Corporatocracy

Corporatocracy, in social theories that focus on conflicts and opposing interests within society, denotes a system of government that serves the interest of, and may be run by, corporations and involves ties between government and business. Where corporations, conglomerates, and/or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country, including carrying out economic planning notwithstanding the ‘free market’ label.

Concept

The concept of corporatocracy is that corporations, to a significant extent “own” or have massive power over governments, including those governments nominally elected by the people, and that they exercise such power not by back-room conspiracies but by their enormous, concentrated economic power, and by legal in-the-open mechanisms (lobbyists, campaign contributions to office holders and candidates, threats to leave the state or country for another with less oversight and more subsidies etc). Oliver Stone captured “Wall Street, you know, you could say..runs the world. Wall Street, the pharmaceutical lobbies, the oil lobbies, they run our government”

  • First, corporations provide financial support to competing political parties and major political party candidates. This allows the corporations to hedge their bets on the outcome of an election so that they are assured to have a winner who is indebted to them. As politicians are increasingly dependent on campaign contributions to become elected, their objectiveness on issues which concern corporate interests is compromised.
  • Second, in many cases former corporate executives are appointed as powerful decision makers within government institutions. They are often charged with the regulation of their former or future employers. Government employees who collude with corporations often accept high-ranking positions within corporations once they have demonstrated their commitment to serve the corporate interest. These lucrative offers provide incentive for government employees to serve Lobby groups as well as provides their new employers with access to governmental decision makers. This is known as the ‘revolving door’ between corporations and the institutions established to regulate their behavior; and can lead to regulatory capture.
  • Finally, the economic regime, while often called ‘free market,’ involves centralized economic planning and coordination by corporations, with governments playing the role of an assistant to such corporate central planning. Chomsky described this dimension, noting about international trade that “trade” is “a dubious term for a system in which some 40 percent of U.S. trade takes place within companies, centrally managed by the same highly visible hands that control planning, production and investment.” Chomsky also describes the economic regime of the corporatocracy or de factro corporate-run world, citing economists on the centralized coordination and planning underlying the economic sphere:

Herman Daly and Robert Goodland, two World Bank economists, circulated an interesting study: they point out that received economic theory—the standard theory on which decisions are supposed to be based—pictures a free market sea with tiny little islands of individual firms. These islands, of course, aren’t internally free—they’re centrally managed. But that’s okay, because these are just tiny little islands on the sea. We’re supposed to believe that these firms aren’t much different than a mom-and-pop store down the street. Daly and Goodland point out that by now the islands are approaching the scale of the sea. A large percentage of cross-border transactions are within a single firm, hardly ‘trade’ in any meaningful sense. What you have is centrally managed transactions, with a very visible hand—major corporate structures—directing it.

Arguments

There are currently no governments labeled by any governmental agencies as a corporatocracy. However, a large body of research including the work of many political progressives such as Naomi Klein in her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism and Noam Chomsky in his book Profit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order, has criticized many governments for being de facto corporatocracies because governments tend to obscure the degree to which corporate interests are entangled in their affairs. An objective standard for declaring a government a corporatocracy is misdirected from public discussion in-part because these facts are heavily propagandized. However most Western governments based on a capitalist system have been classified by evidential research as being corporatocracies because most media outlets, including Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, are controlled through corporate ownership and advertising; and, corporations are by far the main contributors to political candidates and causes. Corporate campaign contributions create a dependency of the politician on the corporation - in order to keep his power and wealth (i.e. to continue receiving support for re-election bids), by which they are obliged to “pay back” to the corporation using their political influence. And the domination of media outlets by a select few corporations also eliminates one of the primary systems of checks and balances of a democracy.

Many reporters and researchers have argued that corporations also exert their influence through the World Trade Organisation. Through this methodology, governments are more in control of their countries at a domestic level, while international corporations rule those nations at a more abstracted level through the control and flow of capital (often including natural resources and populations) across borders; thus creating a manageable and pliable “global corporatocracy” or hegemony. This global influence in turn has a great deal of power over the national and trans-national (e.g. the EU, NAFTA) governments, who rely and to a great extent, depend upon these practices.

The most common contradiction of the term “corporatocracy” and its use in the lexicon is the theorem that corporations are primarily superficial entities possessing no real political power. Instead, it is the people behind those corporations that hold the power who act upon their own individual political ideologies. In this sense, a corporatocracy is nothing more than a market segmentation where the class which owns the means for producing wealth is fighting for their own individual-self interests. The direct challenge to this theorem is the fact that a corporation is by definition a ‘collection’ which is built of private (and more often public) wealth funneled into a vertical hierarchy without the requirement of any democratic controls and designed for the singular cause of maximizing roi (return on investment: i.e. the expansion of the control of capital). And this entity (or institution) has legally been ruled through almost all court systems to be considered a single ‘person’ and given the inalienable human rights thereto required by most constitutions for human beings. This means that corporations have the ability to use direct democratic channels reserved for citizens (and denied to all other institutions including: religious organizations, non-profits, and universities); and are also represented and protected as an individual within the courts when facing public scrutiny and regulation.

Wealth

It is also primarily significant that the wealthiest 1 percent globally now own almost 40 percent of the world’s capital, and that most of these same people have significant ties to the richest and most influential corporations.

Democracy vs. Corporatocracy

Alex Carey, the late Australian lecturer in industrial relations, sociology and psychology, wrote that “The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.” The Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy states that “Giant corporations govern, even though they are mentioned nowhere in our Constitution or Bill of Rights. So when corporations govern, democracy is nowhere to be found.” Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy and former Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and Deputy Assistant Attorney General has stated that recent court rulings on increasing corporate power “expand the influence of corporations at the expense of the rights of individuals, and..will not stand the test of time” Addressing the Harvard Divinity School’s Theological Opportunities Program, Mary Zepernick has argued that “There are two historical streams in U.S. history ..one is about the decentralization of power, public decision-making, self-governance – about democracy; the other is about the concentration of power, private decision-making, governance by the few and the corporation as their governing institution.” According to Christine E. Sleeter:

A challenge for teachers who support teaching for and about democracy is doing so while being pressed into directives rooted in corporatocracy, a political manifestation of neoliberalism. The accountability movement today, particularly No Child Left Behind, is rooted in much more firmly in corporatocracy than democracy. Democratically minded teachers face two tasks: negotiating increasingly undemocratic systems in order to find space for democratic teaching, and critically examining what democracy is, including gaps between its ideals and actual practice.

Buying politicians controversy

Those who dismiss the idea of a corporatocracy often say the only way it is possible is if it were legal to buy a politician’s vote. In such a way, the corporation would, in fact, have a direct vote on major policy matters. However, many legitimate democracies have made vote buying illegal. However, under the terms of at-will employment, corporations can require their employees to vote a certain way in exchange for (continued) employment.

However, those who believe there may be corporatocracies argue that no one individual, and perhaps no other groups of individuals, would have that much power, money or influence. Further, they argue the decisions on what to push for and who to support are made by a relatively few from inside the corporation. Therefore, while thousands of people may make up a corporation, only a few have the power to speak for the corporation and advocate issues on behalf of the corporation. That provides those corporations with a substantial amount of power, leading to a corporatocracy.

Further, they argue that it does not take an overt effort to buy a politician’s vote. Making a substantial donation to a certain politician’s campaign could be seen as sending a signal to that politician that the money is there if they vote in a way the corporation desires. Conversely, the money could be donated to an opponent if the vote does not go the corporation’s way.

A politician’s entrance into a mainstream political party and selection as a political candidate depend on having views that are in-line with the party, which is largely supported by donations from corporations. In other words, the politicians are pre-screened to some extent, often towards corporate-friendly views. Furthermore, much of the policy analysis in Western countries is carried out in privately funded back offices. This means that policies are under the umbrella of corporations at the design and validation stages. Accusations of foregone conclusions in policy analysis are commonplace. On the flipside, analysis can reveal negative consequences for businesses, which are often negative consequences to the public as well. The definition of democracy in many minds has evolved so much in this direction that when non-corporate-friendly views make their way into government, corruption and/or flawed democracy is a common accusation. For example, the coalition of several populist parties in Venezuela led to the fair election of Hugo Chavez.

Usage

U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower himself argued against the strengthening corporatocracy in the form of a military-industrial complex that sets national and international financial, economic, political and military policies due to a permanent war economy. In his 2004 book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins writes; “corporations, banks, and governments (collectively the corporatocracy)”. The concept of a government run by corporations or instances where governments are actually weaker (politically, financially, and militarily) than corporations is a theme often used in both political fiction and science fiction. In these instances the dominant corporate entity is usually dubbed a megacorporation, such as the Shin-Ra Electric Power Company in Final Fantasy VII.

See: Wikipedia: Corporatocracy

2017-02-22 Corporatocracy

Australia's march towards corporatocracy

Michael West, University of Sydney

Confounding the familiar government narrative of reckless spending binges by Labor, the Coalition actually has the record of greater profligacy when it comes to showering billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on external consultants.

When John Howard became prime minister, he axed 30,000 employees from the public service. But in his second and third terms in office, public service numbers rose again. They continued to rise under Kevin Rudd’s Labor government, only to taper off during Julia Gillard’s tenure and drop sharply under the present Coalition government.

Consultants’ fees, however, after rising under Howard, eased back under Rudd before falling by more than 30% under Gillard. They rose again the moment Tony Abbott assumed office, and have continued to rise, albeit more modestly, under Malcolm Turnbull.

Raw data sourced from AusTender and APS Statistical Bulletin. Markus Mannheim

How will government look in 20 years?

Such is the pervasive influence of corporations and consultants over government and the de-skilling of the public service (as evinced by the recent slew of IT debacles) that Australia appears headed down the road to full-blown corporatocracy.

If they rely further on external parties for expertise and policy advice, governments – both state and federal – are likely to be emasculated, entirely laid at the whim of private vested interests.

With no expertise, let alone pricing power in negotiating external fees for expert advice, there will come a heavy cost to the public.

The devastating failure of Australia’s energy policy and spiralling prices for gas and electricity throw up a potent case in point.

It was recently reported that the Big Four accounting firms – PwC, EY, KPMG and Deloitte – picked up $2.6 billion over the past ten years for writing reports. That is from the federal government alone, to just the four top firms. They may have earned that again consulting to the states, though state disclosure is poor.

The crowning jewel in this cuff-linked fee-fest was a payment of almost $10 million, or $75,000 a page, for PwC to write its report on the future burden of welfare costs. This was the work that presaged the government’s strike on social security late last year and the ensuing Centrelink imbroglio.

Consultants’ reports deliver a licence for political action, an imprimatur. In light of the lavish fees, though, their authors can hardly claim to be “independent experts”.

Why could the Treasury not have penned this report? Why not the Productivity Commission? Surely, as bureaucrats, they are more independent, not susceptible to the tow of large corporate clients on the other side of a Chinese wall.

Is government captive to big business?

To put it crudely, many observers put the extravaganza of consultants’ fees down to “butt-covering”. This is just a ploy to lay the responsibility for political decisions, in case they go awry, at the feet of an external party. External reports can “test the water”, and can be tossed out without recrimination. They are so often a terrific waste of money.

There are two issues to consider then: one, the encroaching influence of private power over public policy; and two, the enormous expense to taxpayers in private firms penning reports that government departments and agencies could just as easily prepare.

Further to this rising sway of vested interests, there is also the incursion of corporate power in government in a physical way, via secondments.

Leading law firms, accountancy firms and banks often have executives spend time with a regulator or government department, but secondments are poorly if ever disclosed.

Then there are the “revolving doors” between industry and government: the passing of politicians, political staffers and the likes of mining lobbyists between industry, advocacy bodies and the public service.

Governments are infested with industry people with vested interests. Vincent Diamante/flickr

As is the case with secondments, there is little in the way of transparency or decent policy in the arena of staff movement despite the inevitable influence it exacts over government policy. Not to put too fine a point on it, state and federal governments are infested with industry people whose influence on policy is undeniable.

The multinationals’ hidden hand

While consultancies, political donations, secondments and staff movements magnify corporate influence over government, an equally sinister trend is playing out in the world of multinational corporations.

Many observers of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership have expressed alarm that the fine print to the TPP draft agreement contains Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses, or ISDS as they are known. These are mechanisms that allow corporations to sue governments by claiming a change in a nation’s policies has adversely affected their business.

Indeed, more than 120 cases have been filed internationally under various “free trade” agreements. Water and waste management giant Veolia sued the government of Egypt for lifting the minimum wage. Canada is being sued for a ban on fracking. Germany was sued for its phasing out of nuclear power. All these actions were taken under ISDS clauses in free trade pacts.

Surely ISDS clauses, as anti-democratic and anti-national interest as they are, are concocted and consented to by bureaucrats and politicians perverted by the influence of the very same legal and advisory firms whose multinational clients stand to benefit from ISDS lawsuits. The game is stitched up. Transparency is key, yet there is zero public visibility of these machinations.

Tax, too, is an arena of supreme conflicts of interest. While heavy staff cuts have hit the Australian Tax Office under both Liberal and Labor governments, multinational tax avoidance is rife. And the very advisers to government on tax, the Big Four accounting firms, are the tax advisers to almost the entire global community of multinationals. The answer here is to split these firms along tax, audit and advisory lines.

No longer are these corporations “bodies corporate” with their own boards of eight or so directors whose duty is to serve the interests of the local corporate entity. Rather, they have gradually morphed into puppet regimes.

For instance, Shell used to be called Shell Australia. Now it refers to itself as “Shell in Australia”, and managed to make $60 billion in revenue over three years without paying tax.

The multinational formerly known as Shell Australia used to publish accounts, but now quietly files only the absolute minimum of statutory disclosures with the corporate regulator. John Duffy/flickr

Across the board, local company directors have become “undisclosed agents” for their global headquarters, mere stooges expected to transfer pre-tax profits to tax havens every year rather than act according to the intent of Australian corporations and tax laws.

So, the big law firms and accounting firms that advise governments and reap billions in taxpayers’ money for doing reports have a conflict of interest as they act also for large corporate clients.

Should the world’s largest corporations continue to grow and the authority of governments and regulators continue to wither, ordinary citizens will bear the brunt of the consequences.

Over recent decades, rising inequality has accompanied the march towards corporatocracy. It is a relentless process of influence-peddling, complex financial transactions, cunning legal tweaks that evade public scrutiny and pernicious restructuring dressed up as “efficiencies” or “streamlining”.

In its attempts to cut costs, the Tax Office tried to introduce a scheme whereby the duty of tax compliance for Australia’s largest companies was outsourced to none other than the company auditors. The foxes were very nearly in charge of the henhouse.

Under what was innocuously dubbed the External Compliance Assurance Program (ECAP), large corporations were to have paid their own external audit firms – read the “Big Four” – to conduct their tax compliance work as well as the audit.

Along with the disasters of privatisation, such self-compliance regimes (the corporate regulator ASIC once espoused “co-regulation” with industry bodies) can only entrench corporate power at the expense of public interest. They don’t work. After all, it is the job of companies to make money and the job of regulators to regulate.

Together, captive regulators, a shrinking public service (smaller than it was a decade ago on the basis of permanent employees), the proliferation of consultants and the rise of lobby groups and political donations, alongside an obeisant and compromised media, have delivered policy stasis.

Significant reform in Australia, indeed significant reform by any Western government, is now fiendishly difficult. The tail is wagging the dog; the long tail, that is, of powerful vested interests whose purpose is wealth creation, not public interest.

Is the Adani tail wagging the Coalition dog? Taker/flickr

Now, at a time when the Coalition is moving to cut social security benefits for the most needy, it is ready to sling $1 billion to Indian billionaire Gautem Adani to build the world’s biggest new thermal coal mine.

While the government struggles to fund the NDIS to assist the disabled – and in an age where underwater drone technology is viable – it is prepared to splash $150 billion to build, man and maintain a submarine fleet. Not a squeak of dissent from the federal opposition, for fear it might be wedged as weak on national security.

The icing on this cake of corporate welfare is the government trying to shunt through a $50 billion corporate tax package when its multinational beneficiaries don’t pay their fair share of tax in this country anyway – if anything at all.

These three policy decisions – corporate tax cuts, subs and fossil fuel subsidies – are enough evidence of the power of the hidden hand of corporate and political interests.

Last year the Turnbull government planned to sell off a key piece of the corporate transparency regime. Thankfully, the public spoke up.

This writer is no fan of a large public service per se, only of an efficient and independent public service, of public servants properly doing the job they were appointed to do. And a robust watch needs to be kept on procurement of consultants.

It may seem too late to arrest the inexorable rise in the influence of powerful corporations and the Big Four partnerships over government. Ironically, in the execution of this column, we met with much dithering and eventually stonewalling from the Australian Public Service Commission when attempting to request information.

That did not engender confidence. Yet, arresting the slide comes down to public awareness of all these things. Social media should help.

Only ten years ago corporate tax avoidance was not on the public radar. Now tax fairness has come to the fore; people understand that the richest institutions among us, those who can afford to pay the most, pay proportionately the least.

Efforts by politicians to hike the GST, lower corporate taxes or lift other taxes on ordinary workers are also loudly derided. Multinational tax avoidance is no longer a secret. It is now understood for what it is. The Double Dutch Irish Sandwich no longer bewilders; it is now widely debunked as a scam.

Public understanding and transparency are therefore everything. The public funds government, voters are entitled to disclosure, and they should demand it.


This column, co-published with michaelwest.com.au, is part of the Democracy Futures series, a joint global initiative between The Conversation and the Sydney Democracy Network. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.

The Conversation

Michael West, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

Add Comment

2016-11-14 Corporatocracy



Would at least 1 Million people march in every capital city each November the 5th? All wearing "The Mask" as a show of solidarity with the Anonymous movement?

That's a "take" for the silver screen.. Not today's reality... That's a "news report" on fox.. THAT IS THE END GAME!

There needs to be a lot more corruption exposed before "the people" will march in numbers like that.

The public are not stupid. They are simply misled by Corporate owned Main Stream Media.

The political agenda's of the owners of Main Steam Media need to be exposed to the public. The corruptions of the Corporations need to be exposed so as to lessen their influence further.

Anonymous slowly forces PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY onto governments with the sheer weight of opinion directed at politicians and corporations via social media.

The Corporations and the Corrupted need to understand once and for all. There is a new game in town. It is called the Internet. It has REPLACED your old Media control of the masses. You do not control it. Public opinion is the new democracy.

Did at least 1 million people march in each capital city on the 5th of November? Perhaps not in the streets. But on the internet?? That's another thing entirely. Yes. Social media was "abuzz" with Anonymous activity on the 5th of November.

The only thing the "authorities" can try and do now is SMEAR the Anonymous movement. I am personally surprised that the "authorities" haven't dressed up some terrorists in masks to attempt to have the whole movement declared "outlawed" yet.

(I am expecting it tho.. I even hesitated giving them the idea.. But it is so obvious they must be keeping it for the "end game".)

Remember: The symbols of freedom may change. But the goal is always the same and THAT is the thing that scares the shit out of the corrupted elite.

Have a great (anonymous) day.

Add Comment

2015-07-04 Corporatocracy


Sir Harry Gibbs On The Constitutional Crisis

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

I am a former member of the High Court and I wish to take this unusual method of informing you about a matter that is going to deeply affect us all.

Unfortunately, a document such as this is too easily "lost" in the bureaucratic jungle in which we operate. A group of Australian Citizens have taken it upon themselves to test the validity of our current political and judicial system.

Like you, I have lived my entire legal career with the assumption that the basis for our legal and political system, state and federal, was written in stone.

This group has undertaken to present this paper when they test the legal system. The group is articulate, well educated and counts some of our best legal minds amongst its members.

One of Australia's best known barristers is one of the group’s leading lights. It is far better informed with regard to international law than most members of the judiciary or for that matter, the legal academe.

It has better international contacts than I would have thought possible. After spending some time with the group leader, I was able to elicit its primary intentions. It is the introduction of a totally democratic system of government devoid of party politics operated by the will of the people incorporating a system of debit taxation which should go a long way to eliminating the current unemployment problem and also addressing other pressing social issues.

An A.B.S.financial model supports the proposal.The group has so far concentrated on matters relating to taxation, state and federal, minor industrial and motor traffic while undertaking not to present a criminal defence using their current presentation.

I challenged the leader of this group to present any evidence he had with regard to the above defence so I could use my legal expertise to play the part of the devil’s advocate.

It should be brought to your attention that the group has access to documentation that we members of the judiciary have little knowledge. I refer to the British Parliamentary Papers for the Colony of Australia for the years 1860 through to 1922.

These are photocopies of all documents correspondence etc., between the states and later the Commonwealth of Australia, the British Crown and the British Government. They are very revealing documents and indicate the degree of chicanery in which the politicians of all shades were involved and as I can now see, at the expense of the legal academe and the judiciary.

POINTS OF INTEREST

I present for your perusal the details of the group’s presentation along with my comment on each major item. The group relies solely upon historical fact and rejects political rhetoric and legal opinion unless based upon historical fact.

  • 1. “The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom. It did not contain any substance of sovereignty and was a colonial act centralising self-government of the six Australian Colonies. Australia remained a colony of the United Kingdom.”
  • 1a. Although the late Lionel Murphy attempted to show that there was an element of sovereignty in this act he failed. The international definition of sovereignty has been espoused at length and the above act although important in the development of Australia, did not have the authority of sovereignty. The historical evidence that Australia remained a British Colony post 1901 is overwhelming.
  • 2. “Australia made an international declaration of its intention to become a sovereign nation when Prime Minister Hughes and his deputy; Sir Joseph Cook signed the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919. On its cognisance of signing this treaty, Australia was granted a “C” class League of Nations mandate over former German territories in the Pacific. In effect, Papua New Guinea became a colony of Australia achieving its own independence on 16 September 1975. The League of Nations became part of International Law on 10 January 1920 with Article X of the Covenant of League of Nations guaranteeing the sovereignty of each member,”
  • 2a. The Significance of Australia joining the League of Nations as a foundation member has never been addressed in Australia before. Strangely, only one book has ever examined the question of Australian independence. Written by W. J. Hudson and M. P. Sharp in 1988 “Australian Independence” printed by Melbourne University Press. As both were members of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the time of authorship and had access to the, British Parliamentary Papers, I find it most interesting they have avoided any mention of these papers in their book. Their conclusion that Australia became an independent nation via. the Statute of Westminster in 1931 flies in the face of contradictory evidence within the above mentioned papers and readily available historical fact. Prime Minister Hughes address to the Commonwealth Parliament on 10 September 1919, “Australia has now entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. Australia has been born in a blood sacrifice.” demonstrates the politicians of the day were only too well aware of the change of status from a colony to that of sovereign nation while attempting to remain within the Empire. Prime Minister Bruce made this reply to the British Government in 1922 after a request for troops against Kernel Ataturk in the Chanak crisis. Bruce’s reply is contained in the British Parliamentary Papers: “We have to try to ensure there shall be an Empire foreign policy which if we are to be in anyway responsible for it, must be one to which we agree and have assented. If we are to take any responsibility for the Empire’s foreign policy, there must be a better system, so that we may be consulted and have a better opportunity to express the views of the people of this country. We cannot blindly submit to any policy which may involve us in war.” This is a far cry from the declaration of war against Germany made on behalf of the British Colony of Australia by George V of the United Kingdom in 1914. I have re-produced Bruce’s reply in full as I believe this reply contains clear historical evidence of a Prime Minister who was well aware of the change of status from a colony to a sovereign nation. The later Statute of Westminster 1931 was an acknowledgment of that status.
  • 3. “Paragraph 4 of the Statue of Westminster Act 1931 contravenes Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Paragraph 1 of the Australia Act 1986 contravenes Article 2 paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.”
  • 3a. Paragraph 4 of the Statute of Westminster reads: “No Act of Parliament of the United. Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that Dominion, has requested, and consented to the enactment thereof.” Paragraph 1 of the Australia Act is very similar: “No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory.”

POLITICIANS INFORMED

I passed this one to the Federal Attorney General and asked him what was the source of this quite incredible authority that sought to overturn the authority legislated within the Covenant of the League of Nations in Article X and the Charter of the United Nations in Article 2 paragraphs 1 and 4.

He is unable to provide any documentation to support these clauses, Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations states:

“The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.”

It is appropriate that I now introduce a statement by Sir Geoffrey Butler KBE, MA and Fellow,Librarian and Lecturer in International Law and Diplomacy of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge author of “A Handbook to the League of Nations” used as a reference to the League by virtually all nations at that time.

He refers to Article 1 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.“It is arguable that this article is the Covenant’s most significant single measure. By it the British Dominions, namely New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Canada, have their independent nationhood established for the first time.

There may be friction over small matters in giving effect to this internationally acknowledged fact but the Dominions will always look to the League of Nations Covenant as their Declaration of Independence. Article 2 paragraph 1 of the United Nation’s Charter states

“The Organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”

Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Charter states

“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

In view of the above, the historical evidence for Australian Independence by 10 January 1920 when the League of Nations became part of International Law is overwhelming.

When this evidence is reinforced with the contents of the Charter of the United Nations, the continued usage of any legislation that owes its very legitimacy to the parliament of an acknowledged foreign power cannot be supported by either legal opinion or indeed historical evidence.

NO BASIS IN LAW

I therefore have come to the conclusion that the current legal and political system in use in Australia and its States and Territories has no basis in law.

Following discussions with members of the British Government relating to the Letters Patent for the Governor General and State Governors I find that these documents no longer have any authority.

Indeed, the Queen of the United, Kingdom is excluded from any position of power in Australia by the United Nations Charter and is excluded under UK law from the issue of a Letters Patent to other than a British Subject.

A Letters Patent must refer to an action to be taken with regard to British Citizens. The Immigration Act. 1972 UK defines Australian Citizen as aliens.

The Governor General’s Letters Patent is a comedy of errors.

We are greeted in the name of the Queen of Australia who suddenly becomes the Queen of the United Kingdom in the next paragraph of the Letters Patent.

This Queen the gives instructions to the Governor General with reference to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK.

Here we have a clear breach of Article 2 paragraph 1 of the United Nation Charter.

Under both UK and international law, the-Queen is a British Citizen.

State Governors are in a worse position as their authority comes from the late Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom.

Regardless of the validity of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK, if the authority of Governor General and the State Governors is invalid then so is the entire political and legal system of government.

When advised that the War Crimes Commission was taking an interest, I called them in Geneva.

Under the 1947 Geneva Convention, they are empowered to look into eases here in Australia where it is alleged the law of a foreign country was enforced against a citizen of a member state of the United Nations.

As they perceive that only the judiciary can actually enforce the law, the judicary becomes their target.

The group has already placed cases before them which they are currently investigating. If found guilty, the penalties are horrific and include the death penalty!

I could go on with more relevant information however I think now is the time for a summary.

The group leader, a QC, states the obvious when he asked me how could a colony now acknowledged by all world nations to be a sovereign Nation retain exactly the same legal and political system it enjoyed as a colony without any change whatsoever to the basis for law?

This point alone requires an answer. The High Court has already answered with regard to the position held by treaties signed by the Commonwealth Government in the Teoh case of 1994.

“Ordinary people have the right to expect government officials to consider Australia’s international obligations even if those obligations are not reflected in specific Acts of Parliament: the rights recognised in international treaties are an implied limit on executive processes.”

SOLUTION: REFUSE TO HEAR CLAIMS

My advice is to adjourn any case “sine die” that that challenges the authority of the Letters Patent.

Under no circumstances hear a case that challenges the validity of a State or the Federal Constitution.

It is the politicians who are using us as pawns without them having to face the music. These matters are of concern to politicians, let them sort out these problems and accept any inherent risks themselves!

“Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is the correct reference for you to refuse to hear a matter when an international treaty is cited as a defence.”

Ref: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49243918/Sir-Harry-Gibbs-On-The-Constitutional-Crisis

See Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Gibbs

Image Source: http://gibbschambers.com.au

Add Comment

2012-09-14 Corporatocracy

See Also: http://lazerzap.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Corporatocracy

Published on 14 Sep 2012

Australia’s anthem of dissent. One of the most radical and insightful songs by an Australian artist ever produced, which covers current events and exposes the lies to which we are constantly subjected.

Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5nYFJInzO4#t=250

Add Comment

2011-07-06 Corporatocracy

Harvey Norman has been caught red handed by undercover environmental investigators selling furniture that fuels the destruction of Australia’s native forests.

Instead of using existing plantation timber - which is plentiful and affordable - an investigation by Markets for Change has revealed that Harvey Norman furniture is made from ancient Australian trees that are logged and sent to China for processing.

Incredibly, our new TV ad that shows what Harvey Norman are doing to our environment has just been banned from commercial TV by the industry body that classifies ads - because they’re scared of what Harvey Norman might do next.

They might block our video on TV – but they can’t stop us reaching millions of Australians by sending it to our friends and family online! Check out the footage they don’t want you to see and share it with everyone you can:

http://www.getup.org.au/noharveynormanno

Why focus on Harvey Norman? As the dominant player in the furniture industry, shifting Harvey Norman to a sustainable wood supply is the key to shifting the rest of the sector and saving Australia’s precious native forests, including old growth forests that are hundreds of years old.

Our friends at Markets for Change have spent over a year doing detailed research into the furniture industry in Australia. Starting in ancient forests here in Australia, their investigations took them to China, where undercover teams documented Australian native timber being manufactured into furniture and imported back into Australia by Harvey Norman.

Australia’s native forests are not only a national treasure; they’re essential to our water supply - and among the world’s best carbon sinks. Check out this video showing what Harvey Norman is doing to our environment, and forward it to everyone you can:

http://www.getup.org.au/noharveynormanno

More and more, big companies make the big decisions about our environment. It falls to us to hold them accountable: deep pockets and threatening legal departments be damned!

Last year Harvey Norman spent over $100 million on advertising, so their jingle is familiar to every Australian. How can we convince Harvey Norman to change their ways? We can’t match them dollar for dollar - but if we all forward this video to our friends and family we can make sure that next time they see hear Harvey Norman’s jingle, they’re reminded of the company’s environmental choices. This is how we can turn their own advertising budget against them..

Support: http://getup.org.au

Add Comment

2010-12-26 Corporatocracy

Banks and WikiLeaks

Published: December 25, 2010

The whistle-blowing Web site WikiLeaks has not been convicted of a crime. The Justice Department has not even pressed charges over its disclosure of confidential State Department communications. Nonetheless, the financial industry is trying to shut it down.

Visa, MasterCard and PayPal announced in the past few weeks that they would not process any transaction intended for WikiLeaks. Earlier this month, Bank of America decided to join the group, arguing that WikiLeaks may be doing things that are “inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments.”

The Federal Reserve, the banking regulator, allows this. Like other companies, banks can choose whom they do business with. Refusing to open an account for some undesirable entity is seen as reasonable risk management. The government even requires banks to keep an eye out for some shady businesses — like drug dealing and money laundering — and refuse to do business with those who engage in them.

But a bank’s ability to block payments to a legal entity raises a troubling prospect. A handful of big banks could potentially bar any organization they disliked from the payments system, essentially cutting them off from the world economy.

The fact of the matter is that banks are not like any other business. They run the payments system. That is one of the main reasons that governments protect them from failure with explicit and implicit guarantees. This makes them look not too unlike other public utilities. A telecommunications company, for example, may not refuse phone or broadband service to an organization it dislikes, arguing that it amounts to risky business.

Our concern is not specifically about payments to WikiLeaks. This isn’t the first time a bank shunned a business on similar risk-management grounds. Banks in Colorado, for instance, have refused to open bank accounts for legal dispensaries of medical marijuana.

Still, there are troubling questions. The decisions to bar the organization came after its founder, Julian Assange, said that next year it will release data revealing corruption in the financial industry. In 2009, Mr. Assange said that WikiLeaks had the hard drive of a Bank of America executive.

What would happen if a clutch of big banks decided that a particularly irksome blogger or other organization was “too risky”? What if they decided — one by one — to shut down financial access to a newspaper that was about to reveal irksome truths about their operations? This decision should not be left solely up to business-as-usual among the banks.

See: NYTimes: Banks & Wikileaks

Add Comment














Bookmark this on Delicious

SEO-AU Links Best INFP Websites - Click here to Vote for this site!