functions similarly. Although the States have some power to levy fees to pay for public services and infrastructure. Section 90 of the Constitution limits States from imposing duties of excise (a type of tax) on goods or commerce that power belongs exclusively to the Commonwealth. Section 92 guarantees free trade and movement, which tolls arguably restrict if they become a permanent economic barrier.

Federation in 1901 did not create an explicit, written “right to freedom of movement” in the style of a bill of rights. However, it established a unified legal and political framework  particularly through Section 92 of the Constitution that the High Court has interpreted to imply a constitutional guarantee of freedom of interstate movement (as part of “intercourse among the States”).

This freedom is generally protected, but it is not absolute. In rare circumstances, such as during a pandemic, reasonable and proportionate restrictions may be upheld  provided they serve a legitimate, non-protectionist purpose, such as public health.

There is no clear constitutional power that allows private, especially foreign-owned, companies to charge tolls purely for profit on public roads in Australia. The original purpose of tolls was to recover the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure not to generate ongoing profit. While governments can fund roads through user charges, once tolling becomes a tool for private profit rather than public service, it risks straying beyond the intended scope of constitutional powers. The Constitution gives the Commonwealth and States power over trade, commerce, and roads, but it does not explicitly authorise the outsourcing of essential public infrastructure to private entities for commercial exploitation.

Not even under State constitutions, is there express or inherent power for this that clearly allows private or foreign owned companies to charge tolls purely for profit on public roads. State governments may authorise toll roads, but the power to do so is meant to serve a public purpose usually to recover the cost of construction, maintenance, or operation of the road. Turning tolls into a permanent profit making scheme for private companies, especially foreign-owned ones, raises legal and constitutional concerns, including Accountability and Sovereign control of public infrastructure.

In Vanderstock v Victoria, the High Court ruled that a State-imposed charge on electric vehicle use (the ZLEV road-user charge) was an excise, and therefore unconstitutional under section 90 of the Australian Constitution. Section 90 gives the Commonwealth exclusive power to impose duties of excise, meaning the States cannot impose taxes on goods including charges imposed for their use or consumption. The Court took a broad view of what counts as an excise, holding that it can include charges on the use of goods, not just their sale or production. This decision widened the scope of what is considered an excise beyond traditional manufacturing taxes. A charge imposed by a State on the use of a good (like a car on a public road) may now be unconstitutional if it’s effectively a tax, even if it's not called one.

So if a toll is charged by a private company under State legislation, and the toll: Applies to the use of vehicles (goods), and is not directly tied to the cost of providing infrastructure, and, Generates ongoing profit, especially for foreign-owned entities, then that toll could be constitutionally invalid under the logic of Vanderstock, because it may function as an excise duty, which States are not permitted to impose.

In Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) (1938) 60 CLR 263

In this case, Latham CJ gave a widely accepted definition of a tax:

“A tax is a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes, enforceable by law, and is not a payment for services rendered.”

One needs to ask the question is a toll charged by a public authority for a public purpose and not a payment for services rendered? Essentially a charge imposed by a State on the use of a good (like a car on a public road) may now be unconstitutional if it’s effectively a tax, even if it's not called one.

Below is a draft letter to send to your representitives raising the above concerns, get behind this and soon we could see this unconstitutional charge removed giving relief to all Australians.

Victoria

To:
The Hon. xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
Minister for Infrastructure / Member for xxxxxxxxxxx
Parliament of the State of xxxxxxxxxxx
[Address]

Reclaiming the Constitutional and Public Principle of Absolutely Free Movement on Australian Roads

Dear xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx,

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the continued tolling of Australian roads particularly those that were built or co-funded using public money and the constitutional and public policy implications this practice raises. Historically, tolls were imposed to recover the cost of building essential public infrastructure, such as the Sydney Harbour and West Gate Bridges. These tolls were removed once construction debts were repaid. This approach reflected the public interest and aligned with the intent of the framers of the Constitution that travel and commerce within our federated nation should be “absolutely free,” as enshrined in Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which states:

“Trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.”

However, the current model whereby roads originally funded with taxpayer money have been handed over to private and, in some cases, foreign-owned corporations under long-term tolling contracts is a serious deviation from that principle. For instance, Transurban collected over $3.2 billion in toll revenue during the 2023–24 financial year. These revenues are not merely paying off infrastructure; they are enriching shareholders and, in many cases, leaving Australians with no real alternative routes.

Despite this, I am more than willing to pay future tolls, on the following strict conditions:

1. The toll is used solely to repay the cost of building and maintaining the road, as the framers of the Constitution intended.

2. The toll is not for the profit of any private or foreign corporation.

3. All toll revenue forms part of the State’s Consolidated Revenue, as a legal required under Section 89 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic), which states:

   “All taxes imposts rates and duties and all territorial casual and other revenues of the Crown in right of the State of Victoria (including royalties) which the Parliament has power to appropriate shall form one Consolidated Revenue to be appropriated for the public service of Victoria…”

4. That satisfactory and lawful response is provided in relation to the following key legal and constitutional matters:

With respect to Legal and Constitutional Concerns Regarding Toll Revenues Used for Private or Foreign Profit: While tolls have traditionally been justified as user-pays mechanisms to recover the cost of building and maintaining public roads, serious constitutional and legal concerns arise when tolls are imposed indefinitely and used to generate profit for private particularly foreign-owned corporations.

Under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, the following key provisions are relevant:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 90

Exclusive power over customs, excise, and bounties.

“The power of the Parliament to impose duties of customs and of excise… shall become exclusive.”

 

This provision prohibits States from imposing duties of excise, which are broadly interpreted to include any tax on goods or services prior to consumption, including charges on the use of infrastructure related to commercial activity.

In Vanderstock v Victoria (2023), the High Court ruled that a state-imposed electric vehicle levy was an unconstitutional excise, reinforcing the principle that States may not impose such charges outside Commonwealth authority. By extension, it is arguable that tolls functioning as revenue-raising measures, especially when paid into private profit streams, may also constitute an invalid excise.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 92

Trade within the Commonwealth to be free.

“Trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States… shall be absolutely free.”

Toll roads, especially when no viable free alternative exists, create economic and physical barriers to movement. When these barriers are imposed perpetually, and not for infrastructure cost recovery, they arguably breach the constitutional guarantee of absolutely free intercourse among the States, particularly if they apply to essential routes of trade or migration.

A clear Violation of Public Revenue Principles: According to Section 89 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic), all revenue raised by the State must form part of the Consolidated Revenue, and be appropriated for the public service unless it is specifically provided for.

“All taxes imposts rates and duties… shall form one Consolidated Revenue to be appropriated for the public service of Victoria…”

Toll revenue that is directed to private or foreign-owned corporations instead of the State's Consolidated Revenueviolates this principle. Such arrangements bypass parliamentary accountability and the public interest, creating a two-tiered system where movement is monetised for profit rather than governed as a public service.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that your office:

1. Review the legality and fairness of long-term tolling arrangements in light of Sections 90 and 92 of the Constitution.

2. Ensure that all toll revenue is publicly accounted for and forms part of the State's Consolidated Revenue, in accordance with Section 89 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic).

3. Propose legislative and constitutional reform, where necessary, to restore the principle that movement on publicly funded infrastructure should be absolutely free.

4. Consider initiating or supporting a broader constitutional inquiry into the modern meaning of “absolutely free” movement, particularly as it relates to public-private partnerships and the monopolisation of essential roadways.

This is more than a legal issue it goes to the heart of our shared national identity. Roads are not a luxury service; they are a fundamental element of public infrastructure. If everyday Australians cannot move freely without paying for the privilege, we have strayed far from the original vision of a fair and united federation.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

PLEASE NOTE:

The consolidated fund argument does not apply in NSW or Queensland.

_______________________

Source:supplied

Revealed: Vic govt's flawed claims on $370m Horsham solar hub

No Victorian solar farm has ever reached the power levels promised for SEC's new $370m Horsham development, market data reveals.

It was former Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews who promised to bring back the SEC, but it’s Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio who has been left to deliver.

The SEC is spending $370m of Victorian taxpayers’ funds building a 212,000 solar panel development at Horsham, which industry analysis shows will generate just half the power the Allan government claims.

Construction has already started on the project, which Premier Jacinta Allan and Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio said would generate 242,000 megawatt hours of renewable energy a year – enough to power 51,000 homes.

But the estimate is based on the development operating at 23 per cent of its 119MW capacity, something no other solar farm in Victoria has achieved.

Australian Energy Market Operator data, collated by the Open Energy group, shows the Cohuna solar development, which has been operating since March 2020, generates at 7.8 per cent of its 31.1MW capacity.

Further east the Wunghu development north of Shepparton generates 10.2 per cent of its 93.5MW capacity, while further east the Winton solar farm’s 246,624 solar panels generate at an average 14.3 per cent of their capacity since it started operations in March 2021.

Not even the solar farms in Victoria’s far sunnier north-west can match the government’s generation forecast for Horsham, with Kiamal sitting at 14.9 per cent, Karadoc at 17.6 per cent and Yatpool at 15.5 per cent of their capacity.

AEMO national electricity market data also shows that much of the time solar developments are generating electricity when the market price is negative, due to oversupply.

Centre for Independent Studies energy research director Aidan Morrison said it was “nuts and completely economically backwards” for the SEC to be investing in even more solar generation capacity.

“Everyone is screaming for investment in solar to stop, Mr Morrison said. “They’re (the government) getting the SEC to take on things that the market will not.”

Ms D’Ambrosio has previously stated Labor was “investing in renewable energy projects for people, not profit”.

Victorian Energy Policy Centre director Bruce Mountain questioned why the public sector was involved in the Horsham project at all, given it sat on the shelf undeveloped since 2022, when it was named a winner in the Victorian Government’s second renewable energy auction.

The scheme guarantees winning bidders a floor price, under which Victorian taxpayers pick up any market shortfalls.

The SEC is also investing $245m in the Melbourne Renewable Energy Hub – a 600MW big battery - and entered contracts to supply Victorian schools, hospitals, museums, trains and its offices, with what Ms D’Ambriso said was 100 per cent renewable energy from the beginning of last month.

Asked how the SEC could supply 100 per cent renewables on cloudy days or when the sun went down, Ms D’Ambrosio’s office said: “The SEC has bulk purchasing contracts for renewable energy the equivalent to the amount of electricity the government will use over the next financial year”.

Source:supplied

Scammers, fraudsters and the tax office’s missing $50 billion

The ATO (Australian Tax Office) is one of the colony's most secretive and corrupt organisations.

First and foremost, Australia's Anglo-Masonic system looks after its 'brethren', where case in point, it waived ex PM Paul Keating's tax bill of almost $1 million.

SO who has to mop up the rest?

Why the serfs/(tax) slaves do, of course!

See the Four Corners documentary:

What will the ATO do now?

It will surely harass the serfs in unlawful conduct to recoupe it's (alleged) 'losses', where it will 'require' taxes on unrealised profits, from plebs that own businesses, as the ATO is doing at this very moment.

There really should be a class action lawsuit against the ATO.

Will it ever happen? Probably not, but if it does, then it will be designed to fail.

Law and order is so bad we’re being told to lock our doggie doors

A deliberate 'failure of government', as described by Stever Price:

Law and order in our state is now so bad one local council is buying ads warning residents to lock up their doggie doors. Is that really where we are at in the great state of Victoria?

Law and order in Victoria now is so out of control one local council is buying ads warning you to lock your doggie door.

I’m not kidding. It follows mobile signs on freeways with police telling you to lock your doors at night.

A sign on the gate of a local park near me poses this question: “Going out – have you locked your doggie door?” Authorised by the Victoria Police and Stonnington Council.

Is that really where we are at in the great state of Victoria, a council warning that your home could be robbed by some scumbag crawling through a doggie door.

The sign goes on to warn about intruders and advises you to lock your doggie door at night and when you are not at home. Who wants to live in a place where home security involves putting a latch on a pet door and securing it when you go for a morning walk.

The Stonnington Council sign warning pet owners to lock doggie doors to avoid break ins.

Victoria, thanks to a politically correct government that wants to avoid at any cost locking up young offenders, preferring to bail repeat criminals, is paying the price. Ignoring petty crime has a cascading effect with respect and fear of police disappearing.

A place like Chapel St has become ground zero for this type of offending.

Drug affected and mentally unstable people who are often homeless treat retail businesses as their personal property.

A Liquorland bottle shop between High Street and Dandenong Rd now has a daylight locked door policy after a recent spate of snatch and grab robberies. In one week, the store was hit 30 times, traumatising the shop attendant and forcing the lockdown.

CCTV captured the moment thieves broke into an Armadale home through a doggie door last year. Picture: Supplied

Despite providing police with CCTV footage and identifying the culprit, nothing has happened. This is a stark example of a statewide government failure to protect Victorians as repeat offenders know there is no punishment for so called minor crimes. Major supermarkets have posted security guards in stores like Coles or Woolworths, but they are instructed not to intervene if someone walks out with arm loads of stolen groceries.

So bad has retail theft become that the Australian Retailers Association has this week put a price of $9bn a year on the cost to business and want the issue raised at next month’s roundtable meeting in Canberra.

Ironically that same Victorian government that does nothing about this increases fines for minor traffic offences like travelling at 45km/h in a 40km zone with onerous fines and a heavy loss of demerit points. Rob a bottle shop, crawl through a doggie door and steal a car and you are likely back on the street the same day.

Chapel St has become ground zero for petty crime. Picture: Grace Frost

Dare use a mobile phone by touching it sitting at a traffic light – which you shouldn’t do – and you will be fined a whopping $611 and lose four demerit points. Steal a bag full of bourbon and coke cans from a bottle shop or fill a shopping trolley with stolen groceries and walk out without paying and you are home free.

Police are too stretched and the crimes so rampant that criminals know it’s a free for all.

Now, so worried that law and order could cost her another election victory for Labor in November next year, Premier Allan has decided to make another change to existing bail laws.

Bail laws were tightened back in 2018 but under sustained pressure from activists they were loosened in 2023 and the sort of crime I’ve described exploded.

An individual threatening a team member with a knife at a store in Melbourne. Picture: Supplied.

Police were then told the crime of public drunkenness was no longer to be policed and the useless drunk tanks were established which are nothing more than virtue signalling.

The toughened bail laws that went before parliament this week are of course useless unless magistrates and judges follow them.

Already Indigenous justice advocates have called the tougher laws a “disaster waiting to happen”. They claim the laws will “inevitably result in more Aboriginal deaths in custody”, a big claim that will scare the hell out of Allan and her frontbench including Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny and Police Minister Anthony Carbines.

It was activism from Indigenous groups that led to the bail laws being softened in 2023. Again, those same activists are making claims that tougher laws will drive up the number of people in prison (isn’t that the idea) and then this outrageous claim where they say the laws will condemn generations of Indigenous children and adults to the trauma of pre-trial detention.

How about trying this idea: use your activism and government funding to convince Indigenous people not to break the law and then they won’t end up in jail, waiting to go to court.

Mike Bush needs to come out swinging against crimes against innocent Victorians. Picture: Jason Edwards

 

Dumped in the middle of this crime and bail mess is our new Police Commissioner, Kiwi Mike Bush.

He did the media rounds this week on radio, TV and in print and probably wisely batted away any tough questions and answered pretty much with platitudes. My worry with the new Commissioner is his time serving as the national head of police in NZ under one of the wokest politicians of all time, Jacinda Ardern, pretty much a national version of Jacinta Allan.

Bush now needs to come out swinging against crimes against innocent Victorians, like home invasions, and get his suburban stations to patrol shopping strips and shopping centres with a zero tolerance towards retail theft.

He also needs to ignore calls from vocal activists who have contributed greatly to the mess we are in today.

Most importantly he has to have the courage to stand up to the Jacinda Ardern version of politics in Victoria Jacinta Allan. Good luck with that.

Likes

• Olympians from the 1980 Moscow Games honoured in federal parliament this week.

• Victorian farmers making it clear with another protest this week that they are not going to surrender their properties to transmission lines.

• Oscar Piastri’s turn five trouncing of teammate Lando Norris at Spa.

• Donald Trump’s driver splitting the fairway on the opening shot of his new Scottish golf club.

Dislikes

• The amount of scoreboard advertisements now allowed after every break in play at the MCG.

• Prime Minister Albanese standing in front of just the Torres-Strait Islander flag telling the world of our social media ban.

• That same ban nothing more than virtue signalling young people will work their way around it easily.

• Pro-Palestinian protesters allowed to force a weekend shutdown of the NGV.

Source: Herald Sun 

The COVID-19 FOI the government does not want you to know about.

A grim reality was that people got conned by the Australian governments (both state and federal),

that the test for COVID-19 they were conducting on the masses, gave an accurate result.

The Department of Health and Human Services has stated under a FOI (Freedom Of Information) request that:

“there is currently no test available that 100% positively identifies COVID-19 in a living human beyond any reasonable doubt…”

Despite knowing this, the governments have taken action against ‘persons’ that have tested positive in a detrimental manner to their existence.

Have these ‘persons’ obtained a remedy?

Can they sue the goverment for action that was detrimental to their livelihood, without costing them their house in legal fees?

Looks like another thing to be swept under the rug of a corrupt government's actions.

See actual COVID-19 test result within the link:

COVID test useless: “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic”

Next Level of fake videos - Veo 3

A.I. is increasing in leaps and bounds in what can be done with it.

As usual humans find ways to use technology for nefarious purposes.

Here is a benign example of a 'video' created totally by A.I.

This now at a new level, where can you truly tust what you see in 'social media' clips or even YouTube?

Source: László Gaál

Apple's tax woes in Ireland are officially over

Apple's €14.3 billion Irish tax break fine is officially one for the history books now, as the Irish government has announced that it's withdrawn all the money from the escrow account Apple set up back in 2018. That's when it deposited the aforementioned sum after being fined by the European Commission (EC) for receiving unfair tax breaks from Ireland.

The amount is judged to be what Apple would have paid in taxes in Ireland had it not received a "sweetheart deal" in the form of "illegal state aid" from the Irish government in exchange for setting up its European HQ in the country.

Now that Ireland has moved the money from the escrow account into its central fund, the escrow account has been closed and Apple's saga regarding these back taxes allegedly owed can finally be put to rest.

The timeline goes like this: in 2013 the EC launched an investigation into Apple and found that the tax breaks it received from Ireland were illegal, and in 2016 it ruled that Apple had to pay back the "state aid" it was deemed to have received over a 10-year period before the probe was launched, since it was allegedly given "significant advantage" over its competitors.

In 2018, Apple set up the escrow account and paid the amount it was deemed to owe into it. In 2020, the EU's General Court ruled in Apple's favor, but in 2024, the European Court of Justice overturned that decision and confirmed the EC's original ruling from 2016. Hence why the Irish government has now finally taken possession of the money.

Source:  (Department of Finance) www.gov.ie

Corrupt police, the unlicenced ones that get away with it

It’s a real fact that not every person is equal before the law, where corruption is at play in the Judiciary arm of the government, also including the administration of the courts, ‘members’ within tribunals and also police.

Victoria Police as an organisation is corrupt in its day to day business, where if a private corporation operated as such it would be fined, criminalised or shut down, but this is not the case with this taxpayer funded body.

Persons within this organisation have a duty to pursue criminal actions where charges are brought forward before the courts.

Victoria Police Manual – Policy Rules also states that the 

“members have a duty to preserve the peace, protect life and property, prevent offences…” 

and most importantly “apprehend offenders”, meaning 'persons' that commit criminal offences.

Road traffic offences in this colony are classified as criminal and not civil.

Quite simply put VicPol are going against their “Policy Rules”.

Police and the media go hand in hand in portraying a false narrative that the law comes down hard on dangerous or even unlicenced drivers, but the reality is much more shocking.

Documents have been seen, show that unlicenced drivers that have been caught have not been prosecuted, where even in socking circumstances they have caused accidents, yet have not been pursued by police.

It is also noted that a certain migrant minority is left untouched.

The source requires to be anonymous, as the publishing of any documents may reveal the identity of the person exposing police corruption.

What police don’t want you to know about speed measuring devices

The colony’s police forces do not act honourably or honestly when it comes to measuring motorist's ‘speed’ or more accurately, velocity.

In Victoria, many officers do this ‘illegally’ where they get away with it in court.

Victorian driver’s get conned by police and the courts and they don’t even know it, as it’s all about the generation for revenue for the government, that’s all.

An allegation of travelling quicker than a predetermined limit is not treated as a civil offence but rather a criminal one meaning the law is stacked up against you from the start.

As always, in a criminal offence the burden of proof, beyond reasonable doubt, is entirely on the prosecution meaning every aspect of the allegation must be proven.

Victoria Police generally use the ProLaser 4 ‘High Performance Handheld LIDAR’ (LIght  Detection And Ranging), distance measuring device from KUSTOM SIGNALS INC, based in the United States.

What Victoria Police does is it conceals evidence if one decides to challenge the allegation of ‘speeding’.

When one recieves a "Preliminary Brief" vital infomration does not get provided to your 'person'.

Even when one request a "Full Brief" that information is also kept from you.

Therefore it is strongly suggested that a supoena is issued for the information.

What is this information?

This information is called 'metadata'.

This metadata is attached to every photo taken of an alledged speedster.

Victoria Police stated in court that the ProLaser 4 can hold 1000 instances of metadata.

This metadata is downloaded at the officer's workplace via the 'back office' through a USB cable plugged into the workstation.

Victoria Police is inherently corrupt, but the bigger problem is that they have the full support of the judiciary in their corruption.

Another aspect of the law that the police don't want you to know about is a little known law from 1984 called the INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION ACT 1984, as seen in the screen capture below:

In particular Section 43 which states the following, in relation to the measurement of distances:

In the measurement of a distance for the purposes of an Act or subordinate instrument, the distance shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be measured in a straight line on a horizontal plane. 

Unbeknown to many motorists this law has been in place for 41 years.

Keep in mind that the ProLaser 4 measures distance divided by time, therefore the above law applies.

The metadata from the ProLaser 4, also contains the parameters of taking a measurement at 0 degrees or a 'horizontal plane', and even if the vehicle they surveyed is factually yours.

A significantly high portion of police in instances of handheld and stationary detection do not follow the above mentioned law meaning they take measurements illegally.

Do they know about this law?

Of course they do, just like they know about the 'KABA' ruling from 2013 on random vehicle stops.

So if you're challenging an allegation of 'speeding' don't ask for the documentation, supoena it, meaning fill out a "Subpoena to produce - Form 42B" from the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

Google loses $314 million lawsuit over data transfers when Android phones are idle

Google just lost the class action suit against it in California – the suit was filed on behalf of an estimated 14 million Californians in 2019 and alleged $800 million in damages over Android phones collecting and transmitting data to Google while idle.

The jury sided with the plaintiffs and awarded them $314.6 million (that’s almost pi!). More specifically, Android phones collected data that would be used for targeted advertising and transmitted it to Google’s servers over cellular data – at the phone owner’s expense.

Google will appeal this verdict as it claims that users were not harmed by these data transfers and that users consented to this when they agreed to Google’s terms of service and privacy policies. A spokesperson for the company stated that the verdict “misunderstands services that are critical to the security, performance, and reliability of Android devices”.

Another group has filed a separate lawsuit, this time on behalf of Android users in the other 49 US states – this trial will begin in April.

Source: retuers