20150212-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR TONY ABBOTT PM-Re The Spending Rorts-Etc

1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM
Cc:
10
12-2-2015
C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Frank Chung frank.chung@news.com.au
Ref; 20150212-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM-Re The spending rorts-etc
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Tony,
Besides the average worker and companies contributing towards taxation, that is monies
that is supposed to go into Consolidated Revenue funds, we all as purchases are taxpayers. Even
nbew born babies who happened to be provided by concerned parents/grandparents with a
modest bank account now are being slugged taxes.
I rec all how some of my children commence d bank accounts with the Commonwealth Bank.
Well tit really did cost me a lot more on petrol to drive them everywhere to collect cans, etc, but
it was to teach them how to collect something that was both good for the environment as well as
for their learning of how to save. Oops, the commonwealth had different ideas because some
had a mere modest sum of say $18.00 and after they had grown up it was found that the
Commonwealth had plundered their accounts on fees leaving well zero cents in their accounts.
That is that they did to small children then about average 7 years old (that of the 5 children)
Will we finally see that Ministers will abide by the true meaning and application of the
constitution and this including its embedded legal principles?
The children learned a lesson never to trust bankers, because they are even robbing small
children! Just shows how morally bankrupt the bank is. You may argue the about $18.00 is
nothing but it is the principle and that the children were devastated that their hard earned monies,
walking numerous kilometres along the road to collect cans, and so cleaning up the rubbish
others had thrown of their cars, was reworded with an elaborate theft by bankers. And this was
after the Government already stole monies as taxation fees! One may ask; How low can any
politician/banker sink when robbing small children in such manner?
But wait, there is more.
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
The colonist were stirred up to federate, as then it would be that the Federal Government would
do things for the common wealth of all Australians. It would unify colonist, and certain
things were then done by the Commonwealth and others for internal issues by the States (the
former Colonies). In particular where the taxation powers would be pending which area the
Commonwealth would be left with the Delegates at the constitution convention were deeply
p1
12-2-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
2
concerned that the States (the former colonies) would be bankrupted if they couldnt get
sufficient monies to run state matters. They pursued that the Commonwealth could bail out a
State if it was to run in dire financial problems, however this amendment was defeated. It may be
noted that when the DRAFT constitution was originally defeated in a referendum s96 was
inserted at the Premiers conference which then facilitated the following referendum to succeed.
It before that occurred the Framers of the Constitution was nevertheless concerned as to the
Commonwealth possible wild spending spree (as if they had a foresight) and so decided that all
and any monies that was drawn from the Consolidated Revenue Funds had to be approved by
way of Appropriation bills. They set the rules that such money bills had to be instituted by the
Government of then Day through its treasurer and could not be amended in the Senate, albeit
the Senate could reject the Appropriation Bill and provided a note what tit would like to have
altered. The House of Representative could either accept certain changes or simply re-introduce
the Appropriation Bill again and failing it to pass for the second time then a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION could be called for. Because of the time span of not less than 3 months between
the first introduction of the Appropriation Bill and the Second presentation, as well as the time
required if there was a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and possible JOINT SITTING of both Houses
to consider the Appropriation Bill before the new financial year to which the Appropriation Bill
was intended the time period requires at least 6 months from first introduction in the Senate to
the commencement of the financial year commencing on 1 July of each financial year for which
it applies.
Hansard 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales.)-One consideration with reference to this paragraph may perhaps affect
the views of some honorable members upon it. There was an amendment made yesterday which makes a very
considerable alteration in the whole paragraph. As the paragraph stood, upon the Senate rejecting a Bill, or
failing to pass it with amendments agreed to, the Governor-General might at once dissolve the two
Houses. As the clause was amended yesterday there is a further stage imposed. After an interval of three
months, or in the next session, whichever is the longer interval, if the House of Representatives again
passes the proposed law, and the Senate rejects it, or fails to pass it, or passes it [start page 2242] with
amendment to which the House of Representatives will not agree, there is to, be the double dissolution. The
Bill will then have received four separate considerations. It may be worthy of attention whether it is intended
that the Bill should go once more through each House, or six times through the mill altogether. It might
happen, if the proposal of the honorable and learned member (Mr. Symon) were carried into effect, that the
Bill would have to go through the mill ten times. But is it intended that the Bill should have to go as often as
three times through each House?
25
30
35
END QUOTE
.
40
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Then why say in the next session at all? If the object is to have it done any speedier,
there is no necessity for my honorable friend's amendment.
An HONORABLE MEMBER.-One day might make a new session.
45
Mr. OCONNOR.-We do not want a new session at all. The whole object of the amendment is that
some interval may elapse, and the honorable member says next session; that may be more than six
months, and the honorable member wants it to be at least six months. If the next [start page 2159]
session is more than six months, what more is wanted?
Mr. SYMON.-That is if the matter is urgent.
50
Mr. OCONNOR.-Then, if it is urgent, resist Mr. Isaacs' amendment.

Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-I submit there is some justification for the suggestion that there should be
some specified time. The object of requiring two sessions clearly is that there shall be an interval, but it
p2
12-2-2015
is extremely desirable that the interval should be a reasonable one, because we may assume that before
a dispute has arrived at an acute stage there has been some time and trouble taken over the proposed
legislation. It would not be proposed unless in, the opinion of one or both Chambers it was necessary.
Therefore we must be careful that we do not have undue delay in connexion with necessary legislation. If Mr.
Symon would do what is frequently done in Victoria in connexion with measures in which it is proposed
there should be an interval before they are submitted and voted on, fix six weeks instead of six months, you
might be assured. that there will be substantial delay. You would be secured against an unfair rush.
Mr. SYMON.-That is all we want.
Mr. TRENWITH.-I understand that.
10
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Supposing a measure was sprung very suddenly upon the Parliament, and
suddenly rejected, it would not come under the consideration of the public at all.
15
Mr. TRENWITH.-I respectfully submit that a measure passed very suddenly, and suddenly rejected,
would not be likely to be a measure about which this part of the Constitution would be brought into
execution. Measures of importance, such as will create disputes between the two Houses, are sure to be
measures discussed at considerable length in both Houses, and, as Mr. Deakin points out, the Senate is not
coerced into dealing with them. The Senate can take its time, even though the House of Representatives sends
up a measure. It is not bound to deal with it the day it receives it. Therefore, I submit there is justification
for the proposal, and we should concede it, even it it is distasteful to us.
20
Mr. SYMON.-Will the honorable member allow me to point out the necessity for a longer interval than is
given in Victoria? This is a Commonwealth matter, and you have the whole of Australasia to consider, and
not one colony, if you we to get an expression of opinion.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Of course, I am very anxious that we should in this connexion carry a proposal, if
possible, nearly unanimously.
Mr. SYMON.-Make it three months.
25
Mr. TRENWITH.-Personally, I rose to point out that six months is too long; but perhaps three
months would be a reasonable interval in view of the fact that such an extensive area has to be
considered. I am reminded that in parts of Western Australia a letter takes three weeks for delivery.
Therefore, we should require more time in Western Australia than in Victoria or New South Wales. However,
if the honorable member will accept three months, I will support him.
30
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I hope the amendment will be passed as proposed. For such a matter
as three months, is it worth while to, make a provision in the Constitution? The necessary steps to be taken by
the Government itself will at least insure that delay, and, on the other hand, it may be very important to put
the thing through in the public interests with so much rapidity that it would be impossible to allow the exact
time in the Constitution. After all, it is not worth troubling about.
35
Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia).-Mr. O'Connor overlooks the fact that the Senate may not put it
through; there is a little safeguard there. But it seems to me that the words proposed by Mr. Barton, if
they mean anything, mean another ordinary session. That is the [start page 2160] intention of the
honorable member moving it; but the way, in which it will be done will be to make a special session, as was
done in South Australia, where I believe that was done in order to get over this very difficulty. A new session
was summoned three days after the termination of the other session. If that is the object of the honorable
member-to try and rush the thing through by summoning another session immediately-I am sure it cannot be
the intention of Mr. Barton. I am sure that, in his mind, another session meant another ordinary session;
but seeing that the object of the mover can be frustrated, surely some reasonable interval should be
made. I think three months a reasonable time, and it is certainly little enough. The honorable member
(Mr. O'Connor) seems to forget that although you can take a horse to the water you cannot make him drink.
Therefore, the sending of a Bill up to the Senate does not make the Senate pass it.
40
45
Mr. OCONNOR.-That will give you all the more time.
50
Sir JOHN FORREST.-I know that it will, but, at the same time, I think some interval should elapse,
because if it is proposed to have another session it does not mean a manufactured session for the
purpose, but an ordinary session.
p3
12-2-2015
Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-My right honorable friend (Sir John Forrest) is a little in error as to
what happened in South Australia. It was not any attempt to apply a provision of this sort. What happened
was this: The Legislative Council threw out a Taxation Bill by carrying the motion that it be read this day six
months. Under these circumstances it could not be re-offered for their consideration, and as it had been
proved to the satisfaction of the majority of the members of that Chamber that they had made a mistake
Parliament was prorogued, a new session was convened, the Bill was sent up again, the Council reversed
their vote, and the Bill was carried. This has nothing whatever to do with it.
Mr. DEAKIN.-It was done to oblige the Legislative Council.
10
15
20
Mr. KINGSTON.-It was done to assist the Government and to oblige the Legislative Council; to enable
them to correct their mistake at the earliest possible date. I am very glad to reflect that they took advantage of
the opportunity which was offered. I would like to point out that if the proposal which is now suggested is
adopted, we shall be whittling away this clause. As it left Sydney it provided that if the House of
Representatives passed any proposed law, and the Senate rejected the same, or failed to pass it, or passed it
with amendments to which the House of Representatives would not agree, the Governor-General could
thereupon dissolve the House of Representatives. Nothing whatever was said there of a second session of
Parliament. What is the proposal now? We have already agreed to alter the clause so as to require a second
passing of the Bill in a second session; but, not content with that, it is suggested that a certain interval shall
intervene. Where is this to end? I submit that the matter can be fairly left to the discretion of the Executive
Council, and that there is not likely to be any abuse of power. As regards the instance cited by Sir John
Forrest, if there had not been the opportunity to give the Legislative Council a chance to reconsider their vote
and alter their determination the finances of the colony would have been thrown into the greatest disorder. So
here, if you limit the clause in the way proposed, I think it will be a great inconvenience.
END QUOTE
25
30
35
40
Convention)
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I know that my right honorable friend, judging probably from the time I am taking
now, thinks that in such a case I would take a long time, if I were in the Senate. I admit that his surmise is
quite right in my case. I admit there are persons on whom this terrorism could not be practised, or on
whom, if practised, it would probably not be effective. But I am thinking of persons of weaker minds and
wills, and I say that, as far as this Constitution is concerned, it is absolutely necessary to put some provision
in this Bill which will strengthen the Senate and prevent it being intimidated in the way indicated. We have
been frittering away the first principles of the Federal Constitution long enough.
END QUOTE
As such the introduction of any so called budget Appropriation Bills had to be say before the end
of the calendar year preceding the commencement of the new financial year on the 1 of July.
There were other issues relevant to this such as:
QUOTE
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
45
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the
funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
[start page 1773]
END QUOTE
50
55
In my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST this means also no tax exclusion such as not paying
any taxation because it still would amount to a spending monies on religion.
I may add that it violated the constitution to exclude religious bodies as non-profit (not for profit)
organisations where as others who do not rely upon religion are required to pay taxes.
For example a religious organisation which sells items is tax excluded where as an ordinary
person selling the same is burdened to pay taxation. This I vie is precisely in violation of the
constitution.
p4
12-2-2015
5
.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE
(ii) taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States;
10
15
END QUOTE
Yet, we have the Commonwealth ongoing differentiating in taxation, in particular where it comes
to a person working for the Federal government, such as the gun toting former AWB official
(when he was in Iraq) who was being paid tax free, as many others are.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. GORDON.The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
.
20

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
25

QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
30
35
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
END QUOTE
.
40
45
50
55
60

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the
imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the
whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may
determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average
opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout
the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states
for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniform
throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from one
state to another;
END QUOTE
p5
12-2-2015

QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty
shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.
END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
30
35

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I am saying now that I do not think there is any necessity for clause 95 in its present form.
What I am saying however, is that it should be made certain that in the same way as you provide that the
Tariff or any taxation imposed shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, so it should be
provided with reference to trade and commerce that it shall be uniform and equal, so that the
Commonwealth shall not give preference to any state or part of a state. Inasmuch as we provide that all
taxation, whether it be customs or excise duties, or direct taxation, must be uniform, and inasmuch as
we follow the United States Constitution in that particular-in the very same way I argue that we should
protect the trade and commerce sub-section by not doing anything which will limit its effect. That is the real
logical position.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the
Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a
considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided
that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect
taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an
income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting
Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of any
kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property, wherever it is
found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very careful, we shall get
into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposed
might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform.
END QUOTE
Therefore there can be no exceptional cases as al people in the same level of earnings should be
required to pay the same level of taxation.
40
45
50
55
60
Hansard 3-4-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
Mr. DONALDSON: This is a subject that is worthy of the fullest consideration and discussion. It would
certainly be absurd to try to limit the powers of the federal parliament. We cannot do that. Any parliament to
be effective in the future must have the full power to be able to levy whatever taxation they require to carry
on the government of the country. We have not the slightest idea now what will be required in the future.
Therefore, we must trust all these powers to the parliament. Looking at the matter in regard to the immediate
future, we have to bear in mind that, according to the proposals as we are now dealing with them, the federal
parliament will collect from customs from 8,000,000 to 9,000,000; and according to the information we
have obtained the total expenditure will be only about 2,500,000. Of course that would mean that a large
surplus would have to be handed back to the states in proportion to the amount which had been contributed
by them. That is fair enough, so far as it goes; although I fear that in the future it will cause some trouble,
and, as the hon. member, Mr. Burgess, has pointed out, any parliament having such a large surplus as that is
very likely to be extravagant. We know that the states have no control whatever, nor should they have
control, over the expenditure of the federal parliament. The federal parliament should do whatever they
please with the money, although there is an understanding that any surplus should be handed back.
But not having obligations, as all the states have at present, of providing interest on loans, how do we know
the position the federal parliament may take up by-and-by? Supposing there federal parliament were
dominated by free-traders. They might say, "There is no necessity to levy large customs duties; we will
reduce them one-half." At the same time they might submit a scheme embodying a direct form of taxation. As
was pointed out by the hon. member, Mr. Thynne, they might go in for a land-tax. The states will then be
left in this position: That, getting back a smaller amount than they anticipated from the federal parliament,
p6
12-2-2015
they will not have sufficient to pay the interest on their loans. They will therefore be cut off, in the first
instance, by not being able to levy customs and excise duties; and if they are compelled to raise money by
other means they will probably have to double or treble the direct taxation of the people of the state. That is
an awkward position in which to be placed, and it is one that is worthy of the gravest consideration. I do not
think any form of federation will be complete or [start page 679] satisfactory, unless the debts at least of the
whole of the states are taken over by the federal government.
Mr. DIBBS: I move as an amendment:
That after the word "money," line 1, the words if required for defence purposes in time of war be
inserted.
10
15
20
25
I move this amendment for the purpose of limiting the power of the federal government. Where the
customs and excise revenue will provide 8,500,000 a year, and where the probable expenditure in time of
peace is 2,500,000 a year, there is no necessity to allow the indiscriminate power provided in the subclause.
Mr. MUNRO: Perhaps if I call the attention of the hon. member to another clause in the proposed
constitution bill, he will see that his amendment will not only not be required; but that it will really act against
the intentions of all those gentlemen who wish the federal parliament eventually to take over the debts of the
various states. It is stated in clause 13, chapter IV:
The parliament of the commonwealth may, with the consent of the parliaments of all the states, make laws
for taking over and consolidating the whole or any part of the public debt of any state or states, but so that a
state shall be liable to indemnify the commonwealth in respect of the amount of a debt taken over, and that
the amount of interest payable in respect of a debt shall be deducted and retained from time to time from the
share of the surplus revenue of the commonwealth which would otherwise be payable to the state.
Therefore, if the hon. gentleman confines this power to raising money by any other mode of taxation only in
case of war, all that is intended to be done in the clause I have referred to will be defeated. I think the best
plan is to allow the subclause to stand as it is, and if any further amendment is required it can be made in the
13th clause of chapter IV The intention of the framers of the constitution has been to make the
constitution as flexible as possible, so that arrangements can be made between the various states and
the commonwealth when the time comes to make them.
Amendment negatived; sub-clause agreed to.
30
35
40
45
END QUOTE
What should be understood is that companies as well as ordinary household have to budget for
their expenditure. People who need a motor vehicle to transport to and from work needs to
calculate what they can financially afford. A car payment plan often is for many years if hire
purchase is required. Many have to budget for mortgage, etc.
Those who rent out properties will have to budget what taxation they have to pay as part of
overhead cost. Once a tenant moves in under a tenant agreement the rent cannot be changed
merely because the Commonwealth or the State suddenly increases taxation. Companies
employing staff cannot afford to have a low margin of profit being totally wiped out by a sudden
tax increase. For this and perhaps thousands of other issues, such as to consider where to
purchase supplies pending the price available that a sudden imports increase or other taxation can
make it impracticable to survive, business need a security that once Appropriation Bills are
passed through the Parliament then they must remain to be static for the duration of the financial
year.
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
50
Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!

p7
12-2-2015
8
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?
10
Mr. BARTON: Yes.

END QUOTE
A business that needs to contemplate an anticipated tax increase may by this fail in bids for work
because of having to increase the likely cost whereas if the tax is static then business confidence
will enable to be shown in possible more employment, which in turn may reduce the welfare bill
and as such it will be a win-win situation.
.
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Regretfully we have seen when it came to the 2014 budget that it miserably failed. It undermined
business confidence and questioned the leadership. We were told the time of entitlement is over
and we had to tight our belts more but in reality those pursuing this did anything but.
It is not the system provided for in the constitution that is failing but those who are responsible
Ministers are too clumsy, often untrained fancy that they can get away with doing their own
selfish egoistic conduct rather than to act responsible.
.
The failure of having Appropriation Bills passed in itself should have so to say cost the head of
the treasurer for total incompetence, because after all his duty was to ensure the Appropriation
Bills were passed prior to the commencement of the new financial year to which they were to
apply. We had however from onset what I consider an incredible arrogant egoistic treasurer who
shortly after being commissioned as treasure gives away about $8 billion to the Reserve Bank of
Australia without any Appropriation Bills, as if this was contemplated before the election. It is
not known to me how much the Reserve Bank of Australia funded the election campaign, if any,
but it appears to me the treasurer was not concerned with what was constitutionally permissible
but rather appeared to me to play Santa Clause with the monies of other people! It seemed to me
to be a pay-off. Again, the payment was reportedly approved before the Parliament sat as the
writs had not been returned and as such the extra ordinary payment of a massive $8 billion
couldnt have been authorised unless the former Parliament had already done so, which I
personally doubt where the previous Federal government was led by a different political party
QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER (Victoria).-It seems to me that the question of direct taxation is again being
drawn across the trail to catch votes. Under ordinary circumstances, a million or two million pounds could not
be taken from the Customs revenue; but, suppose that an expenditure were undertaken, the Commonwealth
would have to raise the money by direct-taxation. If the money were taken out of Customs revenue, and the
clause were not in the Bill, there would be so much less surplus to return to the states, and the states would
have to make up the deficiency themselves by direct taxation. These little words, "direct taxation," were
used in the Finance Committee, and have been used since to try and frighten honorable members. If money
cannot be raised by customs duties, it must be raised by direct taxation.
The amendment was negatived.
END QUOTE
Again;
QUOTE
50
and the states would have to make up the deficiency themselves by direct taxation.
END QUOTE
55
Therefore, it must be clear that the States remained to have legislative powers to raise
taxation albeit in fields only not canvassed by the Commonwealth of Australia, albeit, it
appears that the High Court of Australia has ruled otherwise.
p8
12-2-2015
9
What is a Constitution for, if the true application of powers and limitations are incorrectly
applied?
5
10
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).Of course, when I speak of a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state,
which, of course, stands in exactly the same position.
END QUOTE
As such Territories must be considered in similar position as the States
15
20

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
What this amounts to is that the moment the commonwealth commenced to legislate on a subject
matter within s5t1 of the constitution that provided for concurrent legislative powers of both
the Commonwealth and the states then the States legislative powers come to an end as it become
an exclusive legislative power for the Commonwealth as like s52 exclusive legislative powers
albeit in regard of taxation it relied upon the form of taxation that is canvassed by the
Commonwealth. Once however the Commonwealth commence s to legislate, such as it did on
income tax and also on land taxation then for all purposes and intend those form of taxation
matters because exclusive e Commonwealth taxation powers and within s51 or for that any other
section there is no provision as to revert the legislative powers back to the States. For example,
while the land Tax Abolition Act 1952 No 81 did abolish Commonwealth land taxation it didnt
nor could revert the land tax system back from uniform taxation to state variable land taxation!
As State may legislate on a subject matter within its own legislative sphere and then later abolish
the legislation and can subsequently re-introduce the legislation in the same or other form as one
Parliament cannot excluded a subsequent Parliament from legislating but one a State Parliament
lost the ability to legislate, being it for external affairs then it is forever ousted on that field.
Despite this in violation to the federal compact we have not just the States commencing with
trade offices in foreign countries but even the City of Melbourne doing so. Its the kind of
unconstitutional development that the Framers of the Constitution specifically had forbidden by
providing the external affairs power to the Commonwealth.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
the aboriginal race in any state.
p9
12-2-2015
10
10
Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general
community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to
do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not
see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if
Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which
are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do
not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
confines of Victoria at all.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
15
20
25
Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I
do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to
debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think
that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
should not have power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
30
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
END QUOTE
35
40
45
50
55

QUOTE
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-I respectfully submit in connexion with this clause that the necessity for
legislation in regard to aliens differs in the various colonies, and to give to the Federal Parliament exclusive
powers to legislate would produce inconvenience. This is obviously so, for the reason that what is necessary
in one state in connexion with the treatment of aliens may be altogether unnecessary and perhaps
inconvenient in another state. Assuming that such contingencies may arise, any uniform legislation must work
to the detriment of some state; whereas if, as suggested by Sir George Turner, it is made optional on the part
of the Federal Parliament, wherever any great pressure arises, or a necessity for uniform legislation occurs, to
legislate, then the Federal Parliament will undoubtedly take the question up and by its act achieve exclusive
control in that connexion so far as it chooses to legislate. But even then it may leave to local autonomy to
deal with the question in some connexion in a manner which may be [start page 236] necessitated by the
different circumstances of different localities. Take the colony of Victoria. We have legislation in the form of
a new Factories and Shops Act, which affects the Chinese in a manner such as no other colony has yet
thought it necessary to affect them. It may happen that no other colony will think it necessary to legislate in
that way. But there can be no reason why the legislation which is thought necessary by the Victorian people
should not be permitted to continue in Victoria. I have given this illustration because it appears to me that the
circumstances of different localities may involve different necessities in connexion with the treatment of
aliens. It maybe possible that in South Australia, or in New South Wales, or Tasmania, it may be necessary to
take some action with reference to aliens that may be extremely beneficial to those colonies, and inconvenient
or possibly irksome in Victoria. If the sub-section is, as suggested, taken from its present position and placed
p10
12-2-2015
11
10
in clause 52, it will leave power for the states to legislate as they think proper until the Federal Parliament
sees the necessity for bringing about some degree of uniformity. I would submit to honorable members that
the whole of our work points to the necessity for giving nothing to the Federal Parliament to do that can be as
well done in the interests of the states by the States themselves. What we are endeavouring to do is to
constitute a new power which shall do some things which we cannot do as well as separate states. But we
wish to avoid handing over to the new power anything that will take from us that sovereignty we now possess,
unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. It does not seem to me to be necessary to make it imperative in
the Constitution that the sovereignty of the states or their local autonomy in this connexion shall be
removed. If the Federal Parliament does not wish to legislate on the subject the local Parliaments should have
the power to legislate as their local requirements dictate.
END QUOTE
15
20
25
30
35

QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which
the words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether
we leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the
Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have
exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed
legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power
will have arisen.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an
apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word
"exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the
Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does
mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power
under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the
attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive
power arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties
being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph saysBut this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed
by the Parliament.
It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the
position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it [start page 255]
stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese.
40
45
50
Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately
on the establishment of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises upon the
establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of legislation. The doubt seems to
be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may be
postponed until legislation takes place. But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the
competence of the local Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not in
contradiction of federal legislation?
Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.
55
Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful whether the
exclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if it is possible that it may only
come into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still be said that on the passing of exclusive
legislation the power of the local Parliaments to legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of
concurrent legislation that power does not cease?
p11
12-2-2015
12
10
15
20
25
Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I think that enough has now been said on this subject by honorable
members both sides of the chamber, and I have only a very few remarks to offer. It appears that if the
sub-section remains where it is state laws will be valid until federal legislation, but the states will not be
able to alter or improve those laws during the possibly long interval between federation and federal
legislation. Under these circumstances, as we leave to the states for an indefinite time the power of
maintaining the laws they have, we should grant to them the power of improving those laws. It would
recommend the Constitution more to a large number of persons if we put the sub-section in clause 52,
thus enabling each state to legislate on this matter until the Federal Parliament comes in and legislates
for all.
END QUOTE
As such, the State of Victoria nevertheless legislating as to aboriginals despite of the exclusive
powers of the Commonwealth since it commenced to legislate in regard of Aboriginals is a clear
violation of the constitution.
The States can raise taxes in ways the Commonwealth does not cover but cannot reclaim any
taxation powers that went federal and became issue of having to be uniform.
As with the reference of legislative powers by the States to the Commonwealth once the
Commonwealth legislated upon it the States powers are extinguished. You cannot have a
Commonwealth law that is to be overruled by a state court merely because the State may not like
the end result of the reference of legislative powers. Once a Commonwealth law always a
Commonwealth law. The mere fact that the commonwealth abolished its land tax in 1952 means
that it decided for its own reasons it was not suitable to continue land taxation and in s3 of this
act in fact forbid any future land taxation. While the Land Tax Abolition Act 1953 was to abolish
the 1952 act itself was however abolished and so effectively reinstated s3 of the Land Tax
Abolition Act 1952.
So let us look at Commonwealth legislation.
QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081
LAND TAX ABOLITION.

30
No. 81 of 1952.
[Assented to 6th November, 1952.]
B E it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of
Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows :-
1. This Act may be cited as the Land Tax Abolition Act 1952.
35
2. This Act snall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of July, One thousand nine
hundred and fifty-two.
3. Land tax shall not be levied and paid for the financial year which commenced on the first day of July,
One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or for any subsequent financial year.
4. Section fifteen of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1952 does not apply in respect of the financial year
40
which commenced on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or in respect of any
subsequent financial year.

END QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081
While the Commonwealth abolished the payment of land taxation it did however also show:
45
QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081

3. Land tax shall not be levied and paid for the financial year which commenced on the first day of July,
One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or for any subsequent financial year.
END QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081
p12
12-2-2015
13
This part of the law remains in force and so also the right of uniform taxation (land tax)
throughout the Commonwealth, and no land taxation can be applied and any State
(delegated municipal/shire council rates are therefore in violation of this part of the act!
5
10
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Sydney%20Municipal%20Council
%20v%20Commonwealth%20)
QUOTE
Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904)
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
H C of A
26 April 1904
Griffith, C.J.
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
In this action the Municipal Council of Sydney claims to recover from the Commonwealth municipal rates in
respect of land situate within the City of Sydney, and occupied by the defendants for the purposes of the
Departments of Customs, Posts and Telegraphs, and Defence, the land having become vested in the
defendants by virtue of sec. 85 (1) of the Constitution upon the transfer of those departments to the
Commonwealth. The defendants claim that the rates in question, which were made since the date of transfer,
are within the prohibition of sec. 114, which provides that "a State shall not without the consent of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth ... impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the
Commonwealth." For the plaintiffs it is contended, first, that a municipal rate is not a tax within the meaning
of sec. 114, and, secondly, that, if it is, the provisions of the Sydney Corporation Act 1879, by which (sec.
103, re-enacted as sec. 110 of the Sydney Corporation Act 1902) (1902 No. 35) Crown lands were expressly
declared to be liable to rates, were continued in force by sec. 108 of the Constitution until the Parliament of
the Commonwealth should think fit to legislate in a contrary sense, when, it is said, the provisions of sec. 109
of the Constitution would come into operation, and the State law, being inconsistent with the Federal law,
would cease to have effect. No such Federal law has yet been passed. A subsidiary contention was that, in
determining whether the rate, assuming it to be a tax within the meaning of sec. 114, was valid or not,
regard should be had to the date of the passing of the New South Wales Statute, and not to the dates
when the particular rates in question were made, and that, therefore, the rates for 1901 and 1902,
made under the Act of 1879, which was passed before the establishment of the Commonwealth, were
valid, even if those made under the Act of 1902 were invalid, which, however, was not conceded. There
can be no doubt that the right of taxation is a right of sovereignty. It may be exercised upon all
persons, and in respect of all property, within the jurisdiction of the sovereign power which exercises it.
Municipal taxation springs from this sovereign right, and is an exercise of it by delegation to the
municipality. No other origin for it can be suggested. It follows that if the authority which assumes to
create such a delegation does not itself possess the power, the delegation is void, since the spring cannot
rise higher than its source. A municipal corporation, therefore, cannot have any greater power to
impose taxation than the State by which it is created, and by which its own powers are conferred. It is
true that the word "tax" is sometimes used in the limited sense of an enforced levy for the purposes of
the general government, but, if a State itself has no power to make such a levy, it cannot confer the
power under another name. In a constitutional instrument, therefore, defining and limiting the power
of constitutional authorities, the word "tax" must be construed in the wider sense, and a prohibition of
the imposition of a tax must be held to include a prohibition of any such imposition by a delegated
authority, by whatever name the tax is called. The Sydney Corporation Act does not, of itself, purport to
impose rates, but merely requires the Municipal Council to make an annual assessment of the values of
land within the municipality, and to make an annual rate of such amount as they think proper, within
prescribed limits. The grant of the power, which is the act of the State, and the exercise of the power,
which is the act of the corporation, are essentially different. The Statute operates as a delegation of the
taxing power of the State, coupled with a direction when and how to use it. The assessment of land and
the striking of a rate together operate as municipal legislation in exercise of the power. It is clear,
therefore, that under this Act the imposition of a rate is the act of the corporation, and not of the State,
and that the tax is imposed from time to time when the rate for the year is made. It follows that the
prohibition of sec. 114, if applicable, applies to the rate for every year in which it is sought to levy it.
It is manifest from the whole scope of the Constitution that, just as the Commonwealth and State are regarded
as distinct and separate sovereign bodies, with sovereign powers limited only by the ambit of their authority
under the Constitution, so the Crown, as representing those several bodies, is to be regarded not as one, but as
p13
12-2-2015
14
several juristic persons, to use a phrase which well expresses the idea. No better illustration can be given than
is afforded by the lands now sought to be rated, which, having originally been "property of the State," i.e.,
lands of the Crown in New South Wales, have become "vested in the Commonwealth," i.e., vested in the
Crown in right of the Commonwealth. The change in constitutional ownership is accurately and
unmistakeably denoted by the language of sec. 85 in which it is expressed.
The term "the Crown" as used in the Sydney Corporation Act must be taken to mean the Crown in its capacity
as representing the State of New South Wales. In the Act of 1879, passed before the establishment of the
Commonwealth, it obviously had that meaning, and no wider one can be given to it in the re-enactment of
1902. The argument, therefore, sought to be founded upon the assent of the Crown, given through the
Governor of New South Wales, to the taxation of Crown lands, fails, since land vested in the Commonwealth
or in the Crown in right of the Commonwealth is not Crown land within the meaning of the Sydney Act. Nor,
in my judgment, can the liability of the land, while Crown land of New South Wales, to municipal taxation be
regarded as a liability running with the land, any more than if the land had afterwards been granted for a
purpose which would exempt it from such liability.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
END QUOTE
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Sydney%20Municipal%20Council
%20v%20Commonwealth%20)
Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904)
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA H C of A 26 April 1904
QUOTE
For the plaintiffs it is contended, first, that a municipal rate is not a tax within the meaning of sec. 114, and,
secondly, that, if it is, the provisions of the Sydney Corporation Act 1879, by which (sec. 103, re-enacted as
sec. 110 of the Sydney Corporation Act 1902) (1902 No. 35) Crown lands were expressly declared to be
liable to rates, were continued in force by sec. 108 of the Constitution until the Parliament of the
Commonwealth should think fit to legislate in a contrary sense, when, it is said, the provisions of sec. 109 of
the Constitution would come into operation, and the State law, being inconsistent with the Federal law, would
cease to have effect. No such Federal law has yet been passed
END QUOTE
As municipal/shire councils are charging rates as a delegated state land taxation power then
while in 1904 this was permissible, the moment the Commonwealth commenced on 11
November 1910 the Land Tax Office (the fore runner of the ATO) then all State land taxation as
well as the delegated land taxation powers with municipal/shire councils (rates) no longer
existed.
Because the Commonwealth has so to say first pick to legislate as to taxation subject then I view
it must first provide for its Appropriation Bills so that the States can gauge what they may
receive from the Commonwealth and also calculate the impact of any Commonwealth taxation
upon state matter and local businesses to compliment Commonwealth taxation with their own,
albeit in different subject matters to ultimately be able to receive sufficient monies within the
Consolidated Revenue Funds as to pay for the maintenance of Departments, etc.
And now we get to the next point that is when does one need an Appropriation Bill?
.
45
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. HOLDER.-A measure would be valid while it was a Bill, and invalid when it became a law.
50
55
Mr. ISAACS.-That is a very terse and correct way of putting it, and it proves the absurdity of the provision.
We are, in my opinion, making the Senate too strong a body. To allow these matters to be carried into the
Supreme Court is to say that the Senate cannot protect itself, and that the states cannot protect themselves.
Surely that is not to be thought of for a moment. We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers'
Constitution. We shall be making the Supreme Court, not the master, but the tyrant of the Constitution, by
inserting a clause of this kind. I do strongly appeal to my honorable friends to alter the clause in some way.
My view is that we should put in the word "proposed." At all events, we should do something in this
direction, and we should at least make a distinct provision that if a Bill does not comply with this clause, the
invalidity should go no further than the additional matter. That could be worked out no doubt in an
p14
12-2-2015
15
Appropriation Bill, but you could not work it out in a Taxation Bill, because where two subjects were
dealt with you could not tell which was the additional matter. You might make such a provision with
regard to the additional matter in Appropriation Bills. The court could then say that certain items were
not for the annual services of the year. They would be invalid, and the remainder of the Bill would be valid,
but that would lead to the difficulty of the court having to determine what were the ordinary annual services
of the year.
Mr. BARTON.-Are not the annual services the annual expenditure proper to the public service?
10
15
20
25
Mr. ISAACS.-Supposing that some compensation were being paid to a discharged public servant.
That would not come within the ordinary annual services.[start page 2003] It would not be proper to the
public service of the Commonwealth. It would not be a payment for services rendered in the future, but for
services in the past. We all know that in connexion with the ordinary annual Appropriation Bills
questions arise that make it very difficult to say what is and what is not an ordinary annual service.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he
pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxation
including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill going outside the
ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be
imperatively required, in the discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage
of its existence.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.It is not a fact that clause 54 is a clause solely for the protection of the House of Representatives. It
confers corresponding rights. The argument fails there, because as to clause 54 there are rights given to
the Senate with reference to certain classes of Bills appropriating or imposing fines, or demanding or
appropriating licence-fees or fees for service.
30
Mr. ISAACS.-They are only exceptions, though.

Mr. BARTON.-They import a right. My honorable friend cannot get out of it in that way. He cannot say,
because it reads as an exception it does not also [start page 2017] confer a right. The test of that is this: Let
the Senate originate a law which contains a provision for imposing or appropriating fines or penalties,
or which enables a demand or appropriation of fees for licences or fees for services, and that law is
valid within the Constitution. The Senate has a right to originate the law, and therefore this provision
conveys a right. Now, there is a further provision there. While the Senate is prohibited from amending laws
imposing a tax or appropriating money for the annual services of the Government, sub-section (4) gives the
Senate the right to make suggestions, so that while there are rights given here to the House of Representatives
to originate Tax and annual Appropriation Bills, while the Senate may not amend those two classes of Bills,
there are certain other classes of Bills which it can originate, there are certain other classes of Bills which it
can amend, and besides that, under sub-section (5):-
35
40
Except as provided in this section the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in
respect of all proposed laws.
45
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-
50
55
In an Appropriation Act we should have so many hundred thousand pounds for this, and so many
hundred thousand pounds for that, and other items; but we should have no detail whatever. In no
Appropriation Act passed by any Parliament is there given small details of the amounts appropriated.
An Appropriation Act would often include amounts of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, and larger sums, the
details of which would be lost altogether in the mass of votes included in the Act. Therefore, it is quite
impossible for any court to tell from the mere construction of an Appropriation Act whether the items do
comprise moneys required for the ordinary annual services of the Government, even if that phrase "ordinary
p15
12-2-2015
16
annual services of the Government" were beyond dispute. Personally, I do not know what the phrase means,
and I do not suppose it is possible for anybody definitely to say what it means.
Mr. REID.-With a new Government it will be a very difficult matter to know what are "ordinary annual
services."
Mr. HOLDER.-Yes; but every item must be an annual expenditure, not one which comes on specially.
Now, we all know that all sorts of special emergencies arise in every country, and that special provision
has to be made for every such emergency.
Mr. ISAACS.-Would 50,000 for contingencies be regarded by the court as money appropriated for the
ordinary annual services of the Government?
10
Mr. REID.-That would be a nice question for the High Court to determine.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
15
Mr. ISAACS.-Suppose you had in the Appropriation Bill, a grant of 500 payable to John Brown,
and it was not one of the ordinary annual services of the Government: could not the court, under this
sub section, set the whole law aside?
Mr. BARTON.-There is no doubt that I might be tempted to return the same answer to that question which
a speaker on a memorable occasion returned.
20
25
Mr. ISAACS.-It is a very good reason for not having the clause in the Bill.
Mr. BARTON.-It is no reason for not having the clause in the Bill. If my learned friend thinks that the
words as they stand are liable to confusion, if he thinks that the ordinary annual services. of the
Government do not sufficiently define the ordinary annual Appropriation Bill-an Act which the
Government must pass to carry on its own existence-let him suggest some better form of words. Let
him make the clause clearer, and by so much as he makes it [start page 2019] clearer he loses the whole
point and effect of his own argument. If the court were to decide that this grant of money to John Brown is
part of the ordinary annual services of the Government, let it be so; but if it is not to decide the question we
will soon find that out, and it can be rectified in six hours.
Mr. TRENWITH.-But in the meantime the whole Bill goes.
30
Mr. ISAACS.-The whole law goes.

Mr. BARTON.-In the meantime the whole Bill need not go. We know very well that the whole Bill does
not go under these circumstances, and I am astonished that some of my honorable friends have not sufficient
recollection of Victorian history not to tell us that.
Mr. ISAACS.-We have too vivid a recollection of Victorian history to allow this to pass.
35
40
45
Mr. BARTON.-Well, summing up, if the argument is that the sub-section should be made clearer, let us
have suggestions for the clearing of the sub-section, and, in proportion as those suggestions are good, the
necessity for my learned friend's amendment diminishes; but I submit that where a law bears on its face the
evidence of an infraction of the Constitution, we should be entitled not to allow the process of that law to be
regulated by mere methods of procedure, but to submit them to the determination of the court, because of the
evil which appears on their faces. Then, as regards the objections taken to clause 54, I submit that under that
clause the rights of the Senate and the House of Representatives are correlative rights, but that we are not
here to confer rights on Chambers, except by way of making them instruments of the rights of the
people-that so far as we assume to do that we do that sufficiently under clause 54, a clause relating to
procedure, without invoking a judicial tribunal to interfere with mere matters of procedure; but that where the
matters are not only procedure, but go beyond procedure, so as to be matters which carry on their face the
evidence of distinct infractions of the Constitution, then, as we do under clause 55, we do right to submit
those matters to the judicial tribunal.
END QUOTE
And
p16
12-2-2015
17
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Supposing that an Appropriation Bill is brought up from the House of

Representatives providing for the ordinary annual services, and providing, amongst other things, for
the payment of light-house keepers, the Senate might think that this provision for the payment of the lighthouse keepers should not be carried unless a provision was also inserted dealing with the light-house keepers
who had been dispensed with.
Mr. DOBSON.-We should put them in a separate Bill.
10
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an
annual service.
15
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?

Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from
special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which
we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.
20
Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place
expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a
service.
END QUOTE
Again:
25

QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an
annual service.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?
30
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.

Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from
special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which
we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.
35
Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place
expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a
service.
END QUOTE
40
Therefore, one cannot provide monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds for any grant
allowed/permitted by the grants commission because every grant must be in a separate
Appropriation Bill approved by the Parliament.
QUOTE EMAIL 11-2-2015
The crazy stuff public servants spend your money on
45
Jim
Today at 6:58 PM
To
p17
12-2-2015
18
Photos
10
958418-87b4e068-adb9-11e4-90ab-ef3fd79aaa94.jpg
960472-f192b508-adbb-11e4-90ab-ef3fd79aaa94.jpg
960498-28809e54-adbc-11e4-90ab-ef3fd79aaa94.jpg
Download All
Every politician and bureaucrat that has misused and wasted public tax revenue
should be compelled to repay every dollar back into consolidated revenue with
interest, and then terminated from public office. Meanwhile the Australian sheeple will
merely nod their heads in disgust and irritation, say there is nothing they can do about
it, and then vote for the same incompetent political morons at the next federal and
state election.
Jim
15
20
Dont mention the budget crisis: The crazy stuff public servants spend your
money on
news.com.au
Frank Chung
February 11, 2015
AUSTRALIANS everywhere are stocking up on grain, tinned beets and bottled
water as we prepare to enter a long winter of debt and deficit.
25
30
With our two most senior economic figures last week issuing a dire warning about the
future of our nations finances, the case for government belt-tightening grows ever
more urgent.
But just how tight is the governments belt? While everyday dole bludgers are
expected to shoulder the burden of financial discipline, it seems the public service is
happier than ever to waste taxpayers money.
Government waste is like the never-ending story but its not just Foxtel
subscriptions, yoga classes and $14,000 coffee tables this time around.
35
Theres also the release of the Australian Research Councils latest round of Discovery
Project grants, which, despite Tony Abbotts pre-election pledge to cut funding from
futile research programs, has thrown up some surprising uses of your money.
All the talk of cutting waste in the lead-up to the last election and the first budget
now seems like hot air, said William Shrubb, researcher with the Centre for
Independent Studies WasteWatch program.
40
Not a lot has changed. Weve continued to find instances of ridiculous contracts being
awarded, at all levels of government.
Heres whats been happening while you were busy working:
MARY POPPINS STATUE: $26,400
(PICTURE OMITTED)
A different Mary Poppins statue. Source: Supplied
45
Remember the former governments Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism?

(Not to be confused with the Department of Finance, Space Exploration and Stamp
Collecting.) It was abolished after the 2013 election, but not before frantically writing
out a few more cheques.
p18
12-2-2015
19
As part of its Tourism Quality Projects program, the DERT awarded $26,400 to the
Southern Highlands Youth Arts Council to build an important statue in the middle of
Bowral a life-size bronze depiction of Mary Poppins.
Thats because Bowral was the hometown of Helen Lyndon Goff, aka P.L. Travers, the
flying nannys creator. It seems that Mary isnt the only thing that can blow in on the
East Wind though, notes WasteWatchs Alex Russell. Grants from the taxpayer can,
too.
CLIMATE CONTROLLED ROOMS: $21,970
10
In case you werent aware, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility
is a thing that we pay for.
And what better way to generate the information needed by decision-makers in
government and in vulnerable sectors and communities to manage the risks of climate
change impacts than by flying in delegates from all over the world to attend
conferences at swanky resorts like the Gold Coasts Bel Air on Broadbeach?
15
For a three-day conference at the end of September last year, the Bureau of
Meteorology spent $21,970 on hotel rooms for some of its international speakers for
13 days. We just hope they didnt use the air conditioning.
ANTI-SAUSAGE SIZZLE: $165,000
20
25
It seems nothings off limits for the nanny state of NSW. The NSW Health Department
has declared war on a time-honoured Australian tradition: the Saturday afternoon
after-sport sausage sizzle.
The Departments Finish with the Right Stuff campaign is designed to encourage
sports clubs to stop offering unhealthy food and drinks after sports games, and
presumably provide tofu, quinoa, activated almonds and goji berries instead, as Mr
Shrubb writes.
To that end, it has awarded a $165,000 contract for digital media strategy for the
campaign. (Hint: kids use Facebook.)
INTERIOR LANDSCAPING: $66,600
(PICTURE OMITTED)
30
The typical public servants office. Source: Getty Images

The national regulator for the vocational education sector, the Australian Skills Quality
Authority, has a tough job on its hands cracking down on dodgy operators handing out
iPads at Centrelink and shirt-fronting pensioners at the local shopping centre into
signing up for $20,000 business diplomas.
35
40
So maybe its fair enough that it spends nearly $70,000 of taxpayers money on
interior plant landscaping, presumably to maintain workers mental health through
the Japanese art of shinrin-yoku, or Forest Bathing.
The three-year contract works out to just over $427 a week to maintain the lush
indoor jungle. Taxpayer-funded plants are nothing new, but if government bodies are
genuinely keen on savings, indoor gardens seem ripe for pruning.
PARKING SUBSIDIES: $5-10 MILLION
(PICTURE OMITTED)
Canberra, where tax dollars go to die. Source: AAP
45
This is a tricky one. Last July, public servants in Canberras parliamentary triangle
were informed they would soon have to pay up to $12 a day for their previously
unmetered parking.
p19
12-2-2015
20
As anyone who has ever lived in Canberra will know, public transport is actually worse
than useless ACTION Buses have been known to abduct people from the street and
dump them in remote farmland.
But surely theres a better solution than Defences current Human Centipede-style plan
to subsidise its public servants $8 out of the $12? A Defence spokeswoman estimated
the scheme would cost the taxpayer $5 million, give or take another $5 million.
FREE APP: $104,600
Clearly one of the core functions of the Australian Bureau of Statistics is to engage
with Da Yoof, and what better way than through a mobile game?
10
Run That Town, a free app that offers players the experience of using real census
data to make planning decisions, has to date cost the taxpayer more than $100,000.
After an initial cost of $27,500, the ABS decided it needed a $30,000 ad campaign to
promote the game. Most recently, the ABS has forked out $47,150.50 on a voice-over
service, more than a year after launch.
15
NICE GUYS FINISH LAST: $154,000

Do nice guys really finish last? Its an age-old question, and one that we should very
soon have a definitive answer to thanks to a $154,000 research grant awarded to
Monash Universitys Philosophy Department by the Australian Research Council.
20
The project aims to examine the hypothesis that moral cognition makes us vulnerable
to exploitation through empirical investigation of the circumstances in which moral
behaviour can have harmful side-effects.
Sensitive and single high school boys around the nation will no doubt be thrilled, Mr
Shrubb notes, with the investigation sure to give lifestyle blogs enough new content to
last for years.
25
RURAL CHINESE ROMANCE: $183,000

The love lives of Chinas 260 million rural migrant workers are the subject of another
taxpayer-funded research project, this time to the tune of $183,000.
The study will aim to examine how these mostly disadvantaged workers experience
inequality, and how that inequality shapes their most intimate feelings.
30
The project aims to demonstrate unequivocally that love and romance are far from
trivial for these individuals: studying them is not a retreat to the merely personal, but
rather promises vital new ways of understanding inequality.
CHINESE PROSTITUTION: $133,500
35
The ARC does seem to have a strange obsession with China. In 2009, a three-year,
$133,514 study titled Governing Prostitution in the Peoples Republic of China set out
to produce the first detailed study of the governmental regulation of prostitution in
present day China.
The project also aimed to position Australian research at the international forefront of
this field, just in case we were in danger of falling behind.
40
As WasteWatch notes, Who needs improved infrastructure and safer roads, when you
can have your tax dollars spent on learning how President Xi governs and regulates
prostitution?
GRANTSMANSHIP GRANT: $180,000
45
And finally, in case anyone was worried that universities were not being meta enough,
one lucky researcher has been awarded an $180,000 grant to study the process of
grantsmanship that is, the process of applying for grants.
p20
12-2-2015
21
The research will take an international comparative approach to offer original, indepth insight into how so-called grantmanship is undertaken, how it is learned and
how it is experienced.
It will investigate how different policy and institutional contexts influence such work
and how social scientists negotiate scientific and strategic exigencies in the process of
proposal writing.
So there you go.

frank.chung@news.com.au
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/dont-mention-the-budget-crisis-the-crazy-stuff-public-servantsspend-your-money-on/story-e6frflo9-1227215960658
10
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/4-parking-in-the-parliamentary-triangle--but-onlyfor-defence-staffers-20140905-10cfjo.html
15
20
$4 parking in the parliamentary triangle - but only for defence staffers

Date
September 5, 2014
Comments 59
Read later
(PICTURE OMITTED)
Noel Towell
Reporter for The Canberra Times
View more articles from Noel Towell
Follow Noel on Twitter Follow Noel on Google+ Email Noel
25
(PICTURE OMITTED)
The rollout of Parking metres in the Parliamentary Triangle is almost complete - but some will be
paying more than others. Photo: Jeffrey Chan
30
Full public service coverage

Public servants and ADF personnel based in Canberra's parliamantary triangle will pay just $4 each
for all-day parking after October 1, the Defence Department has told staff.
35
The deal to subsidise employee parking in Canberra is expected to cost the department more than
$14 million, with the federal government's National Capital Authority confirming on Thursday that
defence would not get a bulk discount.
While thousands of public servants elsewhere in central Canberra are hit with $12 all-day parking
fees, defence and military bosses have struck a deal that will see their workers pay $4-a-day at the
giant car parks at Russell Offices and Anzac Park West.
40
But departmental secretary Dennis Richardson and the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief
Marshall Mark Binskin, have warned the relief is just temporary and parking will be still be on a
"first-come, first-served basis".
Top brass who enjoy allocated parking will also have to pay the $4 daily fee, but disabled parking
will remain free-of-charge.
45
Would-be interlopers from other departments will be foiled by an online registration system allowing
ADF and defence APS staffers to register their personal credit cards to a website set up to verify
their details.
p21
12-2-2015
22
Parking machines at the defence car parks will then charge registered cards the subsidised rate.
The full annual cost of parking for defence public servants and uniformed personnel was estimated
at $19 million, indicating the with the parking measures might cost defence about $12.5 million.
But a defence spokeswoman said the price tag would be between $5 million and $10 million. She
also said it had not been decided how long the subsidies would last.
But an authority spokeswoman was emphatic that no bulk discounts were being offered, that the
NCA expected to collect $12 each working day for each space at Russell and Anzac Park West,
and that any subsidies that were being offered were a matter between defence and its employees.
10
Federal departments throughout the triangle are grappling with the problems thrown up by the
government's decision to start charging, from October 1, for parking spaces that have been free for
decades.
The Canberra Times revealed last week that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will hold
a ballot to distribute precious car spaces in and around its buildings when it loses exclusive access
to its prime Barton car park as part of the new arrangements.
15
Announcing the defence move to staff, Mr Richardson and Marshall Binskin said some of their
workers were facing a 5 per cent hit to their annual wage without the parking subsidy.
Mr Richardson had previously said the charges would disproportionately hit young staffers and
women who had to use their cars to drop off children.
20
"The defence committee has decided to provide some temporary assistance to staff [both ADF and
APS] who would be liable to pay the full daily parking rate, noting that for some staff the $12 per
day would amount to a reduction in take-home pay of more than 5 per cent," the two bosses wrote.
"Staff should be aware that the cost of parking will increase over time beyond the $4 per day and,
at some point, full payment will be introduced."
END QUOTE EMAUIL 11-2-2015
25
30
35
40
45
It might be debatable if Parliamentarians are using prostitutes from China, but in my view any
such CHINESE PROSTITUTION: $133,500study is once off and cannot be permitted
without a special Appropriation Bill passed by the Parliament to withdraw monies from the
Consolidated Revenue Funds for this purpose. As such, such an Appropriation Bill must be
approved prior to the financial year in which it is used. Neither could it be argued that funding
for Foxtel subscriptions, yoga classes and $14,000 coffee tables fall within ordinary annual expenditure,
and as such for each item a special Appropriation Bill is required. Like the once of $8 billion the
treasurer seemed to me to pilfer from Consolidated Revenue Funds to give to the Reserve Bank
of Australia! And Mary Poppins statue expenses hardly could be deemed an annual Departmental
expenditure! Nor when public servants travel to world to exotic areas at luxury hotels obviously
at taxpayers cost with their respective partners cannot be deemed part of ordinary annual
services. Likewise the ANTI-SAUSAGE SIZZLE: $165,000, the Finish with the Right Stuff the
the Japanese art of shinrin-yoku, or Forest Bathing PARKING SUBSIDIES: $5-10 MILLION, Run That
Town FREE APP: $104,600, $154,000 research grant awarded to Monash Universitys Philosophy Department
by the Australian Research Council, CLIMATE CONTROLLED ROOMS: $21,970, INTERIOR
LANDSCAPING: $66,600 and the GRANTSMANSHIP GRANT: $180,000 all are one off matters not
part of ordinary annual services and as such can only be permitted of the Parliament had passed
for each item separately an Appropriation Bill.
Appropriation Bills are specifically required so the Parliament can so to say keep an eye out that
no Minister is recklessly acting or defrauding the Commonwealth of Australia by handing out
monies of taxpayers not legally justifiable.
p22
12-2-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
23
Parliament cannot just allocate for example $500 million to the Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet and then let him/her spend it and go on a spending drift as like a drunken
sailor as if there is no tomorrow for pork barrelling and vote buying.
One cannot have that a Minister submits a Bill for a Department not on basis what is needed for
running the Department but add a couple of billions of dollars so to say to give to his/her mates
as a thank you for having funded his/her election or something like that.
If anything Clive Palmer is well aware he didnt get monies thrown to him, but had to work darn
hard to earn monies to maintain his businesses, and why on earth should he (like others) be
funding luxury lifestyles of public servants that has nothing to do with their jobs?
How on earth can anyone claim that the Age of entitlement is over when he and others continue
as I view it to pilfer the Consolidated Revenue Funds unabated?
There is a lot more to this all, such as former politicians once having left the Parliament are not
entitled to a single cent as someone else is in their former seats and therefore they are in my view
scamming/pilfering the Consolidated Revenue Funds and should be charged with theft and made
to repay every cent! For the moment lets have the Appropriation Bills placed at least before the
end of February so they may actually be passed before the new financial year on 1 July 2015 has
commenced. Alternatively he resigns as the Framers of the Constitution held a Minister should
do if vital bills are failing to be passed by the Parliament. Perhaps smoking Joe may do better
in a cigar smoking competition then as a treasurer? Time will tell if he is better on cigar smoking
competition but so far as a treasurer I view he miserably failed, and not having presented the
Appropriation Bills for the new financial year indicates he unlikely learned from his past
mistakes. Will you pursue that ministers forgo photo opportunities such as kissing babies (I view
itself child abuse where it is for this purpose) and make sure that any non-annual expenditure is
not included in any Departmental running cost. If the Minister fancy an outing with Chinese
Prostitutes or otherwise then let he/she pay out of his/her own pocket but keep your hands of the
taxpayers hard earned monies. It is not just that the Age of Entitlement is over, but that there
never was an age of entitlement to pilfer/defraud the Consolidated Revenue Funds. I wonder if
smoking Joes cigar smoking smoke caused some brain damage that is irreparable and he
better get out of the job and let someone more competent taking over. Surely there must be one
competent parliamentarian existing who can appropriately manage Appropriation Bills to be
submitted to the Parliament within the time required. As I have not heard back from you about
any Appropriation Bills having authorised the reported conduct of Malcolm Turnbull $10 million
arrangement of 2007 to his next neighbour I view we can forget about him being an alternative
treasurer. I did quote the article http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2015/02/08/malcolmturnbulls-dirty-laundry-of-fraud-theft-will-destroy-the-liberal-party-if-elected-leader/
Malcolm Turnbulls dirty laundry of fraud & theft will destroy the Liberal Party if
elected leader so you could check the details alleged in it.
And, forget about handing out millions or billions to other countries playing Father Christmas,
this as each amount of monies, that is if constitutionally justified, must be approved first by way
of Appropriation Bill by the Parliament as it is not part of the ordinary annual service of the
Foreign Affairs Department. I look forwards to your comprehensive response to see if you have
learned from past errors and will act within the true meaning and application of the constitution,
but I can assure you I wont hold my breath while waiting!
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
(
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p23
12-2-2015

20150212-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR TONY ABBOTT PM-Re The Spending Rorts-Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20150212-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR TONY ABBOTT PM-Re The Spending Rorts-Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Mr. OCONNOR.-Then, if it is urgent, resist Mr. Isaacs' amendment.

Mr. OCONNOR.-That will give you all the more time.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

(ii) taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States;

Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!

Mr. BARTON: Yes.

As such Territories must be considered in similar position as the States

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

LAND TAX ABOLITION.

subsequent financial year.

QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081

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

Mr. ISAACS.-The whole law goes.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Supposing that an Appropriation Bill is brought up from the House of

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

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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

Remember the former governments Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism?

The typical public servants office. Source: Getty Images

NICE GUYS FINISH LAST: $154,000

RURAL CHINESE ROMANCE: $183,000

So there you go.

$4 parking in the parliamentary triangle - but only for defence staffers

Full public service coverage

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

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

You might also like