Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

1

Mr Malcolm Turnbull 12-05-2017


Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au
5
Cc: Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Barnaby Joyce Barnaby.Joyce.MP@aph.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au

10 Re: 20170512-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re Corporate Fraud-Social Engeneeringetc


Malcolm,
I suspect that Qantas and so others may be involved in corporate fraud and social
engineering but let me quote the Framers of the Constitution first of all:
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
15 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
20 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
25 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
30 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
35 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
40
It is therefore clear that you as Prime Minister and so every member of Federal Parliament
should have and still can act against any suspected corporate fraud. When I inquired with a
printer as to the cost of printing I am given the understanding that it depends also upon if there
are any colours involved, as this makes the printing more expensive if colours are involved.
45 OK that was At the time when standing as an INDEPENDENT candidate in elections but
nevertheless the way printers charger seems to be if the print work is in black & white only
and/or how many colours there are to be used, this as the colouring of printing involved decides
the added cost of printing. While Qantas may use already colours in printing nevertheless where
it engages in additional colours for printing it social engineering message to support as I
50 understand it homosexuality then I view this is corporate fraud. After all homosexuality in my

p1 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
2
view has absolutely nothing to do with providing a transport service even if Mr Joyce and/or any
other board member may be personally involved in such homosexual conduct.
Likewise, the cost of having repainting of any planes as to support homosexuality under the
alleged support for gender equality (Albeit if it pays females the same as males is not known to
5 me but I view would certainly be interesting to find out).
Religious liberty in my view involves the right not to be indoctrinated by a corporation as to
homosexuality. The so called same sex/same gender kind of argument also being occupied in
the parliament I view is well beyond the scope of the Federal Parliament also. It is as social
engineering beyond the powers of the Federal Parliament and so also the Federal Government.
10 While there are persons who claim we have a Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901
(Cth) reality is that this is a fake constitution as the Framers of the constitution made clear that by
federating all Parliaments will be constitutional Parliaments and none will have the powers to
create ist own constitution and as such are bound by the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
15
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
20 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
25 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.
30 END QUOTE

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal
35 Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government.

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.


Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of
the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is, the
same circumstances remain in part; but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the
40 maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by
Parliament, then it is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected
weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether
consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might
be dangerous to the Constitution itself.
45 END QUOTE

I invite you to set out where in the constitution (the real one that is) there is any provision for the
Commonwealth to engage in homosexual issues, irrespective if you and any other Member of
Parliament may be closet homosexuals.
50 Dont come with the crap, if you contemplated doing so, that the states referred power as to de
facto relationships to the Commonwealth, because I am not aware any state Referendum ever
was provided let alone approved to grand such kind of alleged powers to the Commonwealth.
I am well aware of the purported Commonwealth Powers (Family Law---Children) Act 1986
(Vic) but again to my knowledge no State referendum was held let alone approved to grand the
55 Commonwealth such legislative powers. Because of the separation of powers within the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within which in Section 106 the States
p2 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
3
are created subject to this constitution, which included all legal principles embedded in this
constitution, then the states also are bound by separation of powers.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
5 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
10 I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE

15 It means that regardless if the states purportedly transferred legislative powers if it aint within the
true meaning and application of the constitution then it has no legal value and so neither any
legal application. The purported Commonwealth Powers (Family Law---Children) Act 1986
(Vic) was about children and not about homosexuality either.
And let us not overlook:
20 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.
END QUOTE
25
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
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.

30 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
35
Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
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
40 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

This means that the states never had any legislative powers as to recognise any homosexual
45 relationships as some de facto marriage as it offended the provisions and so the embedded legal
principles of the constitution!.
It should be clear that the State Parliament bound by the Separation of powers has absolutely no
authority to transfer judicial powers from its Supreme Court to the Commonwealth, as only by
State Referendum it can seek the State electors to approve or defeat a State referendum.
50 The letters Patent of the Office of the Governor for the State of Victoria published in the
Victorian Gazette on 2-1-1901 clearly provides for an impartial administration of justice and as
such the State Parliament/Government has no legislative powers to interfere with the powers of
the State Supreme Court and neither as Premier Daniel Andrews purported to expunge the
criminal convictions of homosexuals.
55 In the Azaria case there was much talk about a pardon of Lindy Chamberlain but no one seems to
talk about who could provide such a pardon, etc. After all if there was nothing of this kind in the
Letters Patent of the Governor-General then the Governor-General never had this powers. This is
p3 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
4
also because the Framers of the constitution held that all crimes against the Commonwealth were
to be dealt with by State judiciary invoking federal jurisdiction and as such the Governors of the
States were the ones provided with Letters Patent powers to grand a pardon. As the judiciary is
not part of the government but part of the constitution, regardless judicial officers desire to claim
5 to be part of the government and so are bias) then it was neither within the powers of the State
Government/Parliament to allegedly expunge the criminal records of those convicted of
homosexuality.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
10 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.

Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is required
15 at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and,
without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very
life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would
give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most important part
of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters that have been
20 much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
25 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
30 .
HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
And then there is this proviso:

Provided that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in the High Court than according
35 to the rules of the common law.
END QUOTE

In my view the Australian Federal Police ought to investigate not just Qantas but any other
business entity that is involved in claiming painting/printing cost as a business expense where it
40 involved the change to include the so called rainbow colours to promote homosexuality and/or
any matters associated with homosexuality.
.
There is this issue that a man allegedly of Christian faith put a pie or something like that onto the
face of Mr Joyce and that he is allegedly charged for this. Why then were those involved for so
45 long in my view fraudulently claiming cost as tax expenses where it was nothing to do with their
core business and in fact offended and/or might offend/have offended others such as with quanta
traveling persons not being charged?
While it is not a constitutional matter for the Federal Government to get involved in some kind of
social engineering or for that part of the business of Qantas, etc, nevertheless when businesses
50 are getting involved in violations, as I view it, of constitutional embedded legal principles such
as religious liberty then they all should be charged accordingly.

Having read through the entire reason of judgments it seems that most judges rely upon:
(at 2) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
55 QUOTE
p4 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
5
The Australian Constitution limits the power of parliaments to impose burdens on freedom of
communication on government and political matters. No Australian parliament can validly enact a law
which effectively burdens freedom of communication about those matters unless the law is reasonably
appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the
5 constitutionally prescribed system of [government in Australia.
END QUOTE

(at 61) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
QUOTE
10 The term "implied freedom of communication concerning government and political matters" has been
well established in Australian constitutional discourse since the implication was first posited in Nationwide
News Pty Ltd v Wills1 and in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth 2. However, as
Dawson J said in Levy v Victoria3:

QUOTE
15
(at 102-103) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
QUOTE
Applicable principles

102 The Constitution provides for a system of representative and responsible government. Sections 7 and 24 of
20 the Constitution provide that the two Houses of the Parliament must be "directly chosen by the people".
Section 64 requires that no Minister of State hold office "for a longer period than three months unless he is
or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives". Those who are elected as members of
the Parliament and those who are appointed as Ministers of State are necessarily accountable to "the
people" referred to in ss 7 and 24. Additionally, s 128 provides that the Constitution shall not be altered
25 except in the manner provided in that section; in particular, only "if in a majority of the States a majority of
the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the
proposed law". As the whole Court said in Lange4, it follows from these and other provisions that
"[f]reedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable incident of
that system of representative government which the Constitution creates".

30 103 Because freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable


incident of the constitutionally prescribed system of government, that freedom cannot be curtailed by
the exercise of legislative or executive power5 and the common law cannot be inconsistent with it. But
the freedom is not absolute and it follows that the limit on legislative power is also not absolute.

QUOTE
35
(at 346) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
QUOTE
In the setting of the Australian Constitution, a system of representative government is the constitutional
imperative upon which the implied freedom is founded.
40 END QUOTE

We then have to consider also:


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

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional

p5 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
6
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:

5 "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event -
someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
10 particular way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
15 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

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates


20 QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.
25 Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-

That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has
described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This
Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to
30 this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or
rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and
it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to
understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole
time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is
35 commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be
appreciated by the people.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
40 QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


45 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


50 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 those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
55 END QUOTE

I may not support a person attacking another person, but let be honest if Mr Joyce and his
corporation buddies are involved in social engineering and possible corporative fraud then what
this person using the pie did was the perhaps mildest form of protest.
60
p6 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
7
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences
committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to
5 which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was in
conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity to
change the venue, and select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in
modern or in ancient times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by
an Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I do
10 not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the honorable member a state of affairs
in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive.
It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular
state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to
exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences
15 against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its
condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was
originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which
should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the
citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by
20 this Constitution.
END QUOTE

As such the jury may very well hold that in the circumstances the person with the alleged pie
may have acted more appropriate then so far any Member of Parliament may have done and
25 nullify any legislation to be used against this man.
I understand you are known as a reject of the Australian Labour Party that they didnt want you
and that you are now transforming the Liberal Party into a de facto ALP and that might be your
personal goals for all I wonder however as you are commissioned as a Prime Minister to act as a
constitutional advisor to the Governor-General on whose behalf you are supposed to act then you
30 are not as so called Liberal Party/Coalition government at all. You are not commissioned for
being a Liberal Party member nor could you pursue to apply Liberal Party values because that
would defy the requirements of the constitution that you act as the constitutional advisor to the
Governor-General and this means you must act within the scope of the constitution and so its
embedded legal principles and social engineering is not part thereof.
35 To govern for all people means you must not govern as to Liberal Party/Coalition values but for
what is in the best interest of the general community irrespective of what may be your own
kind of ALP/LP values.
HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
40 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
cannot get behind it.
END QUOTE
45
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE
50 And
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Is it a Constitution which gives all reasonable and liberal guarantees of freedom? That can only be
answered in one way. Is it a Constitution the action of which, until amended by the people, is preserved and
55 safeguarded? There is only one answer to that. Is it a Constitution which the people themselves, by their
will expressed by their Parliament and themselves, are able to alter to suit their needs under conditions of
reasonable thought, without unreasonable difficulty? There can be no answer but one to. that question.
END QUOTE

p7 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
8
While at the Premiers conference the Draft constitution was amended inserting s96 to enable the commonwealth to
come to the financial aid of the states, it should be understood this is different than giving unconstitutional funding
for councils, etc. Also, the funding of students should be equal for all students regardless if they attend to a public or
private education facility provided that the monies are not used for religious purposes.

5 The Federal Government has no constitutional powers to provide funding for same category students at different
levels. The Parliament however can enact for the section 101 Inter-State Commission to allocate funding as it deems
appropriate on a state by state basis, etc

Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE

10 Mr. WISE: Exactly so. If the Appropriation Bill is not passed what is the Ministry to do?

HON. MEMBERS? Resign.

Mr. WISE: What is the next Ministry to do?

Sir GEORGE TURNER: They must go to the people.

Mr. O'CONNOR: My answer was that they must go to the country.

15 END QUOTE

Yet, Joe (smoking) Hockey never resigned after the 2014 failed budget to be passed!
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN.

20 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
25 discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage of its existence.

END QUOTE

In my view the proper reading of the above quotation is that any laws governing
taxation/appropriation must be for no more than for one financial year. As such the Parliament
must each year approve taxation laws for the following financial year. Failing to do so the
30 taxation is unconstitutional. With the failure of taxation laws to pass before the commencement
of the financial year then they cannot be passed afterwards and made retrospective. (As Tony
Abbott had done)
The issue is also that the purpose is that the Government of the Day presents the Parliament with
Bills that are for Appropriation and to balance this taxation bills that should be of the same total
35 amounts. This alleged deficit conduct is unconstitutional.
Also, while Malcolm Turnbull provided allegedly about $100 million dollars for Victorian/South
Australia workers who lose their jobs due to the motor industry closing down in Australia, it is
not part of "annual service" and therefore cannot be funded without first having special
Appropriation Bills passed through the Parliament for this to be made lawful payments.
40 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

p8 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
9
Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an annual
service.

Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?

Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.

5 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from special
grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which we are
accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.

Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place
expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a
10 service.

END QUOTE

HANSARD 16-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN: They propose that the senate shall have equal power with the house of representatives in
15 respect of all bills, except money bills, so that in every other matter that comes before the senate it stands as
well equipped for dealing with legislation as does the popular chamber. There should be a tribunal to which it
would not be too difficult to appeal in case of differences between the two houses on those measures; but,
allowing that to pass, my hon. colleague excepts from the control of the senate money bills, bills dealing with
customs and excise, and the annual appropriation bill. He does not say these may not be rejected, but he says
20 that they must not be amended; he believes that the second chamber should only exercise its power with
regard to money bills in such extreme cases as those in which it will be prepared to reject the whole proposal
put before it, but should not meddle with the financial affairs of the country by entering into the details of
those proposals. The 2nd resolution says:

The act of union shall provide that it shall not be lawful to include in the annual appropriation bill any matter
25 or thing other than the votes of supply for the ordinary service of the year.

What this means is that every money bill which may be a bill involving a question of policy shall come to the
second chamber independently, and the second chamber shall, if it please, be entitled to reject that
measure, to challenge the opinion of the country upon it, and to say that until the opinion of the
country is pronounced, that measure shall not pass into law. Are not these large and sufficient powers?

30 END QUOTE

Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention

QUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR.-It is nicely wrapped up. Any one who reflects upon the conditions which must exist before
this provision can be brought into operation will see that it assumes that the states must be reduced to a
35 condition of pauperism before they can take advantage of it.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-What would you do if they were?

Mr. OCONNOR.-I will come to that. Mr. Wise seems to be of opinion that there is some power implied
in the Constitution to give such aid. Now, from the consideration and study which I have been able to
give to the Constitution, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is no such power implied.
40 The Constitution is formed for certain definite purposes. There are definite powers of legislation and definite
powers of administration, and the clause that the Right Hon. Sir John Forrest called attention to just
now-clause 81-expressly provides that the revenues of the Commonwealth shall form one consolidated
fund, to be appropriated for the public services of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the
charges provided in this Constitution.

45 Mr. WISE-The order and good government of the Commonwealth would come under the term "public
services of the Commonwealth."

p9 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
10
Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not agree with the honorable member in his interpretation of the powers of the
Commonwealth, especially when dealing with the expenditure of the money of the taxpayers. In such a
case there will be a great deal of care taken to keep the nose of the Federal Parliament to the grindstone in the
matter of this expenditure. I do not think any expenditure will be constitutional which travels outside
5 these limits. We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the
Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. If any Act were
carried giving monetary assistance to any state it would be unconstitutional, and the object sought
would not be attained. That brings me to the question of whether it is desirable that there should be any such
10 power either expressed or implied. I have no hesitation in saying that it would be a disastrous thing for the
future of the [start page 1109] Commonwealth if there was any such power given.

END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

15 Mr. HOLDER.-A measure would be valid while it was a Bill, and invalid when it became a law.

Mr. ISAACS.-That is a very terse and correct way of putting it, and it proves the absurdity of the provision.
We are, in my opinion, making the Senate too strong a body. To allow these matters to be carried into the
Supreme Court is to say that the Senate cannot protect itself, and that the states cannot protect themselves.
Surely that is not to be thought of for a moment. We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers'
20 Constitution. We shall be making the Supreme Court, not the master, but the tyrant of the Constitution, by
inserting a clause of this kind. I do strongly appeal to my honorable friends to alter the clause in some way.
My view is that we should put in the word "proposed." At all events, we should do something in this
direction, and we should at least make a distinct provision that if a Bill does not comply with this clause, the
invalidity should go no further than the additional matter. That could be worked out no doubt in an
25 Appropriation Bill, but you could not work it out in a Taxation Bill, because where two subjects were
dealt with you could not tell which was the additional matter. You might make such a provision with
regard to the additional matter in Appropriation Bills. The court could then say that certain items
were not for the annual services of the year. They would be invalid, and the remainder of the Bill would be
valid, but that would lead to the difficulty of the court having to determine what were the ordinary annual
30 services of the year.

Mr. BARTON.-Are not the annual services the annual expenditure proper to the public service?

Mr. ISAACS.-Supposing that some compensation were being paid to a discharged public servant. That
would not come within the ordinary annual services.[start page 2003] It would not be proper to the public
service of the Commonwealth. It would not be a payment for services rendered in the future, but for
35 services in the past. We all know that in connexion with the ordinary annual Appropriation Bills
questions arise that make it very difficult to say what is and what is not an ordinary annual service.

END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

40 Mr. REID.-My answer is, how could the House of Representatives put more than one subject of taxation into
a proposed law? If it will be possible for the House of Representatives to put two subjects of taxation
into a proposed law, in spite of the clear words of the Constitution, it will be equally possible for a
Taxation Bill to be originated in the Senate without any one taking any notice of it.

END QUOTE

45 And

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

p10 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
11
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I wish to make a few observations with regard to the objection, not, I
hope, in [start page 2014] any captious spirit. I quite see the stand-point from which Mr. Isaacs and others
have addressed themselves to the question. But it seems to me that the argument which has been raised by
Mr. Isaacs as to this last sub-section of clause 55, is really an argument for greater clearness in the
5 Constitution; because it seems to be admitted that if the words of the Constitution are placed beyond dispute,
then the confusion to which my honorable and learned friend alludes cannot arise. Consequently, the real
meaning of the argument is this-"I could not say what I have said if your Constitution were absolutely
clear." This is an objection to the form in which the provision stands, and an objection to form only, and not
to substance, because it is admitted that these matters can only arise by way of confusion, and consequently it
10 must be admitted that they can only arise where there is room for confusion in the Constitution.

Mr. BARTON.-There is thus upon the face of the law the important material which is appropriated for
the decision of the court-the very transgression beyond legal provision, the very matter which the court
can take in hand, and with regard to which it may say-"This must stop, it is illegal." But if the Senate
were to originate a Tax Bill, or to amend an Appropriation Act or Tax Bill, and that Bill were to be
15 passed into an Act; if the Senate were to pass a Bill imposing a burden on the people, and that Bill were
to be passed-in either of these cases it would be impossible for any legal tribunal to say, upon the face
of the law, whether any such infringement of the Constitution had taken place.

Mr. REID.-So that confusion that can be covered up need not be provided against?

Mr. BARTON.-That is not so at all. I do not see the slightest relevancy in that remark, or any approach to
20 relevancy. So that it becomes perfectly clear that one matter is a matter of procedure and that to give a legal
tribunal the power of interfering with regard to that which is inherently a matter of procedure would be an
unwarrantable power of interference with Parliament to give to any court. I am astonished at it being claimed
that anything should be done which would give the court power to instigate an investigation of mere
parliamentary procedure. But those matters which happen under clause 55 do not turn on questions of
25 procedure, inasmuch as if an infraction of the Constitution occurs, it is apparent upon the face of the
Bill which makes the infraction, and the material is there for judicial determination. That is the
difference between the two clauses, and it is of no use trying to mix up matters of procedure with matters of
actual inviolability apparent on the face of the laws, and to say that you are to apply the same conditions to
one as to the other.

30 END QUOTE

And

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

Let us examine the matter a little. Is it right that there should be tacking? There is not an honorable member
35 in the Convention who will not say that it is wrong. This clause in itself is a clause to prevent tacking,
therefore, it is a clause to do right-for whom?-for the people themselves. What is the good of our arguing
this question on the basis of the rights, inter se, of the two Chambers, when the whole life of both these
Chambers is that they are servants of the public? For whom are these protections in clause 55 introduced?
Is it for the Senate they are introduced? No, it is for the public.

40 END QUOTE

And

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

It is not a fact that clause 54 is a clause solely for the protection of the House of Representatives. It
45 confers corresponding rights. The argument fails there, because as to clause 54 there are rights given to
the Senate with reference to certain classes of Bills appropriating or imposing fines, or demanding or
appropriating licence-fees or fees for service.

Mr. ISAACS.-They are only exceptions, though.

p11 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
12
Mr. BARTON.-They import a right. My honorable friend cannot get out of it in that way. He cannot say,
because it reads as an exception it does not also [start page 2017] confer a right. The test of that is this: Let
the Senate originate a law which contains a provision for imposing or appropriating fines or penalties,
or which enables a demand or appropriation of fees for licences or fees for services, and that law is
5 valid within the Constitution. The Senate has a right to originate the law, and therefore this provision
conveys a right. Now, there is a further provision there. While the Senate is prohibited from amending laws
imposing a tax or appropriating money for the annual services of the Government, sub-section (4) gives the
Senate the right to make suggestions, so that while there are rights given here to the House of Representatives
to originate Tax and annual Appropriation Bills, while the Senate may not amend those two classes of Bills,
10 there are certain other classes of Bills which it can originate, there are certain other classes of Bills which it
can amend, and besides that, under sub-section (5):-Except as provided in this section the Senate shall have
equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

END QUOTE

And

15 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-

In an Appropriation Act we should have so many hundred thousand pounds for this, and so many
hundred thousand pounds for that, and other items; but we should have no detail whatever. In no
Appropriation Act passed by any Parliament is there given small details of the amounts appropriated.
20 An Appropriation Act would often include amounts of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, and larger sums, the
details of which would be lost altogether in the mass of votes included in the Act. Therefore, it is quite
impossible for any court to tell from the mere construction of an Appropriation Act whether the items do
comprise moneys required for the ordinary annual services of the Government, even if that phrase "ordinary
annual services of the Government" were beyond dispute. Personally, I do not know what the phrase means,
25 and I do not suppose it is possible for anybody definitely to say what it means.

Mr. REID.-With a new Government it will be a very difficult matter to know what are "ordinary annual
services."

Mr. HOLDER.-Yes; but every item must be an annual expenditure, not one which comes on specially.
Now, we all know that all sorts of special emergencies arise in every country, and that special provision
30 has to be made for every such emergency.

Mr. ISAACS.-Would 50,000 for contingencies be regarded by the court as money appropriated for the
ordinary annual services of the Government?

Mr. REID.-That would be a nice question for the High Court to determine.

END QUOTE

35 We have a Government and Parliament as well as the judiciary totally out of control where they
disregard what constitutionally is appropriate and permissible, and ordinary citizens are denied a
proper right to challenge such unconstitutional conduct by the court to make orders for cost
against any citizen trying to hold them legally accountable.
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

40 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:

I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.

END QUOTE

45
I understand that there are proposed taxations, such as against banks, and for this I desire to alert
you to the following:

p12 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
13
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
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.
5 END QUOTE
And
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
10 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
15
It means that you cannot specifically single out banks or mining companies but must apply the
same form of taxation to all business entities, etc.
For the above stated your previous suggestion for the States to level their own kind of GST
20 would be unconstitutional also. It seems to me that you simply are not up to the task of being a
constitutional advisor to the Governor-General and neither the Governor-General is up to the
task of ensuring that his constitutional advisors are acting within constitutional provisions!
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
25 QUOTE
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]


30 END QUOTE

Therefore any tax deductions/exemptions based upon religious issues would be unconstitutional.
Fancy to give a religious organization tax exemption and it then can by this reduce its prices to
undermine those of an opponent who must pay appropriate taxes. It is in my view a serious
35 violation of the constitution and so its embedded legal principles to allow any of such kind
misuse/abuse of taxation to be applied.
I look forwards to you and so any other politician, acting as sentries, ensuring that appropriate
investigations are conducted regarding misuse/abuse of cost claim to possibly fraudulently
reduce taxation liabilities by corporations such as Qantas which relates to what I view social
40 engineering of homosexuality promotion and by this also force (implied or otherwise) passengers
to pay towards cost of printing/painting of without their consent and in violation to their
constitutional and other legal rights.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
45
Gerrit for Governor-General
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL


(Our name is our motto!)
p13 12-05-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati