150711-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re Complaints - Etc

8/20/2019 150711-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re Complaints - Etc

1/19

p1 11-7-2015INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, See

also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Australian Electoral Commission [email protected]

5Cc: Senator George Brandis [email protected]

George Williams [email protected] Mr Clive Palmer [email protected] Jacqui Lambie [email protected] Bill Shorten [email protected] 10Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o [email protected]

Ref: 150711-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re COMPLAINTS etc

Sir/Madam,I will give an example which albeit relates to State political election will give15

an indication as to the issue of declaration, as to Federal political elections.

When it comes to filing a declaration of political expenditure I have the first concern thatthe details must be correct. Hence, for example when I stood in the State election forIvanhoe and had been subjected to having Anthony Carbines (ALP) as then councillor ofBanyule City Council involving staff to remover my elect ion posters, etc, I obviously20request Banyule City Council to compensate me for this. Hence in the subsequent councilelections I decided not to file a return not knowing if Banyule City Council was going tocompensate monies then as it would have affected my declaration. Well, I held not filing a

declaration in the circumstances where Banyule City Council had not clarified its positionwas better than to be facing to file a declaration and later be accused of filing as fraudulent25declaration if Banyule City Council was so to say setting me up for this. That this was a setup became clear where another former candidate simply had n either filed a “declaration”

but Banyule City Council pursued me for it, yet never the other candidate. I ended up before the court and well the court held I had failed to file a declaration, but the othercandidate was never charged for the same. It clearly was so to say a political witch hunt30against me, where unlike the other candidate at least I had a reason not wanting to file afalse/misleading declaration.

In recent times it is clear that Mr Bill Shorten failed to declare at least $40,000.00 on hisdeclaration. But as I understand it Mr Tony Abbott previously also amended hisdeclaration.35

After the 2010 State election I was invited to a Liberal Party function, this even so I stoodas INDEPENDENT candidate and was not a member of the Liberal Party. At the table Iwas at the treasurer then raised the issue that he got a $50.000.00 to which he had no priorknowledge.

It is very clear that political parties do have campaigns, and there was a report that Mr40Clive Palmer allegedly spend $12 million of the 2013 election campaign, and that seeks tosue some of his former party members for the cost. On this basis it must be clear themoney was allegedly spend for the candidates.

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:George%20Williamsmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:George%20Williamsmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


2/19




The same is with candidates of other political parties and as such, like Mr Bill Shorten andMr Tony Abbott to mention a few, their political machinery was on an advertisingcampaign that did cost many millions. The advertising campaigns are also misleading anddeceptive because it portray that the party leader is to be elected by all electors rather thanthat the local candidate is the person they vote for. This, as electors cannot vote for who5shall be in government and/or who shall be a (Prime) Minister.

See my correspondence “130908-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Clive Palmer &

AEC Re COMPLAINTS” for this also!As such, I view the cost of political advertising by the political parties must be spread outto the number of candidates of that political party and then declared by each candidate as10such. After all and INDEPENDENT candidate would have to declare such kind ofexpenses and any donations as such.Where then candidates of political parties failed to declare this kind of “donation” fromtheir political party campaign then I view each and every one should be charges for havingfiled a fraudulent disclosure statement.15.

QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true.

END QUOTE The AEC as I understand it cannot make payments for primary votes if the candidate has20not incurred any cost for the political election campaign. While candidates may assign

payments for the primary voted to their respective political party nevertheless it is a payment made upon the candidates entitlement not that of the political party’s entitlementas the “ political party” was not a registered candidate. Therefore all and any monies paidon behalf of a candidate to his/her political party I view can only be justified if the25candidate declares the expenses and so the benefits of the candidate, a reasonable estimate,from benefitting of the election campaign paid for by the political party.Political parties pre-spend monies on the election campaign well aware that after theelection the candidates primary vote payments will cover a lot of the cost incurred. As such

it gives a disadvantage to INDEPENDENT candidates which has no such ability.30While it was a State political election campaign Attorney Carbines even hired a shop frontthat was staffed by people. The hiring of a shop front clearly cost monies. Daniel Andrewhad a buss during the 2014 state election. And I understand likewise in federal elections

busses are painted with slogans to vote for a particular party leader, etc. Then I view thosecost should be declared by the respective candidate. It is monies spend on behalf of a35

particular candidate. And I may state such as in Victoria, why have a bus going around theState to vote for Daniel Andrews when only his own electorate can vote for him, as thereand only there he is a candidate.The same with federal political elect ions the usage of a bus to travel around pretendingthat all electors no matter not being in the electorate of the party leader somehow can vote40for the party leader as a candidate I view is grossly deceptive and misleading, but the AECdespite responsible for the fair and proper conduct of elections so far failed to take anyactions against the offender.I am not aware the AEC pursued charged against Clive Palmer, this even so I made aformal complaint.45Even so in the municipal council elections, as was the evidence before the court, there had

been no donations at the time and so no details as such were withheld, nevertheless the factthat I had failed to file the declaration itself was an issue, this even so I had the issue nothaving any response from Banyule City Council and so couldn’t complete a declarationuntil it did so and Banyule City Council had been made aware of this. Again not regarding50

the other candidate.

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


3/19




If the not filing of a declaration, regardless no donations were received, is an issue then Iview the making of a false declaration should be considered a “FRAUD”.As such, I view it is well overdue that the AEC pursues matters against all candidates of

political parties who failed to disclose their political party donations to each candidate (inthe form of advertising, etc) and also those candidates who had amended their disclosure5form afterwards..

It makes an utter mockery of the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) that it ignores

such serious matters and undermines FAIR and PROPER elections.10

Actually as yet I am not aware the AEC provided me with an appropriate response to mycorrespondence “130908-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Clive Palmer & AEC ReCOMPLAINTS” COMPLAINT!.

It should be understood that ‘ political parties” not being a candidate therefore themselves15cannot have any lawful entitlement to be provided with any payment of first preference ofa candidate unless the candidate assigns his/her own right and can show to have spentmonies as such. If therefore the candidate didn’t disclose spending this monies himself,which couldn’t be if the political party paid this, as then it is a donation, then no payment

per primary vote can eventuate.20Also, any person who stands for re-election as a member of the House of Representative sis constitutionally not a Member of Parliament once the Governor-General has dissolvedthe House of Representatives and issued writs and as such they are no longer Members ofParliament but former Members of Parliament and therefore must disclose the benefits they25had by claiming cost against the Consolidated Revenue Funds as if they are still Membersof Parliament. Ministers are not entitled to use either Consolidated Revenue Funds for

political election campaigns and nor are entitled to the Parliamentarian allowances..

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National30Australasian Convention) Mr. GILLIES:

QUOTE

Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was being paid

£500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus his salary

as a member of parliament. 35

END QUOTE

While Senators have generally an election while still remaining a Senator (other than witha DOUBLE DISSOLUTION) their election cost should never be allowed to includecharging against the consolidate Revenue Funds.40Where then for example there is a by-election the Prime Minister (as like any other

Minister) has no constitutional position to attend at cost of the taxpayers to promote thelocal candidate, this as it is not relating to his portfolio. Hence, any charges the PrimeMinister (so any other Minister) incurs to attend to such by-election to support a localcandidate must be regarded as a “donation” besides that it is unconstitutional. You cannot45have that Mr Bill Shorten is held accountable for not having declared certain benefitswhere neither so did I estimate most other Members of Parliament and other unsuccessfulcandidates.

It is beyond me why we appear to have such a grossly incompetent Australian Electoral50Commission, where this fraudulent conduct flourishes with no end in sight.



4/19




Below are examples that monies of the Consolidated Revenue funds can only be spend on“ public purposes” and not used for “ political elections”.Therefore, where Members of Parliament are using alleged “allowances” for politicalelection purposes then not only is this unconstitutional but also should be declared havingused this funds as such. It is nonsense to hold that a Member of Parliament can incur huge5cost on advertising prior to any political elect ion and not disclose this in a declaration as a“donation”, even if it is unconstitutional. What we now have is that members of parliamentare spending I estimate hundreds of thousands of dollars on future elections but are

purportedly permitted to do so by the uniter party arrangements. As such hiding the realcost (including donations) incurred as such.10.

In my view political advertising is such as the following

QUOTE 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re policaladvertising-COMPLAINT15It also refers to:

QUOTE

A LABOR GOVERNMENT WILL:

END QUOTE

And20QUOTE

Labor’s plan will ensure that STEM careers will start in our schools and Australianscan get the start they need to b e a part of the workforce of the future.

END QUOTE

25END QUOTE 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re policaladvertising-COMPLAINT

This is about if a Labor Government is in power and not about issues of a currentgovernment.30

To me this is a misuse and abuse of “allowances” and each and every member of parliament having failed to disclose this kind of advertising for a future election, etc, Iview must be legally severely dealt with. As such there must be a register where eachMember of Parliament referring to a future government must record the associated cost35(including printing, handling and postage cost) and then this must be declare in asubsequent election by this person if st5anding for re-election, and if this Member ofParliament is not standing for re-election then it is spread along all candidates of the

particular political party.40

QUOTE 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re policaladvertising-COMPLAINT

Mr Tony Abbott PM

[email protected] 45

Cc: Senator George Brandis [email protected] George Williams [email protected] Mr Clive Palmer [email protected] Jacqui Lambie [email protected]

Bill Shorten [email protected] 50

Herald Sun Andrew Bolt [email protected], [email protected] Robinson [email protected] Jay Clark [email protected]

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:George%20Williamsmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:George%20Williamsmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


5/19




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

COMPLAINT

Tony,5as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware about the intentions of the Framers

of the constitution and “political advertising” to campaigning for an election that is not

even called at cost of taxpayers is unconstitutional.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are10involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers norights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legalcontemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed .”

15Therefore even if the Federal Parliament legislated to allow such abuse of ConsolidatedRevenue Funds (taxes) it still would be unconstitutional and unlawful..

I have reproduced a pamphlet that I received today in the mail box and it clearly seeks people (not just electors) to write to the President of the Senate and Senators20

QUOTEWe ask the Senate to call upon the Abbott Government to provide our youth with the opportunity andsupport they need to get into further training, education and into work.

END QUOTE25

It also refers to:

QUOTE

A LABOR GOVERNMENT WILL:

END QUOTEAnd30

QUOTELabor’s plan will ensure that STEM careers will start in our schools and Australianscan get the start they need to b e a part of the workforce of the future.

END QUOTE35

Using a pamphlet for other purposes cannot excuse the usage of a political statement andas such the entire cost of the pamphlet and so associated cost of staff working on it, the

printing, postage, etc) must be held to be for n on ‘ public purposes” but for political purposes. It does state “LABOR ’S PLAN FOR THE JOBS OF TOMORROW” andtherefore is a clear political election pamphlet.40

I will now reproduced both sides of the pamphlet:



6/19






7/19




First of all the Senate has no such power to call upon the Abbott Government, this as theFramers of the Constitution made clear that any Minister is answerable to the House ofRepresentatives. The Peoples House.5Senate Estimates is not about accountability of a Government. The Senate may request aMinister and/or his/her department to brief the committee on certain financial issues but it



8/19




cannot operate as to hold the entire government accountable to the Senate. If JennyMacklin fails to understand the basics of the constitution and the legal principles embeddedin it, despite for so long having been in the Parliament and even a Minister then I view it iswell overdue she gets some form of education about what is the true meaning andapplication of the constitution.5Further, this pamphlet in my view is nothing but a political election campaign with thequoted wording as to what Labor will do.

Here we have people so to say asked to tighten their belts and we have a Member ofParliament who is wasting huge amount of monies on advertising.10It may be argued that members have a certain amount of entitlement to send out mail, but Iview this is nothing but blatant political advertising and should be born by Jenny Macklin,out of her own pocket. When an election is called it must be clear there can be no fair and

proper election where here we have a Member of Parliament using taxpayer’s moneys toget an advantage upon any other candidate so that by the time an election is called she so to15say is in the driver’s seat.

This is also one reason that I refuse to vote and as you ought to be aware I defeated

on 19 July 2006 the Commonwealth on compulsory voting.In my view it would be better to reign in this gross abuse of taxpayer ’s monies as soon or

later you may just discover that the power to make such a decision may no longer remain20available, as others will make that decision instead..

The same is when writs are issued for a general election, then every Member of the Houseof Representatives is no more, they hold no seat, not even if re-elected until they are againsworn in. As such, from the day the writs are issued they cannot use Parliamentarian25

privileges, not being paid, travel at taxpayers cost, use their mobile/laptops, etc, attaxpayers cost, stay in placers at cost of taxpayers, as they are no longer Members ofParliament. As ought to be clear no person can be a Member of the House ofRepresentatives for more than 3 years. There always will be a short period of a break thatthey are no longer a Member of the House of Representatives regardless how many times30

they are re-elected. Actually the same applies with a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION with theSenate. Those who are Ministers of the Crown can continue to act as Ministers of theCrown but are prohibited from claiming any benefits as Member of Parliament, regardlessif they are a Member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

35Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

QUOTE

Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annualallowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to40time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annualallowance shall be five hundred pounds.

Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, exceptto suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could

be adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for45services is a misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.

Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!

Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of thosecolonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the



9/19




reimbursement of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that

members of parliament are actually paid a salary for their work, which they are not.

Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Whynot say that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annualallowance? I move as an amendment:5

That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.

. Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.

If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with10reference to the payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted inthe bill which are not inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisionswhich take into consideration the salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some

provision is required in order to guard against officials being paid double. When a member of

parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid15 as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is notat present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than the bald provision already made.

Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was being paid

£500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus his salary

as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational manner; and to settle a20matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own judgment, andcertainly not to the judgment of the public

END QUOTE

THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T PROVIDE FOR A “SHADOW CABINET” OR A25“SHADOW MINISTER” AND THIS ROT ALSO SHOULD BE STOPPED.

In fact by s44 of the constitution anyone who is in the receipt of a salary from theCommonwealth is automatically vacating his/her seat. Ministers are not employed by theCommonwealth of Australia but their salaries are paid to the British Crown who then pays30the relevant Minister. Hence upon a Prime Minister or other Minister vacating his seat byelect ion or otherwise no further payment can be made out of Consolidated RevenueFunds. No free offices and free transport, etc, for them and/or their family members

because it would constitute fraud.The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate are employed35in political offices!.

HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

QUOTE40Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices

of Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extentthat really the Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submittheir own Estimates, and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are45altogether untouched by the Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not officesof profit under the Crown. I think that that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted inEngland and elsewhere.

END QUOTE 50



10/19




Let us be clear about it that any Member of Parliament, not being a Minister of the Crown(including President/Speaker) who is paid a salary/superannuation is automaticallydisqualified from holding a seat in the Parliament. As such any so called “shadow

Minister” getting paid for such position is I view then defrauding the commonwealth (sothe taxpayers) and no longer eligible to suit in the Parliament, regardless if Parliament5

provided rules otherwise, this as Parliament cannot override the constitution.

As for so called midterm budgets, they are unconstitutional also:

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 10

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042]as he pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed lawsfor taxation including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill goingoutside the ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House15of Representatives and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be

imperatively required, in the discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any

stage of its existence.

END QUOTE

20It also means that the sacking by John Kerr as he did was in fact unconstitutional, as aGovernor-General should stay out of the political fight between opposing parties. First ofall John Kerr as governor-General had a duty and obligation to ensure that the governmentof the Day had passed the appropriation and taxation Bills long before the commencementof the financial year they applied to. When there was a failure to do so the Governor-25General then could have removed the commission from the Prime Minister andsubsequently given the commission to someone else, even if the person was not even a

Member of Parliament. As Edmund Barton the first Prime Minister neither was a Memberof Parliament when he was commissioned.As such the withdrawal of a commission ought to have eventuated before the30commencement of the financial year.Further, within the principle embedded in the constitution the Governor-General is limitedto call a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION but cannot do it in the manner as he did to replaceWithlam with Malcolm Fraser and then allow the Senate to pass money bills and then calla DOUBLE DISSOLUTION This as quoted above the Appropriation and taxation bills35cannot be altered or otherwise interfered with during the financial year they applied to. Itwas Governor-General John Kerr who therefore in my view acted incompetent and lacked

proper supervision and was the real reason of the demise of the Withlam Government in an

unconstitutional manner.As the Framers of the Constitution made clear the Governor-General is the CEO and the40Ministers are his constitutional advisors.

Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE45

Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?

Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!



11/19




Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the

expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and

powers given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to theCommonwealth.

Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war? 5

Mr. BARTON: Yes.END QUOTE

Taxation and Appropriation Bills to comply with the constitutional requirement must beintroduced at such period of time that allows the bill, if twice rejected, to be put to the10electors for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and then if rejected again a JOINT SITTING isconvened between the Houses of Parliament. As such basically the ‘Budget’ as generallyreferred to is to be handed down allowing this period of time and so required to be

presented say before the end of the calendar year prior to the 1 July of the following year atwhich time the Appropriation and Taxation Bills will come into effect. Therefore, not15even in time of war can Taxation Bills and Appropriation Bills be altered.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution? 20

Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could notreceive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.

[start page 1773]

END QUOTE25

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

To fund churches or other religious organisations would basically force taxpayers who arenot associated with any kind of religion to pay for those who do, and this in itself isunconstitutional.30As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that there was a separation of powers beenState and church.

With Jullie Bishop travelling overseas and staying wherever in performing her job no onecan make an issue out of this provided she acts reasonable in the circumstances, but when a35

person like Treasurer Joe (smoking) Hockey is a Minister then he is not allowed to claimordinary Member of Parliament entitlements, and as such cannot claim overnightaccommodation to be paid to his wife where on the other hand she travels with him at

times as his wife. And may even a have a split income for taxation returns. We need toclamp down on this and I view the ATO should investigate this also. After all if Joe40(smoking) Hockey is paying rent to his wife then are they separated or not?In my view Centrelink would call it a scam if people on a pension were to do as Joe(smoking) Hockey and his wife were doing.I view the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) should also investigate matters, as after allwhere Joe (smoking) Hockey makes a payment to his wife then it is in my view so to say a45commercial arrangement and no longer can be held to be his allowance or otherwise fromthe parliament.



12/19




As for taxation matters the Commonwealth cannot excluded certain soldiers from taxationmerely because they serve in a certain area, as this would be unconstitutional. TheCommonwealth can increase their pay as to compensate for the monies having to be paidin taxation but not excluded any person from paying taxation.

5Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-A rather important point has been raised with regard to sub-section (2), in regard to the question of uniformity of taxation. While there has been no express10decision by the American courts as to the meaning of the words "uniform throughout theCommonwealth," there are expressions in one of the cases which render it necessary for us to usecaution. I therefore ask for a little more time in which to consider this matter.

Mr. HIGGINS.-To allow graduations and exemptions, is it?

Mr. BARTON.-My own desire is that the Federal Parliament should be unfettered in the exercise of15its taxing power, if it has to use any direct taxation at all. Whatever my own opinions may be as to theway in which that power should be exercised, it is necessary that the authority to which it is confidedshould have the power in full force. That being so, I wish to see that this authority is properly

conserved. For that reason, I think it advisable to postpone the matter, and I therefore move that itshould be postponed until after clause 80 has been considered. It would then come on immediately20

before the provision relating to finance and trade, to which it is so nearly related.

The motion was agreed to, and the clause postponed.

END QUOTE

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National25Australasian Convention)

QUOTE

Clause 52, sub-section (2).-Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout theCommonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state toanother.30

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have prepared an amendment with regard to this sub-section,which puts the matter into a form which would express the intention of the Convention, whilstavoiding a difficulty. Honorable members will recollect the difficulty that arose over the constructionof words equivalent to "uniform throughout the Commonwealth" in the United States of America.Although no actual decision has been given, a doubt has been raised as to the meaning of the word35"uniform." The celebrated income tax case went off as to the direct apportionment of taxation amongstthe people according to numbers, and this point was not decided, but a great deal of doubt has beenthrown on the meaning of the word in the judgment of Mr. Justice Field. I think that although the

word "uniform" has the meaning it was intended to have-"one in form" throughout theCommonwealth-still there might be a difficulty, and litigation might arise about it, and prolonged40trouble might be occasioned with regard to the provision in case, for instance, an income tax or a landtax was imposed. What is really wanted is to prevent a discrimination between citizens of theCommonwealth in the same circumstances. I beg to move-

That all the words after the word "taxation" where it is first used be struck out, and that the followingwords be substituted:-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between goods45

passing from one state to another."

I conceive it to be quite unnecessary to retain these words in view of clause 89, prescribing free-tradeamong the several states, under which any duty or tax on goods passing from one state to another

would be clearly invalid, and could not possibly be allowed by the operation of the preference clauses.



13/19




I propose not to say anything about goods in this connexion passing from one state to another, as thatis sufficiently provided for, and I put in this provision, which prevents discrimination or any form

of tax which would make a difference between the citizen of one state and the citizen of another

state, and to prevent anything which would place a tax upon a person going from one state to

another. I beg to move-5

That all the words after the first word "taxation" in the second sub-section be omitted, with a view toinserting the following words-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, orbetween persons or things passing from one state to another."

The amendment was agreed to.

END QUOTE10

It is clear that to exclude one or more persons but not all who receive the same amount of pay from taxation is unconstitutional and beyond the legislative powers of theCommonwealth of Australia. It means that the gun toting former AWB official who wasreportedly paid $1 million dollars to represent the Commonwealth of Australia in Iraq, then15also still should be paying the tax for that monies. Let’s be clear about it the various

Parliament have legislated that items can be confiscated where they are deemed proceeds

of crime. As such the same can be used against politicians who defrauded the ConsolidatedRevenue Funds for monies not entitled upon.20

Perhaps you may be able to guess what I would do if I were in power! I would make surethat those who violated the constitution and so its embedded legal principles would be heldlegally accountable for it all.

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all25details/issues.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®(Our name is our motto! )

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)30

END QUOTE 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re policaladvertising-COMPLAINT

http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php 35

QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)

Ethics Orientation for State OfficialsMisuse of Public Funds

Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes

The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that40 public funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose when its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official

possesses only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.45The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not beexpended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purposenor are they authorized.The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal

benefit may result from an expenditure of public funds.50

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.phphttp://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.phphttp://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.phphttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


14/19




For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it is an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of theemployee for public purposes.

The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure

is not merely incidental. The term “public funds” is not limited to money, but includes anything5of value belonging to a public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and

use of telephones, computers, and fax machines and other equipment and resources.

Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

1.In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to10 purchase items for himself and others. This was a misuse of public funds, eventhough those receiving the discount paid for the items with personal funds.

2.In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a countyvehicle to transport a political candidate, his staff and family.

3.In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to15

work on his political campaign for Lieutenant Governor. 4.In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in

connection with official business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to

Great Falls, Montana and back.

Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil20sanctions.These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.

State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections

There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public25funds. This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following isa list of what we’ll cover in this section.

Stanson v. Mott Endorsements and Informational Materials Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines30

Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns

The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of public funds in election campaigns.In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,challenging the director’s expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a35statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concludingthat “in the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public

funds to promote a partisan position in an election campaign.”

Stanson v. MottThe Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process40is that the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of

several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that theholders of governmental authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or theirallies, in office....” The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson “...The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of45course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.” Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a governmentagency may endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promoteits passage.Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not50promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.



15/19




Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballotmeasure elections.

1.“The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority todisseminate information relating to its activities, it may spend funds to providethe public with a fair presentation of relevant information.” 5

2.“The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to barknowledgeable public agencies from disclosing relevant information to the

public, so long as such disclosure is full and impartial and does not amount toimproper campaign activity.”

3.“To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal10treatment to both sides of the issue.”

Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger finesfrom the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996,Sacramento County paid a $10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explainingthe effect on the county of several ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a15position on the ballot measures and was not a neutral and fair presentation of the facts. Let's Review

TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.

Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.

Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone20calls before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governor’s campaign

fundraising dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state governmenton a variety of issues, may she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.

Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal political purposes rather than for a public purpose.25

Let's ReviewRamon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answerquestions about the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend fundsfor this purpose.

a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.30 b.The materials do not make false statements.c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable

impacts of the measure.

Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable andunfavorable impacts of the measure.35

Remember These Points

Expenditures must be for a public purpose Expenditures must be authorized Public funds may not be expended for personal use

Information must be fairly presented40 Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions

END QUOTE



16/19




Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-Ought you not to have the same phrase in sub-section (2) as you have in sub-5section (3) of clause 45?

Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. That would get over the difficulty. If in sub-section (2) of clause 46 you put anexpress reference to a certain class of insolvency, that must exclude by inference any other class ofinsolvency. There is another point, and this is also a very serious one, to which the Premier of Victoriadrew my attention before lunch. Sub-section (3) of clause 46 provides that the seat of a senator or10member of the House of Representatives is to become vacant if he-

directly or indirectly accepts or receives any fee or honorarium for work done or service rendered byhim for and on behalf of the Commonwealth while sitting as such member.

No exception is made to meet the case of a Minister of the Crown. There is provision made

elsewhere in the Constitution for the payment of salary to Ministers for services rendered to the15Commonwealth, which might include his services as a senator. Clause 48A provides that-

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator, and each member of the House ofRepresentatives, shall receive for his services an allowance of £400 a year, to be reckoned from theday on which he takes his seat.

The allowance spoken of there might be regarded as an honorarium, or as a fee, but it is an20allowance for "services," which is the word used in sub-section (3) of clause 46.

END QUOTE

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: 25

There are, of course, many formal matters relating to both houses, such as the election of presidentand speaker, disqualifications, the issue of writs, elections, and so on, with which I shall not on thisoccasion trouble the Convention. It is provided, then, that each member of either house shall have anannual allowance for his services, which is proposed to be fixed in the meantime at £500 a year. Theordinary disqualifications are inserted as to members holding offices of profit, with the exception of30ministers of the Crown, or becoming public contractors and other similar provisions.

END QUOTE

While the quotation below refers to “salary”, being paid for “work” the legal principle isthat an “allowance” is not a salary. Hansard 21-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National35Australasian Convention)

QUOTE

Clause 43.-Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the States Assembly orof the House of Representatives, shall receive an allowance for his services of four hundred pounds ayear, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.40

Mr. GORDON: I move:



17/19




To strike out the word "four," in the third line, with the view of inserting " five."

The ground for the motion is that £400 a year is insufficient. While some local Parliaments are paying their resident mem- [start page 1032] bers £300 a year, £400 is not enough for a member

who has to leave-as most members of the Federal Parliament would have to do-his colony and

practically abandon his business or his profession. He would have to rely either upon his private5means or his parliamentary salary, which, in this case, would be inadequate. I think, if £400 a year isfixed, the choice for members of the House of Representatives will be limited to those who can affordto leave their business or profession, and to those who are prepared to depend entirely on the small

parliamentary salary. While members of both of these classes are exceedingly desirable members ofany Parliament, I think it would be a mistake to have the whole Parliament consisting of them, which10the payment of the salary proposed would probably lead to. I think £500 is little enough; the £100makes all the difference to the ordinary professional or business man.

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: £400 is quite enough.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON: £100 too much.

Mr. GORDON: I think it is a question on which the sense of the Committee should be taken, and,15without further remark, I move the amendment.

Mr. HIGGINS: I think that, having regard to the fact that the Federal Parliament will have muchless to do than the ordinary local Parliaments after the first Parliament, £400 is sufficient. I am asstrongly in favor of payment of members, on the grounds alluded to by Mr. Gordon, as any man, but Isay that the work done in the States Parliaments takes far more time than will the work in the Federal20Parliament, after its first meeting. It is not likely, indeed, that the Federal Parliament will sit more thantwo months in the year. I should like to strike out "four," with a view to the insertion of "three." At thesame time, as £400 has been fixed as a compromise, I hope it will remain at that amount as themaximum.

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: I consider that £400 is ample payment for the services of members. In25addition to that they possess the privilege of a free railway pass. The amount proposed to be paid-£400-is twice as much as the Dominion Parliament of Canada pays its members. I trust hon. memberswill not support the amendment to increase the amount to £500.

Mr. TRENWITH: I hope that Mr. Gordon's amendment will be carried. We have no right toassume that the Federal Parliament will not have a good deal to do. All our experience teaches us that,30as civilisation advances, the requirements of the people increase, and the tendency to ask Parliamentto do things, that in the past have been done by private enterprise, is increasing very rapidly. I feelconfident that the Federal Parliament, instead of having less to do as time goes on, will have a greatdeal more to do. I think that it will be found to the advantage of the States to hand over work to thecentral Government. Of course, I can understand the objection that any sum is too much, by35those who disapprove of the principle of payment of members. But the principle of payment ofmembers has been adopted throughout all the colonies. It was adopted after a good deal of resistanceon the part of those who disapprove of it, which showed the strong growing public feeling in favor of

paying members for the work they do, and of looking upon the position of a member of Parliament notmerely as a position of honor, but rather regarding them as State servants who are paid for their work.

40 We are paid not merely to reimburse us for expenses incurred, and to pay members of the FederalParliament £500 a year would be little enough, considering that during a portion of the year they willhave to be great distances from their established homes.

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It will cost them nothing to travel.

Mr. TRENWITH: That is a very popular delusion.45

[start page 1033]

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Let them keep out of Parliament.



18/19




Mr. TRENWITH: That is exactly the idea. I say let the people have the widest possible area ofselection for Parliament in order that all sections may be represented.

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: To keep a lot of idle fellows doing nothing.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Mr. TRENWITH: I am anxious that members of Parliament should not be idle fellows. In the non-5 payment days a great many members were idle fellows who looked upon a seat in Parliament as anaddition to their social position, who cared very little for its worth, and in some instances who paidthemselves very handsomely by the opportunities they had.

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: You cannot say that with truth. That is a most scandalous assertion!

Mr. TRENWITH: It is the truth.10

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Quite scandalous. You have no right to make such a statement.

Mr. TRENWITH: I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort, but when Sir William Zealtalks about idle fellows, he brings upon himself, naturally and properly, the rejoinder I have made.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON: A most unjust rejoinder.

Mr. TRENWITH: In some of the colonies the best lands and water-frontages-the very eyes of the15colonies, in fact-were mopped up by members of Parliament during the regime of non-payment ofmembers.

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: How many of them?

Mr. TRENWITH: As I said before I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort.

Mr. WALKER: What you say may be the case in Victoria, you know.20

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It is a gross exaggeration.

Mr. TRENWITH: I am not speaking merely of Victoria. I lived during the early part of my life in anice little colony which suffered in the same way.

Mr. WALKER: Do you mean Van Diemen's Land?

Mr. TRENWITH: I mean Tasmania. I was pointing out that the instincts of our people tend25towards payment of members of Parliament for their work. My hon. friend, Sir William Zeal,interjected that we have free railway passes. I would remark that any person who knows anything

about travel must recognise that it carries with it a large amount of expense. Those who are

here, away from their homes, know that if they were getting £400 a year for this work, they

would be losing money, and they would not even be reimbursed for the expenditure incurred. 30Those who urge that the amount should be left as proposed in the Bill, are not in favor of payment ofmembers, but are simply favorable to reimbursing members for the disbursements they make inconnection with the performance of their duties.

Mr. HIGGINS: I was always in favor of payment of members.

Mr. TRENWITH: I feel confident that my hon. friend Mr. Higgins could not have looked35thoroughly at the question or he would not have spoken as he did.

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: He is losing now ten times as much as he will ever get for being here,but he is bearing it cheerfully.



19/19



Mr. TRENWITH: There are some who could not afford to lose anything at all. Parliament is to becomposed, as it ought to be, of representatives of all sections of the community. There must be inParliament some who cannot afford to lose anything at all, and who must be paid for their services,and if those services are worth having, there ought to be adequate remuneration for them. I sincerelyhope that the higher figure will be [start page 1034] adopted, not because I believe in extravagance,5

but because I believe that any lesser sum will not pay members of Parliament for their work.

Question-That the word "four," proposed to be struck out, stand part of the question-put. TheCommittee divided.

Ayes, 26; Noes, 9. Majority, 17.

END QUOTE10

As this is a COMPLAINT I expect and entitled to be dealt with appropriately and aninvestigation is held into all current and former Members of Parliament those candidates of

political parties if they did make the appropriate declaration. While this may involvemountains of work, then again had the AEC been more competent and so to say on the jobit could have avoided most of it. Its blatant disregard to do its job can never be an excuse.15Electors are currently robbed of FAIR and PROPER elect ions and as such for this no valid

elections have n or can be claimed to have eventuated.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal

advice nor to refer to all issues/details.20

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® 25

(Our name is our motto! )
http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/

Documents

150711-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re Complaints - Etc