p1 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga
Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE Hon. Bruce Atkinson, MLC 18-6-2014 President of the Legislative Council President's Office 5 Parliament House, Spring Street, Melbourne 3002 Victoria, Australia Phone: +61 3 9651 8675 Fax: +61 3 9651 8996 E-mail: bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc: Christine Fyffe, Speaker christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au 10 Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au Treasurer Michael OBrien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au Mr Geoff Shaw geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au Robert Clark Attorney General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au 15 Louise Asher louise.asher@parliament.vic.gov.au Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au Mr Ken Smith ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au 20
Ref; 20140618-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Bruce Atkinson MLC COMPLAINT Geoff Shaw saga-etc Sir, I am dismayed at the very least that you provided a negative comment (Upon my 15-6-2014 correspondence to you) to Mr Peter Olney which I view is without even bothering to respond to 25 me to clarify matters for so far needed. I have highlighted your comments in bold and in red colour. QUOTE EMAIL 17-6-2014 CORRESPONDENCES Fw: Parliament, and the Geoff Shaw matter. (2) Peter Olney Hi Gerrit, Reply from The Hon Bruce Atkinson MLC ... FYI Regards, Peter. -- 30 --- Original Message ----- From: <bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au> To: "Peter Olney" <peterjil@iinet.net.au> Sent: Tuesd Today at 1:39 PM Reply, Reply All or Forward | More Me Peter, much appreciated you alerting me to this I intend to write to Bruce Atkinson 35 about the matter. He just didn't have the courtesy to respond to me personally about his views. . Gerrit Constitutio To Peter Olney Today at 1:58 PM Peter, 40 much appreciated you alerting me to this I intend to write to Bruce Atkinson about the matter. He just didn't have the courtesy to respond to me personally about his views. .
2 p2 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati Gerrit
5 Constitutionalist & Consultant
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN) 10 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia Ph (International) 61394577209 . Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au 15 The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJ UDICE, unless specifically otherwise stated.
If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do is to consider the content 20 appropriately!
A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED TO BE LABELLED A FOOL. 25
Hide message history On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 1:39 PM, Peter Olney <peterjil@iinet.net.au> wrote: 30 Hi Gerrit, Reply from The Hon Bruce Atkinson MLC ... FYI Regards, Peter.
3 p3 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati ----- Original Message ----- From: <bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au> To: "Peter Olney" < peterjil@iinet.net.au> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Parliament, and the Geoff Shaw matter. 5
Good afternoon
I have looked at the information. He is wrong to the extent that either 10 House of Parliament can determine a sanction on one of its Members. However, in my view, the separation of powers means the police should not be involved and they and the courts would not be expected to have any prosecution powers in a matter pertaining to conduct and entitlements associated with the Parliament as distinct from a criminal conviction. 15
Yours sincerely,
Hon Bruce Atkinson MLC President of the Legislative Council 20 Member for Eastern Metropolitan Region
Office of the President | Parliament House p (61 3) 9651 8676 | f (61 3) 9651 8996 Spring St | EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 25
Electorate Office p (61 3) 9877 7188 | f (61 3) 9877 7199 153-155 Springvale Road | NUNAWADING VIC 3131 30 e bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au
35 From: "Peter Olney" <peterjil@iinet.net.au> To: "Bruce Atkinson" <bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au> Date: 17/06/2014 10:15 AM Subject: Parliament, and the Geoff Shaw matter. 40
Hi Bruce, The document sent to you on Sunday last by Gerrit Schoel-Hlavka canvases a lot of areas, the one for the moment being the 'Geoff Shaw' matter. 45 There are serious issues raised by Gerrit about the proper performance of Parliament in the way it has handled Mr Shaw MP. There are other matters raised as the consequence of Gerrit providing volumes from his (digital) book which can be useful to consider and apply.
4 p4 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati I look forward to you providing careful consideration (from a constitutional point of view) to the points raised about Mr Shaw. And, I look foward to your being able to make a difference in this issue. Regards, Peter Olney. 1/21 Cobham Road, Mitcham, 3132. 5 ----- Original Message ----- From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel- Hlavka O. W. B. Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 11:59 PM Subject: Fw: See attachment 20140615-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to Bruce 10 Atkinson MLC re. Geoff Shaw saga-etc.
One thing, once the ball is rolling one better keep it going!
A more extensive presentation of some matters wrong with the purported 15 constitution, standing orders and a lot more.
The document can be downloaded from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/229743898/20140615-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Bruce- Atkinson-MLC-Re-Geoff-Shaw-Saga-etc 20
Constitutionalist & Consultant
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL 25 Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN) 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia Ph (International) 613945772 30 END QUOTE 2014-6-17 CORRESPONDENCES . I now narrow the email series to the critical part of your comments:
QUOTE 2014-6-17 CORRESPONDENCES 35 ----- Original Message ----- From: <bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au> To: "Peter Olney" < peterjil@iinet.net.au> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Parliament, and the Geoff Shaw matter. 40
Good afternoon
I have looked at the information. He is wrong to the extent that either 45 House of Parliament can determine a sanction on one of its Members. However, in my view, the separation of powers means the police should not be involved and they and the courts would not be expected to have any prosecution powers in a matter pertaining to conduct and entitlements associated with the Parliament as distinct from a criminal conviction. 50
5 p5 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
Yours sincerely,
Hon Bruce Atkinson MLC President of the Legislative Council 5 Member for Eastern Metropolitan Region
Office of the President | Parliament House p (61 3) 9651 8676 | f (61 3) 9651 8996 Spring St | EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 10 END QUOTE 2014-6-17 CORRESPONDENCES
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 15 England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it. END QUOTE
And if we consider how the States are created then we need to consider s106 20
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK) QUOTE Chapter VThe States 106 Saving of Constitutions 25 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. END QUOTE 30 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which 35 those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians. END QUOTE
Therefore, the States are bound by the legal principles embedded in the constitution. 40 As quoted below Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) Mr. BARTON: The necessity for it does not arise out of the powers of the Standing Orders, which are merely regulations for the conduct of the business within the House, but out of the power of 45 punishment in cases where contempt is exercised by persons within the walls of Parliament. If, for instance, a person throws a stone and the Sergeant-at-Arms can catch him he can be brought before the Parliament and can be imprisoned or dealt with otherwise for contempt. Under the operation of the clause similar action can be taken by the Federal Parliament, and that goes far enough. It does not require Standing Orders to deal with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament. They exist, and if 50 you made Standing Orders you would really only limit them. Under the Bill we have taken the powers, privileges, and immunities possessed by the House of Commons. END QUOTE
6 p6 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati And if we consider the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 (even so I hold it is not a valid con situation and so successfully challenged in the County Court of Victoria on 19-6-2006 when I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia); http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/about/the-parliamentary-system/the-constitution QUOTE 5 THE CONSTI TUTI ON Purpose of the Constitution The Constitution and the Parliament of Victoria History of the Constitution Changing the Constitution 10 Further reading
Purpose of the Constitution Victoria's Constitution is set out in the Constitution Act 1975. A copy of the Constitution Act 1975 is available on the Legislation website at www.legislation.vic.gov.au (go to 'Victorian Law Today', select 15 'Acts' , 'C' and scroll down to Constitution Act 1975. This will take you to the Constitution as it is today). The Constitution provides the framework within which parliamentary democracy and responsible government operate in Victoria. It sets out the basic rules relating to the Crown (the Queen and the Governor), the Legislative Council, the Legislative Assembly, local government, the Supreme Court and the Executive (ministers and the public service). 20 The Constitution does not set out everything about democracy and government in Victoria. It does not, for example, cover Cabinet, the Opposition or political parties. Instead such concepts have been based on the Parliament of the United Kingdom or have developed over time. The Constitution and the Parliament of Victoria The Constitution defines the powers and responsibilities of the Parliament of Victoria. In particular, it 25 specifies that the Parliament of Victoria comprises the Crown, a Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly. It gives the power to the Parliament to makes laws for Victoria. The Constitution specifies: The number of members in the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly When general elections must be held 30 The qualifications required to be a member of the Council or the Assembly The eligibility of electors. The History of the Constitution The Constitution was drafted in Melbourne by Victoria's first Legislative Council in 1853-54. It was sent to England and approved by the British Parliament in 1855, and was proclaimed in Victoria on 23 35 November 1855. The details of the Constitution are not irrevocably fixed. As Victoria's social and political circumstances have altered, the Constitution has been adapted to meet new challenges. Parliamentary membership numbers, voter eligibility, payment of members, voting methods, size of the ministry, electorate numbers and the powers and responsibilities of the Legislative Council and the 40 Legislative Assembly are some of the constitutional provisions that have been modified or altered since 1855.
7 p7 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati One of the most important changes took place in 1975. From 1855 until 1975, Victoria's Constitution existed solely as an Act of the British Parliament. On 22 October 1975 the Constitution was proclaimed as an Act of the Parliament of Victoria. In 2003 the Constitution was further amended by the Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Act 2003 so that changes to some of its provisions, such as the representation of Victorian voters in Parliament, will 5 now have to be determined by a referendum. See Changing the Constitution below. The 2003 amendments also provided for fixed-four year terms for both Houses, election of the Legislative Council by proportional representation, removal of the Council's power to block a supply bill (the budget) and a dispute resolution process for bills for which cannot be reached. These are regarded as some of the most significant changes to the Victorian Constitution in its 150-year history. 10 Far from being an historical artefact, the Constitution is therefore central to the way in which democracy operates in Victoria. By defining what is possible it protects the interests of all Victorians. Changing the Constitution The Constitution is changed by the Parliament agreeing to a bill that makes amendments to the Constitution Act 1975. 15 Some parts of the Constitution can only be changed if certain requirements are met. Those special requirements and the sections to which they apply are listed in the Constitution; these are known as entrenched provisions. Not all sections are affected. Three possible requirements exist: 1. A bill passed by Parliament must also be agreed to by a majority of electors voting at a referendum; 20 or 2. 3/5 of members of Parliament in both the Assembly and the Council must agree to the third reading of the bill (a special majority); or 3. An absolute majority (half plus one) of members of Parliament in both the Assembly and the Council must agree to the third reading of a bill. 25 For more information see Legislative Assembly Fact Sheet D3: Altering Victoria's Constitution. Further reading Victoria's Constitution, 3 rd ed, 1997, Law Press, Richard McGarvie, John Waugh and Department of Premier and Cabinet. [return to top] Last Updated on Friday, 09 August 2013 30
END QUOTE
Constitution Act 1975 No. 8750 of 1975 QUOTE 35 Division 2Privileges of Parliament 19 Privileges powers etc. of Council and Assembly (1) The Council and the Assembly respectively and the committees and members thereof respectively shall hold enjoy and exercise such and the like privileges immunities and powers as at the 21st day of July, 1855 were held enjoyed and exercised by the House of Commons of 40 Great Britain and Ireland and by the committees and members thereof, so far as the same are not inconsistent with any Act of the Parliament of Victoria, whether such privileges immunities or powers were so held possessed or enjoyed by custom statute or otherwise. (2) The Parliament may by Act legislate for or with respect to the privileges immunities and powers to be held enjoyed and exercised by the Council and the Assembly and by the 45 committees and the members thereof respectively. (3) Any copy of the Journals of the House of Commons printed or purporting to be printed by the order or printer of the House of Commons shall be received as prima facie evidence
8 p8 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati without proof of its being such copy, upon any inquiry touching the privileges immunities and powers of the Council or the Assembly or of any committee or member thereof respectively. END QUOTE
In my view the above quoted part making it subject to so far as the same are not inconsistent 5 with any Act of the Parliament of Victoria in my view should be so far as the same are not inconsistent with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia 1900(UK) any Act of the Parliament of Victoria. This, as then the legal principles embedded in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia 1900(UK) will not be in question to judges, politicians, etc. 10 As seems to me to be very clear, you seem to lack the understanding/competence to deal with matters as permitted within constitutional framework and that to med is of concern. Indeed, where you merely so to say sideswipe my writings and didnt even bother to alert me of your different view then surely this is a major problem ass it underlines that you are not basing your views upon FACTS but upon whatever misconceptions you have formed over the years and 15 not willing to even consider the true FACTS.
As I indicated in my past writings, some were having the website address included, as to previous publications I held that Standing order 125 of the Legislative assembly was not one which the Speaker could invoke as the alleged b reach related to what was provided as an 20 allowance as Mr Geoff Shaw Member for Frankston had not persistently disregarded any ruling from the Chair (the Speaker) as for the speaker to invoke Standing order 125. Neither had the speaker Standing Order 126 complied with. . It never can be any excuse for a Speaker not to comply with Standing orders unless they were 25 suspended, which the Hansard transcript of 11-6-2014 do not indicate eventuated. Two errors do not make a right! As such, any attempt to punish me Geoff Shaw had to be done following the book! Meaning following precisely the Standing Orders. . 30 As I analyzed, there was no provision within Standing Order 125 to deal with the allegations against Mr Geoff Shaw. Hence, in my view any matter to pursue against Mr Geoff Shaw was one under CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT provisions that is if the conduct alleged against Mr Geoff Shaw was one in violation to Parliament and not a matter that fell within criminal law. Where allowances are within the legal provisions of legislation and not being within the 35 provisions of privileges by the Parliament itself then I view the matter is one outside the precinct of the Parliament and out of bounds for the Parliament to deal with.
Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 40 QUOTE Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I am not particular about that, but I think at all events the Federal Parliament ought to have power to make its own standing orders for the purpose of preventing disorder. When I say this I do not suppose the Commonwealth Parliament would attempt to exercise control with regard to people out of its own doors. But within our own dominion we ought to be absolute. If we summon a witness in any of our 45 local Parliaments to the bar of the House, he can decline to give evidence, laugh at us, and walk away. The case I have just mentioned shows the necessity of Parliament having control over any disorder. Mr. TRENWITH: Anything to stop them throwing stones at labor members.
9 p9 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In Victoria they took the matter in a wholesale manner, and passed an Act of Parliament declaring that the Victorian Legislature had all the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons. There was no mincing of matters there, and it was in consequence of the Parliament of Victoria having arrested a man, and it having been decided that they had no power to do so, that they +*immediately declared they had all of the powers of the House of Commons. 5 QUOTE
As such, even if the Parliament were so to say issue a summons for me to appear before the Parliament I can ignore it because it has no powers outside the precinct of the perimeter of the Parliament. (Perimeter I consider includes the staircase to the Parliament and grounds belonging 10 to the Parliament.
Where the Parliament deals with a contempt matter then it has an obligation to inform the accused it the accused face ds a CIVIL or CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, this as the accused face a considerable different conduct of defense pending the type of contempt the accused faces. 15 As such if the Parliament was dealing with Mr Geoff Shaw as being a contempt or then his legal rights should have been explained. However, as the privilege committee did not hold him in contempt by the legislative assembly voted he would be in contempt if he failed to comply with what the Legislative assembly voted upon then Mr Geoff Shaw would be in contempt, then I view we have this idiotic conduct that 20 Mr Geoff Shaw while not held in contempt can be in contempt but not stated as to if the CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT would be a CIVIL or CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. The failure to provide for this is another legal issue.
But, if the Parliament were to have deemed to be ab le to invoke contempt powers, not being 25 Standing Orders, and authorized the Victorian Police to so to say takeover the matter to pursue criminal charges, then this would have been the end of the matter for the Parliament and only if there was a conviction could the Parliament use the conviction as a possible ground to deal with Mr Geoff Shaw as to have so to say be guilty of conduct unbecoming to a Member of Parliament, etc, if this was within the Standing orders to deal with (I do not perceive that the standing orders 30 provide for this)
The issue therefore needs to be settled why did the Victorian Police pursue criminal charges against Mr Geoff Shaw? . 35 In my (2013) correspondence to Chief Commissioner of Police Ken Lay I did set out my views about constitutional issues and a copy was send at the same time to Mr Geoff Shaw and subsequently the Police (prosecutor) withdraw the criminal charges. As I explicitly wrote in past correspondence the Victorian Police would have had no jurisdiction to charge Mr Geoff Shaw if it related to an internal Parliament matters, such as CONTEMPT OF 40 PARLIAMENT issue unless the Parliament had expletively handed over the matter to the Victorian Police. Irrespective if the Victorian Policed acted on delegated powers of the Parliament (considering the contempt of Parliament powers) or acted in right of ordinary prosecution of breaches of Victorian legislation where the Victorian Police withdrew its criminal charges then that should have 45 concluded matters. . As to the powers of the Parliament to punish a Member of Parliament without invoking any CONTEMPT powers, this cannot be questioned provided the alleged offence(s) fall within the
10 p10 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati provisions of Standing Orders 125. In my view in regard of Mr Geoff Shaw this never eventuated as such. . Therefore, what should have been established first was if Mr Geoff Shaw could be deemed to have been in violation of: 5 Standing orders Parliamentarian safety/security to protects its internal business processes Violation of legislative provisions (criminal law) Departmental Regulations Any other kind of violation 10
R v Kidman [1915] HCA 58; (1915) 20 CLR 425 (16 September 1915) QUOTE The first question is as to the competence of the Australian Parliament to make the provisions of the Crimes Act 1915 (No. 6 of 1915) retrospective. By sec. 2 it is enacted (by way of amendment of the Crimes Act 1914) 15 that any person who conspires with any other person "to defraud the Commonwealth" shall be guilty of an indictable offence; the penalty attached being imprisonment for three years or less. By sec. 3 it is enacted "This Act shall be deemed to have been in force from the date of the commencement of the Crimes Act 1914" (29th October 1914). There is, therefore, no doubt as to the intention of the Parliament to make a conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth between 29th October 1914 and 7th May 1915 (the date of the commencement of 20 the Crimes Act 1915) an indictable offence. There is no doubt that the Act of 1915 was meant to be retrospective; and therefore the numerous cases which lay down the principle of construction against retrospective or retroactive operation are inapplicable. If the Act were an Act of the British Parliament with its plenary powers, the principle of construction must yield to the clearly expressed intention of the Legislature. But the question as to the power of the Federal Parliamenta Parliament which has no power to legislate 25 except as to specified subjectsto legislate retrospectively, remains. For the purpose of the question I may assumewithout in any way deciding the pointthat, apart from the Act No. 6, a conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth does not constitute a criminal offence within the State law or otherwise. END QUOTE 30 If Mr Geoff Shaw had committed a fraud then the criminal process would have been in my view the appropriate manner to deal with him before the Courts, however, it is my view that to the details/information that is known to me that in the circumstances prevailing any action against him was inappropriate. Having downloaded the most updated Victorian Constitution Act 1975 I am indeed very troubled 35 about the size of this purported constitution and to the amount of what I would describe utter rubbish contained within it. . I found it extremely difficult to follow as on the one hand it provides for disqualification, then it provides for the House to rule otherwise and allow a Member to remain holding the seat 40 regardless if in an Office of Profit. Then the Court of Disputed Returns can rule the person is ineligible to be in the House. Then further down the holding of the Office of Profit can prevent a person to be held eligible. Then a person may not be entitled to be a Member of Parliament if convicted. Then a person can be fined $100 a day voting in the Parliament but not qualified. And also that any other Act may affect matters. 45 Victorian Constitution Act 1975 QUOTE 58 With certain exceptions members of Parliament not to accept offices of profit under the Crown Except where express provision is made to the contrary by any Act or enactment other than this section, if any person while he is a member of the Council or the Assembly accepts any office or place 50 of profit under the Crown other than an office as a responsible Minister of the Crown, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable to a penalty of $100 for every week that he holds such office.
11 p11 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati END QUOTE
I view it is totally disjointed and it simply too difficult to have a clear understanding what is or isnt applicable: . 5 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE 10 . A constitution must contain a minimum of words in its provisions as to reduce the ability by lawyers to dispute the meaning of it.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 15 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.- When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass 20 the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care has not been exercised. END QUOTE . Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 25 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used 30 the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should 35 have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution. 40 END QUOTE
Matters such as Family Law Act 1975 related matters as to a judge wife and children in my view have no place in the constitution. They might be included in a Judicial Act but do not belong in a Constitution Act. Having more than 120 times referring to superannuation is not something 45 that is appropriate for a constitution.
The Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is merely an act of the Victorian Parliament but not a constitution, this even so referred to it as such. Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 50 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 55
12 p12 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament. END QUOTE 5
Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Re Section 96 of the Constitution) QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.- 10 In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. END QUOTE
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 15 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are 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 20 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 25 which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution. END QUOTE
Because the colonies agreed to form a federation the colonial acts therefore became subject to the 30 federal constitution, as referred to above. It means that the sovereign power of the Parliament to amend its own constitution was no more. It means that the Victorian Constitution Act 1855 since federation could no longer be amended by the State Parliament but had to be by way of referendum approved or vetoed by the state electors. 35
The rubbish now purported to be a Victorian Constitution Act 1975 has in my view no validity for so far it purportedly was amended without approval of State electors by State referendum.
Version No. 204 Constitution Act 1975 No. 8750 of 1975 40 QUOTE 16 Legislative power of Parliament The Parliament shall have power to make laws in and for Victoria in all cases whatsoever. END QUOTE 45 PROPOSED 16 Legislative power of Parliament The Parliament shall subject to the provisions and embedded legal principles of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) have power to make laws in and for Victoria in all cases whatsoever. 50 END PROPOSED
Because this part is missing the legislation is as such invalid. .
13 p13 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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. 5 END QUOTE
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will 10 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. 15 END QUOTE
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and 20 immigration, its legislation displaces the state law. END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 25 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 30 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." END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 35 Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the 40 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 45
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 50 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.
14 p14 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses. Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee! 5 Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a salary for their work, which they are not. Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say 10 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. Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move: That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow. 15 If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654] 20 Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was being paid 500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational 25 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 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 30 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 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 35 payment of members bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual allowance for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at 500. Motion agreed to; progress reported. END QUOTE 40 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 which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other 45 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
15 p15 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses. Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee! 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 5 of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a salary for their work, which they are not. Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I move as an amendment: 10 That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted. 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 15 inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than 20 the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was being paid 500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public. 25 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are likely to do well 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 30 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 for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at 500. 35 Motion agreed to; progress reported. END QUOTE
Hansard 21-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 40 QUOTE Clause 43.-Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the States Assembly or of the House of Representatives, shall receive an allowance for his services of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat. Mr. GORDON: I move: 45 To strike out the word "four," in the third line, with the view of inserting " five." The ground for the motion is that 400 a year is insufficient. While some local Parliaments are paying their resident mem- [start page 1032] bers 300 a year, 400 is not enough for a member who has to leave-as
16 p16 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati most members of the Federal Parliament would have to do-his colony and practically abandon his business or his profession. END QUOTE
Hansard 21-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 5 Australasian Convention) QUOTE
Mr. TRENWITH: I mean Tasmania. I was pointing out that the instincts of our people tend towards payment of members of Parliament for their work. My hon. friend, Sir William Zeal, interjected that we have 10 free railway passes. I would remark that any person who knows anything about travel must recognise that it carries with it a large amount of expense. Those who are here, away from their homes, know that if they were getting 400 a year for this work, they would be losing money, and they would not even be reimbursed for the expenditure incurred. Those who urge that the amount should be left as proposed in the Bill, are not in favor of payment of members, but are simply favorable to reimbursing 15 members for the disbursements they make in connection with the performance of their duties. Mr. HIGGINS: I was always in favor of payment of members. Mr. TRENWITH: I feel confident that my hon. friend Mr. Higgins could not have looked thoroughly at the question or he would not have spoken as he did. Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: He is losing now ten times as much as he will ever get for being here, but he is 20 bearing it cheerfully. END QUOTE
Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 25 Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I am not particular about that, but I think at all events the Federal Parliament ought to have power to make its own standing orders for the purpose of preventing disorder. When I say this I do not suppose the Commonwealth Parliament would attempt to exercise control with regard to people out of 30 its own doors. But within our own dominion we ought to be absolute. If we summon a witness in any of our local Parliaments to the bar of the House, he can decline to give evidence, laugh at us, and walk away. The case I have just mentioned shows the necessity of Parliament having control over any disorder. Mr. TRENWITH: Anything to stop them throwing stones at labor members. Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In Victoria they took the matter in a wholesale manner, and passed an Act of 35 Parliament declaring that the Victorian Legislature had all the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons. There was no mincing of matters there, and it was in consequence of the Parliament of Victoria having arrested a man, and it having been decided that they had no power to do so, that they +*immediately declared they had all of the powers of the House of Commons. The man, I think, was connected with Goldsbrough's Company, and named Glass. He did something, and the Parliament 40 arrested him, brought him to the bar of the House, and it was declared that they had no power to do so. In all the decisions of the Privy Council in reference to the powers of Parliament, the Privy Council has invariably declared that Parliament has no power outside the very words of the Constitution Act. In the own of Hampton and Fenton, I think, in Tasmania they had the audacity to tell a great colony like Tasmania that so far as it was concerned it had no greater powers than a municipality. 45 Mr. BARTON: The Speaker only had the power of a chairman of a public meeting. Mr. DOUGLAS: Regarding the case alluded to by the hon. member, I happened to be present when the decision was given. The Privy Council did not declare that the colony had no power, but that any colonial Government, being under a Statute, would have no power beyond that Statute. The result was
17 p17 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati that the Tasmanian Parliament passed a law giving the powers to which the hon. member has made reference. Sir EDWARD BRADDON: I think that the amendment which the hon. member has proposed must be considered in connection with clause 8, page 4 of the Bill, which provides: The privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives 5 respectively, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, at the establishment of the Commonwealth. If the hon. member's amendment is to include the power of punishment it will scarcely be necessary. The 10 effect of the decision of the Privy Council to which my hon. friend has alluded must be read in connection with the Constitutions of the several colonies, which were affected at the time of the pronouncement of these decisions. In New South Wales, and I think in Tasmania, what exists at the present time is a Legislature as distinct from a Parliament. A Sovereign Parliament has punishing power. A Legislature which is created by Act of Parliament, and with the equivalent powers conferred upon it, as they are conferred by section 8, 15 has, in the case of New South Wales and Tasmania, no power except such as can be gathered from the necessary implication of the words of the Constitution. In the present instance we have passed a clause which states that the [start page 758] privileges, immunities, and powers of the Federal Parliament shall be those declared by the Parliament, and until a declaratory Act is passed the privileges, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons will be accepted. The power of punishment exists in the House of Commons, and the 20 same power would exist in the Parliament of the Commonwealth under clause 8. An outrage committed within the walls of the Federal Parliament could be punished in the same way as in the Ho+use of Commons. If a man ventured to throw a stone into the Imperial Parliament, though unfortunately the thrower is not always caught, it would be contempt of Parliament, and that would be a matter to be dealt with by the Commons according to the powers, privileges, and immunities it 25 possesses. Sir GEORGE TURNER: Has not the House of Commons power to make Standing Orders? Mr. BARTON: Yes. Sir GEORGE TURNER: Then where is the necessity for this clause? Mr. BARTON: The necessity for it does not arise out of the powers of the Standing Orders, which are 30 merely regulations for the conduct of the business within the House, but out of the power of punishment in cases where contempt is exercised by persons within the walls of Parliament. If, for instance, a person throws a stone and the Sergeant-at-Arms can catch him he can be brought before the Parliament and can be imprisoned or dealt with otherwise for contempt. Under the operation of the clause similar action can be taken by the Federal Parliament, and that goes far enough. It does not require 35 Standing Orders to deal with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament. They exist, and if you made Standing Orders you would really only limit them. Under the Bill we have taken the powers, privileges, and immunities possessed by the House of Commons. Sir JOSEPH ABBOT: Then why do you want clause 49? Mr. BARTON: I have already explained that, but I will return to it if my hon. friend wishes. I say in the 40 meantime you have already taken the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons, and there is no necessity to pass Standing Orders with reference to them. They do not need definition in the Standing Orders; they are not the subject of definition in the Standing Orders; they are totally different in their whole circuit to the Standing Orders which relate to the conduct of the business of each House and its transactions with the other House. That is not a question of the powers, privileges, and immunities of the 45 House of Commons, which exist independently of the Standing Orders. They have a historical application in the House of Commons, and they can be applied to the Federal Parliament. Mr. TRENWITH: Could they not make Standing Orders? Mr. BARTON: The Federal Parliament, of course, will have power to make Standing Orders for the regulation of its internal business. 50
18 p18 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati Mr. TRENWITH: If we adopt clause 49 do we not restrict the power of the Federal Parliament with regard to any Standing Orders they may make? Mr. BARTON: No. You do not restrict them because you have the clause in the most general terms. My hon. friend wishes the clause to read: The Senate and the House of Representatives may each of them from time to time adopt Standing Orders as 5 they or each may deem to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have he force of law. That is altogether too wide, as the Standing Orders would then have the effect of law outside the House. Mr. PEACOCK: Hear, hear. That is the point. Mr. BARTON: It is the point to which I think the hon. member was anxious to come. What we have done is to adopt a clause giving the Federal Parliament power to pass Standing Orders for the con- [start page 759] 10 duct of their business, and so that there should be no doubt the power has been taken in the widest possible words. The House of Commons does not make its Standing Orders by reason of its powers, privileges, and immunities, but by virtue of its inherent powers as a sovereign Parliament. The Standing Orders are for the internal regulation of the House of Commons, but my friend would like to say that the Federal Houses may make Standing Orders for any matter it may deem necessary. This would have the effect of passing laws 15 without the royal assent. I ask my friend if the clause as it stands is not sufficient. END QUOTE
While I will quote below some other statements it should be understood that it is merely limited details/information but it should be obvious that there is a lot wrong with it all. 20 . While the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 purports to provide powers of the House of Commons to the Victorian Parliament, where this act is not a constitution act at all then unless the 1855 Constitution Act provided for this, it simply cannot apply. 25 It is beyond me that you as President of the Legislative Council seems to have next to no understanding about what is applicable. Likewise so the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
If you lack to understand the above then do not hesitate to contact me for clarifications of what might still be beyond your comprehension. What may be underlined is that where you cannot 30 understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of constitutional and other legal powers relevant to the Parliament then how can you be a Presiding Officer? . How can you stand by to have this gross injustice inflicted upon Mr Geoff Shaw a Member of Parliament? As allowances are to be paid on a yearly basis how then can the Legislative 35 Assembly deny payment for sitting days you may ask? So much more to it all but for now you may already have ample of problems to digest what I have set out.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice nor to refer to all issues/details. 40
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL . (Our name is our motto!) 45 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)