20190728-PRESS RELEASE-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 59-Local Gov

ISSUE: 20190728- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-
Supplement 59-Local Government
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, isn’t the Victorian Parliament amending the Local Government Act?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, let me explain what I yesterday presented to various persons:
QUOTE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 27-7-2019
Hi, I am Gerrit Hendrik-Schorel O.W.B. and a constitutionalist.

My first question is: Who is the registered owner of a motor vehicle?
OK, let me no ask you a further question shall we petition the Government to make an
amendment to legislation allow for people to register their motor vehicles?
You might now wonder why on earth seek to request something that I already is part of law
anyhow. Silly isn’t it? What on earth can you achieve with trying to amend a law that already
provide what you can do?
Well, this I the nonsense of 3 past failed referendums to include LOCAL GOVERNMENT in the
constitution. Local Government has been part of the constitution that is the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act1900 (UK) since federation. All you need to do is to check the true
meaning and application of 106 of the constitution and you find it is there already. You just never
realised it that is was so. Then neither did the politicians throughout the decades.
.
Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-If you refer to clause 105, you will see that it can only be done with the consent of the
state.
Dr. COCKBURN.-On the other hand, Sydney might object to have her harbour and 10 miles roundabout
taken away by the Federal Parliament, and its administration withdrawn from the local Government.
Mr. BARTON.-Clause 105 is quite clear on that point.
END QUOTE
Hansard 9-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN:
We know the tendency is always towards the central authority, that the central authority constitutes
a sort of vortex to which power gradually attaches itself. Therefore, all the buttresses and all the ties
should be the other way, to assist those who uphold the rights of the states from being drawn into this
central authority, and from having their powers finally destroyed. The whole history of federation in
America, whether it be the United States or Canada, has proved this: that the tendency is towards
centralisation, and away from that local government which is inseparable from freedom. I have
heard it said that those who advocate state rights are taking a conservative view of the question. I
p1 28-7-2019 © 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
would like to know since what time have centralisation and democracy been associated? Those who
advocate state rights advocate local government, under whose shadow alone democracy can exist.
There is nothing in common between centralisation and democracy, and if you handicap a house,
which is erected, to preserve state rights, what have you to prevent the establishment, in this huge
island of Australia, of a strong central government which is local only to one portion of the continent,
and as far as the rest of the continent is concerned is distant and central? I maintain that a central
government, just inasmuch as it never can be associated with the power of the people, is inseparably
associated with tyranny, arising either from ignorance or design-frequently from ignorance-because
a central and distant government can never properly appreciate the local conditions for which it is to
legislate. I [start page 708] am surprised that any one in this Convention should for one moment say
that to strengthen in every way the rights of the states, as such-to protect in every way the local
institutions-is the conservative mission. The whole history of federation has proved it is otherwise. It
was in the name of state rights, when the question of the Constitution of America was being
discussed, that the most fervent appeals to liberty that ever stirred the human breast were made, and
all those opposed to state rights were the conservatives, the monarchists of that time. The strongest
upholders of state rights from time to time have been those in favour of government by the people,
and it is only when you have state rights properly guarded, and safeguard local government, that you
can have government by the people. Government at a central and distant part is never government
by the people, and may be just as crushing a tyranny under republican or commonwealth forms as
under the most absolute monarchy. I do hope that hon. members will not allow themselves to be
hoodwinked in this matter. It seems that the crushing majority in favour of the state rights that are
essential to federation, which we had at the commencement of this discussion, has dwindled away. I
maintain that unless the state rights are in every way maintained-unless buttresses are placed to
enable them to stand up against the constant drawing towards centralisation-no federation can ever
take root in Australia. It will not be a federation at all. It will be from the very start a centralisation,
a unification, which, instead of being a guardian of the liberty of the people, will be its most distinct
tyrant, and eventually will overcome it.
END QUOTE
What is shown is that the Federal Government is the Central Government and the State
Government I the Local Government. You cannot have within a state two kind of Local
Government and as such what I generally referred to as being Local Government really is the
Municipal and Shire councils which are not a level of Government at all but are corporations
operating for and on behalf of the citizen within their area.
As the High Court of Australia in Sydney Council v Commonwealth 1904 made clear counsel
rates are DELEGATED state powers of the State Government for a council to charge rates as a
land tax. The state government can delegate certain power to collect certain goods to
municipal/shire councils such as collecting household rubbish. As a corporation municipal/shire
councils can make certain rules which are generally referred to as by-laws but are merely
regulations where it relate to say collecting garbage. So, here we have that the High Court of
Australia made clearway back in 1904 that municipal/shire councils could exercise land taxation
referred to as rates albeit not against the Commonwealth without its consent.
What are you people on about claiming that council rate are unconstitutional?
Well it is not that simple.
You see the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
QUOTE
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

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,
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
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.
END QUOTE
And well on 11 November 1910 the Commonwealth created the Land Tax Office, the forerunner
of the ATO, and so constitutionally the concurrent legislative powers regarding Land Taxation
no longer existed. It mean that the states no longer possessed the Land Taxation legislative
powers and hence it neither could delegate land taxation power to the municipal/shire councils. It
is upon this basis that municipal/council rate as a form of land taxation I unconstitutional since
11 November 1910.
In 1952 the Commonwealth began to wind down its land taxation power but in the constitution
there is no provision/mechanism to return Commonwealth legislative powers to the state. The
same is with any State legislative power that if validly referred to the Commonwealth by
approval of a state referendum then the legislative power is gone forever from the State.

QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law
that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union,
because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power,
until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue
for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a
state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has any-
and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be
inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should
say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not
be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
END QUOTE
Much is argued about the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975. Well to me it is not a
constitution at all1
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
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
.
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
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
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
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
Because of the federation our 1900 constitution override the Victorian 1855 constitution and as
such the 1855 Victorian Constitution act must be interpreted subject to what is governed by the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution act 1900 (UK).
106 Saving of Constitutions

The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the
establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be,
until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.
Did you notice that section 106 specifically dictate that the state constitutions are subject to this
Constitution?
As such the embedded legal principle in the federal constitution are applicable to the state unless
otherwise provided for in the federal constitution.
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
And

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of
the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under
it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-
the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the
court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as
will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere
of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
So, forget about dribbling about Local Government when in reality you refer to municipal/shire
council. They cannot be a level of Government because a corporation cannot function as a
government. All they can do is to act for and on behalf of a state government, the Local
Government. Even then when it comes to collecting any monies, then it must all go directly into
State Consolidated Revenue Fund. After all if you are managing corporation and you got a
cashier collecting monies for the corporation you certainly wouldn’t accept the cashier to keep
the monies collected for herself/himself. Our federal constitution I that monies must all be
deposited into a Consolidated Revenue Fund and can only be drawn by Appropriation Bills.
Clearly, where it comes to so called council rate then not only are they unconstitutional but also
the monies are misappropriates as a form of theft because all monies should be deposited in the
State Consolidated Revenue Fund.
A major problem I that the Federal government cannot claim that the states are collecting on its
behalf this is because the Commonwealth must ensure that taxation I equal throughout the
Commonwealth. As such where the land taxation is varying from council to council and state and
state then it cannot be claimed that they are collecting monies on behalf of the Commonwealth.
.

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the
imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the
whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may
determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average
opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout
the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states
for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.
END QUOTE

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

QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-
Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty
shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I am saying now that I do not think there is any necessity for clause 95 in its present form.
What I am saying however, is that it should be made certain that in the same way as you provide that the
Tariff or any taxation imposed shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, so it should be
provided with reference to trade and commerce that it shall be uniform and equal, so that the
Commonwealth shall not give preference to any state or part of a state. Inasmuch as we provide that all
taxation, whether it be customs or excise duties, or direct taxation, must be uniform, and inasmuch as

we follow the United States Constitution in that particular-in the very same way I argue that we should
protect the trade and commerce sub-section by not doing anything which will limit its effect. That is the real
logical position.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to
wipe it out."
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member
of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a
sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
You may also then consider where I the constitutional legislative power of the commonwealth to define/declare
CITIZENSHIP?

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and
clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to
place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the
right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a
thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should
be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
This is the 3rd time in about 4 decade I have attended to some meeting about constitutional
matters. This as I hold that mot time it would be a sheer waste of my time people making all kind
of claims not really knowing what they are talking about. My presentation I how people at least
in my view should submit their argument either for or against a particular issue.
Anyone who understand/comprehend what I state may realise this I generally lacking by most
other in their presentation. And then we have the victim who by misconception are stopping to
pay rates, etc, not knowing what really is applicable, and unable to make a proper argument can
end up with a lot of cost ordered against them. It I for this everyone must do their own research
and not accept it as gospel.
When the High Court of Australia commenced to operate it then banned the usage of the Hansard
record, this as I understand it former delegate now in positions to push their goals which they
might have failed in during the debates now could succeed nevertheless. This for decade went on
until about 1970s by which time then the Hansard was allowed to be used but then many miss-
judgments were not corrected but still enforced.
I have at times come across material a person used in court having copied and paste my writings
and used it as their own. This is not only plagiarism but also very stupid. This is because a judge
then tart questioning the person on the issues and as they merely quoted it claiming to be their
own but fail to understand/comprehend it and so cannot explain detail then the judge can strike
out their entire material. Hence, do not just plagiarize material but do your own research and
ensure you can competently explain it all if you end up in a court.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
(Our name is our motto!)

END QUOTE
What therefore should be done is to alter the name of the Local Government Act to Municipal
and Shire Council Act.
* That makes sense to mea then you know it refer to the council.
**#** Also, you cannot have billions of dollars being syphoned away without any proper
control. All monies that are collected on behalf of the State must be deposited in the
Consolidated Revenue Funds.
Further we appear to have this waste recycling problem. Well municipal/shire councils have this
as one of their core responsibilities and to blame contractors I in my view totally unacceptable.
Clearly some 30 councils involved are spending huge amount of monies toward so to say
protecting the environment and yet are now allegedly dumping recyclable material in the
ordinary waste disposal facilities. If councils supposing after about 150 odd years are still
incompetent to manage waste disposal then what are we having councilors for? I get it councilors
no longer can direct council staff as the CEO on huge salaries now deal with that and well they
can mismanage and blame councilors for this, so it seem to me. Too many chief and no Indians is
the saying. Actually the same is with this fire danger issue. I cross-examined Mr Wayne Wall of
Buloke Shire Council and while he is the Law Enforcement Officer he admitted during cross-
examination he had no legal background as having studied to be a lawyer. He admitted that there
was a fire danger at areas under council control. Was abbout1.5 metres high at some points. And
didn’t seem to know that the Country Fire Authority Act authorized him to have this dangerous
area to be attended to! So pursuing to fine citizen about $1.600 for having just over 100mm
grass/weed but ignoring about 1.5metres high grass/weed. As such the Country Fire Authority
Act not to protect citizen from harm but is used as a tool to garnish properties where property
owners fail to pay the fines, etc. And let us not ignore the danger of using UNTREATED
WATER for growing crops, etc. So when children and their parents are sitting down for a
healthy cereal breakfast or sandwiches they slowly poison themselves due to the buildup of
poison in the UNTREATED WATER.
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE
MBLY&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&date2=M
ay&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+%29
QUOTE
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking Water Bill. This bill forms part of the
government's strategic approach to water management, with specific attention being paid to water quality and risk
management as matters of public health. It is worth noting that this is a debate about public health and about making sure
that each community across our state has access to the highest quality water. It is also worth noting that this bill has been
introduced by the Minister for Health as a matter of public health.
The bill has four specific objectives. Before going on to those I welcome the support shown by the Liberal and National
parties for this bill. Every endeavour has been made to try to provide as much information as possible.
END QUOTE

Let us not under estimate the danger of using untreated water!
Tulsi Takes On Monsanto & Religious Bigotry

by The Jimmy Dore Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEMBmoW3dAk&list=UU3M7l8ved_rYQ45AVzS0RGA&index=111&t=0s
The secret tactics Monsanto used to protect Roundup, its star product | Four Corners ABC News (Australia)557,626 views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JszHrMZ7dx4
here we had the now Premier of Victoria claiming all Victorian are entitled to safe Drinking
Water and yet in 2019 a large part of Victoria is still denied this. And anyone ignoring this is
not just ignoring the people living in those areas but also ignoring the health of themselves as
well as that of their children! Like asbestos isue that this went on and on being ignored by the
many. Well, ample of people suffered.
I complained about the water issue to Buloke Shire Council but Mr Wayne Wall the Law
Enforcement Officer to my knowledge did absolutely nothing about it. So, his law enforcement
appear to med to be where the shire can extract monies from citizen rather then what is legally to
be done in all circumstance.
It seem to me that any amendment regarding municipal/shire council should address such issue I
just referred to.
We should stop those so called education trips of councilors travelling the world at cost of
citizens when they cannot even manage their basic responsibilities such a rubbish collection and
disposal and ensuring safe drinking water is available to all part of Victoria instead of using
UNTREATED WATER.
* Do you expect the renaming of the Act and amendment to address the issue you outlined?
**#** If we have a competent Minister he will pursue the Parliament to provide for this.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)


20190728-PRESS RELEASE-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 59-Local Gov

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

20190728-PRESS RELEASE-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 59-Local Gov

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ISSUE: 20190728- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-

Supplement 59-Local Government

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

Hi, I am Gerrit Hendrik-Schorel O.W.B. and a constitutionalist.

Mr. BARTON.-Clause 105 is quite clear on that point.

Hansard 9-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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

p2 28-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

106 Saving of Constitutions

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p5 28-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p6 28-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

(Our name is our motto!)

p9 28-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Tulsi Takes On Monsanto & Religious Bigotry

p10 28-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi