20150713-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission Into Trade Union Governance and Corruption-SUBMISSION-supplement-01

Page 1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The Hon John Dyson Heydon AC QC
C/o submissions@turc.gov.au
13-7-2015
5
Ref; 20150713 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commission into trade union governance and
corruption SUBMISSION-supplement-01
Sir,
it has been reported that the ROYAL COMMISSION had been dealing with union funding
10 candidates in political elections such as Mr Bill Shorten. (See also my statement at the end of
this correspondence!)
15
http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2015/07/12/bill-shortens-mystery-woman-his-spy-in-the-police-ministersoffice-and-the-links-to-the-hsu-fraud/#comment-61250
Bill Shortens mystery woman. His spy in the Police Ministers office and the links to the HSU fraud
Do note; and every union had to pay for someone to work in a certain electorate.: Which
I understand may have been direct payment and/or paid employee and/or other services..
http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2015/07/12/bill-shortens-mystery-woman-his-spy-in-the-police-ministersoffice-and-the-links-to-the-hsu-fraud/#comment-61250
20 QUOTE
25
Ms Hall was employed at the HSU in 2006 up to the 2007 election. The Australian Council of Trade Unions
(ACTU) had a campaign against the Howard governments WorkChoices and every union had to pay for
someone to work in a certain electorate. The HSU were given La Trobe in Melbourne and Katie Hall was
employed to do the work. Her boss was Craig Thomson.
30
Katie Hall worked for federal MP Nicola Roxon (Ward and De Campo also did) and was her preferred
candidate to take over her seat of Gellibrand in Melbourne when she retired at the 2013 election.
Unfortunately someone put out a dirt sheet on Hall and her chances were gone. It was suspected that
Kimberley Kitching and her husband Andrew Landeryou who I have written about regularly (Click here to
read) wrote the dirt sheet as Ms Kitching was also a candidate.
35
In a 2013 interview with the ABCs 7.30 Report Katie Hall claims she was falsely smeared when trying to
win pre-selection for Labor in Gellibrand in 2013. She denied that she worked at the HSU under Craig
Thomson. The FWA report says different so maybe Hall wasnt smeared that much at all. (Click here to read
more)
END QUOTE
In my correspondences 150711-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re COMPLAINTS etc and 150712-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re COMPLAINTS - etcSUPPLEMENT 1 I refer to electoral matters and in SUPPLEMENT 21 refers to the article
40 quoting it in whole.
My correspondence to the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) is one that by the reported
evidence before the ROYAL COMMISSION it appears that not just Mr Bill Shorten but all
other ALP (Australian Labor Party) candidates were receiving donations and/or other supports.
45 As I raised the issue that the AEC should investigate all declarations, not just that of Mr Bill
Shorten as to disclosures then this must obviously include declarations of non-unions such as
Page 1
13-7-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist)
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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 2
companies, not just by unions but also by other companies. In my view this ROYAL
COMISSION ought to request its terms of references to be widened to include electoral
matters as clearly it would or could be seen that this ROYAL COMMISSION would be
nothing more but a Tony Abbott witch-hunt as at times referred to in the media, where it deals
5 with matters regarding ALP candidates and how they received donations/assistance from unions
but would leave out the other political parties which may likewise have this kind of structure
from businesses and where those candidates subsequently come into government provide so to
say favours being it by contracts/grands, etc that I view is no less an issue as that of the unions
doing the same.
10
For example did Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, etc, declare any union donations/assistance at
financial cost to the unions or other businesses?
Elections are the fundamental issues to maintain a democracy and where this is undermined by
not just unions but also by other companies, who are making payments of some sort to gain a
15 favourable position with those who are ending up in Government then this undermines
democracy.
While I have of late no longer been standing as an INDEPENDENT candidate, I have been in the
past in Federal, state and municipal council elections for some 16 years and stood against Jenny
20 Maclin (ALP). Obviously if she was receiving union donations and/or other she had not declared
in past elections when I stood as an INDEPENDENT candidate then this obviously is relevant to
me. The same is when during the 2010 State election, as I refer to in my writings to the AEC) I
pursued damages to be paid by Banyule City Council (which it never responded upon, I might
add) for its involvement in interfering with my election campaign in the Ivanhoe State election,
25 where Mr Anthony Carbines (ALP) was also a candidate and became declared to be elected.
Police records of the investigation was that unauthorised interferences had been with my election
material, including slashing of posters/banners and dumping them in my driveway.
Now that the unions are an obvious part of the ALP candidates it may in my view more likely
that they had been involved in this criminal conduct also, to seek to ensure Mr Anthony Carbines
30 was to be succeeding in the election. I understood that at the time the Liberal Party candidate
political advertising trailer had been put on fire in his front garden endangering the lives of not
only himself but also that of his wife and children.
It is reminiscent of the Painters & Dockers reported aggressiveness and violence that now may
be involved in the union support of ALP candidates.
35
If in fact the unions also donated and/or otherwise provide assistance to State election candidates
of the ALP such as Mr Anthony Carbines (ALP) then obviously the ROYAL COMMISSION
investigations may need to be widened for this also. The tentacles of the unions may bed far
reaching. But again I stress that I view that companies, other than unions should be included, as
40 otherwise the reported Tony Abbott ROYAL COMMISSION will indeed be seen to be so.
In my view the financial donations and other support by unions should not be standing apart from
other companies. In my view the end result is the same, to undermine FAIR and PROPER
elections and to undermine democracy.
.
45 Since 1982 I conducted a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS
PREVAIL and at times dealing with people who contemplated suicide and even murder
(including mass murder) and time again was promoting to people that they should nottake the
law into their own hands but should pursue to place matters before the High Court of Australia so
that their constitutional issues could be appropriately determined. That was until I personally
50 discovered to what I held the corruption within the High Court of Australia contrary to embedded
legal principles in the constitution:
Such as:
Page 2
13-7-2015
Page 3
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
5 END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am too well aware that ordinary citizens could risk everything
they worked for during their life merely as to pursue before the High Court of Australia
constitutional issues.
As such I view the source of corruption is derived from the conduct of judges at the High Court
of Australia as now politicians and others alike are well aware that ordinary citizens would have
no real opportunity to pursue their constitutional rights for fearing huge cost to be awarded where
the Court for example railroad their applications.
When one have judges who lack any proper training and understanding/comprehension of the
true meaning and application of the constitution adjudicating on constitutional matters then a
citizen could be financial devastated as result by the blatant disregard of judges to the true
meaning and application of the constitution.
An example is where I sought on 4 occasions to file an application in the High Court of
Australia, such as the 4th time on 19 March 2003 that any invasion into Iraq would be
unconstitutional unless the Governor-General published a DECLARATION OF WAR citing Iraq
in the gazette. The High Court of Australia refused to accept on 4 occasions the application for
filing and well we lost hundreds of soldiers and ended up with thousands of soldiers further being
harmed such as being disabled, and this as I view it because the judges so to say sold their soul to
the politicians rather than to abide by their judicial duties to adjudicate upon matters.
My application was not a political issue but a constitutional issue that without The
Governor-General having published in the Gazette a declaration of wart NO POWER EXISTED
for the Minister of the Defence to involve Australian troops to invade a friendly country such
as Iraq. Constitutionally the Prime Minister has no such authority! While Cabinet can have a
consensus to approve to go to war, it cannot override the Minister of Defence (being the
responsible Minister) and neither can circumvent the final decision of the Governor-General to
declare or not to declare war on a foreign nation.
.
35
40
HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the
Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one
would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a
responsible Minister.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
45
Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere
with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
END QUOTE
While the High Court of Australia as I view betrayed me and so the general community, in the
50 end in 2007 I appeared before the County Court of Victoria (invoking federal jurisdiction) where
I also had filed a s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS in which I also raised
during the litigation the fact that there had been an unconstitutional invasion into Iraq, as the
Governor-General had not authorised this by a DECLARATION OF WAR. I also challenged the
issue of purported Australian citizenship being a nationality, the Sue v Hill judgement being
Page 3
13-7-2015
Page 4
unconstitutional as being outside the High Court of Australias judicial powers, the issue of
unconstitutional compulsory voting, and a host of other constitutional issues. Safe to say that
neither the Commonwealth of Australia nor any Attorney-General challenged my numerous
submissions and both appeals were upheld without reservations.
5 In my view the judges of the High Court of Australia so to say have blood on their hands for
allowing this unconstitutional invasion to go ahead rather than to adjudicate upon matters on
basis of law.
.
10 Australasian Convention)
15
20
QUOTE Mr. SYMON.When we have done this it follows that as there is an element of policy, the existence of which no one
can deny, it will be even more necessary than in the case of the Federal High Court-which is not to deal
with matters of policy, or matters tainted with policy, to use the expression of another speaker-that the
tribunal which we are creating should be above the breath of political intrigue. To secure this, I think,
some provision should be inserted similar to the provisions which we have inserted in regard to the
Judges of the High Court. Whatever may have been the case as the Bill left us after the Adelaide
session, it seems to be imperative now, to give effect to what has already been done, that we should
introduce into the Constitution provisions binding the Federal Parliament to create an Inter-State
Commission, and placing the Inter-State Commission, when created, on a level which will raise it above
the possibility of the suspicion that its judgments or actions have been in any way influenced by
political considerations.
END QUOTE
.
25 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
30
35
(Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention),
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
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.
END QUOTE
As such, if one allows a Parliament to act as a sovereign parliament then this no longer can be
maintained and the courts are no longer independent/.impartial but nothing more but a
40 mouthpiece for the relevant government, so to say, serving their political masters. What we have
ended up with is what I view the corruption of the High Court of Australia and once you achieve
this then little wonder the rest will follow. How on earth can one have a judge of the High Court
of Australia to declare not to hand down a decision because he doesnt know the constitutional
issue concerned? While this ROYAL COMMISSION is about unions it cannot ignore that
45 where we have a High Court of Australia that fails to be seen as impartial and misled the general
community in its judgements as to the true meaning and application of the constitution then how
on earth (without seeking to justify it) can we expect unions to act honourably?
.
Section 101 of the c onstitution makes it mandatory (shall) for an Inter-State Commission to be
50 in place, one would hardly desire to go before the High Court of Australia which may simply
railroad an application by using interpretations that are far from what the Framers of the
Constitution embedded as legal principles in the constitution. As such the conduct of the High
court of Australia in my view is deterring citizens to not take the law into their own hands, as I
understand many lost confidence in it being an impartial court adjudicating on what so to say
55 their political masters may desire, far too often.
.
Page 4
13-7-2015
Page 5
(at 61) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
QUOTE
The term "implied freedom of communication concerning government and political matters" has been
well established in Australian constitutional discourse since the implication was first posited in Nationwide
News Pty Ltd v Wills1 and in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth2. However, as
Dawson J said in Levy v Victoria3:
QUOTE
10
Yet, the Framers of the Constitution stated;

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
15
END QUOTE
And
20 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
25
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for
their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history
of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to
be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
30 Therefore the freedom of communication, etc, was embedded in the constitution all along and if
the High Court of Australia only discovered this in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills4 and in Australian
Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth5 then this may underline how out of touch the High
Court of Australia was for so long.
.
35 QUOTE In R v Hall (Warwick & Asizes, 1-4-1845. Maule J.) (1845)

Be it so; yet you had no right to take the law into your own hands, I will tell you what you ought to have done,
and if you did know, I will tell you that the law conclusively presumes that you did.
END QUOTE
.
40 Yet, how on earth can union not take the law into their own hands (not that I seek to approve of
it) where even the High Court of Australia fails to adjudicate upon the true meaning and
application of the constitution such as in the WorkChoices 2006 decision by as I view it taking
out of context the statements of the Framers of the Constitution such as of the 27-12-1998
Hansard.
45
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices legislation
A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
This book goes in details about it all.
Page 5
13-7-2015
Page 6
As I have canvassed so often in my writings we need an OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN
(Dont forget the Hyphens!) which can challenge the Commonwealth of Australia and any other
authority upon constitutional issues and present to the courts the relevant details of constitutional
issues, so that judges can make an informed decision and not draw their perceptions from
5 foreign authorities that such as in the Monis case may pervert the course of justice.
.
As I submitted to the County Court of Victoria (exercising federal jurisdiction) on 19 July 2006,
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
10 QUOTE
15
20
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
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
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
.
25 As such no state parliament can amend its own constitution but by state referendum.
As such while ss51(xxxvii) allows the Commonwealth of Australia to accept a reference of
powers it doesnt however in itself permit the state do refer legislative powers. This as unless it
is by way of State referendum approved by electors no such reference of powers can be
30 constitutionally valid. This is also because by referring legislative powers it also undermine State
Supreme Court jurisdiction. This was not in my view considered by the High Court of Australia
in the WorkChoices judgment. In my view the State of Victoria therefore had no legislative
powers to refer industrial relations matters to the Commonwealth of Australia. The same can be
stated about the Commonwealth of Australia purportedly authorising litigation against the
35 Commonwealth of Australia to be conducted in foreign courts, where the constitution clearly
provides that the High Court of Australia shall have original jurisdiction.
Once you allow the undermining of the judiciary then how can you expect others to respect the
judiciary that goes along with it?
.
40 From The Age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
The corporatising of our courts

Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
March 24, 2005
45 QUOTE
50
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what
they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians,
but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's
independence.
END QUOTE
Clearly, the wording As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our
constitutional system indicates that this justice held there was a separation of powers within
55 state level.
Page 6
13-7-2015
Page 7
From The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
QUOTE
The corporatising of our courts
Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria

March 24, 2005
In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of the
court's independence.
10
15
20
For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and
rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had to
bite my tongue.
I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench, and
especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the perception of this
court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of that now because I have
been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes effective, I fear that nobody
will listen.
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what they
can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but while I
have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's independence.
One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on
remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing both
Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial salaries and
so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking.
25
Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive officer
be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be ultimately
answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.
30
That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming
absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a
movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.
35
This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court of
plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is the third
arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is to control
and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms and the
citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.
Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe - as
"Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which indiscriminately
includes all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.
40
This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are prescribed
by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the department at its
discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in this court, apparently in
disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of court.
Page 7
13-7-2015
Page 8
And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the
department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily avail
themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But access is
possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is the major
litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.
Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly, otherwise
than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is evolving is a
perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice, a perception
which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.
10
Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure and
its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no different
from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is simply not
the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over the years, and it
must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not 2to be subverted.
15
The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be,
impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all, and
ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of government.
Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a tribunal, properly
so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things flow from that. Such a
tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed terms, with the possibility
of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see that their remuneration is
fixed independently of the executive.
20
You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members
appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm when,
in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for the latter is
altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure.
25
There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising judicial
power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to this court for
a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary appointments at the
discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of tenure or, in a relatively
small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts have been remarkably free
from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be, and be seen to be, impartial and
so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to conflict or the appearance of bias.
30
35
In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals pass
like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness but in
one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is demanded
of the appointee.
John D. Phillips is retiring as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is part of his farewell address to
the court.
40
END QUOTE
Constitutionally there is a division between the Judiciary and the legislators and executives.
.
45 It should be noted that the wording and for the due and impartial administration of justice
which Oaths the said Chief Justice or Judge is hereby required to administer leaves it
beyond doubt that the Chief Justice or Judge must for the due and impartial administration
of justice make an oath. As such the separation of powers in the State of Victoria is enshrined
in this Proclamation as the Governor cannot act otherwise nor so any judge.
50
Page 8
13-7-2015
Page 9
FOURTH SUPPLEMENT
TO THE
VICTORIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
OF FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1900.
Published by Authority
No. 2.] WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2. [1901.
5
QUOTE
follows :
10
15
20
IV. Every person appointed to fill the Office of Governor shall with, all due solemnity, before entering on
any of the duties of his Office, cause the Commission appointing to be Governor to be read and published
at, the seat of Government, in the presence of the Chief .Justice, or some other Judge of the Supreme Court of
the State, and of she Members of the Executive Council thereof, which being done, he shall then and there
take before them the Oath of Allegiance, in the form provided by an Act passed in the Session holden in tile
Thirty-first and Thirty-second years of Our Reign, intituled an Act to amend the Law relating to Promissory
Oaths ; ,and likewise the usual Oath for the due execution of the Office of Governor, and for the due and
impartial administration of justice which Oaths the said Chief Justice or Judge ishereby required to
administer.
END QUOTE
The Office of the Governor (Victoria) as per 2-1-1901 PROCLAMATION, that was Gazetted
requires that the Governor appoints independent judges! As such, any notion that there being no
separation of powers in the states utter and sheer nonsense.
Where then unions find that their union members and others are denied their constitutional rights
25 and the Victorian Parliament for example without authority of the State electors purportedly
referred legislative (and so judicial) powers to the Commonwealth of Australia then one hardly
can wonder that unions will seek to use their powers in whatever way they deem fit and
appropriate to try to address issues. I may not approve of unions doing so but then the courts
themselves should have acted appropriately and this I view it fails far too often to do.
30
Workers (not just members) by this have been robbed of their constitutional rights of contracts as
was provided for by the legal principles embedded in the constitution, also applicable to the State
of Victoria.
.
35 I may add that French CJ, prior to

THE REFERRAL OF STATE POWERS COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM LIVES ?
(Pending Publication in the University of Western Australia Law Review)
40
Justice R S French
Federal Court of Australia

PERTH WA
45
50
QUOTE
At the outset it may be observed that the power is not, in express terms, a power to refer matters. It is a
power conferred upon the parliament of the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to matters
referred. This has the important consequence that the laws so made are federal laws. The legislative power
conferred by section 51(xxxvii) is subject to the Constitution. So constitutional prohibitions will operate with
respect to it. Being federal laws, laws made pursuant to s 51(xxxvii) attract the operation of section 109 in
respect of inconsistent State laws.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
A question has been raised in academic commentary about whether a law adopted by a State parliament
pursuant to section 51(xxxvii) is also a Commonwealth law.6 The power conferred by section 51(xxxvii) is
6
JA Thomson Adopting Commonwealth Laws: Section 51(xxxvii) of

the Australian Constitution (1993) 4 PLR 153.
Page 9
13-7-2015
Page 10
qualified so as to limit the operation of a law made under it to the referring States and to any States adopting
that law. With respect to the contrary view, it is difficult to see how the language of the
section could contemplate a law made pursuant to section 51(xxxvii) somehow changing its
character from Federal to State depending upon whether it applied to a referring or an adopting State.
10
15
Section 51(xxxvii) does not expressly confer power upon the States to refer matters or adopt laws
made under it. Nor does it specify the mechanism by which State parliaments shall refer matters to the
Parliament of the Commonwealth or adopt laws made under the referral power. The practice has been
to effect such referrals and adoptions by Acts of the State parliaments. The source of the power to refer is to
be found either in the State Constitutions or, by implication, from the Commonwealth Constitution. This
precise question has not fallen for determination.
END QUOTE
Let us see what the Framers of the Constitution stated:

QUOTE
20
Sub-section (35).-Matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments
of any state or states, but so that the law shall extend only to the state or states by whose Parliament or
Parliaments the matters was referred, and to such other states as may afterwards adopt the law.
25
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-I wish to call attention to this sub-section, which, like several others in this
portion of clause 52, represents a power first conferred upon the Federal Council, but which, as it appears to
me, if allowed to remain in its present restricted form-suitable enough as that may have been to the Federal
Council-is altogether unsuitable to the differing conditions of the Federal Parliament. In the original draft of
the Federal Council Bill the proposal was framed in clause 16 as follows:The Governors of any two or more of the colonies may, upon an address of the Legislatures of such
colonies, refer for the consideration and determination of the Council any questions relating to those colonies
or their relations with one another, and the Council shall thereupon have authority to consider and determine
by Act of Council the matter so referred to it.
30
35
40
45
50
The draftsman who advised the Imperial Government altered that including it in section 15 of the Imperial
Act constituting a Federal Council, where it forms the last part of subsection (i). The first part of the subsection gives the Federal Council legislative authority in respect to the several matters following, and the
clause before us, freely translated, follows:Any other matter of general Australasian interest with respect to which the Legislatures of the several
colonies can legislate within their own limits, and as to which it is deemed desirable that there should
be a law of general application.
Now, that appears to be ample for all the legislation which the Federal Council could have dealt with. That
body has no Executive, has no Budget, and undertakes no expenditure. That body is [start page 216] the mere
creature of the colonies, is dependent upon them, except within a very limited area, and, in fact, altogether for
any expenditure it may be necessary to incur. Now, during the discussion of the question of old-age pensions,
when I referred to the possibility of that matter being dealt with under this sub-section, I evoked a comment
from Sir John Downer, which called my attention in a particularly pointed way to a present weakness of the
sub-section in this respect. It may well be that some matters referred by the several state Parliaments to the
Federal Parliament, in order that common legislation may be passed for one or more colonies, may require
legislation involving some expenditure-expenditure which must be undertaken in order to give effect to that
legislation. It might be for the ordinary machinery administration-the payment of salaries of certain officersor it might be the power to levy certain fees and collect certain charges; or it might involve direct taxation;
but in all such cases it appears to me that the present sub-section may be inadequate. For instance, if reference
be made to sub-section (3) of this clause 52 it will be found that the Federal Parliament has only the power to
raise money by systems of taxation which shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. Consequently, if
any legislation referring to any less number of the colonies than the whole of the colonies, and which
involved any expenditure, was passed by the Federal Parliament, although those colonies were willing to vote
that expenditure, the Federal Parliament might have no power to raise that money. The only possible means
Page 10
13-7-2015
10
15
Page 11
of the Federal Parliament obtaining that power would be if it were conferred in the provisions of the referring
statutes passed by the referring colonies, but unless those provisions exactly agreed-and agreement would be
extremely difficult to arrive at-the probability is that the law would be inharmonious and fail in its effect. I
would suggest to the leader of the Convention that he should consider whether there should not be such a
modification of sub-section (3), which provides for the raising of money by the Commonwealth, as would
allow of a reference by two or three colonies desiring to intrust the Federal Parliament with the task of
framing legislation for them, and enabling the Federal Parliament, if so called upon, to provide for the raising
of the necessary revenue in those colonies. That would be one means of meeting the difficulty. Another
means might be that when two or more colonies had determined, under sub-section (35), to refer to the
Commonwealth Parliament any matter which required the raising of money from their citizens, it should be
possible, for the Commonwealth, in regard to those particular matters, to provide for the necessary taxation to
be levied in those colonies by the central authority, instead of leaving them to the very difficult task of
coming to an independent agreement among themselves as to all the details of the method by which the
money should be provided.
Mr. GLYNN.-Strike the sub-section out.
Mr. SYMON.-That is the best solution of the difficulty.
Mr. DEAKIN.-That may be so.
Mr. GLYNN.-We may have a conflict of laws under the sub-section.
Mr. BARTON.-Such laws can only apply to the referring states themselves.
20
Mr. DEAKIN.-They would not be, in the strict sense of the term, federal laws.
Mr. BARTON.-No, they would only apply to the states which referred the matters to the Federal
Parliament.
25
30
Mr. DEAKIN.-Exactly; but those laws can be adopted by the other states. If two or three colonies
join in requesting the Federal Parliament to pass a statute on a particular matter applying only to
those two or three colonies, and that law has been enacted and proved to work well, the remaining
colonies of the group may adopt it, and finally [start page 217] you may have the Commonwealth in
this position, that every colony in the group has adopted, as far as it can adopt, that particular law,
which then ought to be a federal law. This contingency is perhaps provided for. That being so, it becomes
necessary for us to consider whether we should not also provide for the other contingency. If all the states of
the group except one, or if three of the larger colonies, or any three of the colonies, required a common
statute in regard to a particular subject, and the administration of that statute involved the raising of money,
the Federal Government ought to be able to provide for the levying of that money under the same law if so
requested by those concerned.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Will you briefly restate the point?
35
40
45
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,
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
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. It appears to me that this sub-section, which is
certainly one of the very valuable sub-sections of this clause, affording, as it does, means by which the
colonies may by common agreement bring about federal action, without amending the Constitution, needs to
be rendered more explicit. One point more especially which needs to be rendered clear is whether, when we
Page 11
13-7-2015
Page 12
have this federal action, there shall not be a federal means of providing for the necessary revenue that may be
required or for imposing the necessary charges under such legislation.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Is that not implied?
10
15
20
25
Mr. DEAKIN.-If it is implied, would it not be best to make it explicit? The parentage of this clause, as I
have shown-originating as it does in a body with practically no financial power-casts a certain suspicion on
that reading of it, although, of course, the provision when embodied in this Act would have a different effect.
Still, why not make it clear whether we mean that, when the Federal Parliament has passed federal legislation
for some of the colonies, we shall allow that same legislation to deal with any necessary raising of revenue
from those colonies which may be required to give effect to the legislation?
Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-I think the point taken by my honorable friend (Mr. Deakin) is one well worthy of
the consideration of the Drafting Committee, and probably the difficulty to which he has drawn attention
could be obviated by some such provision as that which he suggested. But this matter has struck me also
from another point of view, and it seems to me that the provision affords an easy method of amending
the Federal Constitution, without referring such amendments to the people of the various states for
their assent. Now, either when the state Parliaments have referred these matters to the Federal Parliament,
and the Federal Parliament has dealt with such matters, that becomes a federal law, and cannot afterwards be
repealed or revoked by the State Parliaments-that is one position, and in that case, of course, the reference
once made [start page 218] is a reference for all time, and cannot be revoked, so that to that extent it
becomes an amendment of the states' Constitution, incorporated in and engrafted on the Federal
Constitution without the consent of the people of the various states. On the other hand, if that be not so,
and the states can, after making such reference, repeal such reference, what is the result? You have a
constant state of change-no guarantee for continuity or permanence-in this class of laws, and this might lead
to a great deal of confusion and a most unsatisfactory state of things. My principal objection to the
provision is that it affords a free and easy method of amending the Federal Constitution without such
amendments being carried into effect in the manner provided by this Constitution.
Mr. BARTON.-I cannot understand how it gives an opportunity of amending the Federal
Constitution.
30
35
Dr. QUICK.-In this way. At present clause 52, which we are now discussing, deals with the powers of the
Federal Parliament. It defines those powers in specific terms, in specific paragraphs. Very well. Then, if
under this sub-section power be given to the state Parliaments to refer other matters to the Federal Parliament,
to that extent the powers of the Federal Parliament are enlarged, and therefore there is an enlargement of the
Constitution. This enlarges the power of the Federal Parliament, and when a law is passed by the Federal
Parliament, it becomes binding on the citizens of the states the Parliaments of which have made reference;
and if these laws are binding, I say they become federal laws, and those federal laws may be administered by
federal courts. Consequently, these referred powers become federal powers, and to that extent this becomes a
means of amending the Federal Constitution.
An HONORABLE MEMBER.-The state Parliaments may refer some subjects to the Federal Parliament
without the consent of the people.
40
Dr. QUICK.-True, the state Parliaments may refer some subjects to the Federal Parliament without the
consent of the people of the states-that is my point-and to that extent the powers become grafted on the
Federal Constitution in a manner directly different from the mode provided by this Constitution.
Mr. BARTON.-You can make amendments in your Constitution without referring to the people.
45
Dr. QUICK.-That is so, but there is a distinct provision here that there is to be no amendment of the
Constitution without first such amendment being passed by the Federal Parliament, and then submitted to the
people of the states, and there must be a majority of the people and a majority of the states before such
amendment can become law. In this case also, I have to use an expression which has been frequently
indulged in by Mr. Symon, that another mischievous result will follow from this power of reference.
Supposing a state Parliament is troubled and bothered with an agitation upon a certain question-say, that of
old-age pensions-and the state wants to get rid of a troublesome problem, it may simply, out of its inclination
Page 12
13-7-2015
Page 13
to get rid of the difficulty, pass a Referring Bill shunting the question on to the Federal Parliament, and the
matter may there be hung up on account of other difficulties. Once a state has referred a matter to the
Federal Parliament of course it cannot deal with it itself.
Mr. BARTON.-And it cannot repeal the law referring the matter.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Dr. QUICK.-There seems to be a difference of opinion on that point. I myself agree with the Premier
of Victoria that there is power to repeal, and, consequently that the power of reference is not an
ultimate power; it may be repealed, and what is the result? It would lead to a most unsatisfactory state of
affairs. My view is that the sub-section should be struck out altogether.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think we are greatly indebted to Mr. Deakin [start page 219] and Dr.
Quick for raising this question. The only wonder is that it has not struck us at an earlier stage of our
proceedings how very mischievous-to repeat a word which has just been attributed to me-this sub-section
may possibly become. I do not know, whether a state, after referring a particular subject of legislation
to the Federal Parliament could not revoke the reference. My own personal view is that it could. It
could revoke the reference, but if the Federal Parliament has acted upon that reference, and legislated
upon it, then I think that legislation becomes federal legislation, and could not be revoked or interfered
with in any way by the State. If, as Mr. Deakin has said, they have appealed to Caesar, they must be bound
by Caesar's decree, Caesar in this case being the Federal Parliament. The law so passed by the Federal
Parliament would become federal law for all time until the Federal Parliament repealed it. Now, if the
state happened to change its mind on this particular matter, what would be the result? The reference to the
Federal Parliament may have been a mere political contrivance for the moment, as Dr. Quick has pointed out,
to get rid of some troublesome question. But if the state at some future period desired to legislate on its
own account, and to deal with the matter, which perhaps was a matter of purely local concern, it would
be faced with another portion of the Constitution, which says that no state law shall prevail if it is in
conflict with the federal law. A majority in Parliament, in order to get rid of a difficulty, might refer it to the
federal authority, and then we might find subsequently the people of the state hampered by the impossibility
of their retracing their steps, and carrying out legislation which they considered necessary and desirable. I
think, myself, that the better way would be to strike out this provision altogether. It is inconsistent, it seems to
me, with the foundation of our Federal Government. We declare here specific powers to be intrusted to the
Federal Parliament, and by those we should abide, except so far as the matter is controlled by sub-section
(36). It ought not to be competent for any state to get rid of a troublesome matter of legislation by saying"We will refer this to the Federal Parliament." It is obvious that, as has been pointed out by Dr. Quick, this
provision would extend powers to the Federal Parliament to a degree which would depend upon the hazard of
the moment. Now we are doing all we can, by debating the matter day after day, to secure that those powers
may be as precise as possible, and be brought within the limits of the necessities of the case. But here we are
giving to any state the power of sending on to the Federal Parliament, for debate and legislation, some matter
which it is purely for themselves to deal with, and I do not think we ought to put it in the power of states to
relieve themselves from their own responsibilities in legislation or administration by any such easy
contrivance as this might turn out to be. I think the provision is really in by mistake. I was not aware until it
was pointed out by Mr. Deakin, that it had its origin in connexion with the Federal Council Act, though
I know it exists there. It might be applicable in that case, but it is not applicable to the Federal
Government we are now seeking to establish. I would also point out that sub-section (36) really gives a
very wide power in connexion with the exercise of legislative authority to the Federal Parliament, a power
which I fancy would, if it were desired to extend power to the Federal Parliament, meet the case. Sub-section
(36) enables the Federal Parliament to make laws with respect toThe exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the
states concerned, of any legislative powers which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised
only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia.
[start page 220]
Mr. DEAKIN.-That is a different thing altogether.
50
Mr. SYMON.-I am not quite sure whether that is a desirable provision to leave in.
Mr. ISAACS.-It is much too large; I intended to call attention to it.
Page 13
13-7-2015
Page 14
Mr. SYMON.-I think this matter was brought up before, and it is a much more serious matter than
honorable members might at the first glance be disposed to think. I believe it would enable states, in a matter
of purely local legislation, to refer the matter to the Federal Parliament for it to deal with. I have not referred
to the provisions of the Federal Council Act, but I think the concluding words of sub-section (36), if left in at
all, should certainly be very carefully considered. I do not know what they mean or how extensive they may
be.
Mr. DOBSON.-Could you give any illustration of a matter which would be referred to the Federal
Parliament by one of the colonies?
10
Mr. SYMON.-Not of what would be referred, but of what might be referred. I will choose one which it
might be very proper for us to refer to the Federal Parliament-the question of the disputed boundary between
South Australia and Victoria. The reference would probably be quite ineffective, as the Federal Parliament
would not deal with a subject of that kind at the invitation of one state.
Mr. BARTON.-If they did the settlement could only extend to that state.
15
Mr. SYMON.-But look at the invitation which this would give for the engendering of heat, passion, and
discussion in the Federal Parliament. Look at the difficulties that would be raised on the part of the Federal
Parliament in having a matter of that kind brought under its notice at all. There might be other matters of
social concern, and one was mentioned by Mr. Deakin, that of old-age pensions.
Mr. DOBSON.-That would hardly come under this provision. The financial part of it would operate against
its being referred.
20
Mr. SYMON.-As Mr. Deakin has put it, supposing such questions were referred, how is the Federal
Parliament to deal with them without some enabling powers with regard to finance?
Mr. OCONNOR.-If a state referred question of state finance it might be dealt with.
Mr. SYMON.-Does the honorable member say that that would be a desirable thing to do?
Mr. BARTON.-Is it not for the people of the state to determine whether it is desirable?
25
30
35
Mr. SYMON.-Is it desirable to shunt on to the Federal Parliament a power that we have not settled in the
Constitution? Would not this reduce the powers of the federal authority to a mere fluctuating quantity? My
view is that we should strike this provision out altogether, and amend if necessary the succeeding subsection
(36). We could then do whatever may be desirable within proper limits.
Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I cannot see any of the difficulties which Mr. Deakin, Mr.
Symon, and Dr. Quick anticipate in connexion with this sub-section. This, of course, is to be an inelastic
Constitution, which can only be altered after great thought and with much trouble. We define what are to be
the boundaries of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. We leave everything else to the states. It may
be that questions may afterwards arise which concern one, two, or three states, but which are not
sufficiently great to require a complete revision of the whole Constitution, with all the troublesome
proceedings that have to be taken to bring about a reform. It would much facilitate matters if these
questions could be referred to the Federal Parliament.
Mr. DEAKIN.-It would not be an easy process. You know how hard it is to get even two colonies to agree
to anything.
[start page 221]
40
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-It would be easy compared with an alteration of the Constitution.
Mr. DEAKIN.-It would not be too easy.
Page 14
13-7-2015
10
Page 15
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Nothing should be too easy. We have the power to alter the Constitution, but it
is a power that can only be exercised with great difficulty. We also have a power of quasi-arbitration,
which the Commonwealth Parliament can exercise in an easier way, although not without some difficulty, at
the request of one or more states. Now, is not that a good principle? I do not think many honorable members
will say it is not. It is suggested that we are allowing the states to throw upon the Federal Parliament a
responsibility they ought to take themselves. My answer is that every state wants to aggrandize itself, to
increase its authority, and it will only be in very extreme cases that the states will resort to this means of
getting rid of a difficulty. In an extreme case, is there any harm in having a comparatively easy method of
reference, not to troublesome negotiations, nor to the Imperial Parliament, but to the Federal Parliament.
Mr. BARTON.-It might be impossible to dispose of the matter excepting in that particular way.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Yes.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Take a case of dispute regarding a boundary.
15
20
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Yes, the cases might be infinite. Take a question of disputed territory, for instance.
What could be more proper than that Victoria, if she became reasonable for once, should say-"Look here, we
know we promised to do it; we know we have broken our promises; we acknowledge our transgressions, and
will refer the matter at once to the Federal Parliament"? Who would blame her? Certainly not South
Australia. Even in connexion with the question of rivers some point might arise that might concern two or
three colonies, and that could not concern all the colonies. That, again, might be a proper matter for reference,
but it could not be a common matter of legislation in respect of every state. I will now take the points Mr.
Deakin makes. He doubts whether this power of legislation will carry with it a power of raising the necessary
money to give effect to the legislation.
Mr. ISAACS.-The states themselves will determine that.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Yes, the honorable member has given the answer.
Mr. DEAKIN.-Read it with sub-section (3).
25
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think that sub-section affects the matter in the slightest degree.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Sub-section (3) refers to the raising of money for the purposes of the Commonwealth
itself.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Yes, and it can, in my opinion, have no relation to this question. When a matter is
referred the Parliament of the Commonwealth will have unlimited powers of legislation.
30
35
40
45
Mr. DEAKIN.-To the extent of the reference.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Exactly; but the parliament will be entitled to make a law about it which will
be as good as any other law. The only thing is that it will be limited in its area of application. Within the
limits of the reference, it could deal with finances or any other question. I can see no difficulty at all in
carrying out the sub-section in that respect, and I do not think that it wants any addition. We have practically
to consider this from the point of view of a question of policy. Is it worth while to leave to the states a
power of referring disputed questions that may concern one or more, but may not concern all? What
possible difficulty can there be? It may be said that this should be left to the people, but the Parliament can
decide. This Bill, before it can go home and can assume the form of an Imperial statute, will have to be
submitted to a referendum of the people of each colony. It is only after that has been done that it can be made
an Imperial [start page 222] statute, and why should we not give this power of reference to the states if it is a
power that would work well? For my own part, I do not think the sub-section requires even verbal
amendment. It will work quite well as it is so far as machinery is concerned. In regard to the principle, I think
it is a very advisable power to confer, and I hope the sub-section will be agreed to.
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-My honorable friend (Sir John Downer) has put in better language than I could
have employed many of the views I was going to present to the Convention. The object of the sub-section I
Page 15
13-7-2015
10
15
20
25
Page 16
take to be this. The foregoing sub-sections deal with matters upon which authority is to be given to the
Federal Parliament to legislate with regard to all the colonies. They are admittedly matters of common
concern. Then it was thought that there might be other matters that might turn out to be matters of
common concern, but that are not yet regarded as such or have not yet arisen in any way. In the course
of the existence of the Commonwealth questions may arise that we do not foresee, and without any
amendment of the Constitution the states may if they choose refer them to the federal power. Or it may
be that any two states, unable each of them separately to legislate beyond their own boundaries, may ask that
this power to legislate may be given to them without the necessity to go to the federal authority. It is
perfectly plain that two separate states, even if they legislate in exactly the same terms, cannot carry
the effect of their laws beyond their own boundaries. There may be a difficulty, political or otherwise, as
to leaving it in the power of any one state to refer to the Federal Parliament matters of purely local concern. If
there be any objection on that ground, I suggest that it can be got rid of by saying that this power shall be
limited to matters which may be referred by two or more states to the Federal Parliament. That, I think, would
obviate any of the difficulties which Mr. Symon has foreshadowed, and would carry out what we really want.
No state, so far as I can imagine, requires to refer to the Federal Parliament the passing of any law that is to
affect itself alone. But if it agrees with another state that some law; not to be of universal application
throughout the Commonwealth, but to affect it and that other state alone, should be passed, power should
be given in some such clause as this to ask the Federal Parliament to enact that what both states desire shall
be of common application to them.
Mr. SYMON.-Could you put that in sub-section (36)?
Mr. ISAACS.-I do not wish to anticipate what I have to say upon sub-section (36). I think that that subsection requires amendment, and that it is too large for more reasons than one. But in my opinion the object
of sub-section (35) would be better obtained by striking out the power of one state to refer its own
purely local concerns to the Legislature of the Federation, and by limiting this power to cases where
two or more states desire to be bound by the federal authority.
Mr. BARTON.-Does the honorable and learned member say that sub-section (36) is too large? I would like
to mention that we left out some restricting words because we thought that the provision was restricted by the
whole scope of the clause.
30
35
Mr. ISAACS.-Well, I do not wish to confuse the two sub-sections. I think that Mr. Symon's objections will
be met if we use the words matters referred to the Commonwealth by the Parliaments of any two or more
states." A state Parliament may say-"We will not deal with this matter; we will refer it to the Federal
Parliament." Some honorable members may think that a shirking of responsibility. I do not attach any weight
to that contention, but I do not think anything is substantially gained by keeping in the provision.
Mr. BARTON.-If a state Parliament wants to shirk its responsibility it can fall back upon the
referendum.
[start page 223]
40
45
Mr. ISAACS.-With regard to the other point that a state may repeal a law, I do not agree with that
argument. If a state refers a matter to the Federal Parliament, after the Federal Parliament has
exercised its power to deal with that matter the state ceases to be able to interfere in regard to it.
Moreover, when the Commonwealth has passed a law at the request of any Parliament or Parliaments,
and the Parliament of a third state adopts it, it adopts a Commonwealth law, and it requires the
consent of the Commonwealth to get rid of that law. In my opinion, there is no power of repeal with the
states, and I feel no doubt that I have read among the decisions of the United States, one which is to the
effect, although I cannot just now lay my hands upon it, that when a state has, with the consent of
Congress, made certain enactments the power of Congress is required to repeal those enactments.
Mr. REID.-Otherwise the provision would be perfectly idle. A state would refer a matter to the
Commonwealth, and, not being pleased with the precise manner in which that matter was dealt with, it would
immediately repeal the law.
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; the state might just as well pass the law for itself.
Page 16
13-7-2015
Page 17
Mr. OCONNOR.-A law once passed under this provision becomes a federal law.
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes, and nothing less than the federal authority can get rid of it.
10
15
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales). With regard to the particular sub-section which we have now in hand, I
have not been brought to see that any dangerous power is given in it, or that there is any reason for an
alteration. Let us take first the suggestion of the honorable and learned member (Mr. Deakin). The Federal
Parliament can only deal with such matters as a state or states refer to it. A state may refer to the Federal
Legislature a certain subject without referring, or expressly excepting from the reference, any financial
dealing with that subject. In such a case the Commonwealth could only legislate upon the subject so far as its
financial aspects were not concerned. If the whole subject were referred, not excepting finance, the
Commonwealth could legislate to the whole extent of the reference. I think that the words used in the subsection are ample for either case. The difference with regard to sub-section(3)is this: It is plain that that subsection refers only to the raising of money by any mode of taxation for general Commonwealth purposes.
Like all the rest of these sub-sections, with the exception of one or two which contains special provisions, it
concerns matters relating to the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth," and the word
Commonwealth" means prima facie the whole Commonwealth. In this sub-section, however, there are special
words which prevent the law applying to the whole Commonwealth, and these are the words quoted by the
honorable and learned member (Mr. Deakin):But so that the law shall extend only to the state or states by whose Parliament or Parliaments the matter was
referred, and to such other states as may afterwards adopt the law.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
It seems to me that if there is any raising of money intended by the states to be delegated to the
Commonwealth-and they can only delegate their legislative authority to a certain extent, provided for by the
Constitution-that will be expressed in the reference, or it can be excluded from any reference. In the one case
or the other the Commonwealth can only proceed as far as the extent of the reference. Then there was the
objection of the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick), that this provision affords an easy method
of amending the state Constitution without the use of the referendum. But at the present time the state
Constitutions do not provide for the use of the referendum. The government of the states is by a majority of
the representatives of the people, and it must [start page 224] be constitutionally assumed that when a
majority of the two Houses of Parliament make a law the people speak through that law. If the people choose
to speak through a law made in this way, there is no evasion of responsibility when an appeal was made to a
superior authority for the settlement of a difficulty incapable of settlement by the relations of two bodies at
issue. This is not a restriction but an enlargement of the legislative powers of the states, which I think is in the
spirit of democracy, and one that we should grant.
Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-I want to ask the leader of the Convention a question, his answer to
which will influence my vote on the subject before us. The sub-section upon which we are dealing and the
following sub-section are the only ones which provide for an extension of the powers of the Commonwealth.
I have been looking up the clauses in Chapter VIII., and I do not see that under them any extension of the
powers of the Commonwealth can be dealt with. I want to know whether I am right in supposing that under
these clauses no extension of the powers or scope of the Commonwealth would be possible, because I think
that under that chapter, if any alteration of the Constitution of the Commonwealth is desired, the states, to
obtain it, must first-have a law passed by the Commonwealth Parliament? Now, suppose it is proposed to
enlarge the power of the Commonwealth, by placing under its control the administration of Crown lands.
First of all, the Federal Parliament would have to pass a law upon this subject, and that law might be held to
be ultra vires. There would be no power to submit anything to the electors without Parliament first of all
passing a Bill, which, however, would be from the outset outside its power. I should like to know from the
leader of the Convention whether my view of this matter is correct?
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-What I understand my honorable friend (Mr. Holder) to ask is this:
Suppose it were desired that extra-legislative power than now exists should be granted to the Commonwealthas, for instance, to take under its control questions relating to Crown lands, and so on-whether an alteration in
the Constitution in that direction would be ultra vires? Now, the Bill provides, in Chapter VIII., that the
provisions of the Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner;" which, to my mind,
means that if the processes specified are adopted the provisions can be altered in any way. I take the
provision to mean that authority is given to the Commonwealth under the processes here specified to alter this
Constitution in any manner, so far as it deals with the affairs of Federated Australia, and not with affairs
Page 17
13-7-2015
Page 18
outside the dominion of Australia. Consequently, if it were proposed to add a legislative power of the kind
suggested by Mr. Holder, I take it that as Chapter VIII. provides first for the passage of the proposed
law by an absolute majority, and then for a referendum, the law would have no effect unless the
majorities of the several states agreed to it. So that not only the Commonwealth but the states would have
to agree to the passage of the law. Then any objection to that law becoming a new part of the Constitution of
the Commonwealth would vanish; because, I think, so much authority is conceded by Chapter VIII.
Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-I think that the difficulty is that Chapter VIII. does not give power for
an amendment of the Constitution, except by implication, but simply opposes limitations in the mode of the
exercise of the power of amendment. I would suggest to the leader of the Convention that we might add a
clause permitting the alteration of this Constitution, subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII. That would
include amongst the powers of the Parliament a power which is very necessary, and which it is no doubt
intended to give by the Bill, but which is not at present provided for as clearly as might be.
10
[start page 225]

Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-In connexion with the point raised by Dr. Quick that this provision might
lead to an amendment of the Constitution otherwise than under clause 121, I would like to suggest that the
reference would be as to a specific point. It might be to settle a particular matter of legislation, but not a
general power. But we are still in this dilemma: That the state might, by referring the matter to the state
Parliament, deprive itself of the right of repeal, and thus take away the general power of legislation
from the state Parliament. As I understand, a state Parliament cannot at present abrogate its own
powers. It might pass a particular Act or it might repeal an Act, but here the Parliament of the state is
giving away some power without the consent of the people of the state. We are giving power to the state
Parliament to give away their sovereign powers without the consent of their people.
15
20
Mr. DEAKIN.-To commit political suicide.

Mr. GLYNN.-That is really what it amounts to. It certainly requires serious consideration.
25
The subsection was agreed to.

Sub-section (36)The exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the
states concerned, of any legislative powers which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised
only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia.
30
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales.)-I might mention as to this sub-section that there is a difference
between its language and the language of the corresponding sub-section in the Bill of 1891. The difference is
this:-In the Bill of 1891, after the words legislative powers" there came the words with respect to the affairs
of the territory of the Commonwealth, or any part of it." It was considered unnecessary to retain those words,
because the whole scope of the legislative authority is that the legislation should be for the peace and good
government of the Commonwealth itself. Inasmuch as the Commonwealth cannot make any laws except
for the peace, order, or good government of the Commonwealth itself, we thought that it could not
make laws except with respect to the affairs of the territory of the Commonwealth or any part of it.
35
Mr. KINGSTON.-Will this give power to legislate with reference to a part only?
40
Mr. BARTON.-Only to the extent of the reference made. It must be a matter referred with the consent of
the Parliament, so that it would only apply to the extent of the reference made.
END QUOTE
.
Re; No. 92, 1986 Commonwealth Powers (Family LawChildren) Act 1986
45 It relates to a state Parliament and referendum, as such a referendum is needed to accept a
State to have accepted it reference of Power.
Also;
Page 18
13-7-2015
Page 19
QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).I take it that as Chapter VIII. provides first for the passage of the proposed law by an absolute
majority, and then for a referendum, the law would have no effect unless the majorities of the
several states agreed to it. So that not only the Commonwealth but the states would have to
agree to the passage of the law.
END QUOTE
.
Albeit, a State can adapt a Commonwealth law that is validly enacted within The
10 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), the reference of power however is
limited, where it is to create legislative powers that doesnt exist previously So that not only
the Commonwealth but the states would have to agree to the passage of the law.. As such,
it is not an issue for the Commonwealth to legislate on any matter referred to it unless by way of
referendum this was accepted. The Victorian purported reference of powers Commonwealth
15 Powers (Family Law- Children) Act 1993 No.92 of 1986 the Mutual Recognition (Victoria) Act
1993 were never approved by way of referendum and are NOT AT ALL part of the
Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth albeit so claimed in prints of The Commonwealth
of Australia ConstitutionAct 1900 (UK).
20 On 7 and subsequently on 21 October 1986 the Legislative Council passed the Commonwealth
Powers (Family Law - Children) Act 1986 No 92 which was Gazetted on 16 December 1986
and came into force on 28 October 1987. Version 010 being:
QUOTE
25
s. 4
The Governor in Council may, at any time, by proclamation published in the Government Gazette, fix
a day as the day on which the reference under this Act shall terminate.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
35
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.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 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
.
40 QUOTE
Version No. 010
Commonwealth Powers (Family Law--Children) Act 1986
Act No. 92/1986
Version incorporating amendments as at 14 July 1997
This Version incorporates amendments made to the Commonwealth Powers (Family Law-Children) Act 1986 by Acts and subordinate instruments.
45
END QUOTE
The Victorian Parliament has PURPORTEDLY amended this legislation of the Commonwealth
Powers (Family Law - Children) Act 1986 No 92 totally unaware what the true reference of
50 legislated powers possibly could mean! It purports to refer legislative powers and withdraw it as
it please! It was however never accepted by any referendum on the first place!
GLEESON J as a judge in the corium in of the Full Court of the HIGH COURT OF
AUSTRALIA in HCA 27 of 1999 under point 31 had this to say:
55
..I held that State Parliaments had no power to vest State Judicial power in federal courts created
by the Parliament of the commonwealth and that the parliament of the Commonwealth had no
power to consent to State Parliaments vesting State Judicial power in the federal courts.
Page 19
13-7-2015
Page 20
I view, that likewise the States have no constitutional powers to vest the Commonwealth with
legislative powers or the Commonwealth to consent to accept legislative powers within Section
51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth constitution unless the State constitution provides for such
reference of legislative powers and also such reference of legislative powers has been approved
5 in accordance of the provisions of Section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution by way of
referendum, as well as that both the States (and so those voting in the referendum) and the
Commonwealth have been aware that this reference of legislative powers is one of a permanent
nature, after which the relevant State referring the legislative powers for ever has lost future
legislative powers either to rescind, amend or otherwise alter any legislation the Commonwealth
10 may provide upon a successful referendum.
The Victorian Constitution under s16 provides that The Parliament shall have power to make
laws in and for Victoria in all cases whatsoever. As such, this clearly exclude any reference
of legislative powers from the State of Victoria to the Commonwealth! After all, to refer
15 legislative powers means the State no longer has it, and that breaches the provisions of s16!
That albeit the Victorian Constitution refers to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, no specific
legislation appears to be in place as to formally adopt this Commonwealth legislation.
QUOTE
25
30
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
.
That on 7 and subsequently on 21 October 1986 the Legislative Council passed the
35 Commonwealth Powers (Family Law - Children) Act 1986 No 92 which was Gazetted on 16
December 1986 and came into force on 28 October 1987. Version 010 being:
QUOTE
40
45
50
55
Commonwealth Powers (Family Law---Children) Act 1986

Version No. 010
Act No. 92/1986
TABLE OF PROVISIONS
Section Page
THIS PAGE IS TO BE MASKED
Version No. 010
Act No. 92/1986
The Parliament of Victoria enacts as follows:
1. Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to refer to the Parliament of the Commonwealth certain powers relating to
Family Law.
2. Commencement
This Act comes into operation on a day to be proclaimed.
3. Reference of certain matters relating to children
Page 20
13-7-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Page 21
(1) The following matters, to the extent to which they are not otherwise included in the legislative
powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, are referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth
for a period commencing on the day on which this Act comes into operation and ending on the day
fixed, pursuant to section 4, as the day on which the reference under this section will terminate, but no
longer namely-(a) the maintenance of children and the payment of expenses in relation to children or child bearing;
(b) the custody and guardianship of, and access to, children.
(2) The matters referred by sub-section (1) do not include the matter of the taking, or the making
of provision for or in relation to authorizing the taking, of action that would prevent or interfere
with-(a) a Minister of the Crown, an officer of the State, an officer of an adoption agency approved under a
law of the State, or any other person or body having or acquiring the custody, guardianship, care or
control of children under a provision of an Act specified in the Schedule; or
(b) the payment of maintenance in respect of children who are in such custody, guardianship, care or
control; or
(c) the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to make orders in respect of children who are in such
custody, guardianship, care or control; or
(d) the jurisdiction of a court of the State, under a provision of an Act specified in the Schedule, to
make orders, or take any other action, in respect of-s. 3
(i) the custody, guardianship, care or control of children; or
(ii) access to children or the supervision of children.
(3) In the preceding provisions of this section-(a) the references to children shall be construed as references to persons under the age of 18 years; and
(b) the references to the maintenance of, and the payment of expenses in relation to, children shall be
construed as including references to the maintenance of, and the payment of expenses in relation to,
persons who have attained that age and have special needs in respect of maintenance or expenses by
reason of being engaged in a course of education or training or by reason of a physical or mental
handicap; and
(c) the references to an Act specified in the Schedule shall be read as references to that Act as amended
and in force from time to time, and as including a reference to any Act or Acts replacing that Act and
as amended and in force from time to time.
4. Termination of reference
s. 4
The Governor in Council may, at any time, by proclamation published in the Government Gazette, fix
a day as the day on which the reference under this Act shall terminate.
__________________
Sch.
amended by Nos 16/1987
s. 4(3)(Sch. 1 item 6), 56/1989
s. 286(Sch. 2 item 3).
SCHEDULE
Sch.
Section 3
Children and Young Persons Act 1989
Community Services Act 1970
NOTES
1. General Information
Notes
Minister's second reading speech-Legislative Assembly: 17 September 1986
Legislative Council: 7 October 1986
The long title for the Bill for this Act was "A Bill to refer to the Parliament of the Commonwealth
certain matters relating to Family Law.".
The Commonwealth Powers (Family Law--Children) Act 1986 was assented to on 16 December
1986 and came into operation on 28 October 1987: Government Gazette 28 October 1987 p. 2925.
2. Table of Amendments
Notes
This Version incorporates amendments made to the Commonwealth Powers (Family Law-Children) Act 1986 by Acts and subordinate instruments.
Page 21
13-7-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
Page 22
------------------------------------------------------------Community Services Act 1987, No. 16/1987
Assent Date: 12.5.87 Commencement Date: S. 4(3)(Sch. 1 item 6) on 22.2.89: Government Gazette
22.2.89 p. 386 Current State: This information relates only to the provision/s amending the
Commonwealth Powers (Family Law--Children) Act 1986 Children and Young Persons Act
1989, No. 56/1989
Assent Date: 14.6.89 Commencement Date: S. 286 on 31.1.91: Special Gazette (No. 9) 31.1.91 p. 2;
Sch. 2 item 3 on 30.9.92: Government Gazette 26.8.92 p. 2470 Current State: This information relates
only to the provision/s amending the Commonwealth Powers (Family Law--Children) Act 1986 -----------------------------------------------------------3. Explanatory Details
Notes
No entries at date of publication.
END QUOTE
.
The State of Victoria (as did other States) legislated for the Commonwealth Powers (Family
Law---Children) Act 1986. This purportedly giving legislative powers within subsection
51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution to the Commonwealth. Not only
could subsection 51(xxxvii) not be used for this, but also unless there is a referendum to approve
of such reference of legislative powers it would remain ULTRA VIRES. Further, any matter
validly referred to within the provisions of subsection (xxxvii) would become federal law, and
be beyond State legislation from then on, once the Commonwealth has legislated upon it. The
Commonwealth Powers (Family Law---Children) Act 1986 purports to be valid until the
Governor is to make a proclamation otherwise, etc. Clearly, this underlines that the State of
Victoria never had any understanding as to what subsection 51(xxxvii) stood for. Once a
reference of power has been referred to the Commonwealth in a valid manner, then once the
Commonwealth legislate upon this, the State lost any legislative powers upon this matter.
Further, the Commonwealth could not act upon any validly referred matters (within subsection
51(xxxvii) ) where this required expenditure, as the Commonwealth is not permitted to fund such
matters out of Consolidated Revenue. As such, any reference of powers that were to incur cost to
be dealt with, would have to include an additional provisions for the Commonwealth to levy a
special charge against the State for funding this. Again the Framers of the Constitution made
clear that subsection 51(iii) as to taxation) could not be used for this. Subsection 51(iii) is to fund
Commonwealth matters for the whole of the Commonwealth, and not for particular State related
matters that were referred to by a particular State.
QUOTE
4. Termination of reference s. 4 The Governor in Council may, at any time, by proclamation published in the
Government Gazette, fix a day as the day on which the reference under this Act shall terminate.
END QUOTE
40 The Framers of the Constitution made clear, that once the Commonwealth had acted upon any
legislation, then the state had no further legislative powers to deal with this. Hence, any
purported termination of reference could not apply.
In fact, the Framers of the Constitution referred that the purpose of subsection 51(xxxvii) was
45 one to enable the Commonwealth to be the arbitrator in matters in dispute between the States,
albeit not involving all States. Hence, the Commonwealth Powers (Family Law---Children) Act
1986 is not such a matter that is in dispute between 2 or more but not all States.
We then have the concoction of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999, which
purports to legally validate unconstitutional federal court Orders (Being it from the Family Court
50 of Australia and/or Federal Court of Australia.) Again, we have a clear misconception about the
function and positions of those Courts.
Likewise, the Commonwealth Powers (Industrial Relations) Act 1996 was beyond legislative
powers for the State of Victoria to refer to the Commonwealth of Australia as it was not a
matter in dispute between two or more but not all States.
Page 22
13-7-2015
Page 23
As much as all the colonies had to have a colonial referendum to allow for the transfer of
colonial powers to the Commonwealth of Australia then likewise any reference of legislative
powers by a State that effectually reduces the State constitutional powers is an amendment
to the State constitution then it requires a State referendum to approve of this.
.
Remember?
10
15
20

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
.
Again; 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?. And this is what is the current manipulation of powers to use CoAG (Council of
25 Australian Governments) to circumvent or at least to try to circumvent constitutional limitations.
A clear example is the s.101 Inter-State Commission regarding trade and commerce that as I
understand is railroaded so a political party in power can pork barrel instead any local
community regardless it is unconstitutional. Still, while the Commonwealth may use this kind of
system it will be a matter of time before as like the purported Cross Vesting Act which was
30 found to be unconstitutional likewise other purported legislation such as the Commonwealth
Powers legislations are deemed unconstitutional. The problem is however that in the meantime
the very politicians who are employed to act as agents for the people are betraying the people!
.
35 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
40
45
50
55
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

[start page 225]
Page 23
13-7-2015
Page 24
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-In connexion with the point raised by Dr. Quick that this provision might
lead to an amendment of the Constitution otherwise than under clause 121, I would like to suggest that the
reference would be as to a specific point. It might be to settle a particular matter of legislation, but not a
general power. But we are still in this dilemma: That the state might, by referring the matter to the state
Parliament, deprive itself of the right of repeal, and thus take away the general power of legislation
from the state Parliament. As I understand, a state Parliament cannot at present abrogate its own
powers. It might pass a particular Act or it might repeal an Act, but here the Parliament of the state is
giving away some power without the consent of the people of the state. We are giving power to the state
Parliament to give away their sovereign powers without the consent of their people.
10 END QUOTE
What ought to be understood is that ss51(xxvii) cannot be used for all states to refer legislative
powers to the Commonwealth of Australia as to circumvent the need of a s128 referendum!
Where the State of Victoria nevertheless without legitimate approval of the State electors
15 purportedly did refer legislative e powers in regard of industrial relations then it has no legal
affect:
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers"
Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
20
"... 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)
25
30
35
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
.
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
40
QUOTE
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
END QUOTE
And
45 QUOTE
50
55
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes
the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be
in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in
reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from
the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a
statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no
rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies
no acts performed under it. . .
Page 24
13-7-2015
Page 25
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede
any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is
superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
END QUOTE
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence 2d; SS: 256 & 257:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not
merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is
as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle
just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. 'Such an unconstitutional law is void', the general
principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or
authority to anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts preformed under it . . . 'A void act
cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any
existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is
superseded thereby. 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to
enforce it." . . . The fact that one acts in reliance on a statute which has theretofore been adjudged
unconstitutional does not protect him from civil or criminal responsibility ....
10
15
20
25
30
35
DPP v Field [2001] VSC 472 (29 November 2001)

QUOTE
24. Section 35 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides that in the interpretation of the provision of
an Act consideration may be given to any matter or document that is relevant, including reports of
proceedings in any House of the Parliament. The section further provides that a construction that would
promote the purpose or object underlying an Act is to be preferred to a construction that would not promote that
purpose or object. Those provisions are well known.
QUOTE
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.
END QUOTE
.
40
45
50
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
We ought to leave it open to this extent, that while we agree upon essentials, and express ourselves fully
and freely upon all our views, still, so far as our views are not negatived by any principle here laid down,
their embodiment in any resolution may stand over for Select Committee and afterwards [start page 20] for
Committee of the whole House, when they may be debated with the freest publicity and fullest
freedom. I believe we shall by this process best arrive at conclusions; not that, as many of us would like.
we shall be able to drive our own particular views to an issue at once, but we shall discuss all these matters,
both constitutionally and otherwise, and then we may arrive at views which, though contrary to our
present opinions, shall essentially represent the views of those who sent us here to deal with the
problems we have to discuss.
END QUOTE
55
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble,
and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear,
we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass
the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too
much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
Page 25
13-7-2015
Page 26
.
10
15

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to
it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
25
END QUOTE
It is therefore clear that no matter what references of powers, including of industrial relations
30 cannot be referred to the commonwealth of Australia unless the State electors approved by way
of State referendum the state constitution.
While Queensland purported to amend its constitution to go back to the colonial constitution and
then create the 2001 Queensland Constitution Act it is and remains unconstitutional, this as every
colonial constitution act at time of federation was no more as such but subject to this
35 constitution as the provisions of s106 of the constitution made clear. Likewise the 1975
purported Victorian constitution is not a valid constitution act this as it was not one approved by
then State electors. As such s16 of this purported (Victorian) constitution has neither any
constitutional value, and in any event couldnt undermine the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) true meaning and application.
40
I will now quote the correspondences for warded to then AEC;
QUOTE 150712-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re COMPLAINTS - etc-SUPPLEMENT 1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Australian Electoral Commission
12-7-2015
45 info@aec.gov.au
Cc:
50
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au

George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Ref: 150712-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re COMPLAINTS etc-SUPPLEMENT1
55 Sir/Madam,
Page 26
13-7-2015
Page 27
after I emailed on 11-7-2015 my correspondence 150711-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka
O.W.B. to AEC Re COMPLAINTS - etc I received on 12-7-2015 an email which I have
quoted below as well as the article it refers to and comments made.
What this article refers to is for example:

5 http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2015/07/12/bill-shortens-mystery-woman-his-spy-in-the-police-ministers-
10
office-and-the-links-to-the-hsu-fraud/#comment-61250
QUOTE
On Wednesday, the Opposition Leader asked the commission to keep Ms Wards name secret when reference
was made to her as a part-time staffer who had worked on Mr Shortens campaign in 2007 and had her
salary paid by the AWUs national office.
END QUOTE
Did Mr Bill Shorten disclose in his statement to the AEC that Fiona Darwin/Ward paid by the
AWA was for certain times work on his 2007 election campaign? How many others did so but
had not been disclosed by Mr Bill Shorten? And the same with Mr Tony Abbott having his
15 staff during the election campaign or staff of others working on his election campaign. For
example, reportedly his daughters were involved in the election campaign and the question is
did any of them still get their wages paid if they had employment by their employer while on
the campaign trail with their father? Who paid for their travel and accommodation cost? Their
out-of-pocket expenses, etc? Was it the Liberal Party donating this to Mr Tony Abbotts
20 election campaign?
Back to the ALP (Australian Labour Party (Do note; and every union had to pay for
someone to work in a certain electorate.: Which I understand may have been direct
payment and/or paid employee and/or other services..
http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2015/07/12/bill-shortens-mystery-woman-his-spy-in-the-police-ministers-
25 office-and-the-links-to-the-hsu-fraud/#comment-61250
QUOTE
30
35
40
Ms Hall was employed at the HSU in 2006 up to the 2007 election. The Australian Council of Trade Unions
(ACTU) had a campaign against the Howard governments WorkChoices and every union had to pay for
someone to work in a certain electorate. The HSU were given La Trobe in Melbourne and Katie Hall was
employed to do the work. Her boss was Craig Thomson.
Katie Hall worked for federal MP Nicola Roxon (Ward and De Campo also did) and was her preferred
candidate to take over her seat of Gellibrand in Melbourne when she retired at the 2013 election.
Unfortunately someone put out a dirt sheet on Hall and her chances were gone. It was suspected that
Kimberley Kitching and her husband Andrew Landeryou who I have written about regularly (Click here to
read) wrote the dirt sheet as Ms Kitching was also a candidate.
In a 2013 interview with the ABCs 7.30 Report Katie Hall claims she was falsely smeared when trying to
win pre-selection for Labor in Gellibrand in 2013. She denied that she worked at the HSU under Craig
Thomson. The FWA report says different so maybe Hall wasnt smeared that much at all. (Click here to read
more)
END QUOTE
45 12-7-2015
QUOTE email 12-70-2015
[New post] Bill Shortens mystery woman. His spy in the Police
Ministers office and the links to the HSU fraud
Shopping
Page 27
13-7-2015
Page 28
Kangaroo Court of Australia
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Today at 3:13 AM
To
5
Respond to this post by replying above this line
New post on Kangaroo Court of Australia
Bill Shortens mystery woman. His spy in the Police

by Shane Dowling
When Bill Shorten was in the witness stand on Wednesday (8/7/15) he was allowed to conceal from
the public the name of a female staff member who helped with his 2007 election campaign. On
Friday, after legal argument, she was identified as Fiona Ward. After researching her background it
is obvious there are many reasons why Mrs
END QUOTE email 12-70-2015
http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2015/07/12/bill-shortens-mystery-woman-his-spy-in-the10 police-ministers-office-and-the-links-to-the-hsu-fraud/#comment-61250
QUOTE
You are here: Home Bill Shortens mystery woman. His spy in the Police Ministers
office and the links to the HSU fraud
Page 28
13-7-2015
Page 29
Bill Shortens mystery woman. His spy in the Police Ministers office and the links to the
HSU fraud
10
15
When Bill Shorten was in the witness stand on Wednesday (8/7/15) he was allowed to
conceal from the public the name of a female staff member who helped with his 2007
election campaign. On Friday, after legal argument, she was identified as Fiona Ward.
After researching her background it is obvious there are many reasons why Mrs Ward and
Bill Shorten didnt want her identity revealed.
Fiona Wards maiden name is Darwin and she is a former employee of the Health Services
Union and worked for Jeff Jackson at the HSU Victoria Number 1 Branch. Its reported she
was a good friend of Kathy Jackson. (Click here to read more) She currently works for the
Victorian Minister for Police Wade Noonan MP which could come in handy for a friend
who has been accused of crimes in Victoria like Bill Shorten has.
Where it really gets interesting is the background of Fiona Ward and her two best friends
Carla De Campo and Katie Hall. All three worked at the HSU and all three later worked for
former federal MP, Health Minister and Attorney-General Nicola Roxon. Two, Ward and
De Campo, have been named at the Trade Union Royal Commission and Katie Hall is
likely to be named if the Royal Commission investigates Craig Thomson which they said
they would if they have time.
Background
20
25
The Trade Union Royal Commission is in its second year and finishes at the end of this
year. Federal Labor Party leader Bill Shorten gave evidence on Wednesday and Thursday
(8th and 9th July 2015) regarding allegations he acted corruptly when he was National
Secretary and Victorian State Secretary of the Australian Workers Union.
On Wednesday Shorten said he had been asked not to name a female staff worker. On
Thursday her name was revealed.
The Australian reported:
The mystery woman referred to by Bill Shorten during his trade union royal
commission appearance has been revealed as veteran ALP staffer Fiona Ward, but
mystery still surrounds her motivations for anonymity.
30
On Wednesday, the Opposition Leader asked the commission to keep Ms Wards name
secret when reference was made to her as a part-time staffer who had worked on Mr
Shortens campaign in 2007 and had her salary paid by the AWUs national office.
He withdrew this request yesterday, instructing his counsel Allan Myers QC that Ms Ward
no longer wanted her name concealed.
35
She has asked me not to reveal her name in this royal commission, but I am happy to
write it down for you, Mr Shorten had told counsel assisting the commission Jeremy
Stoljar SC on Wednesday.
Page 29
13-7-2015
Page 30
Sometimes being mentioned in the commission can embarrass people, even when they are
perfectly innocent. (Click here to read more)
By Thursday the media had contacted the office where Fiona Ward works and she was
about to be exposed anyhow.
5
Fiona Ward (Nee Darwin)
Fiona Ward
10
Bill Shorten and Mrs Ward are clearly good friends as she worked on his election
campaign in 2007 and he said when he was in the witness-box on Wednesday that he had
spoken to her a few days earlier. Shorten said she had asked him not to disclose her name
publicly at the Royal Commission which he obviously agreed.
Number one reason why Bill Shorten and Fiona Ward did not want her named at the
Royal Commission
15
20
25
This causes a huge conflict of interest given allegations of rape, fraud and theft have been
made against Bill Shorten and one of his friends works in the Police Ministers office. I
know the rape allegation was meant to be reviewed by the Victoria Police (Click here to
read more) and given what we know now it should have been transferred to another state
police force of the Federal Police to investigate.
Also what about the allegations of fraud and theft by Bill Shorten. Will the Victoria Police
investigate? Once again any decision regarding the fraud allegations against Bill Shorten
needs to be made by other state police of the Federal Police.
Allegations of fraud and theft have also been made against Bill Shortens supporters. The
Royal Commission has also recommended criminal charges against Shortens supporters
such as Diana Asmar and Kimberly Kitching. These matters also need to be transferred to
other police forces.
Page 30
13-7-2015
Page 31
Number two reason

Fiona Ward has a long history in the union movement and Labor Party. Being named at the
Royal Commission is going to make it hard for Bill Shorten to parachute her into a safe
Labor Party seat.
5
She worked at the HSU in 2003 as a Lead Organiser. (Known as Fiona Darwin then) When
she started at the HSU is unknown but she would have finished in 2006/2007.
At the 2004 ALP National Conference she represented Monash University Federation of
Student Organisations. (Click here to read more)
10
Bill Shorten said at the Royal Commission that in 2007 she was employed by the AWU to
work part-time on his election campaign. The Royal Commission should probably check
that.
After the 2007 federal election The Australian reports Mrs Ward worked for federal MP
Nicola Roxon from 2007 to 2013. This seems odd as an article in a local paper regarding a
scandal her husband says this:
15
Mr Ward is married to Fiona Darwin, the managing director for Pluto Communications,
who is working on the proposed three-tower development on Foundry Rd in Sunshine
Looks like Fiona Ward or Darwin (take your pick) was working two jobs.
20
25
In 2008 her husband Mark Ward was involved in a Job for a mate scandal at the
Brimbank City Council in Melbourne. Mr Ward was campaign manager for the Mayor
Natalie Suleyman and after the election Mr Ward was given the job as media and
communications manager for the council. At the time Fiona was using her maiden name
Darwin but not long after started using her married name Ward. (Click here to read more)
Mark Wards job for a mate routine is worth noting because Fiona Ward does that as
well with Wade Noonan.
At the 2013 election Fiona Ward was on the campaign committee for federal MP Tim
Watts who thanked her in his maiden speech. (Click here to read)
In 2014 Mrs Ward was one of the campaign managers for Victorian politician and now
Minister for Police Wade Noonan. Fiona Ward now works in Mr Noonans office. Mr
Noonan thanked her in his maiden speech. (Click her to read more)
30
Now that Fiona Ward has been named at the Royal Commission we almost have the hat
trick as her close friend Carla De Campo has already been named in documents tendered at
the Royal Commission.
Carla De Campo
Page 31
13-7-2015
Page 32
Carla De Campo and husband Liam OBrien
10
Ms De Campo currently works as a media manager at the ACTU and previously worked at
the HSU Victoria Number 1 Branch until 2008 and with federal MP Nicola Roxon. Exactly
what period she worked with Roxon is unknown but she shows up as the media contact
person in 2012. (Click here to read more) She also worked for federal MP Jenny Macklin.
(Click here)
De Campo is married to Liam OBrien who is the AWU Victorian Branch Assistant
Secretary and AWU National Vice-President. Mr OBrien sounds like a junior Bill Shorten
given their similar careers.
Carla De Campo was named at the Royal Commission in documents as per the
email below:
From: Frances Lindsay
Sent: Monday, 27 October 2008 10:50 AM
15
To: Jane Holt

Subject: carla De campo
Hi Jane
Kathy asked if you could please deposit $500.00 into Carlas bank account, being in lieu of
a gift voucher
20
For her farewell gift .. thank you Frances.

Regards,
Frances Lindsay
Page 32
13-7-2015
Page 33
Membership/Administration
Health Services Union Health Professionals (Click here to read more)
10
There are no allegations made against Carla De Campo at the Royal Commission but I am
sure she would know plenty about the corruption at the HSU and to my knowledge has said
nothing. The relevance of the above email in the evidence I do not know but it obviously is
in there for some reason. Maybe Ms De Campo can explain.
Talk about a conflict of interest: Ms Carla De Campo in her role as media manager at the
ACTU has been putting out press releases saying what a waste of money etc. the Royal
Commission is while concealing the fact that she has been named at the Royal
Commission.
Katie Hall (Sometimes Kathryn)
Katie Hall
15
Ms Hall also had her snout in the HSU trough. She is named in the Fair Work Australia
(now Fair Work Commission) report into Craig Thomsons fraud at the HSU. (Click here
to read)
At one point the report says that Katie Hall was the nominee from the HSU for a
Victorian seat in 2006. Which seat that was I cannot find.
20
25
Ms Hall was employed at the HSU in 2006 up to the 2007 election. The Australian Council
of Trade Unions (ACTU) had a campaign against the Howard governments WorkChoices
and every union had to pay for someone to work in a certain electorate. The HSU were
given La Trobe in Melbourne and Katie Hall was employed to do the work. Her boss was
Craig Thomson.
Katie Hall worked for federal MP Nicola Roxon (Ward and De Campo also did) and was
her preferred candidate to take over her seat of Gellibrand in Melbourne when she retired at
Page 33
13-7-2015
Page 34
the 2013 election. Unfortunately someone put out a dirt sheet on Hall and her chances were
gone. It was suspected that Kimberley Kitching and her husband Andrew Landeryou who I
have written about regularly (Click here to read) wrote the dirt sheet as Ms Kitching was
also a candidate.
In a 2013 interview with the ABCs 7.30 Report Katie Hall claims she was falsely smeared
when trying to win pre-selection for Labor in Gellibrand in 2013. She denied that she
worked at the HSU under Craig Thomson. The FWA report says different so maybe Hall
wasnt smeared that much at all. (Click here to read more)
Katie Hall now works for spin doctors The Civic Group. (Click here to read more)
10
If the Royal Commission does investigate Craig Thomson then the Fair Work Australia
report is bound to be tendered as evidence. Then we will have the hat trick of Fiona Ward,
Carla De Campo and Katie Hall all being named at the Royal Commission. It is amazing
how all three pop up at the same places like the HSU, Nicola Roxons office and now the
Royal Commission.
15
Fiona Ward and her friends all seem to lead back to Bill Shorten and his supporters. There
are some very serious questions that Bill Shorten, Wade Noonan and Fiona Ward need to
answer regarding the criminal allegations against Shorten and his supporters have faced
that I raised above.
Either Fiona Ward has to be sacked or moved to another job or all allegations against
Shorten and his supporters have to be dealt with by an interstate police force.
20
Bill Shortens time in the witness stand this week did a lot of damage to his position as
Labor leader and things are just going to keep getting worse in the next few months.
25
The Royal Commission is exposing and doing a lot of damage to Bill Shortens corrupt
power base and dodgy supporters. Others like Diana Asmar from the HSU Victoria
Number 1 Branch are due back in the witness stand at the Royal Commission in a month or
two and that will highlight Shortens failures regarding the HSU further. And it is likely
Bill Shorten will be back in the witness stand about the same time.
30
8 Comments on Bill Shortens mystery woman. His spy in the Police

1.
Bill Thompson July 12, 2015 at 3:50 am #
A cracking read. (I get an early look at the posts, here in the US.)
35
Cheers,
Bill Thompson
Page 34
13-7-2015
Page 35
2.
Barrie July 12, 2015 at 4:33 am #
I agree with Bill Thompson, a really good in-depth expose of how these union people are
intertwined with Shorten, the unions and the Labor Party the common denominator. It
appears they have their sticky fingers spread over so much perceived corruption both in
Victoria and Federally. How many more married Labor women do we have to hear about
who never use their husbands name..or is that par for the course in the Unions and
Labor Party? It also concerns me that Noonan and his Victorian Police position is
involvedwhat webs they weave!!
10
3.
Con Dassos July 12, 2015 at 6:54 am #
This Royal Commission is worth every cent of its alleged $25 million cost (SMH) if not
more. Keep it coming man!
4.
15
Sydney Lawrence July 12, 2015 at 7:19 am #

The plot thickens as it is revealed that Shorten had a mole in a position who could
influence the Victorian Police in their verdict that a conviction against Shorten probably
would not be successful. Kathy must be given her day in Court and all the facts be
revealed. Australia cannot have a rape artist as its Prime Minister.
20
5.
Jock July 12, 2015 at 7:24 am #
In the article in The Australian there were two other names that Shorten wanted suppressed
(Jelica Addamo and Teresa Talia) I wonder why?
Fiona Wards name pops up in the comments section of this 2009 article about the other
Shorten staffer who was named at the Royal Commission (Lance Wilson):
25
Parliamentary Secretary and Labor Unity convenor Bill Shorten has announced a longexpected retirement from the bearpit of the ALPs Administrative Committee (journalists
please note its not the Administration Committee) to pass the torch to one of his crew,
Lance Wilson.
30
6.
Badjack July 12, 2015 at 8:08 am #
It seems that if you work in a Labor related organisation you can hold positions in up to 3
different organisations at the one time. Now that is really having your snout in the trough.
Billy has all the girls on side.
Page 35
13-7-2015
Page 36
7.
marg July 12, 2015 at 8:15 am #
Might be handy too for Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson having Bill Shortens man (or
should I say woman), Ms Ward, working for the Vic Police Minister though not so much
for kathy Jackson.
5
8.
Jock July 12, 2015 at 10:36 am #

Lots more about Fiona (Darwin) Ward here (2002):
At just 19, Fiona Darwin made something of a Sophies choice between her boyfriend and
her love of the Australian Labor Party. The Labor-voting boyfriend thought she spent too
much time volunteering for the ALP, and told her that she had to make a choice.
10
Such is her devotion, Ms Darwin, now 23, is campaign director in the marginal Labor seat
of Mordialloc, a delegate to ALP state and youth conferences and on the womens policy
committee, among other roles. And the boyfriend? Toast.
He voted Labor but could not understand the big deal, he couldnt understand why I was
so passionate and committed, she says. I said to him, if you dont understand why this is
so important, then you dont understand me.
15
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/11/1034222594921.html
9.
20
Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka July 12, 2015 at 10:58 am #
25
I on 11-7-2015 filed a complaint with the AEC that it should investigate all declarations,
and this article indicating unions were providing staff to ALP candidates underlines that if
candidates didnt declare this they in my view filed a FRAUDULENT declaration as to
donations. Obviously, I intend to file a supplement to my 11-7-23015 complaint, with this
article included, so the AEC can pursue this further, that is if they have the balls for it.
END QUOTE
The irony is that on 27-5-2007 (The 40th anniversary of the 1967 ss51(xxvi) con-job referendum
regarding Aboriginals to give the Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers as to
Aboriginal race, hereby in affect removing their equal rights as other Australians) I published
30 another book in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal
issues, titled:
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices legislation
A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decision
35
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
Page 36
13-7-2015
Page 37
10
15
20
25
As former union (retired) official Mr Rutherford then indicated I ought to notify the Trades Hall
Council about my findings so it could use it, as to why the High court of Australia decision was
taken out of context, such as the 27 January 1898 debates, etc.
I did so but without any appropriate response. While the Trade Union was entitled to not to
respond appropriately to it, the usage of members fees to then mount an attack for pure political
reasons rather than to consider the legal avenues, if any, cannot be ignored.
It ought to be clear that when Trade Unions are financial supporting candidates, being it by
paying the salaries of those working on the campaigns of ALP (Australian Labour Party
candidates and/or other services provided, including covering the cost of any political campaign
for candidates must be of concern, this as this when not disclosed is a hidden
expenditure/donations.
The same may be argued where companies are providing donations to any political candidate and
then after this candidate is elected and ends up in government then legislation is enacted or other
provisions made to so to say rewards the company having made financial contributions.
In my view this was for example John Howard did when allowing special arrangements for
ethanol companies seemingly as a thank you for their financial contributions to the Liberal party
and in the process providing them with financial incentives from Consolidated Revenue Funds
(taxpayers monies). This is why election donations are so dangerous as it troubles FAIR and
PROPER elections and undermines precisely the form of democracy the Framers of the
constitution implemented in the constitution (the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK).
.
I have for long held and submitted that any company that donates monies to an election
campaign, either directly to a political party and/or political candidate should be automatically be
banned from any contracts with the government as well as denied any special grands, etc.
Page 37
13-7-2015
Page 38
After all, if a company donates, say $100,000.00 but then subsequently receives under cover a
$500.000.00 grand then really it is the taxpayers monies that have been fraudulently used.
Not only can the company benefit of the grand but also make the $100,000.00 tax deductible and
so taxpayers are in fact paying for this kind of donations.
5 In my view it is totally irrelevant if a company is a trade union or not because in the end the same
rot is perpetrated.
.
As I submitted in the past the AEC or foir that any other electoral commission should provide a
computer screen in each polling station with an A$ statement of each candidate that can be
10 shown.
Currently, for example INDEPENDENT candidates need to get their How-To-Vote first
approved by the electoral Commission while pre-polling already started the day after closing of
the nominations. Meaning that electors are robbed of a FAIR and PROPER election as
candidates cannot have How-To-Vote card approved before the pre-polling opens.
15
What appears to me is that the AEC has so to say sold out its soul (If it ever had any that is!) and
bend backwards to accommodate candidates of political parties. After all they can have their
printing machinery ready to print items over night while ordinary INDEPENDENTS may have to
get printings done over days. Clearly, the AEC could provide for a computer screen where each
20 candidate has the number according to the ballot paper and as such the elector can click on the
relevant number to see the How-To-Vote Card of the candidate it likes to see. Such a system
could operate from the moment the pre-polling commences. This, as each candidate could
provide a How-To-Vote card after the draws have been concluded to the electoral commission
(Whichever electoral commission it involves).
25 While the Royal Commission is dealing specifically with trade unions, I view other companies
doing the same should not be excluded. Why indeed go after a person like Mr Bill Shorten (not
that I seek in any way to get him off from anything alleged against him) while others like Mr
Tony Abbott, etc, may do the same or worse when it comes to political elections?
It indeed appears to become a political witch-hunt if the Royal Commission deals with unions
30 and the deceptive conduct or alleged deceptive conduct by unions and it (former) officials but not
with others doing the same or worse. As such, I view the terms of references of the Royal
Commission should be extended to allow and facilitate the Royal Commission to expand its
inquiry to involve non-union businesses who operate in a similar manner as unions. Alternatively
a ROYAL COMMISSION into electoral matters should investigate these kind of matters.
35
The argument that taxpayers funding election cost of candidates who gain more than 4% of the
primary vote is in my view rather supporting FRAUD and deception and undermines the electors
right of a FAIR and PROPER election, this as candidates seeking to gain at least 4% of the
primary vote as to get monies back then may pursue gross deception upon electors by
40 misrepresentation or otherwise and so electors are denied the right of informed decision to
vote.
Ass I filed my complaint against Clive Palmer media advertising to vote for Clive Palmer for
Prime Minister, where clearly no elector can vote for a Minister let alone a Prime Minister then
45 why on earth should he have any such media advertising cost covered by the primary vote
payments when it may have included electors pre-voting and having been deceived that they
voted for Mr Clive Palmer to be Prime Minister.
In 2001 we had the then Australian Democrates having a political advertising for the 2001
Federal election involving barking dogs. How on earth could the AEC justify to accept this as
50 legitimate expenditure where dogs at least to my understanding do not vote and ordinary
Page 38
13-7-2015
Commented [HOhf1]:
Page 39
electors do not communicate in barking with political candidates?
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that we have a CONSTITUTION and the High Court of

Australia judges themselves were traitors and committed treason in the Sue v Hill decision as it
went beyond its judicial powers provided for in the constitution.
5 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
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
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.
END QUOTE
Page 39
13-7-2015
Page 40
QUOTE
10
15
20
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
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
.
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
Therefore it is not for the High Court of Australia to trespass beyond its judicial powers to
purportedly transform a political union into some sovereign country.
.
25 The same with electoral commissions (not just the AEC) to allow for the USA style campaigns
of electing a Prime Minister/Premier where no such constitutional system exist.
When electoral commissions themselves are flaunting the constitution then obviously others
will follow. As the States are created within s106 of the constitution they too are bound by the
legal principles embedded in the constitution.
30

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
35
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
40 Ironically perhaps those who end up elected to the parliaments may be the biggest fraudsters by
manipulating the election systems and the relevant electoral commissions are ongoing
permitting this. That is why I view you cannot have an electoral commission both running an
election and supervise itself. There has to be a separate authority above the electoral
commission who can will hold the relevant electoral c omission legally accountable. Not some
45 in-house investigation that railroads valid complaints.
Look at Craig Thompson and his statement in the parliament, and his later conviction and yet
why was he not held legally accountable for misleading the parliament as to what I understood
he did making his statement? And so, why were those who supported what I view his criminal
conduct in the parliament neither be held legally accountable?
50 You see, we have got a total disregard to law and order when it comes to politicians but those
same are hell bend to pursue some ordinary citizen even if they happen to be parked a few
Page 40
13-7-2015
Page 41
minutes too long. And as I exposed with Banyule City Council motorist were issued with
infringement notices of having exceeded parking time limits this even so had not at all. As such
the unconstitutional bogus Infringement Notices are to gain cash for politicians to waste and
the real crooks in it all are not held legally accountable.
5 While the AEC may not have any powers to deal with unconstitutional bogus Infringement
Notices it can however for so far it is within its powers deal with the rot that exist within the
electoral system. At least we have a starts somewhere.
Then again, what credibility would electoral commissions have if they may be part of the rot
and for this permit this corrupt conduct to flourish?
10 What electors need is an electoral commission that is not just pretending/claiming to provide
FAIR and PROPER elections but can be perceived to do so. This I view the elect oral
commissions, including the AEC, fails to achieve.
If the AEC cannot comprehend that deceptive/misleading advertising such as Clive Palmer as I
view it did during the 2013 Federal election (see my complaint about it) and failed to act
15 appropriately with this, then it is the core cause of the deception in many ways. Again, what
will the AEC do to be seen to be impartial and deal appropriately with offenders?
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.
20
Awaiting your response,
(Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
25
Our name is our motto!
(
)
END QUOTE 150712-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re COMPLAINTS - etc-SUPPLEMENT 1
30 QUOTE 150711-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re COMPLAINTS - etc

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
11-7-2015
Australian Electoral Commission
info@aec.gov.au
35 Cc:
40

Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Ref: 150711-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re COMPLAINTS etc
Sir/Madam,
I will give an example which albeit relates to State political election will give an
45 indication as to the issue of declaration, as to Federal political elections.
When it comes to filing a declaration of political expenditure I have the first concern that the
details must be correct. Hence, for example when I stood in the State election for Ivanhoe and
had been subjected to having Anthony Carbines (ALP) as then councillor of Banyule City
Council involving staff to remover my elect ion posters, etc, I obviously request Banyule City
50 Council to compensate me for this. Hence in the subsequent council elections I decided not to
Page 41
13-7-2015
Page 42
file a return not knowing if Banyule City Council was going to compensate monies then as it
would have affected my declaration. Well, I held not filing a declaration in the circumstances
where Banyule City Council had not clarified its position was better than to be facing to file a
declaration and later be accused of filing as fraudulent declaration if Banyule City Council was
5 so to say setting me up for this. That this was a set up became clear where another former
candidate simply had n either filed a declaration but Banyule City Council pursued me for it,
yet never the other candidate. I ended up before the court and well the court held I had failed to
file a declaration, but the other candidate was never charged for the same. It clearly was so to
say a political witch hunt against me, where unlike the other candidate at least I had a reason
10 not wanting to file a false/misleading declaration.
In recent times it is clear that Mr Bill Shorten failed to declare at least $40,000.00 on his
declaration. But as I understand it Mr Tony Abbott previously also amended his declaration.
After the 2010 State election I was invited to a Liberal Party function, this even so I stood as
INDEPENDENT candidate and was not a member of the Liberal Party. At the table I was at
15 the treasurer then raised the issue that he got a $50.000.00 to which he had no prior knowledge.
It is very clear that political parties do have campaigns, and there was a report that Mr Clive
Palmer allegedly spend $12 million of the 2013 election campaign, and that seeks to sue some
of his former party members for the cost. On this basis it must be clear the money was
allegedly spend for the candidates.
20 The same is with candidates of other political parties and as such, like Mr Bill Shorten and Mr
Tony Abbott to mention a few, their political machinery was on an advertising campaign that
did cost many millions. The advertising campaigns are also misleading and deceptive because
it portray that the party leader is to be elected by all electors rather than that the local candidate
is the person they vote for. This, as electors cannot vote for who shall be in government and/or
25 who shall be a (Prime) Minister.
See my correspondence 130908-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Clive Palmer & AEC
Re COMPLAINTS for this also!
As such, I view the cost of political advertising by the political parties must be spread out to
the number of candidates of that political party and then declared by each candidate as such.
30 After all and INDEPENDENT candidate would have to declare such kind of expenses and any
donations as such.
Where then candidates of political parties failed to declare this kind of donation from their
political party campaign then I view each and every one should be charges for having filed a
fraudulent disclosure statement.
35 .
QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343
Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true.
END QUOTE
The AEC as I understand it cannot make payments for primary votes if the candidate has not
40 incurred any cost for the political election campaign. While candidates may assign payments
for the primary voted to their respective political party nevertheless it is a payment made upon
the candidates entitlement not that of the political partys entitlement as the political party
was not a registered candidate. Therefore all and any monies paid on behalf of a candidate to
his/her political party I view can only be justified if the candidate declares the expenses and so
45 the benefits of the candidate, a reasonable estimate, from benefitting of the election campaign
paid for by the political party.
Political parties pre-spend monies on the election campaign well aware that after the election
the candidates primary vote payments will cover a lot of the cost incurred. As such it gives a
disadvantage to INDEPENDENT candidates which has no such ability.
Page 42
13-7-2015
10
15
20
25
Page 43
While it was a State political election campaign Attorney Carbines even hired a shop front that
was staffed by people. The hiring of a shop front clearly cost monies. Daniel Andrew had a
buss during the 2014 state election. And I understand likewise in federal elections busses are
painted with slogans to vote for a particular party leader, etc. Then I view those cost should be
declared by the respective candidate. It is monies spend on behalf of a particular candidate.
And I may state such as in Victoria, why have a bus going around the State to vote for Daniel
Andrews when only his own electorate can vote for him, as there and only there he is a
candidate.
The same with federal political elect ions the usage of a bus to travel around pretending that all
electors no matter not being in the electorate of the party leader somehow can vote for the party
leader as a candidate I view is grossly deceptive and misleading, but the AEC despite
responsible for the fair and proper conduct of elections so far failed to take any actions against
the offender.
I am not aware the AEC pursued charged against Clive Palmer, this even so I made a formal
complaint.
Even so in the municipal council elections, as was the evidence before the court, there had been
no donations at the time and so no details as such were withheld, nevertheless the fact that I
had failed to file the declaration itself was an issue, this even so I had the issue not having any
response from Banyule City Council and so couldnt complete a declaration until it did so and
Banyule City Council had been made aware of this. Again not regarding the other candidate.
If the not filing of a declaration, regardless no donations were received, is an issue then I view
the making of a false declaration should be considered a FRAUD.
As such, I view it is well overdue that the AEC pursues matters against all candidates of
political parties who failed to disclose their political party donations to each candidate (in the
form of advertising, etc) and also those candidates who had amended their disclosure form
afterwards.
.
30
It makes an utter mockery of the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) that it ignores such
serious matters and undermines FAIR and PROPER elections.
Actually as yet I am not aware the AEC provided me with an appropriate response to my
correspondence 130908-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Clive Palmer & AEC Re
COMPLAINTS COMPLAINT!
.
35 It should be understood that political parties not being a candidate therefore themselves
cannot have any lawful entitlement to be provided with any payment of first preference of a
candidate unless the candidate assigns his/her own right and can show to have spent monies as
such. If therefore the candidate didnt disclose spending this monies himself, which couldnt be
if the political party paid this, as then it is a donation, then no payment per primary vote can
40 eventuate.
Also, any person who stands for re-election as a member of the House of Representative s is
constitutionally not a Member of Parliament once the Governor-General has dissolved the
House of Representatives and issued writs and as such they are no longer Members of
45 Parliament but former Members of Parliament and therefore must disclose the benefits they
had by claiming cost against the Consolidated Revenue Funds as if they are still Members of
Parliament. Ministers are not entitled to use either Consolidated Revenue Funds for political
election campaigns and nor are entitled to the Parliamentarian allowances.
.
QUOTE
Page 43
Mr. GILLIES:
13-7-2015
Page 44
Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was being paid 500 a
year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus his salary as a
member of parliament.
END QUOTE
While Senators have generally an election while still remaining a Senator (other than with a
DOUBLE DISSOLUTION) their election cost should never be allowed to include charging
against the consolidate Revenue Funds.
Where then for example there is a by-election the Prime Minister (as like any other Minister)
10 has no constitutional position to attend at cost of the taxpayers to promote the local candidate,
this as it is not relating to his portfolio. Hence, any charges the Prime Minister (so any other
Minister) incurs to attend to such by-election to support a local candidate must be regarded as a
donation besides that it is unconstitutional. You cannot have that Mr Bill Shorten is held
accountable for not having declared certain benefits where neither so did I estimate most other
15 Members of Parliament and other unsuccessful candidates.
It is beyond me why we appear to have such a grossly incompetent Australian Electoral
Commission, where this fraudulent conduct flourishes with no end in sight.
20 Below are examples that monies of the Consolidated Revenue funds can only be spend on
public purposes and not used for political elections.
Therefore, where Members of Parliament are using alleged allowances for political election
purposes then not only is this unconstitutional but also should be declared having used this
funds as such. It is nonsense to hold that a Member of Parliament can incur huge cost on
25 advertising prior to any political elect ion and not disclose this in a declaration as a donation,
even if it is unconstitutional. What we now have is that members of parliament are spending I
estimate hundreds of thousands of dollars on future elections but are purportedly permitted to
do so by the uniter party arrangements. As such hiding the real cost (including donations)
incurred as such.
30 .
In my view political advertising is such as the following
QUOTE 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re polical advertisingCOMPLAINT
35 It also refers to:
QUOTE
A LABOR GOVERNMENT WILL:
END QUOTE
And
40 QUOTE
Labors plan will ensure that STEM careers will start in our schools and Australians can
get the start they need to b e a part of the workforce of the future.
END QUOTE
45 END QUOTE 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott
advertising-COMPLAINT
Re polical
This is about if a Labor Government is in power and not about issues of a current government.
50 To me this is a misuse and abuse of allowances and each and every member of parliament
having failed to disclose this kind of advertising for a future election, etc, I view must be
legally severely dealt with. As such there must be a register where each Member of Parliament
Page 44
13-7-2015
Page 45
referring to a future government must record the associated cost (including printing, handling
and postage cost) and then this must be declare in a subsequent election by this person if
st5anding for re-election, and if this Member of Parliament is not standing for re-election then
it is spread along all candidates of the particular political party.
QUOTE 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re polical advertising-COMPLAINT
Mr Tony Abbott PM
23-6-2015
josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
10 Cc:
15

Herald Sun Andrew Bolt news@heraldsun.com.au, readerfeedback@heraldsun.com.au
Mark Robinson mark.robinson@news.com.au Jay Clark jay.clark@news.com.au
Ref; 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re political advertising - COMPLAINT
20 Tony,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware about the intentions of the Framers of
the constitution and political advertising to campaigning for an election that is not even
called at cost of taxpayers is unconstitutional.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.
25
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no
rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
30
Therefore even if the Federal Parliament legislated to allow such abuse of Consolidated
Revenue Funds (taxes) it still would be unconstitutional and unlawful.
.
I have reproduced a pamphlet that I received today in the mail box and it clearly seeks people
35 (not just electors) to write to the President of the Senate and Senators
QUOTE
We ask the Senate to call upon the Abbott Government to provide our youth with the opportunity and
support they need to get into further training, education and into work.
40
END QUOTE
It also refers to:

QUOTE
A LABOR GOVERNMENT WILL:
END QUOTE
45 And
QUOTE
Labors plan will ensure that STEM careers will start in our schools and Australians can
get the start they need to b e a part of the workforce of the future.
END QUOTE
50
Using a pamphlet for other purposes cannot excuse the usage of a political statement and as
such the entire cost of the pamphlet and so associated cost of staff working on it, the printing,
postage, etc) must be held to be for n on public purposes but for political purposes. It does
Page 45
13-7-2015
Page 46
state LABORS PLAN FOR THE JOBS OF TOMORROW and therefore is a clear political
election pamphlet.
I will now reproduced both sides of the pamphlet:
Page 46
13-7-2015
Page 47
First of all the Senate has no such power to call upon the Abbott Government, this as the
Framers of the Constitution made clear that any Minister is answerable to the House of
5 Representatives. The Peoples House.
Page 47
13-7-2015
Page 48
Senate Estimates is not about accountability of a Government. The Senate may request a
Minister and/or his/her department to brief the committee on certain financial issues but it
cannot operate as to hold the entire government accountable to the Senate. If Jenny Macklin
fails to understand the basics of the constitution and the legal principles embedded in it, despite
5 for so long having been in the Parliament and even a Minister then I view it is well overdue she
gets some form of education about what is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
Further, this pamphlet in my view is nothing but a political election campaign with the quoted
wording as to what Labor will do.
10 Here we have people so to say asked to tighten their belts and we have a Member of
Parliament who is wasting huge amount of monies on advertising.
It may be argued that members have a certain amount of entitlement to send out mail, but I
view this is nothing but blatant political advertising and should be born by Jenny Macklin, out
of her own pocket. When an election is called it must be clear there can be no fair and proper
15 election where here we have a Member of Parliament using taxpayers moneys to get an
advantage upon any other candidate so that by the time an election is called she so to say is in
the drivers seat.
This is also one reason that I refuse to vote and as you ought to be aware I defeated on 19
July 2006 the Commonwealth on compulsory voting.
20 In my view it would be better to reign in this gross abuse of taxpayers monies as soon or later
you may just discover that the power to make such a decision may no longer remain available,
as others will make that decision instead.
.
The same is when writs are issued for a general election, then every Member of the House of
25 Representatives is no more, they hold no seat, not even if re-elected until they are again sworn
in. As such, from the day the writs are issued they cannot use Parliamentarian privileges, not
being paid, travel at taxpayers cost, use their mobile/laptops, etc, at taxpayers cost, stay in
placers at cost of taxpayers, as they are no longer Members of Parliament. As ought to be clear
no person can be a Member of the House of Representatives for more than 3 years. There
30 always will be a short period of a break that they are no longer a Member of the House of
Representatives regardless how many times they are re-elected. Actually the same applies with
a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION with the Senate. Those who are Ministers of the Crown can
continue to act as Ministers of the Crown but are prohibited from claiming any benefits as
Member of Parliament, regardless if they are a Member of the House of Representatives or the
35 Senate.
QUOTE
40
45
Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for
his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other
provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five
hundred pounds.
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.
Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
Page 48
13-7-2015
Page 49
Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those
colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the
reimbursement of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of
parliament are actually paid a salary for their work, which they are not.
Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not
say that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance?
I move as an amendment:
That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
10
. Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
15
20
25
If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to
the payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are
not inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into
consideration the salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in
order to guard against officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of
the [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There
is no provision of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make
any other provision than the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event
of a member of parliament who was being paid 500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his
salary as a minister of the Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider
these questions in a rational manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to
commend it to our own judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public
END QUOTE
THE CONSTITUTION DOESNT PROVIDE FOR A SHADOW CABINET OR A

SHADOW MINISTER AND THIS ROT ALSO SHOULD BE STOPPED.
In fact by s44 of the constitution anyone who is in the receipt of a salary from the
30 Commonwealth is automatically vacating his/her seat. Ministers are not employed by the
Commonwealth of Australia but their salaries are paid to the British Crown who then pays the
relevant Minister. Hence upon a Prime Minister or other Minister vacating his seat by elect ion
or otherwise no further payment can be made out of Consolidated Revenue Funds. No free
offices and free transport, etc, for them and/or their family members because it would
35 constitute fraud.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate are employed in
political offices!
.
QUOTE
45
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of
Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are
parliamentary offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that
really the Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own
Estimates, and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether
untouched by the Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under
the Crown. I think that that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere.
END QUOTE
50
Page 49
13-7-2015
Page 50
Let us be clear about it that any Member of Parliament, not being a Minister of the Crown
(including President/Speaker) who is paid a salary/superannuation is automatically disqualified
from holding a seat in the Parliament. As such any so called shadow Minister getting paid for
such position is I view then defrauding the commonwealth (so the taxpayers) and no longer
5 eligible to suit in the Parliament, regardless if Parliament provided rules otherwise, this as
Parliament cannot override the constitution.
As for so called midterm budgets, they are unconstitutional also:

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
15
. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he
pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxation
including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill going outside the
ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be
imperatively required, in the discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage
of its existence.
END QUOTE
20
25
30
35
40
It also means that the sacking by John Kerr as he did was in fact unconstitutional, as a
Governor-General should stay out of the political fight between opposing parties. First of all
John Kerr as governor-General had a duty and obligation to ensure that the government of the
Day had passed the appropriation and taxation Bills long before the commencement of the
financial year they applied to. When there was a failure to do so the Governor-General then
could have removed the commission from the Prime Minister and subsequently given the
commission to someone else, even if the person was not even a Member of Parliament. As
Edmund Barton the first Prime Minister neither was a Member of Parliament when he was
commissioned.
As such the withdrawal of a commission ought to have eventuated before the commencement
of the financial year.
Further, within the principle embedded in the constitution the Governor-General is limited to
call a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION but cannot do it in the manner as he did to replace Withlam
with Malcolm Fraser and then allow the Senate to pass money bills and then call a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION This as quoted above the Appropriation and taxation bills cannot be altered or
otherwise interfered with during the financial year they applied to. It was Governor-General
John Kerr who therefore in my view acted incompetent and lacked proper supervision and was
the real reason of the demise of the Withlam Government in an unconstitutional manner.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear the Governor-General is the CEO and the
Ministers are his constitutional advisors.
QUOTE
45
Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?

Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!
Page 50
13-7-2015
Page 51
Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the
expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and powers
given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to the
Commonwealth.
Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?

Mr. BARTON: Yes.
END QUOTE
Taxation and Appropriation Bills to comply with the constitutional requirement must be
10 introduced at such period of time that allows the bill, if twice rejected, to be put to the electors
for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and then if rejected again a JOINT SITTING is convened
between the Houses of Parliament. As such basically the Budget as generally referred to is to
be handed down allowing this period of time and so required to be presented say before the end
of the calendar year prior to the 1 July of the following year at which time the Appropriation
15 and Taxation Bills will come into effect. Therefore, not even in time of war can Taxation Bills
and Appropriation Bills be altered.
QUOTE
20
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive
the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
[start page 1773]
25
END QUOTE
Clearly any tax exemption or other kind of payments is unconstitutional.

.
To fund churches or other religious organisations would basically force taxpayers who are not
associated with any kind of religion to pay for those who do, and this in itself is
30 unconstitutional.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that there was a separation of powers been State
and church.
With Jullie Bishop travelling overseas and staying wherever in performing her job no one can
35 make an issue out of this provided she acts reasonable in the circumstances, but when a person
like Treasurer Joe (smoking) Hockey is a Minister then he is not allowed to claim ordinary
Member of Parliament entitlements, and as such cannot claim overnight accommodation to be
paid to his wife where on the other hand she travels with him at times as his wife. And may
even a have a split income for taxation returns. We need to clamp down on this and I view the
40 ATO should investigate this also. After all if Joe (smoking) Hockey is paying rent to his wife
then are they separated or not?
In my view Centrelink would call it a scam if people on a pension were to do as Joe (smoking)
Hockey and his wife were doing.
I view the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) should also investigate matters, as after all where
45 Joe (smoking) Hockey makes a payment to his wife then it is in my view so to say a
commercial arrangement and no longer can be held to be his allowance or otherwise from the
parliament.
Page 51
13-7-2015
Page 52
As for taxation matters the Commonwealth cannot excluded certain soldiers from taxation
merely because they serve in a certain area, as this would be unconstitutional. The
Commonwealth can increase their pay as to compensate for the monies having to be paid in
taxation but not excluded any person from paying taxation.
QUOTE
10
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-A rather important point has been raised with regard to sub-section
(2), in regard to the question of uniformity of taxation. While there has been no express decision by the
American courts as to the meaning of the words "uniform throughout the Commonwealth," there are
expressions in one of the cases which render it necessary for us to use caution. I therefore ask for a little
more time in which to consider this matter.
Mr. HIGGINS.-To allow graduations and exemptions, is it?
15
20
Mr. BARTON.-My own desire is that the Federal Parliament should be unfettered in the exercise of its
taxing power, if it has to use any direct taxation at all. Whatever my own opinions may be as to the way in
which that power should be exercised, it is necessary that the authority to which it is confided should have
the power in full force. That being so, I wish to see that this authority is properly conserved. For that
reason, I think it advisable to postpone the matter, and I therefore move that it should be postponed until
after clause 80 has been considered. It would then come on immediately before the provision relating to
finance and trade, to which it is so nearly related.
The motion was agreed to, and the clause postponed.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Clause 52, sub-section (2).-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.
30
35
40
45
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have prepared an amendment with regard to this sub-section,
which puts the matter into a form which would express the intention of the Convention, whilst avoiding a
difficulty. Honorable members will recollect the difficulty that arose over the construction of words
equivalent to "uniform throughout the Commonwealth" in the United States of America. Although no
actual decision has been given, a doubt has been raised as to the meaning of the word "uniform." The
celebrated income tax case went off as to the direct apportionment of taxation amongst the people
according to numbers, and this point was not decided, but a great deal of doubt has been thrown on the
meaning of the word in the judgment of Mr. Justice Field. I think that although the word "uniform" has the
meaning it was intended to have-"one in form" throughout the Commonwealth-still there might be a
difficulty, and litigation might arise about it, and prolonged trouble might be occasioned with regard to the
provision in case, for instance, an income tax or a land tax was imposed. What is really wanted is to
prevent a discrimination between citizens of the Commonwealth in the same circumstances. I beg to
moveThat 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 one state to another."
I conceive it to be quite unnecessary to retain these words in view of clause 89, prescribing free-trade
among the several states, under which any duty or tax on goods passing from one state to another would be
clearly invalid, and could not possibly be allowed by the operation of the preference clauses. I propose not
Page 52
13-7-2015
Page 53
to say anything about goods in this connexion passing from one state to another, as that is sufficiently
provided for, and I put in this provision, which prevents discrimination or any form of tax which
would make a difference between the citizen of one state and the citizen of another state, and to
prevent anything which would place a tax upon a person going from one state to another. I beg to
moveThat all the words after the first word "taxation" in the second sub-section be omitted, with a view to
inserting the following words-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or
between persons or things passing from one state to another."
The amendment was agreed to.
10 END QUOTE
It is clear that to exclude one or more persons but not all who receive the same amount of pay
from taxation is unconstitutional and beyond the legislative powers of the Commonwealth of
Australia. It means that the gun toting former AWB official who was reportedly paid $1
15 million dollars to represent the Commonwealth of Australia in Iraq, then also still should be
paying the tax for that monies. Lets be clear about it the various Parliament have legislated
that items can be confiscated where they are deemed proceeds of crime. As such the same can
be used against politicians who defrauded the Consolidated Revenue Funds for monies not
entitled upon.
20
Perhaps you may be able to guess what I would do if I were in power! I would make sure that
those who violated the constitution and so its embedded legal principles would be held legally
accountable for it all.
25 This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

Our name is our motto!)
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
30
END QUOTE 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott
advertising-COMPLAINT
Re polical
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
35 QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)
Ethics Orientation for State Officials
40
45
Misuse of Public Funds

Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that
public funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public
purpose when its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.
Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses
only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.
The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be
expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor
are they authorized.
The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit
may result from an expenditure of public funds.
Page 53
13-7-2015
Page 54
For example, the payment of a public employees salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it
is an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the employee for public
purposes.
The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure is not
merely incidental. The term public funds is not limited to money, but includes anything of value
belonging to a public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of
telephones, computers, and fax machines and other equipment and resources.
Examples of Misuse of Public Funds
10
15
1.In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to

purchase items for himself and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even
though those receiving the discount paid for the items with personal funds.
2.In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county
vehicle to transport a political candidate, his staff and family.
3.In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work
on his political campaign for Lieutenant Governor.
4.In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in
connection with official business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great
Falls, Montana and back.
20 Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil sanctions.
These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.
25
State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections

There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public funds.
This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following is a list of
what well cover in this section.
Stanson v. Mott
Endorsements and Informational Materials
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines
30 Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns
35
40
45
50
The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of
public funds in election campaigns.
In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
challenging the directors expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a
statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding that
in the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to
promote a partisan position in an election campaign.
Stanson v. Mott
The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: A fundamental precept of this nations 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 countrys founders lay in the possibility that the holders of
governmental authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....
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.
Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government agency
may endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote its passage.
Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not
promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot
measure elections.
Page 54
13-7-2015
Page 55
1.The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to
disseminate information relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the
public with a fair presentation of relevant information.
2.The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable
public agencies from disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such
disclosure is full and impartial and does not amount to improper campaign activity.
3.To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal
treatment to both sides of the issue.
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines from
10 the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County
15
paid a $10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of
several ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures
and was not a neutral and fair presentation of the facts.
Let's Review
TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.
20
Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone calls
before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governors campaign fundraising
dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of
issues, may she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.
25
30
Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.
Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal
political purposes rather than for a public purpose.
Let's Review
Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer questions
about the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds for this
purpose.
a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.
b.The materials do not make false statements.
c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts
of the measure.
Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and
unfavorable impacts of the measure.
Remember These Points
35
Expenditures must be for a public purpose

Expenditures must be authorized
Public funds may not be expended for personal use
Information must be fairly presented
Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions
40 END QUOTE
Page 55
13-7-2015
Page 56
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Ought you not to have the same phrase in sub-section (2) as you have in sub-section (3)
of clause 45?
10
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. That would get over the difficulty. If in sub-section (2) of clause 46 you put an
express reference to a certain class of insolvency, that must exclude by inference any other class of
insolvency. There is another point, and this is also a very serious one, to which the Premier of Victoria
drew my attention before lunch. Sub-section (3) of clause 46 provides that the seat of a senator or member
of the House of Representatives is to become vacant if hedirectly or indirectly accepts or receives any fee or honorarium for work done or service rendered by him
for and on behalf of the Commonwealth while sitting as such member.
No exception is made to meet the case of a Minister of the Crown. There is provision made elsewhere
in the Constitution for the payment of salary to Ministers for services rendered to the
Commonwealth, which might include his services as a senator. Clause 48A provides that-
15
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator, and each member of the House of Representatives,
shall receive for his services an allowance of 400 a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes
his seat.
The allowance spoken of there might be regarded as an honorarium, or as a fee, but it is an allowance for
"services," which is the word used in sub-section (3) of clause 46.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
25
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There are, of course, many formal matters relating to both houses, such as the election of president and
speaker, disqualifications, the issue of writs, elections, and so on, with which I shall not on this occasion
trouble the Convention. It is provided, then, that each member of either house shall have an annual
allowance for his services, which is proposed to be fixed in the meantime at 500 a year. The ordinary
disqualifications are inserted as to members holding offices of profit, with the exception of ministers of the
Crown, or becoming public contractors and other similar provisions.
END QUOTE
30 While the quotation below refers to salary, being paid for work the legal principle is that
an allowance is not a salary.
QUOTE
35
Clause 43.-Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the States Assembly or of
the House of Representatives, shall receive an allowance for his services of four hundred pounds a year, to
be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
Mr. GORDON: I move:
To strike out the word "four," in the third line, with the view of inserting " five."
40
The ground for the motion is that 400 a year is insufficient. While some local Parliaments are paying
their resident mem- [start page 1032] bers 300 a year, 400 is not enough for a member who has to
Page 56
13-7-2015
10
Page 57
leave-as most members of the Federal Parliament would have to do-his colony and practically
abandon his business or his profession. He would have to rely either upon his private means or his
parliamentary salary, which, in this case, would be inadequate. I think, if 400 a year is fixed, the choice
for members of the House of Representatives will be limited to those who can afford to leave their business
or profession, and to those who are prepared to depend entirely on the small parliamentary salary. While
members of both of these classes are exceedingly desirable members of any Parliament, I think it would be
a mistake to have the whole Parliament consisting of them, which the payment of the salary proposed
would probably lead to. I think 500 is little enough; the 100 makes all the difference to the ordinary
professional or business man.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: 400 is quite enough.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON: 100 too much.
Mr. GORDON: I think it is a question on which the sense of the Committee should be taken, and,
without further remark, I move the amendment.
15
20
Mr. HIGGINS: I think that, having regard to the fact that the Federal Parliament will have much less to
do than the ordinary local Parliaments after the first Parliament, 400 is sufficient. I am as strongly in favor
of payment of members, on the grounds alluded to by Mr. Gordon, as any man, but I say that the work
done in the States Parliaments takes far more time than will the work in the Federal Parliament, after its
first meeting. It is not likely, indeed, that the Federal Parliament will sit more than two months in the year.
I should like to strike out "four," with a view to the insertion of "three." At the same time, as 400 has been
fixed as a compromise, I hope it will remain at that amount as the maximum.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: I consider that 400 is ample payment for the services of members. In
addition to that they possess the privilege of a free railway pass. The amount proposed to be paid-400is twice as much as the Dominion Parliament of Canada pays its members. I trust hon. members will not
support the amendment to increase the amount to 500.
25
30
35
Mr. TRENWITH: I hope that Mr. Gordon's amendment will be carried. We have no right to assume that
the Federal Parliament will not have a good deal to do. All our experience teaches us that, as civilisation
advances, the requirements of the people increase, and the tendency to ask Parliament to do things, that in
the past have been done by private enterprise, is increasing very rapidly. I feel confident that the Federal
Parliament, instead of having less to do as time goes on, will have a great deal more to do. I think that it
will be found to the advantage of the States to hand over work to the central Government. Of course, I can
understand the objection that any sum is too much, by those who disapprove of the principle of
payment of members. But the principle of payment of members has been adopted throughout all the
colonies. It was adopted after a good deal of resistance on the part of those who disapprove of it, which
showed the strong growing public feeling in favor of paying members for the work they do, and of looking
upon the position of a member of Parliament not merely as a position of honor, but rather regarding them
as State servants who are paid for their work. We are paid not merely to reimburse us for expenses
incurred, and to pay members of the Federal Parliament 500 a year would be little enough, considering
that during a portion of the year they will have to be great distances from their established homes.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It will cost them nothing to travel.
40
Mr. TRENWITH: That is a very popular delusion.

[start page 1033]
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Let them keep out of Parliament.
Mr. TRENWITH: That is exactly the idea. I say let the people have the widest possible area of selection
for Parliament in order that all sections may be represented.
45
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: To keep a lot of idle fellows doing nothing.

Page 57
13-7-2015
Page 58
HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
Mr. TRENWITH: I am anxious that members of Parliament should not be idle fellows. In the nonpayment days a great many members were idle fellows who looked upon a seat in Parliament as an
addition to their social position, who cared very little for its worth, and in some instances who paid
themselves very handsomely by the opportunities they had.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: You cannot say that with truth. That is a most scandalous assertion!
Mr. TRENWITH: It is the truth.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Quite scandalous. You have no right to make such a statement.
10
Mr. TRENWITH: I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort, but when Sir William Zeal talks
about idle fellows, he brings upon himself, naturally and properly, the rejoinder I have made.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON: A most unjust rejoinder.
Mr. TRENWITH: In some of the colonies the best lands and water-frontages-the very eyes of the
colonies, in fact-were mopped up by members of Parliament during the regime of non-payment of
members.
15
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: How many of them?

Mr. TRENWITH: As I said before I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort.
Mr. WALKER: What you say may be the case in Victoria, you know.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It is a gross exaggeration.
20
Mr. TRENWITH: I am not speaking merely of Victoria. I lived during the early part of my life in a nice
little colony which suffered in the same way.
Mr. WALKER: Do you mean Van Diemen's Land?
25
30
Mr. TRENWITH: I mean Tasmania. I was pointing out that the instincts of our people tend towards
payment of members of Parliament for their work. My hon. friend, Sir William Zeal, interjected that we
have free railway passes. I would remark that any person who knows anything about travel must
recognise that it carries with it a large amount of expense. Those who are here, away from their
homes, know that if they were getting 400 a year for this work, they would be losing money, and
they would not even be reimbursed for the expenditure incurred. Those who urge that the amount
should be left as proposed in the Bill, are not in favor of payment of members, but are simply favorable to
reimbursing members for the disbursements they make in connection with the performance of their duties.
Mr. HIGGINS: I was always in favor of payment of members.
Mr. TRENWITH: I feel confident that my hon. friend Mr. Higgins could not have looked thoroughly at
the question or he would not have spoken as he did.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: He is losing now ten times as much as he will ever get for being here, but he
is bearing it cheerfully.
35
Mr. TRENWITH: There are some who could not afford to lose anything at all. Parliament is to be
composed, as it ought to be, of representatives of all sections of the community. There must be in
Parliament some who cannot afford to lose anything at all, and who must be paid for their services, and if
those services are worth having, there ought to be adequate remuneration for them. I sincerely hope that the
Page 58
13-7-2015
Page 59
higher figure will be [start page 1034] adopted, not because I believe in extravagance, but because I believe
that any lesser sum will not pay members of Parliament for their work.
Question-That the word "four," proposed to be struck out, stand part of the question-put. The Committee
divided.
Ayes, 26; Noes, 9. Majority, 17.

END QUOTE
As this is a COMPLAINT I expect and entitled to be dealt with appropriately and an

investigation is held into all current and former Members of Parliament those candidates of
political parties if they did make the appropriate declaration. While this may involve mountains
10 of work, then again had the AEC been more competent and so to say on the job it could have
avoided most of it. Its blatant disregard to do its job can never be an excuse.
Electors are currently robbed of FAIR and PROPER elect ions and as such for this no valid
elections have n or can be claimed to have eventuated.
15 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.
20

(Friends call me Gerrit)
Our name is our motto!
25
(
)
END QUOTE 150711-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re COMPLAINTS - etc
In my view the ROYAL COMMISSION ought to request that the Terms of References is
expanded to allow it also to investigate donations and/or other financial benefits to candidates not
necessarily those of unions.
30 We cannot have neither tolerate judges to twist and infringe upon the constitution such as that I
view eventuated with the Sue v Hill case, as to me those judges involved were the terrorist within
who misused and abused their judicial powers to undermine our democracy. When those who
made an oath of office to the British Crown then turn around and purport that subjects of the
British Crown are foreigners even so they themselves were under their oaths of the British
35 Crown then what hope do we have to deal with other criminal elements?
In my view this ROYAL COMMISSION is acting beyond powers to investigate industrial
matters that ordinary are under State legislative powers, where t6his is the direct and/or indirect
end result of the unconstitutional purported reference of legislative powers of industrial powers.
Those who are assigned to uphold the rule of law must not and cannot be allowed themselves to
40 flaunt the rule of law. A ROYAL COMMISSION cannot place itself above the true meaning
and application of the constitution, and hence any investigation and any alleged evidence
cannot be accepted as being part of a ROYAL COMISSION merely because the ROYAL
COMISSION may desire to do so. It had an obligation to first establish its ROYAL
COMISSION powers of investigation and as the Federal Court indicated (As I understand it in
45 the Kathy Jackson inquiry) in previous matters that where there was an investigation and an
objection to jurisdiction was made then the inquiry cannot postpone this objection and continue
but must first dispose of the objection to jurisdiction. This, I view this ROYAL COMISSION
failed to do.
Page 59
13-7-2015
Page 60
.
QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
END QUOTE
10 QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,

No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
15
QUOTE Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.
Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and
confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct
collateral attack.
END QUOTE
.
20 QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.
END QUOTE
.
The last quotation makes it very clear that an objection to jurisdiction (including the powers of
25 this ROYAL COMMISSION) can be made at any time. As such I view this ROYAL
COMMISSION lacks any investigating powers where it comes to internal state matters such as
the State of Victoria and its unions as referred to in my writings (including those of 15-2-2014/
5-7-2014). It is not relevant if this ROYAL COMMISSION assumes it has investigating powers
as once an objection has been made it first must dispose of this objection formally, this I view it
30 so far failed to do.
35
40

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
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
As a sentry I made clearly known my objections but so far received no reply/response to which
I am entitled upon. Hence, for this I hold the view that the inquiry regarding Mr Bill Shorten as
to his conduct as (state) secretary of a union within the State of Victoria was and remains to be
45 outside the investigative powers of the ROYAL COMMISSION.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all
issues/details.
50
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
(Our name is our motto!)

Page 60
13-7-2015

20150713-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission Into Trade Union Governance and Corruption-SUBMISSION-supplement-01

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

20150713-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission Into Trade Union Governance and Corruption-SUBMISSION-supplement-01

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Page 1

25 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

(Official Record of the Debates of the National

Yet, the Framers of the Constitution stated;

35 QUOTE In R v Hall (Warwick & Asizes, 1-4-1845. Maule J.) (1845)

This book goes in details about it all.

40 From The Age

The corporatising of our courts

Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria

35 I may add that French CJ, prior to

Federal Court of Australia

JA Thomson Adopting Commonwealth Laws: Section 51(xxxvii) of

Let us see what the Framers of the Constitution stated:

Mr. DEAKIN.-To the extent of the reference.

[start page 225]

Mr. DEAKIN.-To commit political suicide.

The subsection was agreed to.

Commonwealth Powers (Family Law---Children) Act 1986

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

35 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

DPP v Field [2001] VSC 472 (29 November 2001)

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

20 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au

What this article refers to is for example:

Kangaroo Court of Australia

Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Kangaroo Court of Australia

Bill Shortens mystery woman. His spy in the Police

END QUOTE email 12-70-2015

Fiona Ward (Nee Darwin)

Number two reason

Carla De Campo and husband Liam OBrien

To: Jane Holt

For her farewell gift .. thank you Frances.

8 Comments on Bill Shortens mystery woman. His spy in the Police

Sydney Lawrence July 12, 2015 at 7:19 am #

Jock July 12, 2015 at 10:36 am #

Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka July 12, 2015 at 10:58 am #

ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that we have a CONSTITUTION and the High Court of

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!

30 QUOTE 150711-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re COMPLAINTS - etc

Australian Electoral Commission

Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au

Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au

It also refers to:

I will now reproduced both sides of the pamphlet:

. Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

THE CONSTITUTION DOESNT PROVIDE FOR A SHADOW CABINET OR A

As for so called midterm budgets, they are unconstitutional also:

Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?

Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?

Clearly any tax exemption or other kind of payments is unconstitutional.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

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

Misuse of Public Funds

1.In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to