7-3-2014

Page 1

Me Tony Abbottt Tony, on the blog Conversation there was a comment re Malcolm Fraser versus your person and I held it appropriate to give my input. as Quoted below Gerrit Jeff Payne PhD in Political Science To Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.auMe Today at 12:58 PM

Tony Abbottt Tony, on the blog Conversation there was a comment re Malcolm Fraser versus your person and I held it appropriate to give my input. as Quoted below Gerrit Jeff Payne PhD in Political Science and Masters in Public Policy It really is interesting times. Tony Abbott, like his predecessor, proudly wears the mantle of being a conservative. This is in contrast to the 'liberal' tradition represented by few better than the honorable (meant here as an observation of character not a title) Mr Malcolm Fraser. Indeed, Malcolm Fraser has proven himself to be one of the most relevant and courageous social commentators of our time. The interesting thing about this particular debate is that Abbott, that proud conservative, is being anything but co conservative. A conservative, as Edmund Burke was forever reminding us, is extremely cautious when it comes to altering long established practice. The reason for this hesitancy is because we know how things run under current arrangements but to change these practices may result in unforeseen consequences. Fraser's note of caution here should, I believe, be listened to us all but particularly those who identify as conservatives. Changes such as these, as the author argues, can have dangerous consequences. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Constitutionalist In reply to Jeff Payne In my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I hold that Malcolm Fraser was a traitor to the general community and hardly has any credibility to rely upon conventions, etc. And conventions do not overrule constitutional limitations. While John Kerr had the constitutional powers to withdrew his commission for any Minister, he had to follow proper protocols. S64 requires the appointment of a Minister on advise of the executives. He however did not do so. Also the G-G can remove a Minister at his pleasure by withdrawing his commission but here we were talking about an entire ministry. This only can be done with a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION. And doing so it means he had to set the schedule of the election. Instead what he did was to appoint Malcolm Fraser and allow him to pass supply through the Senate. This then became in my view a CONSPIRACY to pervert the course of JUSTICE by manipulating their powers. Had John Kerr simply called for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and in the interim appointed Malcolm Fraser then I view it would have been constitutionally
7-3-2014 Page 1 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, by fax 001161-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

7-3-2014

Page 2

appropriate, but instead they made an arrangement that the Senate would first pass the supply boils, this was outside constitutional powers. Neither was it needed to pass supply bills. It should be understood that in view of the constitution stipulating what must be done to pass any bill (including supply bills) there has to be about 6 months (I estimate) for the Parliament to consider twice the Bills and if not passed to have a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and allow for a possible joint sitting but after the bills first again was submitted to each House. This means any supply Bill must allow for this process about a 6 month period before the Bills are required on 1 July of the year they apply to. I view that the Governor-General must be held accountable not having acted when the Bills were not submitted in time to the Parliament. As such the G-G himself was at fault in the first place not to act then. Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure? Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure! Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and powers given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to the Commonwealth. Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war? Mr. BARTON: Yes. END QUOTE This means only one set of supply Bills (Appropriation Bills) can be passed for the annual services of the Commonwealth. After all businesses enter in to contracts based upon their overhead cost, etc, and if taxes were suddenly to rise it could destroy a viable business. . When Edmund Barton became Prime minister there were no supply bills enacted because there was no Parliament as elections had to be held and it cost money to hold elections, etc. So, the constitution provided for the G-G to authorise payments and then afterwards the newly established parliament could pass supply bills for this. Hence I view John Kerr could have simply withdrawn his commission and directed a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION to be held and commissioner Malcolm Fraser to form an interim government pending the end result of the election and making a guarantee as G-G that all expenditure would be covered. However, for the G-G to make some kind of arrangement to commission Malcolm Fraser on the basis he would have the Senate to pass supply was unconstitutional and a gross violation of powers of the leader of a political party, this as the leader of the political party in the House of Representatives has constitutionally no powers to interfere with what the Senate (a State House) does. I view it is wrong to have one political party involved in both Houses of Parliament because it undermines the
7-3-2014 Page 2 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, by fax 001161-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

7-3-2014

Page 3

separation of the Houses. and the Framers of the Constitution held it would be "treason" if the Senate was not given sufficient time to consider bills. . HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS: There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to pass that line would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely to abandon the principle of responsible government, when we are invited to surrender the latest-born, but, as I think, the noblest child of our constitutional system-a system which has not only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the liberties of our people-then, END QUOTE . What effectively eventuated, as I view it, was that John Kerr had Malcolm Fraser to decide the Senate would pass supply this even so Malcolm Fraser was not a Senator. the fact that he was the leader of the opposition was in that regard irrelevant. Senators are representing the State's interest and the House of Representatives is for the "general community":. Basically it appears to me that Malcolm Fraser is like the kettle calling the pot to be black. In my view it would be much better is those posting comments would disregard their political alliance and comment in a FAIR and PROPER manner where their input is as to the true meaning and application of the constitution. And, I view that Geoff Withlam had to go because of his failure to stick within the previous Appropriation Bills. As such I am not taking any sides with any political party.
Constitutionalist & Consultant MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN) 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia Ph (International) 61394577209 . Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au 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.

7-3-2014 Page 3 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, by fax 001161-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com