Really Not Part Of The Plan


by Allan Essery

Sustainable Development? Part 3

In support of its deception the United Nations through its pseudo-scientific educational programme claims that private ownership of property, including both urban and rural, facilitates environmental degradation.

Acceptance by many of this bizarre UN teaching were caught up in ''Group-Think''.  Group-think is almost always associated with feel good philosophies and is the irrational consensus thinking that aggressively rejects alternatives.  This is the mentality that causes large numbers of people to accept a bizarre belief  that a tax on carbon dioxide can control the climate.

Most Australians would agree that care of the environment is necessary and the development of a locally designed sustainability programme arrived at by democratic process would be acceptable. State governments such as the New South Wales and Victorian governments in particular rejected that and moved to an ecocentric sustainability policy which has been designed by a foreign entity, namely the UN, and is monotored by a foreign entity, again the UN and poses a fundamental and ongoing threat to the sovereignty and democracy of NSW and Victoria and all of their residents.

The rights of private land owners are increasingly being eroded under the guise of environmental concerns generated by the United Nation's fradulent Agenda 21 and associated programmes.  Instead of defending the fundamental importance of private property rights, the NSW and Victorian governments have actively worked against landholders by introducing so much green tape that it is leading to properties becoming unusable and worthless. In addition, green laws are preventing the clearing of woodland regrowth and undergrowth and that will directly contributed to the increasing fierceness and uncontrollably destructive nature of bushfires as we have just witnessed.

In order to implement their green laws, State Governments will make local councils agents for Local Agenda 21, promoted by the International Council For Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) which was created and monitored by the UN. The UN is fully aware that to achieve its intended goal of 'World Government' it must first succeed at a local level.

Federal and State Government plans to empower local councils to force Agenda 21 upon it residents in defiance of the Commonwealth and State Constitutions and two referendums that make such empowerment illegal would be seen by any responsible person to be an abandonment of democracy.  Given that local council do not have legislative authority it is surprising that they undertake a widespread adoption of Agenda 21 without challenge. It is frightening that both levels of government and local councils have made a decision to treat their constituents with utter contempt by NOT seeking democratic endorsement of Agenda 21 during the normal electoral process or by referendum.


In a demonstration of amazing ignorance of the law and/or arrogance, the CEO of the Victorian Melton Local Council, Kelvin Tori, during an open council meeting claimed,  ''The rates and charges that council impose are imposed under the power granted to council by the State of Victoria, under the Victorian Constitution.  Local Government is recognised within the Victorian Constitution which gave rise to the Local Government Act 1989, and confered to local government some of the powers of the State.  That would include the power to impose rates and charges.''

Now, that statement brings to light a major problem for Mr Tori and the Melton Council.  In the 1988 referendum there were three questions. Look at questions 1 and 3.

Question 1 was in regard to recognition of local councils as ''Local Government'' in the Federal Constitution.  Question 3 was, ''Each state shall provide for the establishment & continuance of a system of local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the state, and empowered to administer, and make by-laws for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the state.''

Sixty six point seven percent (66.7%) of voters said NO and the referendum was soundly defeated.  That meant NO to the establishment/recognition of  'local government', NO to a system of 'local government' bodies and NO to elections in accordance with the laws of the state for 'local government' and NO to the empowerment of 'local government' to administer laws or make by-laws for their respective areas.

The referendum failed to reach a State majority which means there was no mandate for it to have been implemented anywhere, not in the Federal Constitution and not in the State Constitution. The Victorian Local Government Act 1989 and cannot be legally enforced. Local councils remain ''local councils'' that are in fact ''Incorporated Bodies'' complete with Australian Business Numbers (ABN) and the requirement to pay taxes. 

My issue with Local Government

Brent Fleeton

Until Saturday, for the past five or so weeks, I spent most late afternoons and early evenings after work walking my local streets letterboxing a small summary of my basic policies along with instructions on how to vote in the 2013 local government election. 

I ran for a Council seat in West Ward in the City of Bayswater. I ran on three simple issues – lower rates, tangible policies to address the crime wave impacting on my local area (I am a recent victim of a home burglary) and streamlining local council planning approvals processes.  

Polling Day was Saturday and there is no denying this fact – I got flogged. I polled a whopping 380 votes out of 5,455 valid votes. 

However, I take three positive outcomes from this campaign: It gave me a better understanding of my local area; it taught me a lot more about the people who helped me and also about those involved in grassroots politics; and more people voted for me than they did for Darren Brown.  

Today, after hearing and reading about how it’s very distressing to some journalists in WA that the voter turnout was historically low and that the answer must be to force people to vote, I got to thinking about this issue of local council voter disengagement.

It didn’t take long for me to conclude that this really isn’t an issue at all, and to force people to vote is a stupid idea.

The more important issue we ought to be discussing at great length (and at much higher levels of government), and even though this never seems to be on the agenda, is how to address the drastic overreach by local governments. 

Don’t get me wrong, this average punter firmly believes state and federal governments in Australia have all drastically overstepped their boundaries. Let’s just focus on Local Government for now.

Did any journalist who contributed to the various columns conveying the collective dismay at the 20-30% turnout stop to consider that the reason that a vast majority of eligible people don’t vote in these elections may be because most common-sense people probably expect that the only matters their local council should be in charge of are lawns, roads and rubbish? 

Most people in my neighbourhood wouldn’t know that the 2013/2014 City of Bayswater Budget totalled spending of around $70million, and consisted of a taxation of local ratepayers of some $34million. This was through a rate increase of almost double that of inflation. During the Budget process, the City issued a press release stating this increase as ‘prudent’. It certainly was interesting rhetoric.

What’s my point? A good question!

When did local governments get the power to turn a small operation charged with the responsibility of fixing our roads, taking care of our local parks and gardens and collecting our garbage into a multi-million dollar ‘tax and spend’ machine, splurging ratepayers funds on hiring sustainability consultants and ‘buzz-word’ doctors, creating make-work programmes in the form of diversity and cultural projects and awarding often ridiculously generous grants for ‘art’ projects? Oh, and please don’t forget the annual contributions local governments pay to groups like WALGA and ALGA. These two lobby groups spent millions of dollars of ratepayers’ funds on a political advertising campaign for something which never occurred, but still won’t give the funds back to ratepayers. Hashtag integrity.

If we must spend money on hiring ‘sustainability’ consultants, I’d like to hire a sustainability consultant in the form of an accountant to first examine the ‘sustainability’ of the alarming rate at which local governments are taxing and spending ratepayer money. 

Unfortunately for those libertarians among us, our governing structure agreed upon at Federation created a monster. There is a solution, one which could possibly appease almost all who are concerned. However, it will be unappealing to those with less-than-solid intestinal fortitude. Local Government (in theory) answers to the State Government and only it can do something about this growing problem. I would like to see a genuine push by the WA Liberal-National Government, by the end of this term, to legislatively cap any future Local Government rate increases to that of CPI. If we can stop the ability for over-taxation, we can slowly stop the ever-expanding purview of local governments. 

This is what I call a ‘sustainable’ approach to local government.

In summary, I know fixing roads, mowing lawns and disposing of garbage costs my local council money, but its purview should end there. Local governments must be made to recognise, by way of state legislation if necessary, the unsustainable practice of ridiculous rate rises and over-the-top spending. If we were to force people to vote in local government elections, just to be able to say people are now ‘engaged’ with grassroots politics, we would fail to address these alarming issues with local government entirely. Compulsory voting on local government elections would give councils a mandate which could only lead to further over-government and over-taxation in our country. This would be a disastrous outcome for what little freedom is left in Australia.

Brent Fleeton

Committee Chair of Perth Young Professionals Inc.

Member of the WA Liberal Party Policy Committee

Sustainable development not part of their plan


by Allan Essery

Part 1 – Agenda 21 again

Awareness of the environment and concern for its delicate balance are indeed sensible endeavours. Concern, however, arose during a 1992 United Nation's conference to discuss future environmentally friendly development. From that conference an action agenda was revealed for an innocuously sounding aim of ''Sustainable Development''. That agenda was known as Agenda 21 and not as innocuous as it sounded.

Agenda 21 was promoted as a non-binding and voluntarily implemented action plan, and so the lie began. It was also called the brainchild of a group of powerful elitists known as the Club of Rome. Their aim was world domination brought about using the United Nations and its agencies to create a World Government together with a World Bank and a Security Force to ensure implementation of its aims.

Far from being a non-binding and voluntary action plan the following was the reality for those that signed on, ''This global contract binds all nations and spreading regions to the collective vision of "sustainable development." They must commit to pursue the three E's of "sustainability": Environment, Economy and Equity’’, referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulation, economic control, and redistribution of wealth.

Sold to the world’s nations as a plan for creating sustainable societies 176 governments around the world, including Australia, saw it as a means of social justice and a healthy planet. Initially, few if any were awake to their lies and doomsday scenarios, the pseudo-science and the unimaginable costs that came with this elaborate and fraudulent con.

Had any of the worlds leaders caught up in the lie bothered to undertake just a little research, or even given it some considered thought, they would have realised as did others that, Marxist economics has never worked. Socialism produces poverty, not prosperity. Collectivism creates oppression, not freedom. Trusting environmental "scientists" who depend on government funding and must produce politically useful "information" will lead to economic and social disaster.''

Back in1992 when Agenda 21 was born there was not yet the hysterical knee-jerk reactions of the alarmist's ''carbon pollution'' and ''man-made climate change'' and so these lies were cleverly created by the UN and its agencies to justify their ''sustainable development'' agenda. 

The UN very effectively, but falsely, enhanced the illusion when the Secretary General of their Earth division said, ''Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middleclass – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.''

In line with this propaganda, new buzzwords came into being. Words such as sustainable development, environmentally sustainable, future earth, smart growth, and biodiversity.  Phenomena such as climate change were promoted as man-made disasters while naturally occurring climate change was conveniently ignored.

To achieve the aims of Agenda 21 it would be necessary to undertake the mammoth task of reprogramming the human race. Human rights as we know them would have to be removed for the good of the collective.

The UN plans to rid the world of poverty as a means of controlling the world's population; but how are they going to achieve that?  Well, they have already surreptitiously commenced a redistribution of wealth from affluent nations to the poorer nations. Think about Carbon Tax and where all the proceeds go. Think about the transfer of manufacturing from affluent manufacturing nations to poorer nations. Think about where Australia's manufacturing and farming assets have gone. Think about the lowering of trade barriers and tariffs to bring that about. And, think about the redistribution of the population of poorer countries to the more affluent nations.

To achieve its intended agenda the UN will attempt to coerce the world's governments into surrendering the sovereignty of their nations. They hope to achieve a quiet transition through which our individual freedoms would be stripped away. Your children would become the sole property of the ''State'' and you would have no say in their upbringing, their education, or their future.  You would not be allowed to own any property and nor would you be allowed to choose where you live.

The United Nations is fearful that more and more of the world's population will realise what is happening and fight against it. They would be ecstatic that some would be sucked into their deception and support Agenda 21 by labelling those against the agenda as ''Conspiracy Alarmists'' and the UN will seek to discredit them and any elected official who undertakes to work against them.


BTRWe need to oppose Council Recognition, writes Brant Rippon

The Gillard Labor Government has announced a referendum on the recognition of Local Governments within the Constitution of Australia to be held in conjunction with the election on September 14.

As Michelle Grattan highlighted on Friday, there are those on both sides of politics that do not want to see the referendum held – at least, not on September 14. ALP power brokers think it is an ‘extra burden in an election where Labor has almost nothing going for it’.

Back on the ‘right’ side of politics, Tony Abbott has begrudgingly inherited backing for the change, which has been Coalition policy for some time. Many Coalition members and supporters have highlighted the fact that a referendum on September 14 will muddy the proverbial waters. For September 14, Coalition supporters should want the second Saturday in September to be solely a vote on Government. A vote to get the nation back on track. A vote of no confidence in this inept Labor Government that has broken so many promises and left Australians with a mountain of debt and increased costs of living. The Howard era certainly was the halcyon days.

Strategically, the Coalition will want the electorate focused on the negatives and broken promises of the Rudd/Gillard Governments, and not be distracted with a referendum. As Coalition campaign advisors have said, the Coalition should and will be 'campaigning at the election to change the government, not the constitution'.

To borrow a Boswellian phrase, the Australian Monarchist League will be 'manning the barricades' for the NO campaign. You might at first think, 'why would an organisation whose main ethos is to protect the Crown be involved in a referendum on council recognition?'

The League's mission statement is 'Australians protecting the Australian flag, the Australian Crown, and the Australian Constitution.' The primary purpose of the Australian Monarchist League is to educate and inform the Australian public on Australia's history and particularly on the Australian Constitution.

Established in Australia in 1943 as a pressure group for upholding the educational and cultural aspects of our constitutional monarchy, AML has today morphed into a significant and effective 'not-for-profit' voluntary organisation which lobbies State and Federal governments to reverse decades of 'republicanism by stealth'. We consider the appropriate recognition of our Sovereign, Royal Family and traditional institutions, the upholding of the principles of the Westminster System and the maintenance of the concept of competitive federalism on which the Commonwealth was founded, as essential aspects of our system.

The League will be opposing the referendum on two fronts:

(1) Lack of time: According to reports, the Australian Electoral Commission has indicated that it requires a minimum of 27 weeks to properly prepare the arguments for YES and NO cases. There are fewer than 15 weeks remaining to the election and the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 Bill, although drafted, has not even been introduced into the parliament. Our main hope is that the Coalition will conduct a well-funded NO case and this is what we are lobbying for. However, whatever happens, the League will be there doing its best to protect the integrity of our Australian Constitution.

We are also in touch with other organisations to co-ordinate our activities. With the shortage of time, every hand to the wheel counts.

(2) Centralisation of Power: There is clearly a divide over the referendum and whether to support it within the Coalition.   WA Liberal Senator Dean Smith said last week that recognition would "distort the federal structure, give rise to unforeseen and unintended consequences and will lead to an eventual eclipse of the states and their eventual irrelevance as a balance against the centralist power of the Commonwealth".

The Australian Monarchist League echoes Senator Smith's views. A YES vote could result in undermining the very existence of the States. It has long been Labor Party policy to erode the viability of the states by slowly centralising power to Canberra via years of scope creep, much like the 'republicanism by stealth' campaign that has existed over recent decades. It should be noted however that the Howard government was no better in regards to the 'Canberraisation' process.

The League has proceeded to lobby members of the Federal and State parliaments very successfully with a number of politicians coming out to pressure the Federal Coalition party to oppose the referendum. A leading member of the Coalition front-bench has written to the League to say: "May I take the opportunity of personally encouraging you in this campaign."

A member of the Newman Government wrote to AML saying, "I certainly note that there is divided opinion in the community on this issue. With respect, there are much more important issues at stake for the nation in this election. I cannot speak on behalf of the Coalition, however I know that I, and many others do share your view." Queensland Local Government Minister David Crisafulli said the state is not sure whether the wording would allow a federal government to go beyond simply funding. "If it comes with the ability to control, I'm scared".

At this stage, both the Western Australian and Victorian Liberal Councils have voted to incorporate a NO vote in their HTV cards on 14 September.

The League is in the process of setting up a referendum website which should be operative in coming days. We call on all conservatives to lobby their local Coalition member, Senator or candidate to not support the passage of the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 Bill through parliament.

Not only has there been a serious lack of public consultation from the Commonwealth Government over recognition of councils, but if there is one thing that this inept Labor Government has proven over the past six years is that the last thing Australians need is more power gifted to Canberra.

Brant Rippon is the State Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League’s Queensland Branch

US States Outlaw United Nations Agenda 21

A. Essery

Allan asks the question, “Ask your local Council the question and see what sort of response you receive.” From experience you will likely get a blank stare because Local Agenda 21 has become “embedded” in law. It happened more than 20-years-ago and people don’t remember how or why it all happened. But, happen it did! GC.Ed@L.

 There are some who read my previous three articles on Agenda 21, “Sustainable Development” and World Government and believe that it is nothing more than an alarmist conspiracy theory that should be sniggered at because it really doesn’t exist except in the minds of fools.  Those more astute readers take the time to do some research of their own and discover that Agenda 21, the United Nations “Sustainable Development” plan, does actually exist and is much more insidious than most would imagine.

State Legislatures in the United States are far more advanced in fighting this scourge than we in Australia.  In the latest move and following the lead of Alabama, Oklahoma’s House of Representatives recently voted unanimously to introduce legislation that will protect private property rights from the United Nations and to outlaw Agenda 21 because it poses an unacceptable threat to liberty, values and sovereignty.  It has been reported that to date some 158 government authorities in various countries have outlawed Agenda 21.

The United Nations put Agenda 21 forward as a sustainable development initiative supposedly aimed at the protection of the environment, but nothing could be further from the truth because Agenda 21 has little to do with the protection of the environment and a lot to do with the abolition of private land ownership and property rights.  The more sinister aim is the complete transformation of the global economy in ways that are completely at odds with national sovereignty, individual liberty and traditions of self-governance.

The ultimate UN plan was outlined and agreed to by national governments and dictatorships worldwide at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. According to the UN, “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment,” the UN admits on its website, sparking suspicions from analysts who point out that virtually every aspect of human existence has some “impact” on the “environment.”  The answer, according to the UN, is to control every aspect of human life.

While the average Australian citizen is unaware of Agenda 21 and its true implications, not so the various levels of Government, Federal, State, and Local.  Shire Councils, have seen the advantage of adopting the socialist lie of ‘sustainable development’, but not for the benefit of their rate payers, and the more observant property owners, especially farmers, in our society would have noticed the slow but sure encroachment of local government regulation dictating what you can and can’t do with the property that you own.  Shire Councils are becoming more and more powerful and introducing more and harsher property and environmental by-laws that to most in the society would make little sense and are a long way short of believable justification. 

Australia has been part of Agenda 21 since Keating signed us up in 1992.  So, as signed up members of the Agenda 21 initiative you would think that our politicians, both State and Federal, plus our local governments would know all about it.  Well, you may think so, but try getting any information about Agenda 21, or ‘sustainable development’, from your local member or from your Shire Council and you will be confronted by a stone wall.  Ask your Shire Council if it is a signatory to Agenda 21 or ”Sustainable Development” and you will likely be treated like a leper. 

While here in Australia our various forms of government think they are keeping us in the dark and giving us the old ‘Mushroom” treatment, nothing could be further from the truth.  More and more citizens are becoming aware of this treasonous United Nations plan.   Is treasonous too strong a term?  Not at all.   When a foreign-based organization, aided and abetted by our own government, plans to remove your freedom, your constitutional rights, your property rights and the sovereignty of your nation then that is treason and if our politicians, bureaucrats and councilors are a part of it then they are surely committing treason?

How does your local council shape up?  Are they signatories to “Sustainable Development”.   If they are, then they are instruments of the United Nations that are following the dictates of Agenda 21.  Ask your local Council the question and see what sort of response you receive.

(Thanks to  Alex Newman, The New American) 

Alan is an ex-RAAF officer retired from active duty. He was a flight instructor and charter pilot. He also writes on matters political and is a staunch battler for ex-service superannuants. He is also rumoured to be a savvy fossicker for the yellow stuff.





The Hon Ann Bressington MLC on Agenda 21

Last Sunday at the Lord Monckton launch held at the Adelaide Convention Centre, The Hon Ann Bressington MLC gave a 20-minute exposé on the UN's Agenda 21. This may be the first exposure of AG21 by a member of the Australian Parliament. Various names have been adopted to tone down its invasive nature, Local Agenda 21 is what local councils call it. Question your council member and get them to explain, after you have done some homework.

In the US many States are withdrawing and outlawing Agenda 21 as unconstitutional. GC.Ed.

In 1992, the United Nations released a ground-breaking action plan for sustainable development called Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a blueprint that sets out actions we can all take to contribute to global sustainability in the 21st century. It recognises that most environmental challenges have their roots in local activities and therefore encourages Local Governments to promote local environmental, economic and social sustainability by translating the principles of sustainable development into strategies that are meaningful to local communities. This process is called Local Agenda 21 (LA21).

View Ann Bressington:

Local Government in Crisis?

Pat Kelly

Pat Kelly discusses just exactly what is wrong with local councils: 

We were informed the other week by Dick Gross that "Local government in NSW is notoriously hopeless. It has a bad name with the local community and a poorer name with interested observers in other states."

Well that certainly attracted my attention. I have my own views on the woes (and roles) of Local Government and was interested to learn what Mr Gross had to say on the subject. The writer urged us to "Let's look at the facts" and that seemed like a promising place to start.

We learn that "Local government struggles for money all over Australia. Local governments don't go broke. When a municipality is financially embarrassed it still pays its bills. It just does not repair assets." So far so good. I guess that applies to all organisations. Further it seems that "it [is] estimated that the deficiency in capital spending (infrastructure renewal gap) for all council purposes is between $400 million and $600 million a year. This represents an annual deficiency of between $2 million and $4 million per council or between $60 and $90 per head of resident population in NSW."

Mr Gross then joins "the Productivity Commision" in bemoaning the rate cap. A quick look at the bottom of the page reveals that Mr Gross is "a former Municipal Association of Victoria president and mayor of Port Phillip." Ho Hum.

So the problem isn't that councils don't seem to be able to restrict their activities to the things they can afford to do and to do the things that are expected as part of their core functions. The problem is that they don't get enough money to do all the things that they want to do.

A quick look at my local council website reveals the council promoting its involvement in the following activities.

  • ***** Council leads the way in calling for national regulations for the safe removal and disposal of asbestos.
  • ***** Transition to School Expo – An opportunity for families to visit a school and view what participating schools have to offer.
  • Tender for the Construction of ***** Community Facility – …….., are invited for the construction of the ***** Community Facility at *****.

Now, if councils are so cash strapped that they can't afford a lick of paint for the town hall, why are they agitating to assume control of State Government responsibilities such as the regulation of asbestos? Why are local councils concerning themselves with getting involved with a core State Government responsibility such as education? And if things are that bad that existing resources and facilities can't be maintained why are they busy constructing more?

Further reading reveals that we have a City Health Plan, a Crime Prevention Plan, a "Cultural" Plan (hmmm,) a Pandemic Plan of Management, a Privacy Management Plan and a "Social" Plan.

Fairly busy lot of bees on our Council.

Then we have the recent infamous foray into foreign affairs by the activist Marrickville Council which would impose a trade embargo on Israel. We have the long symbolic campaign by various councils imposing "nuclear free zones."  Readers are invited to add to what would be a long list.

Quite frankly, I'm sick of would be if could be politicians getting onto local councils and then seeing their way clear to attempt to run the country from the council chambers. Oh for the good old days when councils were full of members of the chamber of commerce and real estate agents on the make.  It was a darn sight cheaper and while they may have lined their own pockets at least they tended to leave our's alone.

No Mr Gross. The financial problems of Local Government are to be found on the expenditure side of the ledger, not on the income side.

Patrick Kelly is a father of two from Western Sydney. He is particularly concerned about the degradation of traditional, core government services, at all levels, at the expense of expansive roles which achieve little of real benefit except in the expansion of public sector employment.

Where is


Councillor Nick Tyrrell argues that greater transparency in the spending of public funds at all levels of government is required to ensure accountability.

Rarely a day goes by that at either a local, state or national level there’s a funding announcement that, big or small, is paid for out of consolidated revenue.  I’ve witnessed with my own eyes and ears local Councillors allocate ratepayers’ money to pay for donations to community interest groups (with no strings attached), beautification of their own neighbourhood, and of course for the perks of office.  I was horrified by the idea of Kevin Rudd’s ETS money-go-round, and I was repulsed by NSW Labor’s payment of $25m to the operators of the Lane Cove Tunnel to delay the opening until after the last election.

Let it be known that I don’t consider myself a libertarian in the true sense of the word.  I do believe government’s responsibility is to provide a robust framework within which free enterprise can flourish.  The pipe-dream that is rationalisation of Australian federalism merely serves as a distraction from what should be the dual aims of true reform: transparency and accountability. 

Perhaps it’s idealistic, but I believe the Australian political landscape needs re-shaping.  The relentless news-cycle and 5-second sound-bites have delivered nothing but short-term band-aid solutions to many of Australia (and particularly NSW)’s deepest and most important issues.  How many times has a North-Western Sydney rail link been promised by a 4-term Labor government?  On a local level, it’s been over 15 years since a railway overpass was promised for Riverstone, yet the relatively small investment required has been misspent hundreds of times over by the government on blatantly political advertising campaigns and spin-doctors, and the public service is weighed down by over 1,000 senior bureaucrats earning over $500,000 each, while frontline services suffer crippling shortages.  What the electorate needs is a circuit-breaker.  Let’s apply the “my school” principle to government.

The more tax receipts that flow into consolidated revenue, the more scope there is for abuse.  Look no further than Kevin Rudd’s proposed CPRS.  Lofty ambitions of world-leadership on climate change were underscored by the political reality that more tax receipts mean more special-interest group funding opportunities.  The NSW ALP’s planned sell-off of electricity assets at rock-bottom prices was necessitated by the failure of the government to reinvest dividends into network and system maintenance.

What the Australian taxpayer needs, if s/he is not to be crushed under the weight of increasingly politically-driven financial mismanagement is transparency, and accountability.  In this day and age, I want an RSS feed that tells me how much of my petrol excise is being spent on roads and transport infrastructure.  If Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott are going to tax me to fund environmental initiatives, I want to know that every dime is going to be spent on planting trees and buy-backs of water rights.  If my local Council is going to increase rates by more than CPI, I want an iPhone app that allows me to compare it with other Councils on its delivery of services, and the proportion of my rates that gets lost in bureaucratic administration.

With an ageing population, I’m not sure we’ve got further capacity to deliver another decade of back-to-back tax cuts.  That’s just being realistic.  But before we let our politicians use the elderly as an excuse to raise taxes, let’s as Liberals begin a campaign for greater transparency and accountability, to drive efficiency dividends, and reduce the proportion of our tax revenue that flows into ‘consolidated revenue’ and then out the back door as pork, or just plain fat.  It’s not the electorate’s responsibility to fund government largesse, and we have the right to demand value for money.  If it’s good enough for schools, it’s good enough for government.

Nick Tyrrell is a Liberal Councillor, elected in 2008 to Blacktown City Council in Sydney. With his wife he owns a small business, and whose top priorities include sustainable development for Sydney's North-West, and value for money for taxpayers. You can view his website here.