MARK ALDRIDGE

The high court empowers local corporations to become our third tier of government

A-G (SA) v Corporation of the City of Adelaide [2013] HCA 3 - Implied Freedom of Speech

28/2/2013

Today a majority of the High Court allowed an appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which had held that a by-law made by the Adelaide City Council infringed the implied constitutional freedom of communication on government and political matters in the case of Attorney-General for the State of South Australia v Corporation of the City of Adelaide & Ors [2013] HCA 3.

The Facts The provisions in question of the by-law of the City of Adelaide prohibited persons from preaching or distributing printed matter on any road to any bystander or passer-by without permission of what appears to be a new third tier of government. The second and third respondents, Caleb and Samuel Corneloup, were members of an association, "Street Church". They wished to preach in the streets of the City of Adelaide.

The Original Decision The Corneloups each commenced proceedings in the District Court of South Australia, seeking a declaration that the provisions of the by-law made by the City of Adelaide were invalid.

The District Court declared that parts of the provisions of the by-laws exceeded the by-law making powers conferred on the Council by the Local Government Act 1934 (SA) and the Local Government Act 1999 (SA).

As local government/councils are not empowered by the constitution, and were denied continuance by the people by way of referendums in the 1970’s and again in 1988, the state government side stepped our constitutional rights by empowering local government through an Act of state parliament.

A further appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed the appeal from the District Court's decision. Although the Full Court held that the provisions of the by-laws were not invalid for want of compliance with the specified local government acts, the Full Court held that they infringed the implied constitutional freedom of communication on government and political matters and were therefore invalid.

Both respondents commenced an appeal to the High Court with special permission.

The High Court Decision A majority of the High Court held that the Local Government Acts in South Australia empowered the Council to make the provisions (all be them repugnant) and that they were a valid exercise of the Council's statutory power to make by-laws for the good rule and government of the area, and for the convenience, comfort and safety of its inhabitants.

Furthermore, the provisions served a legitimate end in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government and therefore did not infringe implied constitutional freedoms.

The high court thus far did not take into account the 1988 referendum in which we the people denied local council/local government continuance nor constitutional recognition.

It appears that we now have a third tier of government by stealth, that can make laws, issue taxation and determine where and when we may speak freely, along with the huge list of bi-laws already interfering in our daily lives, even though our entire political system does not allow for their existence.

I am personally appalled by the outcome based solely on the fact the high court have now empowered corporations all over Australia to now become a third tier of government against the wishes of the Australian people, who can now interfere in every part of our lives, write laws without the experience to do so, issue taxation and now control where and when we can speak freely.

Mark Aldridge (confused) Independent Candidate

The 1988 referendum for those who may have forgotten, was word as such;

"119A. Each State shall provide for the establishment & continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State & empowered to administer, and to make by-laws, for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State." The people voted NO