Chief Commissioner of police job description before becoming CEO of Victoria Police

One from the archives:

Ken Lay (photo above) was the first Chief Commissioner of Police to become a CEO of the business commonly referred to as Victoria Police, as per the new law enacted in 2013.

He was in office from 11th of November 2011 to 31 January 2015.


Here is the job description from 2011 for Commissioner of Police:

Sugar the food industry's secret killer drug

Not enough attention is drawn to how much sugar is consumed by consumers in their daily lives.

A documentary was made in Ireland where Doctor Eva Orsmond studied the consumption of sugar within the local demographic, with startling results.

This documentary was broadcast on Irish TV in 2016, where it followed on to a small viewing audience within the Australian TV sector that being SBS, one and a half years later.

Cigarettes and alcohol may be the obvious killer drugs, where sugar has escaped under the radar.

From the documentary, more people on this planet are dying from sugar related illness than from malnutrition.

Currently two years after its release, Sugar Crash is not listed the the world's (premier?) film database imdb.com as seen from the above screen capture.

Why is such an important documentary kept from being on the 'public' record?

Sugar is traded on the Commodity Market.

Currently the documentary can be seen at:

https://documentaryvine.com/video/sugar-crash/

Gay marriage in Australia more important than National Security?

Abuse of power in Australia (the totalitarian state);

"None of Australia’s so-called Five Eyes security partners – the United States, Britain, Canada and New Zealand – have such extensive powers."


It seems that Australia's MPs (Mutts in Parliament) are Masters of Deception.

People should recall the massive advertising campaign launched by the media, where Australia's Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull was focusing that the change to the Marriage Act of 1960 by allowing homosexuals to marry was an important law, totally omitting attention to more important legislation involving national security, involving work within the legislation that is (deliberately) 'sloppy'.

The national security laws were in parliament the very same day the "same-sex marriage" changes were occurring, and not a single word from Australia's PM about it to the good people of Australia.

Just another set of dodgy laws being passed by the people in government in order to oppress the masses and incarcerate them under ANY pretext they choose...
 

See article from thesaturdaypaper.com.au from 10 Mar 2018 of the headline:

ASIO changes hidden in ‘sloppy’ amendments process


To complete setting up the new mega security Department of Home Affairs, the federal government is amending a lot of legislation. But not all of the changes are being presented willingly for public scrutiny.

This week, the government produced the raft of amendments parliament must pass to finalise the amalgamation of Immigration and Border Protection with security and intelligence agencies including the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Transactions Reports and Analysis Centre, known as AUSTRAC, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, or ASIO.

There are 284 changes, amending 33 separate acts, to complete the transfer of ministerial authority over these agencies from the attorney-general to the minister for Home Affairs, while preserving the attorney-general’s role in approving ASIO investigation warrants and special operations.

But 47 of them relating to ASIO were being kept from public view.

The high-powered parliamentary watchdog on security matters, the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security (PJCIS), recently reviewed the first part of the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill and published its report, recommending some changes.

On March 1, the committee received the rest of the amendments and this week, following usual practice, published the list of them on its website to indicate the start of this next review.

The amendments were all numbered according to the alphabetic order of the acts they affected. 

Without explanation – and in a significant departure from usual practice – three sets of the numbered amendments were missing.

They relate to the ASIO Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act and are the most controversial of the amendments being proposed – a point the committee effectively acknowledged when it recommended in its earlier report that parliament not vote on the Home Affairs bill until the amendments to these acts had been introduced and, by inference, scrutinised.

When Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton takes over management of these guidelines, his department will be responsible for any future reviews and the redrafting of them – effectively a direct role in the oversight of ASIO.

 

The government-dominated committee is one of the most important in the parliament and is made up of MPs and senators from the two major parties.

It forms a key part of the oversight of Australia’s intelligence community and plays a significant role in scrutinising governments’ legislative plans on security.

It examines ASIO-related amendments, even the most basic, as a matter of course.

Some of its work is conducted in secret and its members face criminal penalties for disclosure.

But much of it is necessarily public, part of the oversight that exists to reassure Australians someone is checking what governments and their security agencies are doing.

Right now, it has a huge workload because of a bundle of security-related bills the government wants passed – including the one creating Home Affairs.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull rushed a package of four pieces of legislation – the Home Affairs bill, plus others covering espionage and foreign interference and foreign influence – into parliament on the evening of December 7, immediately after the House of Representatives voted on same-sex marriage and while advocates of the change were still celebrating in the chamber and the galleries above.

Turnbull declared all amendments essential for national security.

In evidence to the joint committee inquiry into the foreign influence, interference and espionage bills, the acting Inspector General of Intelligence and Security revealed that the IGIS had not been consulted in advance of any of the legislation – changes to the law that affected his role.

Asked when the IGIS office first saw the legislation, acting IGIS Jake Blight said: “On 7 December, 2017. That’s the day it was tabled in parliament. That’s the day we saw it.”

Amendments to several of the bills are now being sent back to the government for redrafting because they don’t do what they are designed to do or in some cases appear to do the opposite.

Those in the security community frustrated by the haste with which all of this is being done repeatedly mention one word: “sloppy”.

The ASIO-related amendments are sensitive because there is some concern within ASIO and sections of the wider security community that shifting ASIO to the Home Affairs portfolio might diminish its independence and leave it vulnerable to political interference.

The new department’s secretary, Michael Pezzullo, has said the concerns are unfounded and condemned what he says is scaremongering about his powers.

But the retiring attorney-general, George Brandis, echoed those concerns in a private farewell speech he gave to ASIO last month, in which he also queried Pezzullo’s ambitions.

Of the agencies being transferred from the Attorney-General’s Department to Home Affairs, ASIO is the only one that has not yet moved. Its shift is contingent on the passage of the legislation.

Those are the amendments now before the committee – and, only as a result of inquiries by The Saturday Paper, before the public, too.

Following questions from the paper, the amendments were added to the list late on Thursday.

Attorney-General Christian Porter had originally provided the redacted version of the amendments, arguing that the committee’s own previous report suggested it did not need to examine them.

They are mostly administrative, but two in the ASIO Act relate to the power to make or remake guidelines governing ASIO’s activities. That power will now rest with Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton – but he will have to consult Attorney-General Christian Porter first.

Asked why the amendments were not included in the first place, Porter told The Saturday Paper: “Nothing about these amendments is secret. Labor has had all of the amendments since 28 February and subsequently agreed on 2 March that only those administrative amendments not relating to the committee report would be referred for consideration by the PJCIS. This agreement excluded the amendments to the ASIO Act and TIA Act.”

Porter said they were excluded because of a recommendation in the previous report that said the amendments should be put to parliament for examination before the whole Home Affairs bill was voted on.

Shadow attorney-general and member of the committee Mark Dreyfus dismissed Porter’s explanation.

“It seems the new attorney-general doesn’t understand the important bipartisan role that the intelligence committee fulfils. Mr Porter’s attempt to prevent that committee from considering a raft of changes to two of our most critical national security acts, including his own colleagues, as well as hiding those changes from public scrutiny, does not augur well for the approach he brings to his role.

“The committee recommended that the government bring forward amendments to the ASIO and TIA Acts. Mr Porter’s claim that the committee therefore has no further role in reviewing the extensive amendments now that they have been drafted is plainly nonsense.”

In the 40 years of ASIO’s existence, legislation related to its operations has always been made public to enable scrutiny before it is passed.

When Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton takes over management of these guidelines, his department will be responsible for any future reviews and the redrafting of them – effectively a direct role in the oversight of ASIO.

This is despite the new Home Affairs Department secretary telling a Senate committee recently that his department “will not engage in the oversight of statutorily independent agencies”.

ASIO’s most recent annual report revealed the Attorney-General’s Department was reviewing the guidelines, which are publicly available, at the committee’s recommendation. These guidelines currently limit ASIO’s reach and effectively entrench the right to peaceful protest and other lawful political activity in Australia.

With responsibility for the guidelines now to be transferred to Home Affairs, the status of the attorney-general’s review is unclear.

The amendments that had already been available for public scrutiny also raised some questions.

Some provide for shared authority between the attorney-general and the Home Affairs minister – for example, in authorising the laying of undersea communications cables through protected areas – and it is not clear who is actually in charge.

It’s also not clear if this is deliberate or a drafting error.

The government has already agreed to redraft other elements of important security legislation – relating to foreign influence and espionage – because of concerns raised in evidence to the joint committee about their impact.

The new amendments to a bill covering espionage and foreign interference will narrow the previously proposed definition of what causes harm to Australia and the scope of offences involving private citizens as opposed to Commonwealth officials. They also strengthen the original defences available to professional journalists receiving information.

The initial omission of the sensitive ASIO and telecommunications intercepts amendments from the public list of changes is not the only unorthodox move the joint committee has made in relation to ASIO this week.

It was due to complete its review of ASIO’s questioning and detention powers by Wednesday.

These powers allow ASIO to question people – and in some cases detain them – if it believes they have information relating to a terrorist act, past or future, even if they have no personal involvement.

Although the joint committee says it has completed the review – which usually also means the report is ready for publication – it has not yet presented its findings.

Committees routinely seek extensions of time for reporting on complex inquiries. The joint committee is in a special category because of its legislated status and role in overseeing intelligence agencies and this inquiry is itself specially entrenched in legislation, with its deadline laid out in the Intelligence Services Act.

Two minutes before the House of Representatives began its adjournment debate on March 1, ahead of rising for three weeks, the committee’s chairman, West Australian Liberal MP Andrew Hastie, tabled two other reviews of counterterrorism legislation and then mentioned the ASIO powers review that was due six days later.

“The committee has completed its review and is currently in the process of finalising the report,” 

Hastie said. “I expect to be able to present the committee’s report to the House in the near future.”

Generally, committee deadlines are not just for completing the review, they are for reporting to the parliament. If extensions of time are required, they are usually obtained before the deadline.

The joint committee is likely to seek an extension to resolve what are believed to be contradictions in some of the evidence, including from ASIO, about whether the questioning-and-detention powers are still required.

There is a growing list of significant figures involved in overseeing the intelligence agencies arguing that while ASIO’s questioning powers should stay, the powers combined with detention are excessive.

ASIO’s questioning-and-detention powers were legislated after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States and the Bali bombings in 2002.

But in recognition of their potentially serious implications for human rights, there has always been a sunset clause.

Under the current clause, they are due to expire in September this year unless extended.

Under division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act, the agency can obtain a warrant from an “issuing authority” for a person to appear before a “prescribed authority” for questioning to obtain intelligence about a terrorism offence, past or future.

If the agency believes that person may not appear, may destroy or damage evidence, or may alert someone involved in a terrorism offence, it can also apply for a detention warrant.

The person does not have to be suspected of involvement in the offence to be questioned and detained under these powers, simply to be reasonably suspected of having important information.

He or she can then be detained and held incommunicado – without contacting a lawyer before being questioned – for seven days. They can be questioned for up to 48 hours within that time.

Refusing to appear before the “prescribed authority”, refusing to answer questions or hand over relevant items, and giving false information, are all punishable by five years’ jail.

None of Australia’s so-called Five Eyes security partners – the United States, Britain, Canada and New Zealand – have such extensive powers.

In its submission to the committee, ASIO argues for its questioning powers to be extended, saying the threat environment has changed and the powers need to change, too.

This is despite a series of reports – from three consecutive Independent National Security Legislation Monitors, including the current one, and from the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security – saying the questioning-and-detention power is excessive and should be abolished.

The current IGIS argued that the existing questioning powers available to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission are an adequate model for similar powers for ASIO, both agencies being intelligence-gathering and not law-enforcement bodies.

ASIO has executed just 16 questioning warrants since 2003 and none since 2010.

The separate question-and-detain power that has also existed since 2003 has never been used.

It is not clear what the joint committee will decide to recommend, or when it will report.

It remains another puzzling and opaque dimension to the handling of national security, which no longer just leaves the spies in the shadows, but the legislative process as well.

Trust Police

How can one trust the police when judges, magistrates, judicial registrars turn a blind eye to criminal activities of police.

As stated by the chairman of the ALRC (Australian Law reform Commission) in a section of the below document:

Is a Tesla car really that environmentally friendly?

The poor uneducated serf population are steered by companies and governments to go 'green' or environmentally friendly.

In the United States of America a Tesla Model 3 started at $35,000 while in Australia the first batch was up for sale at $108,000 before on-road costs and Luxury Car Tax, even though apparently today Tesla has slashed $70,000 from the price, to a more affordable $50,000 landed in Australia.

Is the bleeding the general population for cash really doing the right thing by the environment?

Let's see what some learned people have to say on this subject as documented by abc.net.au on the 7th of March 2018 of the headline:

Fact check: Does a Toyota Corolla emit less than a Tesla?

The claim

Since the summer break, tensions have been simmering within the Coalition over electric vehicles. Although Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg has thrown his support behind electric cars, some on the government benches are yet to be convinced.

In a debate with UNSW's Gail Broadbent, who specialises in electric vehicle research, on ABC's RN Drive, Craig Kelly, a Government backbencher who sits on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, challenged the notion that electric cars should attract a taxpayer-funded subsidy to encourage their proliferation.

Mr Kelly argued it was unfair that someone driving a vehicle in the outer suburbs of big cities or regional areas should be subsidising people driving electric cars in the inner city.

He also questioned the environmental benefits of subsidies, referring to the Federal Government's Green Vehicle Guide, which is run by the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities.

He said:

"Look at the [Green Vehicle Guide] website. A Tesla has a (sic) carbon dioxide emissions when charged the average of the Australian grid — that's higher in Victoria, that's higher in Sydney — of close to 200 grams per kilometre travelled. A Toyota Corolla on the same government website shows only 171 grams of CO2. So, the Toyota Corolla is significantly less than the Tesla and that doesn't include the manufacturing emissions."

Does a Toyota Corolla emit significantly less carbon dioxide than a Tesla? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.

The verdict

Mr Kelly is cherrypicking.


The data on the Green Vehicle Guide website shows only the more powerful Tesla models emitted "close to 200 grams" of carbon dioxide per kilometre. Most emitted less, some considerably less.

Mr Kelly referred to "a Tesla" and "a Corolla". However, the website lists 27 different models of Tesla, with emissions varying depending on the model.

At the time Mr Kelly made his claim (the website has since been updated), emissions for the various Tesla models ranged from 174 to 212 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre.

For petrol Corolla models, emissions ranged from 171 to 191 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre.
Eleven models of Tesla had higher emissions than the most polluting Corolla (191 grams of CO2 per kilometre), compared with 16 that were less polluting.

All 27 models of Tesla listed at the time of the claim had higher emissions than the least polluting petrol Corolla (171 grams of CO2 per kilometre).

However, according to experts, the data for the emissions intensity of the energy grid was out of date at the time the claim was made.

The website has been updated since Mr Kelly made his claim with data reflecting the 2015-16 electricity mix between coal, gas and renewables.

This resulted in a significant improvement in the reported environmental performance of the Tesla compared with petrol Corollas, such that five models of Tesla had higher emissions than the most polluting Corolla (191 grams of CO2 per kilometre), compared with 22 that were less polluting.

After the update, 17 models of Tesla had higher emissions than the least polluting petrol Corolla (171 grams of CO2 per kilometre), while 10 had lower emissions than even the most environmentally friendly petrol Corolla.

Mr Kelly does have a point — not all Tesla models are cleaner than Corollas.

However, it is a stretch to suggest — even using out-of-date 2013-14 data for the emissions intensity of the electricity grid — that Corollas have "significantly" lower emissions than Teslas.

And experts said it was misleading to compare high-performance cars with mid-performance ones.

They pointed out that a fairer comparison for a Corolla was a small electric car such as a Renault Zoe, which according to the latest data on the website emits between 121 and 136 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre — less than any of the five petrol Corollas.

Context to the claim

Mr Kelly has been leading a group of Coalition MPs to argue against subsidies for the industry, warning that providing taxpayer-funded support could increase emissions.

In January he told The Australian: "We need to be very careful that any subsidies or concessions we give to electric cars in Australia will not increase CO2 emissions rather than decrease them. The risk here is you'll have the rich person in Balmain buying a Tesla, subsidised by a bloke in Penrith who's driving a Corolla."

"And the Tesla will have more carbon emissions than the Corolla."


How green is my car?


The Green Vehicle Guide is designed among other things to help consumers understand how much carbon dioxide a car generates over its lifetime on a per-kilometre basis and allows users to compare vehicles across a number of measures to assess environmental performance.

To get the data, cars are driven on a set of rollers inside a test laboratory and follow a set of acceleration and deceleration patterns over a set period of time dictated by the European Test Cycle.
The tailpipe emissions are captured and analysed, and the fuel consumption is precisely measured.

For electric or hybrid vehicles, the consumption of electricity by the vehicle from the battery is recorded during the same test cycle.

These numbers are then broken up into a range of categories, including the "fuel life cycle CO2" of a vehicle, which is expressed in terms of grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre driven.

This is the measure Mr Kelly used in making his claim, as he made clear during his interview.

Up until recently some of the information on the Green Vehicle Guide website was out of date, using the 2013-14 mix of coal, gas and renewables in electricity generation.

The department told Fact Check the website had been updated with the most recent figures, after the interview with Mr Kelly took place.

In 2013-14, Australia's energy grid produced an average of 0.94 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour. The latest figures show this has fallen to 0.91 kilograms per kilowatt hour.

Experts contacted by Fact Check said even updated numbers on the website should be treated with caution, given that lab-testing using a dynamometer method does not always reflect on road use, which often results in higher carbon intensity numbers for all vehicles.

UWA Professor and Director of the Renewable Energy Vehicle Project Thomas Bräunl told Fact Check: "It is not just since the Volkswagen scandal that we know these things are not correct. These numbers are a rough guide but you know all the cars have emissions that are higher and all have fuel consumption which is higher."

However, in opinion piece published by Fairfax, Australia's Chief Scientist Alan Finkel used the Green Vehicle Guide to compare emissions of electric cars and petrol cars.

Life cycle emissions
 

The website's life cycle emissions calculations include an assessment of the carbon dioxide generated by driving.


For conventional internal combustion vehicles, this is produced by burning fossil fuels to power the vehicle.

For electric vehicles, emissions are embodied in the electricity drawn from the grid (or potentially from other sources such as rooftop solar) to charge the vehicle.

This electricity is produced in a variety of ways, including through coal-fired power, renewables, or a mix.

Victoria, which relies heavily on brown coal for its electricity, has the most carbon-intensive power. Tasmania, which relies on hydroelectric power, has the least.


The calculation also includes the emissions created by the extraction, refining and transport of fuel from refineries to a petrol station.


These figures are then divided to calculate average emissions per kilometre driven.

Some life cycle measures also include emissions from the manufacturing process. However, this is not included in the Green Vehicle Guide's calculations "because objective, numerical values for these different factors do not exist at an individual model level and are never likely to, given the complexity, uncertainty and high costs associated with life cycle analysis".


Because Mr Kelly did not identify a specific model of Tesla or Corolla, Fact Check compared 27 Teslas listed on the site with five petrol-only Corollas.

The following graph shows that at the time Mr Kelly made his claim, the data on the website suggested the small petrol Corolla outperformed the small Tesla models.

Medium Tesla models had comparable emissions per kilometre, while the largest Teslas listed on the website had higher life cycle emissions than petrol Corollas.

Although Mr Kelly appeared to be referring exclusively to petrol Corollas, Toyota does produce a hybrid version of the vehicle, which, according to the website, produces 97 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre — significantly less than all models of Tesla.

Former government official and Director at Green Energy Markets Tristan Edis led the team who created the Green Vehicle Guide.


"Craig Kelly is using emissions that are not reflective of the life cycle of a Tesla, in fact they're already out of date," he said.


Solely relying on the government's Green Vehicle Guide in January, it would have been impossible for Mr Kelly to get an accurate comparison between the vehicles, he said.


"A Tesla Model S has very slightly lower CO2 than a Corolla Sedan under the (January) Green Vehicle Guide which uses out-of-date 2015 emissions factors," Mr Edis said.

"If we then revert to the latest July 2017 emission factors put out by the Department of Environment then the Tesla inches further ahead."

Fact Check compared all 27 models of Tesla listed on the website to the five petrol Corollas listed.

Applying the 2013-14 electricity grid emissions data used by the website at the time Mr Kelly made his claim shows 11 models of Tesla had higher emissions than the most polluting Corolla (191 grams of CO2 per kilometre), compared to 16 that were less polluting.

All 27 models of Tesla listed at the time of the claim had higher emissions than the least polluting petrol Corolla (171 grams of CO2 per kilometre).

As previously noted, the updated data for the emissions intensity of the electricity grid resulted in a significant improvement in the reported environmental performance of the Tesla compared with the petrol Corolla, such that five models of Tesla had higher emissions than the most polluting Corolla (191 grams of CO2 per kilometre), compared with 22 that were less polluting.

After the update, 17 models of Tesla had higher emissions than the least polluting petrol Corolla (171 grams of CO2 per kilometre), while 10 had lower emissions than even the most environmentally friendly petrol Corolla.


In his claim, Mr Kelly did mention a Corolla which had life cycle emissions of 171 grams per kilometre. This matches the life cycle emissions of a 2015 five seat Hatch Corolla.

What do the experts say?

In his opinion piece published by Fairfax, Dr Finkel addressed the question of whether electric vehicles are outperformed by some petrol vehicles when it comes to emissions, including the Toyota Corolla, which he described as the best-selling light vehicle in Australia.

He said using the latest figures for emissions from electricity generation showed a Tesla Model S has lower emissions than a Corolla sedan.

"The 2017 Corolla petrol sedan has emissions of 178 grams per kilometre," Dr Finkel wrote.

"The much larger Tesla Model S 75 RP has lower emissions, at 168 grams per kilometre, charged on the 2017 national electricity grid (910 kg/MWh emissions). The comparison to the Corolla is even more favourable for the similar sized electric Renault Zoe, which emits just 121 grams per kilometre."

A group of researchers from MIT pointed out in a recent letter to the Financial Times, that comparing a high performance vehicle such as a Tesla to a "sub-compact, low-power petrol one" is a "misleading" comparison.

Mr Edis told Fact Check that Mr Kelly's comparison was similarly flawed.


"If we want to do an appropriate like-with-like comparison we see Tesla is a substantially better performer than an equivalent car in size, performance and features like the BMW 540i," he said.


"A fairer comparison [to a Toyota Corolla] would be the Nissan Leaf, which doesn't appear on the Green Vehicle Guide."


Key to the life cycle emissions from any electric car is the energy mix of the grid supplying the power to charge the vehicle.

When charged using 100 per cent renewable energy, electric cars produce no emissions other than those used to create parts and build the car.

When calculating the emissions intensity of various vehicles, the energy mix of the grid being used to charge the vehicle is key.


Since 2013-14, Australia's energy mix has changed, with a higher percentage of renewable energy.

Mr Edis said this change would continue because "we're adding several thousand megawatts of additional renewables capacity".

Dr Finkel said the Corolla, like all petrol cars, would continue to burn the same amount of fuel in the same way producing the same amount of emissions for as long as you continue to drive it. On the other hand, an electric car cuts its carbon footprint over time.

"If, as some forecasts would have it, the national average grid emissions were to decline by as much as half by 2040, then today's Renault Zoe in that year would emit fewer than 61 grams per kilometre," he said.

According to UWA's Professor Bräunl, when using the current energy mix emissions factor as detailed in the Government's National Greenhouse Accounts Factors from 2017, most Teslas register lower life cycle emissions than a Toyota Corolla.

Victoria is probably the worst case but I wouldn't really blame this on the electric cars I'd blame this on the energy providers using coal fired power stations."



Professor Bräunl told Fact Check that in fossil-fuel reliant states electric cars could be charged during the evening and use up electricity that otherwise would be wasted.


"You have a number of power stations that you cannot shut off overnight so they're going to be running and producing emissions whether you need the power or not.


"So you can use that energy to charge cars but you should maybe not attribute the emissions to the cars because the emissions would be there regardless."


Research: Josh Gordon, Senior Researcher, RMIT ABC Fact Check; Claudia Long, RMIT graduate

Proof that council rates are illegal?

A law has been introduced in the Queensland Parliament which retrospectively validates council rates that may have been improperly issued.

The new Local Government Legislation (Validation of Rates and Charges) Amendment Bill 2018 has been formulated as a response to a Queensland Supreme Court ruling in November 2017. That ruling, known as the Linville case, meant that many rates and charges levied local government authorities in Queensland in recent years could be found to be invalid.

The case came to court when investment company Linville Holdings was taken to court by Fraser Coast Regional Council for unpaid rates. Linville argued that the rates were invalid because the council had failed to pass separate resolutions each year validating its rates and charges.

Linville won the case. The ruling, from Supreme Court Justice David Jackson, called into question the validity of many separate rates and charges levied by councils all over Queensland. Brisbane paper The Courier-Mail at the time identified Gold Coast, Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Moreton Bay, Townsville and Cairns as councils that had similarly failed to pass separate resolutions during annual budget meetings, and that potentially all Queensland councils could be affected.

The Queensland Government acted very quickly to enact new legislation which would effectively invalidate the court’s ruling. They new bill will pass quickly into law – Queensland is the only state in Australia with no upper house of Parliament.

The Bill’s Explanatory Notes explain in detail what the Government believes to be the rationale for the legislation, and contains a justification for retrospectivity, basically “the need to provide financial surety to local governments and ratepayers.”

Brent Lillywhite and Samuel Volling from legal firm Corrs Chamber Westgarth have written an overview of the legislation. They say that it was introduced because the Queensland Government recognised the potentially serious implications of the Linville ruling.

“The Bill would insert new sections into the Local Government Act and the City of Brisbane Act with the effect, in summary, that any rate or charge levied (and anything done in relation to the rate or charge e.g. steps to recover the charge) for a financial year up to and including the year ending 30 June 2018 is not invalidated merely because of a failure to make a specific resolution for the rate or charge.

“In so doing, the Bill would retrospectively validate rates or charges that, in light of the Linville case, would otherwise be invalid.”

But they say councils should still be wary.

“The Bill would only apply to rates or charges up to and including the financial year ending 30 June 2018. For future financial years, local governments will need to make specific resolutions levying rates and charges, in line with the Supreme Court’s approach in Linville.

“Second, the Bill would only validate rates or charges that were invalid solely because of the failure to make a specific resolution. If a rate or charge would have also been invalid for another reason, the Bill will not validate it.”

Source: governmentnews.com.au

See the case law;
Linville Holdings v Fraser Coast Regional Council [2017] QSC 252 contained within the pdf below;



See the legislation;
Local Government Legislation (Validation of Rates and Charges) Amendment Bill 2018 contained within the pdf below;




Now the real question could be that of the lawfulness of retrospective laws.

Commonwealth of Australia's foundation laws

For those interested;

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK);

Acts Interpretation Act 1901:

 Judiciary Act 1903:

Copies of originals is a good starting point.

Australia the totalitarian state

Turnbull’s New ‘Secrecy Laws’: Another Step Towards Totalitarianism

By Sydney Criminal Lawyers | 27/02/2018 |

---

By Zeb Holmes and Ugur Nedim

Following concerns by a consortium of media outlets that Malcolm Turnbull’s new secrecy laws will place journalists at “significant risk of gaol time” for simply doing their jobs, the United Nations has weighed in by saying the laws impose “draconian criminal penalties on expression” while breaching Australia’s international obligations.

In a submission to a parliamentary review committee, a group of UN special rapporteurs have expressed concerns the legislation will “disproportionately chill the work of media outlets and journalists” by exposing human rights campaigners, activists and academics to criminal charges and, in doing do, contravene the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR).

The laws

The new laws prescribe prison sentences of up to 20 years for those communicate or “deal with” information which could potentially “cause harm to Australia’s interests,” where that information is obtained from government officials who are not formally permitted to disclose it.

Of particular concern is the broad definition of “harm”, which covers information that could “in any way” prejudice Australia’s interests or relations, including those between the federal government and any state or territory.

The new provisions apply to disclosure by, or information obtained from, current and former public servants, contractors, defence force personnel and employees of businesses who provide services to the federal government.

The reforms were tabled just hours after the marriage equality law came into effect in December, ensuring they were given little public scrutiny.

International obligations

The UN warns the legislation is likely to breach of Article 19 of the ICCPR and legislation which ratifies it domestically.

“We are gravely concerned that the bill would impose draconian criminal penalties on expression and access to information that is central to public debate and accountability in a democratic society,” the submission states.

“For example, several offences under the bill would not only penalize disclosures of government information in the public interest, but also expose journalists, activists, and academics that merely receive such information to criminal liability,” it adds.

“Such extensive criminal prohibitions, coupled with the threat of lengthy custodial sentences and the lack of meaningful defences, are likely to have a disproportionate chilling effect on the work of journalists, whistleblowers, and activists seeking to hold the government accountable to the public.”

Media outlets

In an earlier joint submission, 14 major media outlets including the ABC, Fairfax Media and News Corp outlined that the new secrecy laws, combined with other draconian measures introduced by the federal government, will place journalists at “significant risk of gaol time” for reporting on state affairs.

Ethicos Group specialist Howard Whitton, who has advised states and the UN on whistleblower policy , has referred to the new laws as, “creeping Stalinism.”

“The absolute protection of principled disclosure of wrongdoing – unfettered by government – must be preserved, or Australia will become a laughing stock internationally”, he added.

The attorney-general’s department contends the laws preserve freedom of the press because they include a defence for the reporting of “fair and accurate” information which is “in the public interest”.

But legal experts point out that the defence is entirely subject and that, in practice, the government will interpret what is “fair and accurate” and decide who it prosecutes, or threatens into silence.

Silencing whistleblowers

The new laws appear to be aimed at whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden who expose government lies, criminality and other forms of misconduct.

The bill’s explanatory memorandum even provides an example strikingly similar to the Snowden case; that of a contractor who leaked extensive American intelligence information to the Guardian and other publications.

“The suggested changes take the wrong lessons from the Snowden and other revelations,” said Gill Phillips, director of editorial legal services at the Guardian. “If public interest journalism is made harder or even criminalised, there is a real risk that whistleblowers will bypass responsible journalists altogether, and simply anonymously self-publish data leaks online, without any accountability.”

The laws are just another example of our government silencing those who seek to expose its misdoings – yet another moved towards state control at the expense of government transparency and accountability.

Government falsifying laws by removing the Crown from Acts?

Have you been dudded by the people in the federal or state government with an unlawfully enacted law?

Has your person as a result suffered (financial) harm, which you can quantify?

Our attention has been drawn to this topic with information obtained yesterday concerning the  actions of the people within the Queensland government with regards to the removal of an important section within a law (in particular the example used was the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995) namely section 2 that states:

Act binds Crown.
 

Researchers have noticed that Queensland's current Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 the second section of Part / Chapter 1 is missing, where in an earlier version it was there.

See current version of the above mentioned Act (taken from Austlii, dated 25th August 2017) :

There are many more other aspects that make up a lawfully enacted Act, but in order to keep this post as short as possible, attention was drawn to this topic only.

Of course this also applies to your state laws as well as laws of the Commonwealth.

See if any Acts used against your person also do not have this section.

Are the people in government acting beyond their lawful capacity?

Facebook the better data collection advertising company

Apparently Australia's (toothless) consumer watchdog the ACCC, announced that it is making an inquiry into digital platforms, on the 4th of December 2017.

- Too little too late?
- Better than nothing?

You be the judge.

Many people may not comprehend that today Facebook is a data collection company for advertising purposes where it is falsely presented as a social media forum.

Under Australian law, they should face hefty fines, but to date this has not happened, as the authorities are very slow at picking things to protect the 'consumers'.

The Australian authorities are very quick to act in order to promote more business, e.g. homosexuals being able to marry, installation of more 'safety' cameras, et al.

Facebook uses your data to make profits from it, where this is not disclosed in any 'agreement' with you.

ANY change to fb is for their financial gain with the extraction of more 'data' from you, in this case facial recognition.




Another DODGY corporation dealing in data, just like;
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics), Apple, Google, Micro$oft, etc.