Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

5

10

5 10 1 ATO Commissioner Mr Chris Jordan C/o lynne.kennedy@ato.gov.au Sir, I am left to write

1

5 10 1 ATO Commissioner Mr Chris Jordan C/o lynne.kennedy@ato.gov.au Sir, I am left to write

ATO Commissioner Mr Chris Jordan

Sir, I am left to write to you via a known ATO staff members email address due to your website not providing an email web address to communicate with you.

24-10-2017

Re: 20171024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan

QUOTE

Politicians not only get paid to come to work, they get paid to live

15 somewhere, and to have dinner

WE NOW know one thing for certain: Australia’s federal politicians are in no danger whatsoever of

starving to death any time soon.

in no danger whatsoever of starving to death any time soon. Malcolm Farr@farrm51 20 JUNE 1,

20

of starving to death any time soon. Malcolm Farr@farrm51 20 JUNE 1, 2016 3:23AM ‘Let me

JUNE 1, 20163:23AM

‘Let me in, I’m starving!’Source:Supplied

One thing is certain: our federal politicians will not starve.

25 It’s now known that MPs and senators have access to an $86-a-day meal allowance on top of their other benefits attached to their job.

Someone on the single pension, wondering how they could feed themselves for 14 days on $723.10, might be interested to know their local member could be getting $602 for food during a standard seven-day sitting fortnight in Canberra.

30 And if you live within 30km of Parliament House the money could be yours. Of the two MPs and two senators representing the ACT, two claim the meal allowance. Two — Labor’s MP for Canberra Gai Brodtman and Labor Senator Katie Gallagher pay for their own tucker.

p1

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

2

Labor’s assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh, MP for Fenner, and Liberal Senator Zed Seselja, get the taxpayer to pay for their plates. Peter Hendy in the NSW seat of Eden Monaro lives in nearby Queanbeyan but also claims it.

They all are legally entitled to the money, whatever those on the single pension might think about the moral

5

balance of the perk. And there are meal allowances in other employment areas.

The $86 allowance is taxable for ACT MPs, but for out-of-towners have to do with the tax-free $273-a-day allowance for coming to sitting day.

And let’s not forget the $195,000 base salary.

It is not as if the MPs are struggling to find somewhere to eat. They have their own dining room, access to a

10

large staff canteen, to a famous cafe Aussies, and the Queens Terrace eatery all in Parliament House.

Should they hunger for something off-campus, they have access to chauffeured cars to get to restaurants.

Or they could knock up something in the kitchenettes in their offices. Or bring sandwiches from home.

Yet another perk the ability to claim running costs of a Canberra house you own, while still getting the travel allowance is being reviewed by the Tax Office. And the Remuneration Tribal will look at other

15

payments.

 

Andrew Leigh today confirmed he accessed the meal money.

Mr Leigh said one of the reasons for the allowance could be the “Parliament House environment has a limited number of places to eat when people are unable to leave the building”.

He told ABC radio: “What you eat has nothing to do with how far away you live.”

20

The highlighting of legal yet little-noted payments to MPs for coming to work comes after former Treasurer Joe Hockey now ambassador in Washington in 2012 declared the age of entitlement was over.

After his 2014 Budget, the then-prime minister assured voters suffering from cuts that MPs were also making sacrifices.

Minister were no longer travelling first class, for example.

25

But Tony Abbott recently noted the reduction in perks such as expensive airline tickets for families angered his colleagues.

“I made a series of decisions that were reasonable, even self-evident in principle, but which created much resentment in the partyroom,” wrote Mr Abbott.

“I stopped the employment of ¬immediate family members in MPs’ own offices because of the inevitable

30

perceptions of favouritism; I ended first-class overseas travel out of respect for taxpayers; and I restricted family travel within Australia and spouse travel overseas because family very rarely accompanied business trips in the private sector.”

Imagine the anger if he had made them bring a cut lunch to work?

35

END QUOTE

I understand that you are/WERE investigating ‘allowances’ in regard of Federal Politicians and I hereby seek to make my submission to this, albeit I view the State politicians should equally be investigated. Our constitution being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) must be

40

considered:

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-

The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.

45

END QUOTE

p2

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

3

":

makers"

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its

Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)

" But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should

5

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)

10

 

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)

QUOTE

Constitutional interpretation

15

1.

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in

20

which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my

opinion[53]:

"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an

25

exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion."

30

END QUOTE

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE

48 Allowance to members

35

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.

END QUOTE

40

As shown below ‘It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.’ And as such while the

Framers of the Constitution did consider that the then 400 pounds would also come towards the loss of income to some extend while a politician attended to the Parliament, they made clear that ordinary politicians would be losing out on income compared to not attending to the Parliament but just working in a position/job. It would be fair to state that politicians (other than Ministers,

45

speaker and President) would be entitled to say the average weekly income of ordinary Australians but certainly not more like joining some millionaires club. Also, one cannot have superannuation entitlements as to any ‘allowance’. Any form of payment that exceeds this could be construed within s44 of the constitution as a payment that disqualifies the person being a Member of Parliament. Likewise any Member of parliament, such as I understand Mr Malcolm

50

Turnbull Prime minister being an example reportedly holding monies in off shore tax haven account by s44 is also disqualified to be a Member of Parliament, this as he is subject to the rules and laws of a foreign country. As such, if his position is unconstitutional then any monies paid to

p3

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

4

him as a (Prime) Minister is not protected for being a Minister of the Crown but is income as being in contract with the Crown. Also, any monies paid to any Member of Parliament must be paid not directly from Consolidated

Revenue Funds to a Minister (via a Department) but must be paid to the Queen!

5

 

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE

66 Salaries of Ministers

There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth,

10

for the salaries of the Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a year.

END QUOTE

If someone was to work at a super market cash register as a staff member and withdrew monies

15

for personal gain then this would be deemed theft, likewise where we have a British constitution and the moneys are payable in ‘pounds’ to the Queen, then it is for the Queen to determine what if any superannuation she decides to provide for. In my view the Parliament can set the amount payable to the Queen for Ministers but it cannot interfere with any prerogative power of the Queen otherwise such as to make a payment other than an ‘an annual sum’. Neither can a

20

Minister be allowed to collect any ‘allowance’ as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that it would constitute so to say ‘DOUBLE DIPPING’.

Further, any form of political advertising by a Member of Parliament would be unconstitutional if this was at cost of taxpayers. We had for example Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull travelling

25

during the election to Perth to campaign, at cost of tax payers. At that time while he was Prime Minister and entitled to a Ministerial payment he was not entitled in my view to charge any form of allowance let alone travel around at that time at taxpayers cost to pursue political campaigning when during an election period of a general election not a single person remains to be a Member of the House of Representatives and so cannot be receiving any kind of payments and/or

30

allowance associated being a Member of Parliament. In fact when I wrote this to the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2007 he himself then made known to the media he was ‘an unemployed former diplomate”. During a general election the seats are declared vacant for the House of Representatives and from that moment there is not a single member of the House of Representative who can claim any form of allowance. It is not until the elected candidate takes

35

the oath/affirmation to accept the seat elected for that the person becomes a Member of Parliament. As such during the period of the Parliament being prorogued and the oath/affirmation we have no person who is entitled to any allowance in the House of Representatives. As for Senators the same is with a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION. As for half the Senate elections regarding sitting Senators who may or may not contest their seats at the end of the sitting period

40

of 3 years, the constitution being built upon being UNIFORM; there must be understood that Senators neither can during the period use allowance for political campaigning. As such, any purported allowance used for purpose of campaigning, travelling, overnight accommodation, political advertising, staff use, mobile phone calls, etc, must be considered to be outside the constitutional Parliamentarian allowance entitlements and deemed an income subject

45

to taxation.

Ethics Orientation for State Officials

50

Misuse of Public Funds

Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes

p4

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

5

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.

5

END QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)

I have below quoted the 4-9-2015 correspondence to the Victorian Auditor-General albeit similar set outs were forwarded to Members of Federal Parliament. Just no use to quote each and every writings where they can be downloaded from www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.

10

 

It ought to be clear it is the Parliament (Until the Parliament otherwise provides) and not the Remuneration Tribunal that is to decide by Act of Parliament what the amount of allowance should be.

15

The Remuneration Tribunal has no constitutional position to define/determine what allowances a politician might be entitled upon. It can only recommend to the Parliament but it requires an Act of Parliament (Actually it becoming an Act when the Governor-General Gazettes the Bill passed by both Houses of parliament in the Gazette for having been granted Royal Assent). It may be noted that to my knowledge Parliament now register so called Acts of Parliament which I view

20

means they are not Acts of Parliament if they are not Gazetted nor given Royal Assent to the Bill to become Acts. The constitution prohibits actually a Member of Parliament to exercise the prerogative powers of the governor-General and as such any purported conduct by the federal Attorney-General to provide somehow Royal assent or otherwise proclaim an Act of Parliament is unconstitutional and by this ULTRA VIRES.

25

This nevertheless I understand eventuated when the then (ALP) Attorney-General somehow registered amendment to the Family Law Act 1975 backdated.

UNIFORMAnother issue is that the Parliament can only provide for UNIFORM legislation. As such, any

30

form of ‘allowances’ should be equally for all Members of Parliament.

35

There is no indication whatsoever that the Framers of the constitution held that legislation other than those for salaries/allowances should be ‘UNIFORM’’ and hence it must be accepted that any legislation for salaries/allowance also must be uniform. . Also, the Framers of the Constitution debated that some Members of Parliament had to travel distances and other very little but nevertheless held there used be a uniform amount for all Members of Parliament to be paid as an allowance OTHER THEN OFFICE BREARERS such as Ministers, Speaker, President as they would be paid a salary’ which then denied any claim for

40

‘allowance’. It also means that the special payment when a person leaves the parliament is unconstitutional. Likewise so any Gold Card entitlements to members of a former Member of Parliament. The same with the travel provisions for partners (married or not) for Members of Parliament to travel around. They are not and never were included to be part of any ‘allowance’. Any form of legislation purporting to make it legal for parliamentarians to use Consolidated

45

Revenue Funds for paying for members of their family and/or others to travel as cost of taxpayers clearly is unconstitutional as those persons do not hold a seat in the Parliament.

Because the States were created within s106 of the constitution ‘subject to this constitutionthen the same legal principles applies to State parliamentarians.

50

concurrent

p5

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

6

While often one can hear lawyers/politicians/judges hear talking about concurrent legislative powers within s51 of the constitution reality is that s51 does not state this at all! What however

the Framers of the Constitution made clear was that there was ‘concurrent’ legislative powers up to the time the Commonwealth commenced to legislate on a certain subject matter. Once the

5

Commonwealth did so then the States no longer could exercise such legislative powers as it no longer existed!

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

10

Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive. END QUOTE

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

15

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.

Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,

20

remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth. END QUOTE

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

25

QUOTE My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.

30

END QUOTE

This means that when one consider Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth 1904 where the High Court of Australia held that council rates were a delegated State land taxation powers this effectively ended when on 11 November 1910 the Commonwealth commenced with the

35

Land Tax Office (the forerunner of the ATO). It means that municipal council rates are an unconstitutional land taxation. Where the States no longer have land taxation powers then it neither can delegate this to municipal councils. Also, the legal principle of all monies collected must be entered into Consolidated Revenue funds clearly is missing where Councils collect rates and use it up without any Appropriation Bills to justify the usage of the monies.

40

While the ATO I understand by consent agreed to settle with the shire of Melton about GST, I view this was unconstitutional as any private property owning by a Municipal Council has nothing to do with any delegated state taxation powers to which Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth 1904 applied. Neither do I accept that the GST is constitutionally valid as the Framers of the Constitution made

45

clear:

Hansard 14-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not think that could be the intention. We are attempting to legislate for a very

50

limited possibility. You will get disputes so long as there are lawyers in the world. I do not know whether Federation will do away with lawyers.

Mr. BARTON: Not until merchants will cease to quarrel.

p6

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

7

Mr. MCMILLAN: If so it would simplify our arrangements very much. At the same time it does seem that there ought to be something introduced to prevent the law being put into operation for a mere breach of procedure, if there is such a chance.

Mr. SYMON: There is no chance.

5

Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not suppose that any ordinary moral layman would do it, unless he were instructed by a less moral lawyer.

Mr. HIGGINS: There seems to have been infused in this debate an amount of spirit, and I am going to incur the risk of the ordinary peacemaker. There has been no reference to the common-sense provisions which are put into all articles of association with regard to digressions from the prescribed routine. On the

10

one hand, there is no doubt that there is no covert design to injure the smaller States and their representatives, by attempting to impose upon them laws which are not in the ordinary course as prescribed. I think the members for the minor States will accept that assurance. But, on the other band, there is no desire on the part of the minor States advocates to give the lawyers more work than they can possibly help. But there is no doubt that these sub-sections 2 and 3 of section 53 are calculated to lead to questions in the courts which

15

ought to be avoided if possible. Take sub-section 3:

Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties Customs on imports, shall deal with one subject of taxation only.

What is meant by one subject of taxation? Suppose a land tax is imposed, you tax posts and rails.

That may be argued not to be a law dealing with one subject. There are questions which will certainly

20

arise which will be fruitful in litigation unless we take great care. Therefore, I am in thorough accord with the desire of the Premier of New South Wales to have some clause which will obviate the bringing of these trivial matters into the court, and under which a great wrong will be done on the ground of some trifling breach of the Act. What is done in the case of articles of association? There are in articles of association pro- [start page 590] visions for meetings to be held, for the holding of meetings in a certain manner, and for a number of

25

directors, and so forth. But there is always a clause for any accidental omissions; to comply with the articles is not to invalidate the resolutions of the meeting. I would suggest this should be done here. All we want to provide against is accident, mere accidental omissions. I would suggest the following:

Any accidental failure to comply with the foregoing provisions of this section shall not invalidate any proposed law to which the Federal Parliament has assented.

30

Mr. REID: That would make it worse.

Mr. HIGGINS: But I would provide that the failure shall be treated as accidental, in this way. I would go on to add:

The failure shall be treated as accidental if it has not been brought to the attention of the President of the Senate or of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

35

Mr. BARTON: This procedure is to be brought before the court by way of affidavit, then.

 

END QUOTE

 

Again: ‘Suppose a land tax is imposed, you tax posts and rails. That may be argued not to be a law dealing with one subject.

40

 

As I discovered when being charged GST for ordering printing works then merely because the company decided to order it from overseas printer’s customs tried to charge me again GST. They didn’t get it! What however is clear is that the GST is rampaging to be used not for the manner it complied with constitutional requirements.

45

As I did set out to the then treasurer Peter Costello, the price of a packet of toilet paper at a Sunday Market was identical to that charged by Kmart. The difference being Kmart had considerable overhead cost, pays GST, etc, whereas at the market this is virtually non-existent. We are often dealing with businesses who at their stores have legal requirements but which at the Sunday Market avoid all kinds of legal requirements, including paying appropriate taxes. When

50

at one standalone there is a crew of 6 to 10 people serving customers then obviously the turn over must be considerable, and yet they do so tax free. After all many might go to auctions of

p7

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

8

Customs and purchase goods being confiscated by Customs and then those buyers can sell it at a huge profit to customers without any form of receipts to show what was paid, etc. We are not

talking about someone selling from the boot of a car some used items!

5

There are numerous PRESS RELEASES and other documents that can be downloaded from my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.

QUOTE 3-8-2015 PRESS RELEASE

 

Mr Tony Abbott PM

 

3-8-2015

10

 

Cc:

Daniel

Andrews

Premier

Victoria

Senator

George

Brandis

 

George

Williams

Mr

Clive

Palmer

Jacqui

Lambie

Bill

Shorten

15

Herald

Sun

Andrew

Bolt

news@heraldsun.com.au,

Mark

Robinson

 
 

Ref; 20150803-PRESS RELEASE-The real issues governing the Speakers position-etc

 

Tony,

20

I understand from Radio reports that Phillips Ruddock who presided over the scandalous Vivian Alvares Solon debacle, and then somehow got promoted to Attorney-General has put himself forwards as a Speaker. Let’s be clear about it we do not need someone with a lot of baggage. The Speakers role should be occupied by a person who resigns from his/her political party as to bed truly impartial. That was a major problem with Bronwyn Bishop where she was attending political party fundraising that clearly placed in question her being impartial.

25

Also, the Government, so the Prime Minister has no constitutional powers to interfere with the Speakers role. The Parliament is separated from the Government and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate are superior in power when it comes to the Parliament, to which the Prime Minister is nothing more but a Member of the House of Representatives as like any other Member. HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

30

Australasian Convention) QUOTE

 
 

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

35

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

 

40

All public servants who are employed in the Parliament are therefore not public servants of then Government but of the Parliament itself. Hence, as like the Chief Justice of a Court, the Speaker/President must submit budgets covering all cost, including travelling. To allow for “allowances” ordinary provided to Members of Parliament not being Ministers is precisely the unconstitutional DOUBLE DIPPING that I view Bronwyn Bishop was engaging in. Neither should a Speaker/President accept any gifts as this may place in question his/her impartiality.

45

As I indicated in past writings Member of the Parliament who stood for re-election likely all inappropriately misused allowances” and as such I view only a so called “fresh faced” Member of Parliament ought to be elected as Speaker, as to avoid another kind of Bronwyn Bishop debacle. There is more to it all, and only a fool would seek to address the issues without any proper understanding and competence in the true meaning and application of the constitution, as so far seems to have been going on.

50

If a review is done by people who so far failed to address issues then it likely will end up more of the same rot.

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

 

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

 

(Our name is our motto!)

 

55

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

 

END QUOTE 3-8-2015 PRESS RELEASE

QUOTE 3-11-2015 PRESS RELEASE

p8

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

9

ISSUE: Politicians pensions & the constitution!

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am obviously aware of and considering the legal principles embedded in the constitution. Neither Members of Parliament nor if they become Ministers are employed with the Commonwealth of

5

Australia. Ministers are employed with the Monarch. As the States are created within s106 of the constitution subject to this constitution” then the legal principles embedded in the constitution likewise applies to the states unless the constitution specifically states otherwise. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) QUOTE 48 Allowance to members Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on

10

which he takes his seat. END QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) QUOTE 66 Salaries of Ministers There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a year. END QUOTE Hence any Member of Parliament who were to engage in a Pension system as a Member of Parliament. and/or Minister would violate s44 of the

15

constitution. This as a Ministers salary with the Crown is excluded but not a superannuation scheme with the Commonwealth. Neither can a Minister as a Member of Parliament claim any allowance! As the Framers of the Constitution embedded that legal principle also in the constitution: Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention

Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE

Clause 45. Each

member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for his services, the amount of

20

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

25

expenses.

Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!

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. END QUOTE Hansard

2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. GILLIES: QUOTE When a member of parliament becomes

30

a minister of the [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses.

END QUOTE Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: QUOTE I

suppose a senator can hardly be called a senator until the 1st of January arrives. He will be a senator elect, but he will not be a senator really until that day. If parliament is in session on the 1st of January, he will walk in and take his seat, and the other man will walk out, and his pay, I apprehend, will begin on the same day.

35

END QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) 44 Disqualification Any person who:

QUOTE (iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or END QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) QUOTE But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s Ministers for a State, END QUOTE To get involved in a “superannuation

40

scheme” implies a paid employment with the Commonwealth. And Members of Parliament are not employed with the Commonwealth as they can only receive an allowance to reimburse them for expenses. Ministers as such neither employed with the Commonwealth cannot have either a Commonwealth superannuation scheme. The superannuation scheme is not part of the “Office of Profit” as a Minister and neither is part of the Allowance of a

Member of Parliament, and hence any payment, gold cards, etc, retirement payment, etc, are in violation with the

45

constitution. Therefore any superannuation scheme, gold card, etc, payable after retirement would still violate section 44 as the entitlement accrues at the time being a Member of Parliament/Minister. It means not (tax free) paying Member of Parliament for sleeping in the garage as if in a hotel, but pay the garage owner directly (if appropriate, not being his residential address!), but not paying any Minister for any accommodation cost unless incurred like for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to travel for the job, pay her hotel bills directly.

50

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all relevant issues/details.

Awaiting your response,

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

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

END QUOTE 3-11-2015 PRESS RELEASE

55

 

QUOTE 4-9-2015 CORRESPONDENCE

60

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

p9

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

10

Auditor General Level24, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000 comments@audit.vic.gov.au

Cc:

Michelle Ainsworth

4-9-2015

5

Victorian Electoral Commissioner Email: complaints@vec.vic.gov.au, Hon. Bruce Atkinson, MLC President of the Legislative Council bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au, Telmo Languiller (Speaker since 23 December 2014) telmo.languiller@parliament.vic.gov.au, Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au, Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au,

10

15

Ref: 20150904-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General- PRESS RELEASE-COMPLAINT

20

Sir/Madam,

It is precisely 18 months since I made my 4-3-2014 complaint (with supplements), albeit I am aware it was basically ignored,.

QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General

25

Because we are facing a State election in 2014, I view that we must curtail the usage of public servants for political purposes. END QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General

Let us be clear about it the Monarch withdrew her Victorian colonial Letters Patent and on 2-1-

30

1901 replaced it with a Letters Patent to create the permanent Office of the Governor, subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and in which Her Majesty also made clear that the Governor was to establish an “impartial administration of justice”. As such “separation of powers” of the executive, parliament and the judiciary, as embedded in the federal constitution. Do understand that when you so to say close your eyes regarding this gigantic rip

35

off//fraud against taxpayers then I view you are part of the problems and might be held to conspire to defraud Consolidated Revenue Funds. Because we are to have a democracy based upon democratic elections it means your blatant disregard to act regarding fraudulent conduct is by this as I view it to undermine our democracy. Do also understand that as much as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900

40

(UK) is applicable, as the states are created within s106 of this constitution and the (Victorian) Letters Patent relies upon this also, then the embedded legal principles also apply. It also means that no person having left a seat of Parliament can thereafter receive any monies. Nor can any Member of Parliament receive a “salary” for being a Member of Parliament. Also, when a Member of Parliament becomes a “Minister of the Crown” then all and any allowances otherwise

45

entitled upon being a Member of Parliament is no more! In my view this is a very serious matter as I warned various parties prior to the 2014 State election about the misuse/abuse of public monies and yet nothing was done about this, even so the very people abusing the system we so to say make it a hanging offence regarding then Member of Parliament Mr Geoff Shaw. Safe to say we had fraudulent elections and this

50

criminal conduct needs to be stopped and those who participated in criminal conduct should be thrown out of the Parliament and prosecuted for their fraudulent conduct as it undermines our democratic entitlements. In particular where I pre-warned against the misuse/abuse of public monies there can be no excuse for those nevertheless fraudulently engaging in this kind of election campaign.

p10

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

11

Below I quote statements of the Framers of the Constitution as well as some of my previous correspondence to you.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

5

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

10

charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE

As such the constitution belongs to We, the People, and not to the politicians, parliament or the courts

15

 

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE

Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for

20

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

25

misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.

Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!

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

30

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.

35

Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.

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

40

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

45

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.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are likely to do well

50

to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give proper attention to further work to- night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in regard to the absence of provision on matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting committee was concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution

p11

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

12

with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the commonwealth in its first session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great number of other matters of that kind. We have, therefore, given them power to deal with this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a payment of members bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual allowance

5

for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at £500.

Motion agreed to; progress reported.

Convention adjourned at 6.33 p.m. END QUOTE

10

QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General

Likewise, I have an issue with how public monies is being used for political purposes.

.

Because the issue is reported about the Federal spending I use this as an example, but it should be kept in mind that the same is occurring in State level. It was reported that the change of who was Prime Minister Rudd-Gillard-Rudd

15

was costing tax payers each time about $5 million because many public servants would resign when there was a change of leadership, this even so they were of the same political party. As public servants are employed not to serve a political party but the “general community” within a Department then I view this is a rort costing tax payers a lot of monies. Consider all the phone calls then made regarding this ongoing contest between the two. Likewise we have that those employed within the State Government as public servants are serving political parties and using

20

public funding to make phone calls to perhaps shore up their leader, etc. If any employee did the same in the private sector who/she likely would be sacked on the spot if it related to a union business (political parties are unions).

We shouldn’t have public servants engaged in the research and promotion of political parties campaigning to seek to oust opponents.

25

Public servants should be limited to being employed to serve the “general public” irrespective as to which political party/parties may be in government. We have this head of a Department of a Minister going on to search for dirt on the opposition and many a Member of Parliament has an office in which public servants are employed which then work on getting dirt files on other opponents. This to me is a misuse and abuse of the use of public servants and so unduly burden the taxpayers with

30

cost for political motives. We always have Governments claiming how they have to reduce spending, obviously this then targets the general community, not themselves, as they appear to spend monies at cost of taxpayers as if there is no tomorrow.

Because we are facing a State election in 2014, I view that we must curtail the usage of public servants for political

35

purposes. Ministers are appointed to be advisors to the Governor and while they may have certain political views, they are not commissioned by the governor to only serve their own political party members but to serve the general community of the State. On 3 March 2014 it was highlighted how Mr Bill Shorten leader of the opposition had claimed that he was there to represent the union. This may underline that Mr Bill Shorten doesn’t seem to understand that regardless if a person

40

is elected in to a State or Federal Parliament he/she is elected not to serve a union but to serve the electorate. In my view there should be a clamp down on those political abuses of public servants. The abuse of taxpayer’s monies to have them engaging in making numerous phone calls for political purposes. We cannot have and enjoy fair and proper elections when some candidates can use their offices to gain unfair advantages upon other candidates, in particular INDEPENDENT candidates.

45

 

One of the great rip offs that eventuates is when Parliament is prorogued and Members of the Parliament by this seize to be and remain to be Members of Parliament. Yet, you find they will nevertheless use the perks as if they are still Members of Parliament, including accommodation and travel at cost of taxpayers and being paid even so this is

unconstitutional.

50

I have pointed this out in the past to Federal former Members of Parliament and view the same is applicable to State former Members of Parliament. Such as using their parliamentarian email addresses during the time there is an election. They are no longer a Member of Parliament when the writs are issued as the seats are vacant (other than in the federal level where by a general election half of the Senators remain to keep their seats and the other half still remain to be Senators until the following 1 July. However in a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION no one remains to be a

55

Member of Parliament during the election.

With the state parliament not a single Member of Parliament remains to be a Member of Parliament when the writs are issued. Still they refer fraudulently to themselves as being a Member of Parliament during the election and use the privileges as being a Member of Parliament not entitled upon. Yet, I understand they never declare this in their statement of expenditure to the election commission.

p12

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

13

While Ministers retain their functions as care taking Ministers during an election period, they nevertheless no longer are a Member of Parliament and should therefore neither use their parliamentarian email address as such, as it is a fraud upon the electors also.

.

5

Unless the contrary is stated in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) such as that s116 only applies to the Commonwealth and not the States) I hold that the States are “subject to this constitution” and bound by the legal principles embedded in this constitution. For this I have below further quoted statements of the Delegates and other authorities to support my above set out.

10

Hansard 12-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE

Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I should like to ask a question with regard to clause 75, as to whether it is intended to leave the right of appeal from a state or the Federal High Court itself direct to the Privy Council,

15

as it stands in the Bill, or whether the matter can be subsequently opened by the Parliament?

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am afraid that if I were to answer questions as to what is intended to be done, I should expose the Drafting Committee to a flood of interrogations. I can only say that what we intend to do is to carry out the decisions of the committee. Of course there are one or two cases in which the [start page 2439] decisions which have been arrived at require a certain amount of interpretation in

20

the light of the debates, and in those cases we shall take what was said, as well as what was put in the Bill, for the purpose of ascertaining what the movers of provisions desire. In the case of the proposal my honorable friend carried, and which was put as a proviso to clause 74, it is evident that the words as they appear are only in the nature of instructions to the committee, and they will have to be interpreted in the light of statements made by my honorable friend in answer to inquiries by me. That is the course that will

25

be pursued. When an amendment, as carried, is intended only as a suggestion to the committee, it will be interpreted in that way.

END QUOTE

 

Re Wakim ; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re

30

Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) Last Updated: 22 September 2000

QUOTE

 

Constitutional interpretation

 

2.

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its

35

makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:

40

"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a

45

particular way on a particular occasion."

 
 

END QUOTE

 

QUOTE

 

Mr. CARRUTHERS:

50

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 QUOTE

 

55

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

 

p13

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

14

HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:

Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we

5

cannot get behind it. END QUOTE

 

.

 

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

10

Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament. END QUOTE

 

.

 

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

15

QUOTE

Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may

be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which

20

I

do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the

Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws. END QUOTE

 

.

25

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government

30

of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the

35

Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. END QUOTE

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. THYNNE:

I

shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:

 

One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally

40

immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.

END QUOTE

 

.

 

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

45

QUOTE

Mr. THYNNE:

The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the

50

several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each

55

assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey

60

.

again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority. END QUOTE

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

p14

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

QUOTE

15

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

5

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

10

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

.

15

397 U.S. 664 Walz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of New York (No. 135) Argued: November 19, 1969 Decided: May 4, 1970 Opinion

20

BURGER, J., Opinion of the Court MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court. QUOTE It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence, and indeed predates it.

25

END QUOTE

 

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN.-

. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he

30

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

35

of its existence. END QUOTE END QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General

QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General

40

 

Ethics Orientation for State Officials

 

Misuse of Public Funds

 

Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes

45

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.

50

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. For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it is an

55

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.

60

 

p15

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

16

Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

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.

5

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

10

business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great Falls, Montana and back.

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.

State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections

15

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 we’ll cover in this section.

Stanson v. Mott

Endorsements and Informational Materials

20

Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines

Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns 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,

25

challenging the director’s 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

30

The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process is that

the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental

authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office

The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson

The

selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course,

35

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.

40

Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot measure elections.

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.”

45

 

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.”

50

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 the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a

$10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several

p16

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

17

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.

5

Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.

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 Governor’s 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.

10

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.

15

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.

20

Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.

Remember These Points

Expenditures must be for a public purpose

Expenditures must be authorized

25

Public funds may not be expended for personal use

Information must be fairly presented

Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions

You have completed the "Misuse of Public Funds" module. The next module is Other Laws.

30

END QUOTE

For the record, while I was an INDEPENDENT candidate in State/Federal and council elections in the past, I decided in 2013 to no longer to do so, and hence didn’t stand as a candidate in the last 2013 federal election. This as I hold the view there are no FAIR and PROPER elections, and

35

some of the reasons are is set out above.

END QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General

QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General

I look forwards to you providing the courtesy of responding in details to this correspondence of

40

complaint(s).

 

END QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General

I have never been afraid to acknowledge my self-professed “crummy English” but at least I can read and understand what the constitution and the Letters Patent stand for. No matter what “riles”

45

Premier Daniel Andrews may seek to rely upon they can never interfere let alone overrule the legal principles embedded in the constitution. If he fraudulently became Premier then he should be held legally ac countable for this, as should any other Member of Parliament who fraudulently claimed cost after the writs were issued as if they were still members of parliament. None and I repeat none were entitled to use their former parliamentarian offices nor their electorate offices

50

for an election because they were no longer members of parliament. And they would only

p17

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

18

become Members of parliament subsequently if they were re-elected and after the return of the writs had taken up the seat elected for. Than on that date they would again become Members of Parliament. It means that no Member of Parliament ever continuously sits in the State Parliament, because every time the writs are issued they lose their seats and all and any

5

entitlements as a Member of Parliament are to be deemed suspended pending if they are not just re-elected but actually are sworn in to take up a seat. It also means that former Premiers are not entitled to some lifelong pension but are only entitled, if Her Majesty desires to do so, a limited pension for the time they were in employment of Her Majesty. No Member of Parliament is employed by the State of Victoria, albeit Ministers pay are

10

to be paid out of Consolidated Revenue funds to Her Majesty. Ordinary Members of Parliament

15

are only entitled to an allowance and not a salaries this would be in defiance of s41 of the constitution which legal principles also applies to the States. Any superannuation or other retirement payment associated with being a Member of Parliament would indicate a “salary” and would automatically disqualify this person from being a Member of Parliament.

HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE

 

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of

20

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

25

that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere. END QUOTE

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

30

QUOTE

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

35

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

It appears to me you are so to say asleep behind the wheel and not doing your job!

40

.

If you cannot handle the job then vacate it as We, the People, are entitled to so to say get our monies worth as after all you accepted the job and so better perform properly in the job.

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out issues as to

45

importance and neither sets out all relevant details/issues. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

 

(Our name is our motto!)

50

END QUOTE 4-9-2015 CORRESPONDENCE

It should be clear that any legislation that allows printing for political issues by Members of Parliament is unconstitutional/ULTRA VIRES and should have been considered as part of taxable income. There can be no basic salary for Members of Parliament as this would offend

55

s44 of the constitution. In my view any ‘allowance’ must be limited to a yearly payment albeit can be paid progressively on a weekly basis but cannot have in addition other forms of

p18

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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

19

allowances as then the basic allowance claimed to be $195,000.00 a year actually is an unconstitutional salary. Likewise, with overnight accommodation it should be on account of the Commonwealth but within limits and to be paid directly to the overnight accommodation provider (as a taxable income) and not to a Member of Parliament, who might sleep (as was

5

reported) in a shed or may sleep in his/her office. All forms of travelling must be limited to and from the Parliament and not include rorts like overseas trips merely because the person is a Member of Parliament. Because s44 prohibits any person to be a Member of Parliament while having certain benefits of foreign powers then any off shore tax have holding such as by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull

10

should be deemed to be falling under ordinary Australian taxation laws. How indeed does anyone know if Malcolm Turnbull secret overseas bank account holdings are not having benefits of decisions he is involved in? It is no use to argue that some strawman might be conducting his affairs as ultimately his share holdings, etc, would benefit. Also, where a Member of Parliament has for any purpose a claim of a partner (married or not) for

15

travel, etc, then I view the ATO should then look at their taxation declarations how they claim it, being it combined or not. One cannot have that a Member of Parliament for taxation purposes claim his/her partner as a joint income to split the income, have the partner on travel as being a partner but yet when it comes to conflict of interest that the partner may be holding shares, position, etc, then somehow the partner is not relevant to any conflict of interest. Hence, if for

20

example Mr Malcolm Turnbull is claiming combined taxation for certain benefits involving his wife Lucy then if she is a director, etc, of a company that has business dealings with the commonwealth then this must be considered a conflict of interest for Mr Malcolm Turnbull. As such, you either have a partner or not but not see-saw between the positions pending the benefits that can be attracted.

25

Awaiting your response,

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

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)

p19

24-10-2017

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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