As a CONSTITUTIONALIST, having researched the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution, I urge electors to veto the referendum to amend

s96 of the constitution. My blog www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati has numerous articles about it. I am well aware that ALGA (Australian Local Government Association) is using a scare campaign that if Canberra cannot fund municipal/shire councils then rates go up, as if we are not paying taxes to the federal government for this funding! More over, the very powers such ass to fund for "Road for Recovery" are actually within Trade and Commerce for which the constitution provides s101 Inter-State Commission. Why waste $50 million or more on a referendum what can be done already without needing any legislation for this? Reality is that since federation the Inter-State Commission which s101 requires "shall be" has seldom been in existence, because politicians in government like to pork barrel area's for political purposes. The Inter-State Commission however is to operate non-politically to what is in the best interest of the states and so parts of it. Only a fool would accept that the federal government would not misuse and abuse any amendment to s96. This post would be too long to explain it all but those who were to log onto my blog and spend their time reading numerous documents about the constitution, etc, will discover that the federal government seeks to hoodwink the electors in a deceptive con-job referendum. In my view electors should vote NO, that is if the referendum were to proceed. Just look at how the federal government is using education funding as to manipulate its powers as to how schools should be run, etc. Let us therefore consider what the Framers of the Constitution warned about: Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it. END QUOTE Just also consider how the federal government seeks to micromanage peoples pensions! Those who contributed during their working life about 7% of their income (still part of taxation) find that the politicians are retiring (albeit unconstitutionally) upon huge pensions, and seek to dictate pensions how they might be using their monies. where they can buy their food, their clothing, etc. Again, only a fool would hold the federal government wouldn't use the additional powers to interfere with and micromanage municipal/shire councils and so ordinary peoples daily lives.