20180827-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission FSRC-Supplement 4

1
Royal Commission FCR 27-8-2018

FSRCenquiries@royalcommission.gov.au.
5 SUBMISSION -Supplement 4
(NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION)
Sir,
as I understand it the day after I made my submission to the Royal Commission
regarding AMP coincidental or not 5 board members resigned.
10 If this is a fair dinkum Royal Commission then I view it also ought to investigate the politician’s
superannuation’s and council gigantic financial rip offs.
I call a spade a spade and if the royal commissioner is competent in constitutional law then no
doubt he would include the Government(s) superannuation scheme as much as that of private
corporations.
15 As I understand it wage earners are still paying about 7% of their taxable income on retirement
fund but many who live responsible to create nest egg for retirement then are denied SOME OR
any benefits of this monies paid in. As such FEES FOR NO SERVICE! Yet, we have
politicians who UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and in violation of Section 44 of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) are enjoying a pension they actually as
20 such never had any legal right upon.
It should be understood that the Framers of the constitution made clear (see Hansard records) that
when one person takes up the seat in the Parliament the other leaving no longer gets paid. As
such any legislation to allow otherwise is unconstitutional as the constitution doesn’t allow any
salary to be paid to ex members of parliament. While it may be argued that they are not being a
25 paid a monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds even while Members of Parliament reality is
they are. Those who are not Ministers only are able to be provided from consolidated Revenue
Funds an ALLOWANCE, which the framers of the constitution held was to be equal for all
Members of Parliament. As such any increase must be for all members and not just some receive
more than others. Those who are not Ministers only can receive a ALLOWANCE and the
30 superannuation scheme clearly is not an ALLOWANCE but is a financial benefit not excluded
by s44, hence it places every Member of Parliament directly in conflict with s44 of the
constitution (State and or Federal as the States are created within s106 SUBJECT TO THIS
CONSTITUTION and therefore all legal principles embedded in the constitution are applicable
to the states unless the constitution specifically exclude them.
35 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections
It should be clear that politicians may not use public monies to advance their own political
interest. Yet, we find that politicians are provided with all kind of perks that when it comes to an
40 election Members of Parliament already have saturated electors with public monies paid
advertisement. As such there are not fair and proper elections because the elections are hijacked
by unconstitutional usage of public monies.
Here we had former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull attending to a by-election in Western
Australia at public expenses nothing to do with governing at all but purely as a party political
45 issue. He also had as I understand it about 22 Australian Federal Police officers watching his
p1 27-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
2
Sydney private property this in my view was as such a financial benefit in violation to s44. This
as much as former PM Julia Gillard used public monies to install bollards on her Altona property
at taxpayer’s expenses. We have Members of Parliament traveling along the country side to
promote their political mantra at cost of taxpayers in violation of s44. And we have members of
5 the House of Representatives who are after an election is declared still using public monies to
travel around to promote themselves for re-election this even so they are in fact no longer
members of parliament once an election is called. There are heaps more financial and other
abuses going on.
Let us take Mr Barnaby Joyce who according to the High Court of Australia was not at the time
10 entitled to be a member of parliament on basis of violation of s44. Yet, did the ATO
subsequently then tax him for undeclared income as the tax free status that may apply to a
Minister no longer was applicable? Yet, somehow Mr Barnaby Joyce is still entitled to his
superannuation scheme even so he was unconstitutionally sitting in the Parliament. It means that
effectively the scheme is like any private corporation scheme and should be investigated. While
15 the minister made known that Mr Joyce doesn’t have to repay the estimated $3 dollars that was
paid to him while not entitled to being a Member of Parliament, after Mr Barnaby Joyce was
elected in recent times, this to me is a financial benefit that disqualify Mr Barnaby Joyce to now
sit in the Parliament. There is no constitutional provision that allows a person to be paid $3
million without any Appropriation bill being passed. But Mr Barnaby Joyce is not the only
20 person on this issue.
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE
Stanson v. Mott
25 The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic
electoral process is that the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow
an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our
country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would
use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....”
30 The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson “...The selective use of public funds in election
campaigns, of course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the
democratic electoral process.”
END QUOTE
35 This also means that the payment per primary vote is unconstitutional as it doesn’t relate to
governance but to the advantage of political interest.
.
Let us be very clear about it that the constitution limits payments of salaries to a Minister and/or
Governor/Governor-General payable to the Crown. This is British Crown.
40
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
45 END QUOTE
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
50 "... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
55

3
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte
Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
5 1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes
or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those
who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its
makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in
10 which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my
opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence
available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an
15 exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not
mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means
trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a
social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."
20 END QUOTE
Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by
s73 of the Constitution.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
25 Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
30 majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions
in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
35 no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
40 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
45 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
50 END QUOTE
My position is that any judicial officer who pursues a republican kind of status is in violation to
his oath of office when taking up the judicial office and a traitor to the Constitution.

4
The Sue v Hill decision in my view was beyond judicial powers as one cannot by backdoor
manner achieve something that cannot be done ordinary.
.
As Barton made clear that the High Court of Australia could only interpret the true meaning and
5 application of the constitution and it the court made a decision that it was always in the
constitution as it cannot amend the constitution by judicial determination. Meaning that if the
High Court of Australia determined there was a Queen of Australia then it must always have
been so or it is an illusion.
.
10 This is relevant as the constitution directed that Ministers are to be paid by the Crown. This as
from Consolidated Revenue funds monies are to be paid to the Crown to pay Ministers and so the
Governor/Governor-General.
Therefore the Ministers, Governor and Governor-Generals are all employed with the British
Crown. Hence, any superannuation scheme they are involved in is not with the British Crown but
15 with the Commonwealth of Australia in as private capacity which violates s44 of the constitution
as they are receiving benefits beyond their position of a salary from the British Crown.
.
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
20 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike
subjects of the British Crown.
END QUOTE
The High Court of Australia lacked any judicial power to implicitly alter this position without a
25 successful referendum having approved a change of status.
Hansard 3-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
30 Sub-clause 19. The status in the commonwealth of foreign corporations, and of corporations formed in any
state or part of the commonwealth.
Mr. MUNRO: We have agreed to sub-clause 13, dealing with the incorporation of banks, and I do not see
why a similar provision should not be made in regard to the incorporation of companies. Why should they not
be under the control of federal officers? At the present time the law as to incorporation is different in the
35 different colonies, and the result is [start page 686] extremely unsatisfactory in many cases. I do not see
why we should not make the same provision in regard to the incorporation of companies as we have made in
regard to the incorporation of banks. We might introduce at the commencement of the sub-clause words to
this effect: "The registration or incorporation of companies."
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I do not think we should. There are a great number of different corporations.
40 For instance, there are municipal, trading, and charitable corporations, and these are all incorporated in
different ways according to the law obtaining in the different states.
Mr. MUNRO: But as to trading corporations!
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It is sometimes difficult to say what is a trading corporation. What is
important, however, is that there should be a uniform law for the recognition of corporations. Some states
45 might require an elaborate form, the payment of heavy fees, and certain guarantees as to the stability
of members, while another state might not think it worth its while to take so much trouble, having
regard to its different circumstances. I think the states may be trusted to stipulate how they will
incorporate companies, although we ought to have some general law in regard to their recognition.
Sir JOHN BRAY: I think the point raised by the hon. member, Mr. Munro, is worth a little more
50 consideration than hon. members seem disposed to bestow upon it. We know what some of these
corporations are; and I think joint-stock companies might be incorporated upon some uniform method. In
South Australia, a banking company is not allowed to be incorporated under the Companies Act; still, there is
nothing in Victoria of which I am aware to prevent a banking company from being registered there as a

5
limited company and opening a branch in South Australia a few days afterwards. I think it is necessary,
therefore, to have some uniform law. There is nothing in which the public should have more confidence than
in banks which are in any way recognised by the state; and I think we should have some uniform system of
incorporating banks. Many companies, although doing business under different names, are, in reality,
5 banks.
Mr. MUNRO: The banks are incorporated under the Companies Act in Victoria!
Sir JOHN BRAY: You can establish financial companies, which you do not call banks, but which answer
all the purposes of banks. We have provided that the federal parliament shall legislate as to the
incorporation of banks; but there is nothing to prevent the incorporation by the states themselves, quite
10 apart from the federal parliament, of trading companies which will do all the ordinary business of banks. If it
is desirable to intrust legislation as to the incorporation of banks to the federal government, there is no reason
why we should not say that the registration of financial companies doing all the business of banks should be
dealt with in the same manner.
Sub-clause agreed to.

15 END QUOTE
Clearly for this also WorkChoices decision was wrong in that it was about the general
arrangements applicable to all corporations and not miniscule detailing operations as claimed by
the HCA in WorkChoices. Besides the court failed to acknowledge the true meaning of what the
20 Framers of the Constitution had states, as I subsequently exposed in my book:
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)

ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1
25 .
As none of the politicians are actually constitutionally that is in employment of the
commonwealth of Australia being it ministers or other members of parliament then any
superannuation scheme and other provisions other than the ALLOWANCE strictly related to
their attendances to the Parliament violates s44 of the constitution.
30 .
What we have however, in my view, is a High court of Australia where judicial officers simply
seem to lack a basic understanding of what the true meaning and application is about.
Not uncommon judges will claim that they are the 3rd branch of the Government. The truth is
35 they are not. And could never be so as to be part of Government means they lose their in
dependence.
If one look for example at the Letter Patent published in the Victorian Gazette as to the powers of
the governor of Victoria one will find that it is to commission an independent administration iof
justice. As such there is a clear separation of powers.
40 As former Chief Justice Frenchs albeit then as French J of Was stated that S51(xxvii) is not at all
to give States powers to refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth but merely for the
Commonwealth to accept reference of powers.
The powers of the State to refer legislative powers to the commonwealth lies within s123 of the
45 constitution!
QUOTE
50 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
6
END QUOTE
.
5 QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
10 I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE
15 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
20 not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
25 one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE
30
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-If you were to bring in a Bill to impose one tax, would it include a power to repeal
35 another on the same subject?
Mr. OCONNOR.-Undoubtedly.
Mr. ISAACS.-Mr. Barton has given an opinion that it would not.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-We have the ablest lawyers divided on this question, and what is the layman to
do?
40 END QUOTE
Convention)
QUOTE
45 Mr. TRENWITH.-And yet this clause is throwing legislation into the hands of those people who cannot
agree.
MR. REID.-The lawyers.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-The lawyers?
Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, thrusting it on them.
50 Mr. MCMILLAN.-That is one of those commonplaces which are always used. There is no clause or sub-
clause of any Bill in the world, even if it were framed by an angel from Heaven, that would not be the subject
of litigation.
Dr. COCKBURN.-The disagreement is not legal, but constitutional.

7
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-You do not got lawyers from Heaven.
Mr. ISAACS.-No, lawyers are sent there; they are not drawn from there.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Looking at the clause from a common-sense point of view, are the provisions a vital
condition of the Constitution? Was it worth our while to spend days and weeks thrashing out these matters as
5 a compromise to the financial scheme? We are dealing now with one of the great compromises of our
financial scheme. Is that compromise, of vital importance in the financial scheme, to be made a matter of
simple procedure in the House, liable to the judgment of a Speaker or a President? Or is it, like hundreds of
other things, embedded in the Constitution, so that, if at any time there be an infringement, the law passed
would be invalid, and the High Court would protect the people of the country? Apart from all legal quibbles,
10 that seems to be the plain English of the fact. Speaking as an ex-Treasurer, I say that it is impossible to
safeguard you in the third section. I would be quite willing to put in the word "proposition," or "Bill," or
anything of the kind. All the arguments used to-day are valid against the third sub-clause. But, as against the
other sub-clauses, looking at it as a matter of English, and as clearly defining the rights in the Constitution, it
seems to me that they ought not to be disturbed.
15 END QUOTE
Convention)
QUOTE
20 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
25 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE

30 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
35 END QUOTE
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
40 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE
45
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
50 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
55
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
60 END QUOTE
.
8
QUOTE
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
5 exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE
On 4 December 2002 by consent in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka the court ordered for the s78B
10 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS to be heard and determined by the High Court of
Australia, which included my legal challenge to the validity of the purported Australian
citizenship Act 1948.
The moment I filed this legal challenge the purported legislation became ULTRA VIRES Ab
15 Initio unless if ever at all a competent court of jurisdiction was to hand down a judgment it was
INTRA VIRES. Despite the CITIZENSHIP saga and my writing to the Registrar of the HCA that
my matter was still outstanding the court proceeded to deal with alleged CITIZENSHIP issues
disregarding my position.
It must be made clear that on appeals I unchallenged comprehensively defeated the
20 Commonwealth on 129 July 2006 on all matters I raised in my pre written submissions
ADDRESS TO THE COURT which also was that compulsory voting is unconstitutional. It also
successfully challenged the Commo0nwealth to use AVERMENT as the Commonwealth
Electoral Act allegedly provides for as the court on 5 August 2005 ruled against the
Commonwealth.
25
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act
capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let
30 the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but
trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution.
The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
Constitution.
END QUOTE
35
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
40 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is required
at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and,
without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very
life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would
45 give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most important part
of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters that have been
much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.
END QUOTE
50 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the
provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this
dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is

9
the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining
the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal
Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why
5 it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood
who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the
Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for
10 joining the Union.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
15 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of
federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on
the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is
to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again
and again. We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised as
20 lying at the very basis of this Constitution.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
25 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
30 be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
35 who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and
clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to
40 place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the
right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a
thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should
be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

45 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
50 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Thomas Jefferson:
"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an
irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little
55 today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over
the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one

10
branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the
government from which we separated.".
END QUOTE
5 HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests,
but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE
10
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
15 they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE
Australasian Convention),
20 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
25 It is in my view absurd that the High Court of Australia can somehow deal with CITIZENSHIP
issues without to my knowledge any state having defined what CITIZENSHIP is about.
Whatever NZ (re Barnaby Joyce) or other countries may legislate has no bearing upon what
CITIZENSHIP is about.
.
30 KING v. JONES ; McEWEN v. HACKERT ; JONES v. JONES. (1972) 128 CLR 221
Barwick C.J.(1), McTiernan(2), Menzies(3), Walsh(4), Gibbs(5) and Stephen(6)JJ.
QUOTE Barwick C.J.(1)

35 10. There are some basic propositions of constitutional construction which
are beyond controversy. The words of the Constitution are to be read in that
natural sense they bore in the circumstances of their enactment by the
Imperial Parliament in 1900. That meaning remains, beyond the reach of any
Australian Parliament, subject only to alteration by the means provided by s.
40 128 of the Constitution. The connotation of words employed in the Constitution
does not change though changing events and attitudes may in some circumstances
extend the denotation or reach of those words. These propositions are fully
documented in the reported decisions of this Court which has the task of
finally and authoritatively deciding both the connotation and the denotation
45 of the language of the Constitution. (at p229)
END QUOTE
50 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
55 .
QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
11
The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
END QUOTE
And
5 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
10 Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the
imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the
20 whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
END QUOTE
And
25 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may
determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average
opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout
the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states
30 for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
35 2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniform
throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from one
state to another;
END QUOTE

QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-
Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty
shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.
END QUOTE
45
QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
That all the words after the word "taxation" where it is first used be struck out, and that the following words
be substituted:-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between goods passing from
50 one state to another."
END QUOTE

QUOTE
55 Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will
be exercised. By putting into the Constitution words prohibiting the Commonwealth Parliament from making
certain specified laws you create the implication that the Parliament has power to deal in other respects with
religious observances.
END QUOTE
60
12
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law
that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union,
5 because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power,
until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue
for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a
state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has any-
and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be
10 inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should
say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not
be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
END QUOTE
15
QUOTE
20 CMU10-16940
13 September 2010
Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
25 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
I write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax.
As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the Hon
Eric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention.
You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration.
30 Yours sincerely
David Swain
for Director General
END QUOTE
And
35 QUOTE
Land taxes were imposed by the States prior to federation. They were introduced at the federal level in 1910.
In 1952, the Commonwealth Government abolished land tax. This did not have the effect of preventing the
States from imposing land tax, but rather returned taxation powers back to them. Accordingly, the NSW
Government introduced the land Management Act in 1956.
40 END QUOTE
A competent constitutionalist would be well aware that while s51(xxvii) provides for the
Commonwealth to accept reference of legislative powers of the Commonwealth there is no
reverse applicable for the Commonwealth to refer legislative powers back to the States.
45
There are numerous other quotations I could use but for now they are plenty.
So, on 11 November 1910 the commonwealth legislated for the land Tax Office, the forerunner
of the ATO and that means that the States no longer could apply land taxation as it became an
exclusive Commonwealth powers. Yet, cases since then before the High Court of Australia went
50 on as if the States still had this legislative powers. Considering the decision of Sydney Council v
Commonwealth High Court of Australia 1904 that council rates were a delegated power of State
land taxation it means that since 11 November 1910 the States no longer had this legislative
powers.
While the NSW government claimed that the legislative powers were given back to the States,
55 this clearly is utter and sheer nonsense this as the constitution provides for no such mechanism.
Even if, not that this is conceded, the Commonwealth could allow the States to raise on its behalf
land taxation then it must be UNIFORM through the Commonwealth. Clearly rates vary not only

13
from state to state but also within a state from council to council and as such cannot be deemed
to be on behalf of the Commonwealth.
.
Banyule City council in Victoria charges me 0.00215977 Rates in $ on CIV whereas Buloke
5 Shire Council (also in Victoria) charges me 0.715% of CIV ion the property I own there.
As such it cannot be claimed that this is a UNIFORM land taxation! Not even within the State of
Victoria.
.
10 While the property in Buloke has been vacant since early 2014 never the less it charges me
$162.00 for general rates, Municipal charge $170.00, Garbage Charge $414.000.
Moment this is FEE FOR NO SERVICE!
Firstly the rates originally charged prior to 11 November 2010 were to cover garbage collection
15 also. However councils deemed it fit to charge for Garbage collection this even so the property is
vacant and no garbage collection eventuates to this property. Moreover if I desire to dump
garbage by using a trailer then I have to drive to another township and pay not only for the cost
of a return trip but also for the dumping of any garbage.
20 Then consider the following also:
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE
MBLY&speech=22882&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=10&date2=
April&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+%29
25 QUOTE
Ms PIKE (Minister for Health) - I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Bracks Labor government is committed to improving services to all Victorians in a financially
responsible manner. In particular, this government is committed to protecting and improving the
30 quality of drinking water in Victoria.
Access to a reliable supply of good quality drinking water is fundamental to community

health and wellbeing, and is essential for the development of many sustainable value-adding
industries in regional Victoria, particularly the food and tourism industries.
Through this bill, this government is proposing a comprehensive, statewide regulatory

35 framework that addresses these matters.
We believe that this bill significantly protects and enhances the quality of drinking water
supplies in Victoria in a sustainable manner, therefore fulfilling a major policy commitment
of this government, as encapsulated in our Growing Victoria Together policy.
The proposal also satisfies the government's objective of creating transparent processes
40 for service delivery.
END QUOTE

14
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE
MBLY&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&date2=M
5 ay&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+%29
QUOTE
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking Water Bill. This bill forms part of the
government's strategic approach to water management, with specific attention being paid to water quality and risk
management as matters of public health. It is worth noting that this is a debate about public health and about making sure
10 that each community across our state has access to the highest quality water. It is also worth noting that this bill has been
introduced by the Minister for Health as a matter of public health.

15
END QUOTE

16
As the bill proves there is NO Safe Drinking Water being provided at all. Nevertheless
GWMWater pursues me now for thousands of dollars as it seeks payment for connection with
UNTREATED water. The did have a debt collector after me who however gave up once I
explained that in law the connection is to a vacant land and so by GWMWater own statement to
5 me they cannot charge to a vacant property. Still, they nevertheless continue to harass me with
ever increasing charges. GWMWater at one stage recommended to place the matter before the
Victorian Ombudsman, which I did. The Victorian Ombudsman in the end responded it is a legal
issue that is beyond its power..
10 What we have is a government owned corporation to stalk and seek to extort monies. I have no
need for UNTREATED water and have made this clear, hence no usage of water. It is however
against public health policy to provide UNTREATED WATER for domestic usage!
15
It must be clear that this kind of dangerous practice actually endanger also anyone who visits
they are and drink water from a water tap unaware they can even die drinking UNTREATED
water. A busload of persons, such as school children stopping at a service station unaware that
the water tap only provides UNTREATED water could have serious consequences.
20 I am informed by locals that they preferred UNTREATED water because it is cheaper for them
to use on farmland. This even so the hay grown there end up on the breakfast table of people in
cities. In the end the legislation in my view doesn’t provide for locals to decide to force others to
only be provided with UNTREATED water. It is therefore clear that GWMWater pursues me to
pay for a water pipe connection that is not at all to supply Safe Drinking Water and in violation
25 of the connection to be to a vacant tile (property).
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
(2.) A judiciary, consisting of a federal supreme court, which shall constitute a high court of appeal for
30 Australia, under the direct authority of the Sovereign, whose decisions, as such, shall be final.
(3.) An executive, consisting of a governor-general and such persons as may from time to time be appointed
as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend upon their
possessing the confidence of the house of representatives, expressed by the support of the majority.
END QUOTE
35
17
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
The resolutions conclude:
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
5 upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.
What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
10 advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE
15 It is clear that Ministers shall be constitutional advisers, yet despite many being lawyers they are
generally totally unaware of what is constitutionally permissible.
.
HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
20 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
25 END QUOTE
It is clear that the courts cannot be part of Government but are independent part of the
constitution. The Judiciary is not at all to implement government policy merely because the
government may demand this. The judges are bound to hand down judicial decision according to
30 law without their own contemporary input in violation to the constitution, such as an example I
view eventuated in Sue v Hill.
.
Neither can we have a Royal Commission that singles out banking sector misuses/abuses
but allow the Government to continue its misuses/abuses. It must as indicated above be and
35 show to be impartial and as such must hold Government entities also accountable.
We as citizens must be able to trust a Royal Commission which cannot act in defiance of the rule
of law and must therefore conduct matters equally to anyone regardless if private corporations or
some government corporation/entity. There is a lot more to it all but for now I view this is a start!
40 As indicated with my submission about superannuation’s being often geared to what the
insurance agent can earn in monies rather than what is best for the person to be insured
there needs to be a drastic change in it all as the financial rip offs by those wielding power
will otherwise remain and this Royal Commission may merely do some good but everyone
will go back to their original conduct unless this is prevented by appropriate legislation.
45
I may add that councils do invest monies and lost a lot in the GFC 2008 and charges interest and
as such to some extent are a financial institution albeit misusing rates for ulterior purposes.
I make it known that there is no restriction of confidentiality of the above details as they
50 are provided to the Royal Commission without restriction on usage and/or publication!
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)

20180827-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission FSRC-Supplement 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20180827-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission FSRC-Supplement 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Royal Commission FCR 27-8-2018

p2 27-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p3 27-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. MUNRO: But as to trading corporations!

p4 27-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Sub-clause agreed to.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)

15 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. ISAACS.-Mr. Barton has given an opinion that it would not.

MR. REID.-The lawyers.

Mr. MCMILLAN.-The lawyers?

Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, thrusting it on them.

Dr. COCKBURN.-The disagreement is not legal, but constitutional.

p6 27-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

40 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.

50 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p8 27-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

p9 27-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5 HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Barwick C.J.(1), McTiernan(2), Menzies(3), Walsh(4), Gibbs(5) and Stephen(6)JJ.

QUOTE Barwick C.J.(1)

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

40 Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p12 27-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20 Then consider the following also:

Ms PIKE (Minister for Health) - I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Access to a reliable supply of good quality drinking water is fundamental to community

Through this bill, this government is proposing a comprehensive, statewide regulatory

p13 27-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p14 27-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p15 27-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

You might also like