ISSUE Senator Day, contempt for the constitution & the constitution -etc

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the

constitution and not major political partys goals.
Senator Day appears to pursue a hearing before the High Court of Australia, albeit considering
Mr John Murray Abbotts past experiences I doubt the competence of the High Court of
Australia to appropriately interpret the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution! ":.. The
starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers"
Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99) "... 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). I have absolutely no doubt

that the Framers of the Constitution intended FAIR and PROPER elections, where any candidate
has an opportunity to achieve to become a Member of Parliament. What however we have seen is
a contempt for the constitution by political manoeuvring where the payment per primary vote
prevents in general INDEPENDENTS a fair and proper opportunity to electioneer, whereas
political parties can spend ahead in political advertising based upon the expected payment per
vote. The change to the Senate b allot papers are not to give electors a better say or to make it
more democratic as that existed before the square above the line was introduced. It is the square
above the line that robbed electors of proper franchise rights. The abolition of the square above
the line therefore is what should be applied. The giving of preferences by every candidate to
other candidates is something I as an INDEPENDENT refused to engage in whenever I stood in
State/Federal elections. To deny the right of preferences in the Senate ballot paper for the Senate
but not for the House of Representatives would mismatch it. Regarding details (1975) DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION The bills providing the technical grounds for the double dissolution were not those of the
caretaker government seeking the dissolution, but those of the government dismissed by the GovernorGeneral. And 1987: The government was returned; the bill concerned was reintroduced and again passed
by the House but ultimately not proceeded with. (http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/explainer-what-adouble-dissolution-means-for-you/news-story/a8d3e7762ad75a66bd1461092e84d45b)

Our constitution was designed that the Senate would albeit using the same electors based upon
State rights. It is for the Government of the Day to purpose to introduce Bills which are
acceptable to the Senate. Reorganising b allot papers with the intent to remove the powers of the
Senate independence is to undermine the very purpose of the Senate to be a House of Review. As
was shown in 1975 the DOUBLE DISSOLUTUION was not for purpose of having certain Bills
passed but as a political trigger. In my view Governor-General Sir John Kerr violated legal
principles embedded in the constitution to arrange for Mr Malcolm Fraser to call a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION if he was commissioned as a Care Taking Prime Minister. Sir John Kerr by this
became politically involved in the dispute. It should be understood, but generally is being
overlooked, that Sir John Kerr himself was the real problem in the what is known as the
dismissal, by failing to ensure that the budget (Appropriation/Taxation Bills) were submitted to
allow the constitutional process to proceed if they failed to pass through both Houses for the
second time. As result we still have a so called may budget and a mini budget both in
violation to constitutional requirements. It was not that Sir John Kerr didnt have the
constitutional powers to withdraw the commission of a Minister but it should be done without
political involvement and for the correct reasons. Also a reading from the steps of the House of
p1
20-3-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Parliament has no constitutional value, this as the Proclamation can only be enacted upon when
published in the Gazette! Hence, the appointment/commission of Mr Malcolm Fraser could only
have been validated if eventuating after the Special Gazette had been already published
containing the Proclamation to call for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION. The Governor-General has
the inherent powers to call for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION if the Governor-General considers
this appropriate where the Government of the Day act in an appropriate manner. It is however a
different matter if the Governor-General does so with personal political involvement. The very
financial issues then existing never have been appropriately canvassed to be resolved, and as
when the 2014 budget failed to pass the Treasurer failed to resign, as constitutionally is required.
Manipulating the Senate composition so that a leader of a political party dictates to become
Prime Minister (itself unconstitutional convention) and dictate how Senators vote is also
undermining the separation of powers of the Houses. The leader of a political party in one House
should have no business with how they vote in the other House, this, as it undermines the
separation of the Houses. Altering the ballot paper to manipulate the voting outcome, such as the
square above the line, in my view is undermining the ability to hold FAIR and PROPER
elections, and to deny the ability of those representing minorities to be able to be elected to the
Parliament. If anything the recent alleged claims to alter the Senate ballot paper seems to justify
the Mr John Murray Abbott claim that the square above the line was a denial of FAIR and
PROPER Senate elections. In my view anything that is intended to alter the composition of the
Senate to serve the Government of the Day must be condemned as to undermine the very purpose
of the Senate. In my view if the size of the ballot paper candidates is an issue then dividing the
States as to have 2 senators per section standing as a candidate might be more appropriate. This
would give a close resemblance of the House of Representatives kind of ballot paper. Senator
Ricky Muir achieved to be a Senator for no other reason but the major political parties enabled
him to do so by their preferences! And now they dont like it? Come on. Hansard 25-3-1897
Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. WISE: I can see no other course. It has taken 100 years for the United States to pass a Civil Service
Act, and now it is not of very much value. If we get a party system, and follow it out in the appointment of civil
servants, we will be initiating a system of corruption which would gain strength every day. END QUOTE

Former Members of Parliament of political parties are given cosy appointments regardless how
incompetent they might be, rather than a proper evaluation of prospective candidates dealing
with this. The compulsory (section 101 of the constitution) Inter-State Commission is nonexistent. And on and on it goes. And the undermining of the Senate powers is a further
derogation of the very purpose of the Senate as a House of Review. If the Bill provided to the
Senate is not acceptable then the initiator simply then can amend the Bill to suit the majority of
Senate. The Senate is not obstructing important Bill to pass as we have seen from 1975 and 1987
that Bills are used for ulterior purposes. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear if a Bill
was twice rejected and the Government of the Day doesnt immediately pursue a DOUBLE
DISSOLUITION then the Bill is spend and cannot at a later time be used for a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION. The Government by not immediately seeking a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION has
by this acknowledged that after all the Bill was not that important, and the Minister who failed in
the Bill to be passed should resign. So to say playing games with the Senate Ballot paper as to
manipulate its composition most suitable to the House of Representatives should be denounced!
It are the so called INDEPENDENT Senators who actually are doing the work that all Senators
ought to do, as to act as a House of Review, and not just rubberstamping whatever political
parties leaders desire in the House of Representatives. It would be far better to prohibit any
political party to operate in both the House of Representatives as well as in the Senate, for being
unconstitutional, as it undermines the separation of powers of the Houses of Parliament. In my
view Senator Day is to be complimented to stand up for the constitutional rights of all electors.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

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

p2
20-3-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati