20180906-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Graham Ashton AM Chief Commissioner Victorian Police-RED SHIRT Issue Investigation-Etc

Page 1
1
2
3 Graham Ashton AM Chief Commissioner Victorian Police 6-9-2018
4 Tower 1 637 Flinders Street Docklands Victoria 3008
5 psc-policeconductunitcomplaintsandcompliments@police.vic.gov.au
6
7 Ref: 20180906-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Graham Ashton AM Chief Commissioner Victorian Police -
8 RED SHIRT issue investigation-etc
9
10 Sir,
11 I understand that the Victorian Police currently is investigating what is known as the RED
12 SHIRT issue of the Victorian ALP misusing taxpayer’s monies.
13
14 In my view this is not only the misuse of public monies but appears to me to be a conspiracy to
15 pervert the course of justice by the theft of the 2014 Victorian state election. I understood that Mr
16 Daniel Andrews then Opposition Leader and now Premier made known that he took full
17 responsibility for the misuse of public monies. However this cannot ignore what appears to be
18 conspirators to undermine the democracy as to misuse taxpayers monies to succeed in the Victorian
19 election as they did.
20
21 It is my view that Mr Daniel Andrews knew or ought to have known and so his fellow political
22 party Members of Parliament that the misuse of public monies was unlawful.
23
24 It ought to be understood that an election is for the interest of each candidate as a private matter.
25 There is no constitutional provision that requires the Governor in a state or a Governor-General in
26 the Commonwealth to commission the leader of a Political party as Premier/Prime Minister as
27 shown for example that Mr Edmund Barton was commissioned to be Prime Minister on 1 January
28 1901 this even so no election was held until late March 1901 and the Parliament didn’t sit until 9
29 May 1901. As such the system now used is by convention but not what is constitutionally
30 applicable. The states are created within S116 of the federal constitution SUBJECT TO THIS
31 CONSTITUTION and by this all legal principles embedded in the federal constitution apply to any
32 state unless the constitution provides otherwise.
33
34 It is not just the misuse of public monies but the conspiracy that goes with it to so to say rob
35 electors of a fair and proper election and to also rob opponents of a opportunity to be able to form a
36 government.
37
38 As we are due for another State election it is in my view essential that the Victorian Police do not so
39 to say leave it on the back burner so that politicians can repeat the same or similarly but that
40 appropriate charges be laid to drive home to any candidate for the forthcoming State election that
41 the full force of the law will be applied and those offending will be held legally accountable.
42
43 It also should be understood that Ministers are commissioned in a State to be constitutional advisors
44 to the Governor and as such they are deemed to be well aware that they cannot MISUSE PUBLIC
45 MONIES for personal advantage, such as with elections. Many a candidate might have been
6-9-2018 Page 1 © 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 making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 deprived of having been elected due to the misuse of public monies by the RED SHIRT misuse of
2 public monies. As a former INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE I take this very serious as candidates
3 generally spend their hard earned monies when standing as a INDEPENDENTCANDIDATE to be
4 a candidate and are entitled to fair and proper elections.
5 .
6 It should also be understood that those in government are there not because of political doctrine but
7 to be constitutional advisers to the Governor and assist the Governor to manage governance. For Mr
8 Daniel Andrews to go to Frankston on a trip at taxpayers cost for a non-existing election in my view
9 underlines his blatant disregard for misuse of public monies. I understood he was not a member of
10 Government anyhow.
11
12 I below quote a 4-6-2014 correspondence of which a copy was forwarded to Mr Daniel Andrews
13 also and it ought to be clear that Mr Daniel Andrews and others knew or ought to have known that
14 the misuse of public monies is unlawful\/illegal.
15
16 QUOTE 4-6-2014 correspondence
17
18 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
19 Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria 4-6-2014
20 denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
21
22 Cc: Mr Geoff Shaw MP geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
23 Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria, ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
24 Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

25
26 20140604-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier D Napthine-Re Geoff Shaw MP-etc
27
28 Sir,
29 END QUOTE 4-6-2014 correspondence
30 And
32 But elections should not benefit Members of Parliament and neither should they use their
33 parliamentarian position to make calls for political issues using taxpayers monies.
34 .
35 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
36 QUOTE
37 Ethics Orientation for State Officials

38 Misuse of Public Funds
39 Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
40 The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that public
41 funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose when its
42 purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.
43 Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses only
44 those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.
45 The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be expended
46 for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are they
47 authorized.
48 The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit may
49 result from an expenditure of public funds.
50 For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it is an
51 appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the employee for public purposes.
52 The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure is not merely
53 incidental. The term “public funds” is not limited to money, but includes anything of value belonging to a public
Page 3
1 agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers, and fax machines
2 and other equipment and resources.
3
4 Examples of Misuse of Public Funds
5 1. In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to purchase items for himself and
6 others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though those receiving the discount paid for the items with
7 personal funds.
8 2. In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle to transport a political
9 candidate, his staff and family.
10 3. In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work on his political campaign
11 for Lieutenant Governor.
12 4. In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in connection with official business,
13 to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great Falls, Montana and back.
14 Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil sanctions.
15 These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.
16
17
18 State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections
19 There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public funds. This
20 issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following is a list of what we’ll
21 cover in this section.
22  Stanson v. Mott
23  Endorsements and Informational Materials
24  Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines

25 Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns
26 The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of public
27 funds in election campaigns.
28 In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
29 challenging the director’s expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a statewide
30 ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding that “in the absence of
31 clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a partisan position
32 in an election campaign.”
33 Stanson v. Mott
34 The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process is that the
35 government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing
36 factions. A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental
37 authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....”
38 The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson “...The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course,
39 raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.”
40 Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government agency may
41 endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote its passage.
42 Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not promote
43 the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
44 Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot measure
45 elections.
46 1. “The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to disseminate information
47 relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the public with a fair presentation of relevant
48 information.”
49 2. “The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable public agencies from
50 disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such disclosure is full and impartial and does not
51 amount to improper campaign activity.”
52 3. “To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal treatment to both sides of the
53 issue.”
Page 4
1 Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines from the
2 Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a
3 $10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several
4 ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a neutral
5 and fair presentation of the facts.
6 Let's Review
7 TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.
8  Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.
9 Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone calls before
10 she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governor’s campaign fundraising dinner. Since
11 the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of issues, may she charge
12 these calls to the state? Yes or No.
13  Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal political purposes rather
14 than for a public purpose.
15 Let's Review
16 Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer questions about the
17 impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
18 a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.
19 b. The materials do not make false statements.
20 c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.
21  Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the
22 measure.
23 Remember These Points
24  Expenditures must be for a public purpose
25  Expenditures must be authorized
26  Public funds may not be expended for personal use
27  Information must be fairly presented
28  Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions

29 END QUOTE
30
31 Clearly politicians shouldn’t use their public office to do election campaigns, pursue political
32 battles, etc. Ministers are commissioned for no other purpose but to be “constitutional advisors” to
33 the Governor-General and manage relevant Departments, irrespective of their political alliance to
34 any political party.
36
38 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
39 Christine Fyffe, Speaker 16-6-2014
40 christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
41
42 Cc: Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
43 Treasurer Michael O’Brien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au
44 Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
45 Mr Geoff Shaw geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
46 Robert Clark Attorney General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au
47 Louise Asher louise.asher@parliament.vic.gov.au
48 Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
49 David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
50 Bruce Atkinson bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au

Page 5
1 Mr Ken Smith ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au

2 George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
3
4 20140612-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Christine Fyffe, Speaker
5 Re EXPULSION Daniel Andrews + James Merlino required -etc
6 Christine,
7 I am wondering what on earth the “donations” you referred to on 12 June 2014 related to:
8 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 12-6-2014
9 The SPEAKER—Order! Before calling for questions I would like to advise the house that following
10 numerous inquiries received this morning I have chosen to donate the moneys from the member for
11 Frankston’s repayment, as decided by the house yesterday, to bowel cancer research. I am advised that
12 this amount will be $4200, so added to the contributions already made by the Leader of the
13 Opposition, the member for Monbulk and the member for Bendigo East of $5793, this will result in
14 just under $10 000 being given to bowel cancer research.
15 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 12-6-2014
16
17 I checked the Hansard of 10, 11 and 12 June 2014 and was unable to find any explanation why the
18 Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Bendigo East provided such donation.
19 In the way it is recorded in the Hansard it may appear to ordinary readers that Mr Daniel Andrews,
20 Leader of the Opposition is such a kind and benefactor person to donate $5,793. And like wise so
21 with the Member for Bendigo East Jacinta Allen, who according to her website appears to be an
22 ALP member. (http://www.jacintaallan.com)
23
24 In my 7-6-2014 correspondence to you I stated:
25 QUOTE 7-6-2014 CORRESPONDENCE
26 As was reported in an article in the Herald Sun 6-6-2014 under the heading “Book of Daniel unread” that Mr
27 Daniel Andrews allegedly on 5-6-2014 went to Frankston and so with alleged “candidate” for the ALP and state
28 deputy ALP leader James Merlino r4egarding the candidate.
29 Moment is this not CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT for Mr Daniel Andres and Mr James Merlino to go
30 electioneering even so the Speaker n or the governor issued any writ for a by-election?
31 Is it now that Mr Daniel Andrews what the speaker of the Legislative Assembly or the Governor must do?
32 In my view this kind of conduct is unbecoming to being a Member of Parliament.
33 In my view it is undermining the authority of both the speaker and the Governor.
34 In my view it is unduly undermining the right of Mr Geoff Shaw to be regarded as the duly elected
35 representative of Frankston.
36 END QUOTE 7-6-2014 CORRESPONDENCE
37 OK, there is at least an offending typing error in the word “r4egarding” but hardly a hanging
38 offence, and quoting one cannot removed a typing error. Just to let you know I am aware of it.
39 Now, as since my 7-6-2014 correspondence (that was actually when I turned 67 – and to the
40 displeasure of my wife I was writing instead of celebrating) it seems to me very suspicious that Mr
41 Daniel Andrews would make a $5,793. A very odd figure, and as such I assume, again I state I
42 assume, that this is where he may have calculated that this might be the estimated cost he had
43 charged to the taxpayers for his grotesque conduct to parade a “candidate” for the Frankston by-
44 election that didn’t exist. Admittedly he and his deputy leader are not the only once, as I view it,
45 misusing and abusing their position to refer to a “candidate”, where no such “candidate” was
46 declared by the electoral commission.
47 I spend some 16 years in numerous elections as an INDEPENDENT candidate and actually
48 complained against the Clive Palmer advertising to vote for Clive Palmer as Prime Minister, as
49 there is no such electoral system in Australia that you can vote for a Prime Minister or for a
50 Premier. Yet, Members of Parliament are ongoing deceiving electors with that they can vote for
51 someone to become Premier. I may state that the within hours of making the complaint against the
52 Clive Palmer false/misleading advertising the advertisement was withdrawn.
53 I on 15-6-2014 received in the mailbox documentation which states “Liberal Candidate for
54 Ivanhoe”. To my knowledge Parliament is still sitting, and no writs were issued, let alone
55 nominations for candidates having closed and certainly the electoral commission has to my
56 knowledge not declared any “candidate” for the November state election.
Page 6
1 Perhaps I was wrong over the 16 years to hold that one is not a “candidate” until the electoral
2 commission announces the accepted nominations?
3
4
5 It appears therefore that not the constitution, Governor, the Speaker/President or even the
6 Parliament decides when writs will be issued and if an election will be held but that those leading
7 political now dictate what is to be deemed the law.
8 This I view would be anarchy.
9
10 Notice that it was authorised & Printed by Anthony Fernandez!
11 In the Broadmeadows 2011 by-election then too the newspapers were full about the ALP candidate
12 (councillor with Hume City Council) and yet in the end he never was a candidate as McGuire
13 became the candidate. As such this rot is going on and on where both the liberal and labour parties
14 are involved in deceiving the electorate about candidates who in fact are not candidates at all. Yet,
15 somehow the electoral commission so far to my knowledge has done nothing against such
16 false/fraudulent/deceptive conduct also involving persons who are subsequently elected Members of
17 Parliament.
18
19 Remember what Premier Denis Napthine stated (as recorded in Hansard 11-6-2014):
20 “a fair, just and appropriate penalty for the member for Frankston”
21 Why then is he silent about the misuse and abuses against the authority of the Parliament
22 (CONTEMPT), The misuse and abuses against the VICTORIAN Constitution Act 1975 (contempt)
23 and the misuse and abuses against the electoral act?
24 After all if this is about compliance with rules and regulations and his party being on about “law
25 and order’ then why is it that his party is defying it all?
26 Is this that the Liberal Party can disregard the rule of law as it has placed itself above the law and
27 indeed above the constitution and know that the speaker/President and the electoral commission
28 will so to say close their eyes in regard of the abuses/fraudulent conduct?
29 How on earth can we have “fair and proper” elections when this rot goes on?
30 How many more ghost “candidates” are there currently promoted for the November State or other
31 purported by-elections where candidates are not candidates at all but might be “potential
32 candidates” or “person interested to be candidates”? Are they there to deceive electorates so than
33 the later real candidate can have it easy?
34 In my view the Liberal Party, Mr Ziebell and Mr Anthony Fernandez who authorised and printed
35 the documentation all should be severely dealt with. After all to undermine the democratic
36 processes of an election cannot be tolerated. This must stop and right now!
37 .
38 Political parties should not dominate the Parliament as to so to say get away with their elaborate
39 fraud upon the elect orates as if we are going to have “a fair, just and appropriate penalty for the
40 member for Frankston” then the Parliament is bound to apply the same to anyone else who defies
41 the rule of law.
42
Page 7
1 As I spend decades in court representing parties I am too well aware that often a person will claim
2 not to have received my email, this even so they are just making a fraudulent claim.
3 Hence, I ordinary forward to myself a copy of the email which then also list those email addresses
4 to whom a copy was forwarded. The email address daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au clearly is
5 that of the Leader of the Opposition Mr Daniel Andrews and so he knew or could have known that I
6 pursued he be dealt with what I viewed CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT and rorting public
7 monies. It is not relevant if he did or didn’t read my correspondence as that is his choice to make
8 and he might have been briefed ab out the content by others, but in the end he was provided with an
9 opportunity to be aware of it. It is his decision if he disregarded it. Not uncommon I had opponent
10 lawyers disregarding what I had written only then in court seeking an adjournment to respond,
11 which I then opposed as ignorance is no excuse.
12
13 QUOTE 6-7-2014 EMAIL
From: G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com>
To: christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com, geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au,
ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au, daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au,
denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au, michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au,
matthew.johnston@news.com.au
Date: Saturday, June 07, 2014 03:00 am
Subject: see attachment 20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc
Attachments: Text version of this message. (1KB)
20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc.pdf (782KB)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Christine Fyffe, Speaker

7-6-2014
christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc: Mr Geoff Shaw MP geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria, ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
VICTORIAN Treasurer Michael O’Brien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au

Page 8
COMPLAINT
20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT -etc
Christine,
see attachment 20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc
Gerrit
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084
Victoria, Australia
Blog (constitutional issues) http://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati

.
Website: http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/
The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 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 appropriately!
A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING

CONCERNED TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.
1 END QUOTE 6-7-2014 EMAIL
2
3 Again I refer to:
5 The SPEAKER—Order! Before calling for questions I would like to advise the house that following
6 numerous inquiries received this morning I have chosen to donate the moneys from the member for
7 Frankston’s repayment, as decided by the house yesterday, to bowel cancer research. I am advised that
8 this amount will be $4200, so added to the contributions already made by the Leader of the
9 Opposition, the member for Monbulk and the member for Bendigo East of $5793, this will result in
10 just under $10 000 being given to bowel cancer research.
12
13 In my view it would be deceptive if you place on records that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr
14 Daniel Andrews) made a “donation” if in fact this so called donation was in fact a repayment of
15 misuse of public monies. In my view as a Speaker you must honour your parliamentarian office to
16 be and remain neutral and not to conceal from the Parliament relevant details and as such if the
Page 9
1 “donation” was related to misuse/abuse of public monies, perhaps such as to the fictional Frankston
2 by-election travel, etc, then this was in my view rorting and you cannot have that a Leader of the
3 opposition demanding a member of Parliament to be expelled for what he alleges was “rorting”
4 them himself under cover of “donation” may have paid back some monies that he may have rorted
5 on the public pursed, by this trying to make out he is an man with credibility rather than a “rorter”.
6 In my view there are serious matters to be addressed.
7 .
8 In particular where Mr Daniel Andrews made such an issue about Mr Geoff Shaw rorting the
9 system and should for this be expelled from Parliament then his own conduct as I understand it to
10 be rorting the system while pursuing Mr Geoff Shaw for this cannot be overlooked and he must
11 suffer the very faith he had pursued against Mr Geoff Shaw.
12 .
13 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 (colour and bolding added)
14 Mr ANDREWS (Leader of the Opposition)—If anyone wants to know why ours is regarded as the
15 lowest profession, then simply look at the conduct of the member for Frankston and the Premier’s
16 protection of him. If anyone in this chamber wants to know why we are regarded as being for the
17 public purse instead of the public good, if anyone in this chamber wants to know why we are held in
18 such low regard by the hardworking people of this great state, then look no further than the conduct of
19 the member for Frankston and the Premier’s protection of him via this motion. The Premier says this
20 motion was carefully drafted. We will return to that in a few moments. It is this sort of conduct, this
21 sort of weakness, this apologising for the member for Frankston that sums up this Premier, sums up
22 this government and sums up, sadly, why the community has lost faith in us as a class of person— all
23 of us—and, what is more, lost faith in this chamber and the institution of this Parliament.
24 The Premier’s presentation was littered with inconsistencies and littered with the notions of strength
25 and of doing the right thing. At the outset I remind all honourable members and all Victorians that it
26 has taken the best part of 19 months for us to arrive at this position. Only after the member for
27 Frankston indicated he would withdraw his support from this Premier is the Premier, in complete
28 fulfilment of the great saying ‘There is nothing like a convert’, prepared to act and prepared to ensure
29 that no wrongdoing goes unpunished. The Premier is prepared to make sure—I should not have to
30 refer to my notes, because we have heard it so many times today—that punishments are ‘fair, just and
31 appropriate’.
32 Apparently one can only take the most extreme action if a murder has been committed, if there has
33 been some other piece of absolute malfeasance at the highest of high standards or if it is September.
34 That is the great arbiter of what sort of penalty should be applied, because timing is everything. If the
35 member for Frankston were appropriately punished and an appropriate penalty were levied upon
36 him—that is to say, if he were expelled from this house, which is exactly what should occur, for
37 his completely inappropriate behaviour and for putting his private interests and profits ahead of
38 his public duty and the public trust placed in him by the good people of Frankston—there would be
39 every expectation that a by-election would be held.
40 Captain Courageous over there, the Premier——
41 The SPEAKER—Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that I made it very clear that members
42 should be referred to by their correct titles.
43 Mr ANDREWS—The Premier then, Speaker, fearful of a by-election——
45
46 I may also state that I view that Mr Daniel Andrews comparison of a Member of Parliament versus
47 an employee of the State is misguided as Mr Geoff Shaw was not and is not an employee of the
48 State! And as I have canvassed in previous correspondence the issue of “allowance” is what it is
49 about. The Parliament is not and never was the workplace for members of parliament as the term
50 “workplace” in my view implies employment, which a Member of Parliament t doesn’t have as
51 otherwise it would be an Office of Profit and disqualifies the Member from being a Member of
52 Parliament unless being a Minister of the crown. Hence, it is Mr Daniel Andrews himself I view is
53 in breach of the law because as a “shadow Minister’ he is paid not an “allowance” but a salary with
54 fringe benefits that I view must be deemed to be an Office of Profit and so he has no place in the

Page 10
1 Parliament to hold a seat. Why then is he and others not held accountable considering his mantra
2 against Mr Geoff Shaw?
3 In my view the statement “The Privileges Committee majority report, which is a complete and
4 utter whitewash” should never have been allowed by the Speaker, this as it undermines the
5 credibility of the privileges committee. Whereas my c riticism was upon its legality to deal with the
6 matter I view that the statement “The Privileges Committee majority report, which is a complete
7 and utter whitewash” is a derogation of the work of the privilege committee and unbecoming to
8 that of a Member of Parliament.
9
10 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
11 Indeed we have seen examples across the public sector of people in senior positions, and others in less senior
12 positions, who have been dismissed or have resigned knowing that their position was untenable for much less
13 than the member for Frankston got up to. They have gone; they have done the right thing. They did not have to
14 be pushed or forced. In many respects the matter was not for them—they were dismissed immediately. If it is
15 good enough for a staff member of this Parliament, if it is good enough for a public servant in that traditional
16 sense of the term, then why is it not good enough for a servant of the public?
17 If it is good enough for a member of staff in this Parliament to go for doing what the member for Frankston did,
18 or even perhaps less, why is it not the same? Why is it not good enough for the member for Frankston to be
19 expelled from this workplace for having brought dishonour on all of us, regardless of what political party
20 we are from, regardless of what electorate we represent, regardless of how long we have been here,
21 regardless of what motivates us and regardless of what burns inside us? The member for Frankston has
22 defamed all of us, and he ought to be dealt with by all of us, not to suit our own political purposes and not in an
23 act of conversion but in an act of conscience, an act of decency, an act of character, might I say, and an act of
24 leadership—a concept foreign to the Premier, because he became offended by this conduct only after the
25 member for Frankston said, ‘Well, you know what? I’ve had enough of you’. It was only at that point that the
26 Premier thought that this matter could not wait until after the winter break. It was only at that point that the
27 Premier thought we had to be fair, just and appropriate—but not too appropriate!
28 Mr Merlino—And not too early.
29 Mr ANDREWS—And not too early! ‘We have to act on this, We have to do all this wonderful work, Speaker.
30 We have to hurry around, convincing people that we are tough on the member for Frankston, but not too quickly,
31 and not too much and not too well!’. That is the issue here. The Premier is paralysed to act appropriately on the
32 member for Frankston, and this motion shows it.
33 The Privileges Committee majority report, which is a complete and utter whitewash, finds as a matter of
34 fact that, ‘Yes, of course the member for Frankston did it all’, but it could not find him wilful. It could not find
35 that he did it on purpose. It could only find that he was ‘not diligent’. ‘Not diligent’ is not doing a spellcheck.
36 ‘Not diligent’ is not returning a phone call. It does not apply to rorting wilfully and systematically and
37 working on your alibi as well. It does not apply to giving instructions to the staff you have told to misuse
38 the resources—‘If anyone asks, make sure you say it’s for private use’—as if that works anyway! How is
39 going to and from work the responsibility of taxpayers? How is the member for Frankston’s commercial staff
40 getting to and from work a matter for any of our constituents? He did not just give them the line to run if they
41 were ever queried. The member for Frankston also told them how to drive in—how to back the vehicle up so that
42 the security camera did not see what he was doing. So confident was he that he was doing the right thing that he
43 did not want anyone to film it.
45
46 Mr Daniel Andrews refers to “work” where in fact only Ministers of the Crown are attending to
47 their work being in employment with the Crown. A Leader of the opposition promoting to be the
48 alternative government not even understanding the basics of constitutional provisions to me is utter
49 scandalous.
50
51 Let’s apply this statement “It does not apply to rorting wilfully and systematically and working
52 on your alibi as well. It does not apply to giving instructions to the staff you have told to
53 misuse the resources—‘If anyone asks, make sure you say it’s for private use’—as if that
54 works anyway! How is going to and from work the responsibility of taxpayers?” to his usage of
55 arranging for a trip to and from Frankston. Did he use his office staff, computer system, telephone,
56 mobile, etc, to arrange the trip? Telephone/mobile and other records may prove what numbers he
57 called, for this which had nothing to do with the interest of the public or for that constituents of
58 Frankston but merely as I view it his own personal benefits to advance the what I consider
Page 11
1 fraudulent presentation of a “candidate”. Even if an by-election was called and writs issued I view
2 it still would be rorting the public purse, but where there is no by-election called and no writs issued
3 and yet he and as I understand it Member of Parliament Mr Merlino are rorting public monies
4 while hypocritically alleging Mr Geoff Shaw is doing so and for this should be expelled. At least
5 Mr Geoff Shaw faced his accusers and clearly they were defeated, and yet no such position can be
6 taken by Mr Daniel Andrews, Mr Merlino, and numerous others.
7 In my view it is a matter of credibility of the Parliament that both Mr Daniel Andrews, Mr
8 Merlino are facing the kind of punishment of what I view of their “rorting” as they pursued
9 against Mr Geoff Shaw.
10 It must be clear that where Premier Denis Napthine made clear as referred to below “For a
11 government that says it will not be held to ransom” that therefore he declares to the Parliament
12 what he based his as I view it scurrilous allegations against the Member for Frankston Mr Geoff
13 Shaw upon. We cannot have a Member of Parliament and certainly not being a Premier, making
14 scurrilous allegations to incite opposition against the Member for Frankston Mr Geoff Shaw and
15 then drop it all as if it never eventuated. In my view, the public is entitled to know if Premier Denis
16 Napthine concocted it all as after all using the term “ransom” implies a unlawful conduct and I view
17 the Parliament cannot tolerate this kind of allegations without full and proper explanation if such
18 claims were justified or were mere scurrilous allegations to get Members of the Legislative
19 Assembly on site to “punish” Mr Geoff Shaw.
20
22 Mr PALLAS (Tarneit)—I rise to speak on the matter of public importance put forward by the Deputy Premier.
23 The words of Napoleon Bonaparte come to my mind. He once said that you should never interrupt an enemy
24 while they are busy making a mistake. If that principle were to apply, we would never get a word in in this place,
25 because this government is littered with error, mistake and illusion. For a government that says it will not be
26 held to ransom, this resolution proves that its members’ grasp on reality has been abducted, and it
27 is Victoria’s and Victorians’ opportunities that have been held hostage.
29
31 The Premier has no shame when it comes to these things. He has done nothing. He has spoken barely a word of
32 criticism against the member for Frankston. But the moment the member for Frankston says, ‘I have had enough
33 of your government that bears no relation to the government fairly and squarely elected three and a half years
34 ago’, suddenly the Premier is about fairness and justice and being appropriate—but only in September. This is
35 transparent, and it is central to the reason why the people of this great state have such low regard for us
36 as parliamentarians and politicians. The conduct of the member for Frankston, the protection of the member
37 for Frankston by the Premier and the Premier’s very recent conversion, motivated by self-interest and nothing
38 more, to hold the member for Frankston to account for appalling behaviour, as found by the Ombudsman, are a
39 reflection——
40 Honourable members interjecting.
41 Mr ANDREWS—Well, that is the fact of these matters, that the Premier has only been motivated by self-
42 interest. That is why he has not spoken one word against the member for Frankston but has been happy to deal
43 with member for Frankston one-on-one in meetings, in texting back and forth, on the phone, in relation to all
44 sorts of agreements around supply and confidence and in rewriting the laws of this state. He has been happy to
45 accede to demands, despite his protestations last week.
46 Mr Ryan interjected.
47 Mr ANDREWS—I am only quoting the Premier. The Deputy Premier might want to look at the tape. I would
48 never want to misquote the Premier; his error can live on. I am happy for that to occur.
49 The issue here is that the Premier has been motivated by one thing and one thing only, and that is his survival. If
50 decency, fairness, accountability, the public trust, the public good, and saying no to the abuse of the public
51 purse were motivations for the Premier, then he would not have waited until the member for Frankston went
52 on ABC radio 774 and said, ‘I have had enough of this Premier’ before speaking up and making the case that the
53 member for Frankston had acted appallingly. The Premier says, ‘I only just received the report’. I am not sure
54 whether Hansard got that. The report was tabled at the end of the previous sitting week, and the Premier spent
55 the entire weekend and the Monday, indicating, ‘Well, we will need to get advice, and I see no reason why this
56 matter needs to be dealt with before the winter break’. There we are, back to September again, you see, Speaker.
57 So confident is the government of support in Frankston that the Premier will do anything to avoid being subject
58 to the views of the people of Frankston.
Page 12
1 There was talk about legal advice. We have seen none of that legal advice. We have had journalists quoted. We
2 have had conservative commentators—I think it is fair to say that—quoted. We have had quotes from the UK.
3 We have had all sorts of material dressed up as expert opinion, but where is this advice? Where is this legal
4 advice that holds that it would be unsafe to apply an appropriate sanction to the member for Frankston, unless it
5 is in September? Where is that advice that says it would be not only inappropriate and unprecedented but could
6 be open to legal challenge? Where is that advice? Where is that advice for the consumption and consideration of
7 every member of this house and indeed every Victorian? Again, so confident is it in this legal opinion,
8 apparently paid for by the taxpayer—sought by the government and secured by the government— that the
9 government will not come forward and give us a look at it; it will not table it and make it publicly available. That
10 is because this is not a legal strategy; this is a political strategy. This is not a strategy about probity; it is a
11 strategy about politics. It is not a strategy
12 about representation; it is a strategy about apologising for rorting. That is what it is. It is not a strategy put
13 forward by the government that is about the highest of standards or punishment; it is about protection. That is
14 exactly what this is: it is about protection, plain and simple.
15 Let us have a look at what the member for Frankston actually did. The Premier skated around a few of these
16 issues and used a few terms to describe it, albeit tough talk by the Premier’s pretty low standards. There was
17 deafening silence from the Premier on the conduct of the member for Frankston for every single day of his
18 premiership, until the day the member for Frankston said, ‘I might end your premiership’, when the Premier then
19 found his voice. It is a mere coincidence, no doubt, Speaker!
20 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
21
22 Again we should apply this mantra by Mr Daniel Andrews Leader of the Opposition to himself and
23 others (including premier Denis Napthine) and ensure that before the week is out appropriate
24 independent investigations are conducted in these matters so that Mr Daniel Andrews statements “If
25 decency, fairness, accountability, the public trust, the public good, and saying no to the abuse
26 of the public purse were motivations for the Premier, then he would not have waited” and “It
27 is not a strategy about representation; it is a strategy about apologising for rorting. That is
28 what it is.” Must be applied as he pursued then let he and others be used as examples.
29 No excuses about what he may have expected as to the holding of a by-election in Frankston but
30 “accountability” for what I view his “rorting’ of public monies.
31 .
33 This vehicle was used expressly for the member for Frankston’s profit, not for the profit of this state, the
34 public good or the public in any sense.
35 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
36 If Mr Daniel Andrews did the same then surely he has to answer for it, at least Mr Geoff Shaw so to
37 say stared down his accusers in court and is entitled to the benefit of this.
38
39 In the 1970’s when in management of factories I had this worker complaining about how another
40 worker had faulty production and by this weeks of production had to be scrapped. I decided to
41 investigate all worksheets and discovered that the accuser was actually the culprit. This is life, that
42 those who are rorting the most often desire to point the finger at others, and have them punished, as
43 after all you cannot allow others to rort! As such accusers often seem so to say play the high
44 grounds that they are invisible. They think they can get away with their rorting and abused of
45 position and power. THIS CANNOT BE TOLERATED
46 .
47 I have previously requested details/information, etc, to which I am not aware of you provided what
48 was requested to me. I view that the failure to do so may compromise your own position and may
49 make your position as Speaker untenable. After all, I view you acted without legal authority to use
50 Standing Orders 125 and to disregard compliance with Standing Order 126 and this may make your
51 own position untenable as a Speaker. If you failed to act appropriately then the vote cannot be
52 deemed valid and I view you as speaker should have acted immediately, when I altered you to this
53 at the very least, to ensure that the harm inflicted upon Mr Geoff Shaw as Member for Frankston
54 was not aggregated and unduly prolonged. In my view Ms Louise Ashe was in CONTEMPT OF
55 COURT by undermining Mr Geoff Shaw’s benefits and entitlement by the court accepting the
56 withdrawal of the criminal charges.

Page 13
1 It is easy to vilify a person of “rorting” where the person may by error, misunderstanding,
2 misinterpretation or whatever have used something not deemed entitled upon. What may then to
3 one person appear to be “rorting” to me may in fact not be at all because I look from the point of
4 view of constitutional principles? A clear example is where for example Mr Geoff Shaw Member
5 for Frankston was attacked for working in his business when not attending Parliament, as if this was
6 a sin to be s corned for, where in fact constitutionally it was all along intended by the Framers of the
7 Constitution that a person when not attending to the Parliament engage in his ordinary daily work.
8 As such Mr Geoff Shaw was unduly vilified and this is why people get also a disrespect for
9 politicians as they often so to say run around as a chicken without a head not knowing what they are
10 talking about but pursuing others allegedly for a wrongdoing and then when it turns out they are in
11 the wrong themselves then they try to use any excuse under the horizon to excuse themselves.
12 Obviously with the lack of constitutional knowledge Members of Parliament may then deplore a
13 conduct which is only in their mind an offence but seek to dictate others to accept this as fact. While
14 I do not have all details nevertheless some of the outlines recorded in the Hansard of 11-6-2014 to
15 me indicates a gross misconception by many Members of Parliament how matters are to be
16 considered. For example, rightly or wrongly, there is a rumour that Members of Parliament pay a
17 certain amount of moneys and for this are allowed to use a taxpayers funded motor vehicle and free
18 usage of fuel. In my view the providing of the motor vehicle is the real problem as logic is that
19 where a person pays to be allowed a motor vehicle he/she then holds entitled to use it. One must be
20 a complete idiot to argue that not a single Member of Parliament ever misused their vehicle or for
21 that fuel card, as ample use their vehicle to transport friends and others not related to
22 parliamentarian duties. In the circumstances and as I outlined to the Chief Commissioner of police it
23 would be extremely difficult to hold that Mr Geoff Shaw misused public funding. And hence, I was
24 not surprised that subsequently the criminal charges against Mr Geoff Shaw were withdrawn.
25 And that should have been the end of it. However, Parliament decided otherwise to undermine the
26 benefits Mr Geoff Shaw was entitled upon and ad hoc acted against him not even acting within the
27 Standing Orders and in those circumstances I view that the very mantra used against Mr Geoff
28 Shaw Member for Frankston should be used against those who vilified him and accused him in
29 pursued of “punishment”. If the government had for example consulted me about matters, I may
30 have been able to explain what the real constitutional principles are and the government may have
31 saved a lot of public monies avoiding all kinds of defective legal advice of lawyers. In my view a
32 comprehensive INDEPENDENT investigation should be conducted as to all Members of
33 Parliament as to any “rorting” and they should be held accountable. And in my view both Mr
34 Daniel Andrews, Mr Merlino ought to face to be expelled for what I consider
35 inappropriate/unlawful conduct. And if Premier Denis Napthine proved to have falsely accused
36 Member for Frankston Mr Geoff Shaw ab out holding the government to ransom about a judicial
37 decision then I view he too should be expelled.
38 As you are an Officer of Parliament to perform a duty regardless of your political alliance,
39 then I expect no less than that you will explain within which part of Standing Orders 125 you
40 claim to have had the power to “name” the Member for Frankston, and also why there was a
41 failure of compliance with Standing order 126.
42 When I was a quality control officer I rejected pallet after pallet of products, this even so the
43 product was what the car manufacturer needed and used and the product were to the requirements of
44 the drawings. I had discovered that the customer had in error placed an incorrect order but our sales
45 staff had substituted this for what they understood was actually intended to be ordered. I indicated
46 we required to have a deviation order, so we could supply the product, and the deviation order was
47 placed and I received the compliments of the Board of Directors for being so attentive to details
48 avoiding another huge damage cost, due a similar previous incident (before my time). I was very
49 strict on compliance, and this as if you allow to have slips then where does it stop. Two wrongs
50 doesn’t make it right and therefore (not that I imply Mr Geoff Shaw acted wrongly) even if he had
51 made an error it cannot justify you to fail to comply and act within Standing orders and hence the
Page 14
1 vote of the Legislative Assembly I view cannot stand and should be set aside. After all it is about
2 “fair, just and appropriate” I understand being the mantra of Premier Denis Napthine?
3 Is there any appropriate training for Members of Parliament about constitutional principles?
4 As to me if even the Leader of the Opposition appears not to grasp legal principles embedded in the
5 constitution, then there is a basic failure of education regarding this!
6 Where Members of Parliament cannot even act sensibly amongst each other than how can they
7 expect the community to trust their wisdom (if there is any) to provide sensible rules for others?
8 So much more to state, but for the moment you should be concerned to what I expose, and I look
9 forwards to your positive response.
10 .
11 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to be legal advice and may
12 not be the same were factual details be different than those understood to be by the writer.
13 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
14
15 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
16 ( Our name is our motto!)

18
19 I may add other correspondence referring to the same issue regarding misuse of public monies have
20 not been included in this correspondence but can be provided if so requested by the Victorian
21 Police where they were also forwarded to Mr Daniel Andrews and others involved in the RED
22 SHIRT matter, etc.
23
24 Electors are entitled to expect the Victorian Police to ensure that it takes appropriate action against
25 all those involved in misusing public monies to gain an advantage over other candidates and by this
26 rob the electors of a fair and proper election undermining democracy as well as to deprive by this
27 other candidates of the benefits they otherwise might have had were they elected. Obviously the
28 police should not so to say sit on its hands to enable further such misuse of public monies and so
29 ensure appropriate charges are laid before the next Victorian state election is held, which is
30 expected in November 2018.
31
32 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
33 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
34 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
35 (Our name is our motto!)


20180906-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Graham Ashton AM Chief Commissioner Victorian Police-RED SHIRT Issue Investigation-Etc

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

20180906-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Graham Ashton AM Chief Commissioner Victorian Police-RED SHIRT Issue Investigation-Etc

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Page 1

23 Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria, ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au

24 Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

37 Ethics Orientation for State Officials

23  Endorsements and Informational Materials

24  Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines

19 b. The materials do not make false statements.

25  Expenditures must be authorized

26  Public funds may not be expended for personal use

27  Information must be fairly presented

28  Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions

6-9-2018 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Mr Ken Smith ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au

Christine Fyffe, Speaker

Cc: Mr Geoff Shaw MP geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au

Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria, ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au

Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au

VICTORIAN Treasurer Michael O’Brien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au

Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au

6-9-2018 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

see attachment 20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc

Blog (constitutional issues) http://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati

A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING

6-9-2018 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-9-2018 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

15 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

16 ( Our name is our motto!)

34 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

35 (Our name is our motto!)

6-9-2018 Page 14 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Вам также может понравиться