1

Mr Tony Abbott PM
josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au

23-6-2015

5
Cc:

Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au

George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Herald Sun Andrew Bolt news@heraldsun.com.au, readerfeedback@heraldsun.com.au
Mark Robinson mark.robinson@news.com.au Jay Clark jay.clark@news.com.au

10

Ref; 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re political advertising - COMPLAINT

15

Tony,

20

as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware about the intentions of the Framers of the

constitution and political advertising to campaigning for an election that is not even called at
cost of taxpayers is unconstitutional.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no
rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

25

Therefore even if the Federal Parliament legislated to allow such abuse of Consolidated Revenue
Funds (taxes) it still would be unconstitutional and unlawful.
.

30

I have reproduced a pamphlet that I received today in the mail box and it clearly seeks people
(not just electors) to write to the President of the Senate and Senators
QUOTE
We ask the Senate to call upon the Abbott Government to provide our youth with the opportunity and support
they need to get into further training, education and into work.

35

40

45

END QUOTE
It also refers to:
QUOTE
A LABOR GOVERNMENT WILL:
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Labors plan will ensure that STEM careers will start in our schools and Australians can
get the start they need to b e a part of the workforce of the future.
END QUOTE
I will now reproduced both sides of the pamphlet:
p1
23-6-2015
Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

p2
23-6-2015
Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

First of all the Senate has no such power to call upon the Abbott Government, this as the Framers
of the Constitution made clear that any Minister is answerable to the House of Representatives.
The Peoples House.
p3
23-6-2015
Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

4
Senate Estimates is not about accountability of a Government. The Senate may request a
Minister and/or his/her department to brief the committee on certain financial issues but it cannot
operate as to hold the entire government accountable to the Senate. If Jenny Macklin fails to
understand the basics of the constitution and the legal principles embedded in it, despite for so
long having been in the Parliament and even a Minister then I view it is well overdue she gets
some form of education about what is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
Further, this pamphlet in my view is nothing but a political election campaign with the quoted
wording as to what Labor will do.
Here we have people so to say asked to tighten their belts and we have a Member of
Parliament who is wasting huge amount of monies on advertising.
It may be argued that members have a certain amount of entitlement to send out mail, but I view
this is nothing but blatant political advertising and should be born by Jenny Macklin, out of her
own pocket. When an election is called it must be clear there can be no fair and proper election
where here we have a Member of Parliament using taxpayers moneys to get an advantage upon
any other candidate so that by the time an election is called she so to say is in the drivers seat.
This is also one reason that I refuse to vote and as you ought to be aware I defeated on 19
July 2006 the Commonwealth on compulsory voting.
In my view it would be better to reign in this gross abuse of taxpayers monies as soon or later
you may just discover that the power to make such a decision may no longer remain available, as
others will make that decision instead.
.

25

30

35

The same is when writs are issued for a general election, then every Member of the House of
Representatives is no more, they hold no seat, not even if re-elected until they are again sworn in.
As such, from the day the writs are issued they cannot use Parliamentarian privileges, not being
paid, travel at taxpayers cost, use their mobile/laptops, etc, at taxpayers cost, stay in placers at
cost of taxpayers, as they are no longer Members of Parliament. As ought to be clear no person
can be a Member of the House of Representatives for more than 3 years. There always will be a
short period of a break that they are no longer a Member of the House of Representatives
regardless how many times they are re-elected. Actually the same applies with a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION with the Senate. Those who are Ministers of the Crown can continue to act as
Ministers of the Crown but are prohibited from claiming any benefits as Member of Parliament,
regardless if they are a Member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE

40

45

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
provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred
pounds.
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.
Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!

50

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.

p4
23-6-2015
Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5
Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say
that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
move as an amendment:
That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.

5
. Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.

10

15

20

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]
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
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
END QUOTE

THE CONSTITUTION DOESNT PROVIDE FOR A SHADOW CABINET OR A

SHADOW MINISTER AND THIS ROT ALSO SHOULD BE STOPPED.
25

30

In fact by s44 of the constitution anyone who is in the receipt of a salary from the
Commonwealth is automatically vacating his/her seat. Ministers are not employed by the
Commonwealth of Australia but their salaries are paid to the British Crown who then pays the
relevant Minister. Hence upon a Prime Minister or other Minister vacating his seat by elect ion or
otherwise no further payment can be made out of Consolidated Revenue Funds. No free offices
and free transport, etc, for them and/or their family members because it would constitute fraud.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate are employed in
political offices!
.

35

40

HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of
Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary
offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that really the
Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates,
and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by the
Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown. I think
that that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere.
END QUOTE

45

50

Let us be clear about it that any Member of Parliament, not being a Minister of the Crown
(including President/Speaker) who is paid a salary/superannuation is automatically disqualified
from holding a seat in the Parliament. As such any so called shadow Minister getting paid for
such position is I view then defrauding the commonwealth (so the taxpayers) and no longer
eligible to suit in the Parliament, regardless if Parliament provided rules otherwise, this as
Parliament cannot override the constitution.
As for so called midterm budgets, they are unconstitutional also:

55

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p5
23-6-2015
Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he
pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxation
including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill going outside the
ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be
imperatively required, in the discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage
of its existence.
END QUOTE

10

15

20

25

30

It also means that the sacking by John Kerr as he did was in fact unconstitutional, as a GovernorGeneral should stay out of the political fight between opposing parties. First of all John Kerr as
governor-General had a duty and obligation to ensure that the government of the Day had passed
the appropriation and taxation Bills long before the commencement of the financial year they
applied to. When there was a failure to do so the Governor-General then could have removed the
commission from the Prime Minister and subsequently given the commission to someone else,
even if the person was not even a Member of Parliament. As Edmund Barton the first Prime
Minister neither was a Member of Parliament when he was commissioned.
As such the withdrawal of a commission ought to have eventuated before the commencement of
the financial year.
Further, within the principle embedded in the constitution the Governor-General is limited to call
a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION but cannot do it in the manner as he did to replace Withlam with
Malcolm Fraser and then allow the Senate to pass money bills and then call a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION This as quoted above the Appropriation and taxation bills cannot be altered or
otherwise interfered with during the financial year they applied to. It was Governor-General John
Kerr who therefore in my view acted incompetent and lacked proper supervision and was the real
reason of the demise of the Withlam Government in an unconstitutional manner.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear the Governor-General is the CEO and the
Ministers are his constitutional advisors.
Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?

35

Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!

Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the
expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and powers
given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to the Commonwealth.
Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?

40

45

50

Mr. BARTON: Yes.

END QUOTE

Taxation and Appropriation Bills to comply with the constitutional requirement must be
introduced at such period of time that allows the bill, if twice rejected, to be put to the electors
for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and then if rejected again a JOINT SITTING is convened
between the Houses of Parliament. As such basically the Budget as generally referred to is to
be handed down allowing this period of time and so required to be presented say before the end
of the calendar year prior to the 1 July of the following year at which time the Appropriation and
Taxation Bills will come into effect. Therefore, not even in time of war can Taxation Bills and
Appropriation Bills be altered.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
p6
23-6-2015
Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

7
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the
funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
[start page 1773]

END QUOTE

Clearly any tax exemption or other kind of payments is unconstitutional.

.

10

15

20

25

30

To fund churches or other religious organisations would basically force taxpayers who are not
associated with any kind of religion to pay for those who do, and this in itself is unconstitutional.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that there was a separation of powers been State
and church.
With Jullie Bishop travelling overseas and staying wherever in performing her job no one can
make an issue out of this provided she acts reasonable in the circumstances, but when a person
like Treasurer Joe (smoking) Hockey is a Minister then he is not allowed to claim ordinary
Member of Parliament entitlements, and as such cannot claim overnight accommodation to be
paid to his wife where on the other hand she travels with him at times as his wife. And may even
a have a split income for taxation returns. We need to clamp down on this and I view the ATO
should investigate this also. After all if Joe (smoking) Hockey is paying rent to his wife then are
they separated or not?
In my view Centrelink would call it a scam if people on a pension were to do as Joe (smoking)
Hockey and his wife were doing.
I view the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) should also investigate matters, as after all where
Joe (smoking) Hockey makes a payment to his wife then it is in my view so to say a commercial
arrangement and no longer can be held to be his allowance or otherwise from the parliament.
As for taxation matters the Commonwealth cannot excluded certain soldiers from taxation
merely because they serve in a certain area, as this would be unconstitutional. The
Commonwealth can increase their pay as to compensate for the monies having to be paid in
taxation but not excluded any person from paying taxation.

35

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

40

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-A rather important point has been raised with regard to sub-section (2),
in regard to the question of uniformity of taxation. While there has been no express decision by the American
courts as to the meaning of the words "uniform throughout the Commonwealth," there are expressions in one
of the cases which render it necessary for us to use caution. I therefore ask for a little more time in which to
consider this matter.
Mr. HIGGINS.-To allow graduations and exemptions, is it?

45

Mr. BARTON.-My own desire is that the Federal Parliament should be unfettered in the exercise of its
taxing power, if it has to use any direct taxation at all. Whatever my own opinions may be as to the way in
which that power should be exercised, it is necessary that the authority to which it is confided should have the
power in full force. That being so, I wish to see that this authority is properly conserved. For that reason, I
think it advisable to postpone the matter, and I therefore move that it should be postponed until after clause 80
has been considered. It would then come on immediately before the provision relating to finance and trade, to
which it is so nearly related.
The motion was agreed to, and the clause postponed.

50

END QUOTE

p7
23-6-2015
Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

8
Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

10

15

20

25

30

Clause 52, sub-section (2).-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.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have prepared an amendment with regard to this sub-section, which
puts the matter into a form which would express the intention of the Convention, whilst avoiding a difficulty.
Honorable members will recollect the difficulty that arose over the construction of words equivalent to
"uniform throughout the Commonwealth" in the United States of America. Although no actual decision has
been given, a doubt has been raised as to the meaning of the word "uniform." The celebrated income tax case
went off as to the direct apportionment of taxation amongst the people according to numbers, and this point
was not decided, but a great deal of doubt has been thrown on the meaning of the word in the judgment of
Mr. Justice Field. I think that although the word "uniform" has the meaning it was intended to have-"one in
form" throughout the Commonwealth-still there might be a difficulty, and litigation might arise about it, and
prolonged trouble might be occasioned with regard to the provision in case, for instance, an income tax or a
land tax was imposed. What is really wanted is to prevent a discrimination between citizens of the
Commonwealth in the same circumstances. I beg to moveThat all the words after the word "taxation" where it is first used be struck out, and that the following words
be substituted:-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between goods passing from
one state to another."
I conceive it to be quite unnecessary to retain these words in view of clause 89, prescribing free-trade among
the several states, under which any duty or tax on goods passing from one state to another would be clearly
invalid, and could not possibly be allowed by the operation of the preference clauses. I propose not to say
anything about goods in this connexion passing from one state to another, as that is sufficiently provided for,
and I put in this provision, which prevents discrimination or any form of tax which would make a
difference between the citizen of one state and the citizen of another state, and to prevent anything
which would place a tax upon a person going from one state to another. I beg to moveThat all the words after the first word "taxation" in the second sub-section be omitted, with a view to
inserting the following words-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between
persons or things passing from one state to another."
The amendment was agreed to.
END QUOTE

35

40

45

It is clear that to exclude one or more persons but not all who receive the same amount of pay
from taxation is unconstitutional and beyond the legislative powers of the Commonwealth of
Australia. It means that the gun toting former AWB official who was reportedly paid $1 million
dollars to represent the Commonwealth of Australia in Iraq, then also still should be paying the
tax for that monies. Lets be clear about it the various Parliament have legislated that items can
be confiscated where they are deemed proceeds of crime. As such the same can be used against
politicians who defrauded the Consolidated Revenue Funds for monies not entitled upon.
Perhaps you may be able to guess what I would do if I were in power! I would make sure that
those who violated the constitution and so its embedded legal principles would be held legally
accountable for it all.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

(
50

Awaiting your response,

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

p8
23-6-2015
Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati