20171024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan

1
ATO Commissioner Mr Chris Jordan 24-10-2017

C/o lynne.kennedy@ato.gov.au
5 Re: 20171024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ATO Commissioner 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.
10 http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/politicians-not-only-get-paid-to-come-to-work-they-get-paid-to-live-
somewhere-and-to-have-dinner/news-story/27e1f78d5b1164fd31e32ba3a3991566
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: Australias federal politicians are in no danger whatsoever of
starving to death any time soon.
Malcolm Farr@farrm51
20
JUNE 1, 20163:23AM
Let me in, Im starving!Source:Supplied
One thing is certain: our federal politicians will not starve.
25 Its 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 Labors 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 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
2
Labors 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 lets 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?
END QUOTE
35
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

3
":.. 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
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
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.
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)
Ethics Orientation for State Officials

50 Misuse of Public Funds
Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
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.
UNIFORM
Another 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.
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.
35 .
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 constitution
then the same legal principles applies to State parliamentarians.
50
concurrent

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!

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

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

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:
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.

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 printers customs tried to charge me again GST. They
didnt 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
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 josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Cc: Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au, 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,
15 Herald Sun Andrew Bolt news@heraldsun.com.au, readerfeedback@heraldsun.com.au, Mark Robinson
mark.robinson@news.com.au, jay.clark@news.com.au
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. Lets 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

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 Queens Ministers of State for the
Commonwealth, or of any of the Queens 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
10
Auditor General 4-9-2015
Level24, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000 comments@audit.vic.gov.au
Cc: Michelle Ainsworth michelle.ainsworth@news.com.au,
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 George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au,
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com,
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au,
Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au,
Herald Sun Andrew Bolt news@heraldsun.com.au, readerfeedback@heraldsun.com.au,
15 Mark Robinson mark.robinson@news.com.au, jay.clark@news.com.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
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.

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
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 shouldnt 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 doesnt 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 taxpayers 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.

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
.
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

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
.
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
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
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
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
35
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
.
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
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
60 .

15
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
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 .
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/664
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

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

40 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)
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 employees 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

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
well 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 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
30 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,
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
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 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.
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 didnt 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.

I look forwards to you providing the courtesy of responding in details to this correspondence of
40 complaint(s).
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
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
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.
15
HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
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
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)
( 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
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, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

(Our name is our motto!)


20171024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan

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

20171024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

ATO Commissioner Mr Chris Jordan 24-10-2017

Politicians not only get paid to come

Let me in, Im starving!Source:Supplied

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

p1 24-10-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

And lets not forget the $195,000 base salary.

Andrew Leigh today confirmed he accessed the meal money.

Minister were no longer travelling first class, for example.

p2 24-10-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

Further, any form of political advertising by a Member of Parliament would be unconstitutional

Ethics Orientation for State Officials

15 The Remuneration Tribunal has no constitutional position to define/determine what allowances a

p5 24-10-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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

p6 24-10-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. SYMON: There is no chance.

30 Mr. REID: That would make it worse.

QUOTE 3-8-2015 PRESS RELEASE

Cc: Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au, Senator George Brandis

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

QUOTE 3-11-2015 PRESS RELEASE

QUOTE 4-9-2015 CORRESPONDENCE

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

p10 24-10-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!

That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.

35 Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

Motion agreed to; progress reported.

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

p12 24-10-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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

p13 24-10-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p14 24-10-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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

Ethics Orientation for State Officials

p15 24-10-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections

Endorsements and Informational Materials

20 Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines

b. The materials do not make false statements.

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

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

( Our name is our motto!)

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

p19 24-10-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi