20150226-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Kevin Hogan MP Re Appropriation Bills - Overseas Funding-Etc

1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Kevin Hogan MP
26-2-2015
kevin.hogan.mp@aph.gov.au
Cc:
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au

Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o josh.frydenberg.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
Jessica Marszalek Jessica.marszalek@news.com.au
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Frank Chung frank.chung@news.com.au
10
15
Ref; 20150226-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Kevin Hogan MP Re Appropriation Bills- overseas funding-etc
Kevin,
20
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I present you with the following writing in view that I

understand you are making an issue about the cutting back of Foreign Aid (See your
correspondence quoted below). I understand you are promoting the cut off aid to various
countries and as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I wonder where there any Appropriation Bills in
the first place approved to provide such aid that has been cut off or those still being provided?
.
25
For examples:
Why should we give aid to Israel?
Why should we give aid to Indonesia?
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
30
Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an
annual service.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.
35
Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from
special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which
we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.
Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place
expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a
service.
40
45
END QUOTE
If there has to be an Appropriation Bills for each of the issues such as funding natural disasters,
being it fire, flood, etc then was this so complied with or is it that we have Department making
claims for funding to include whatever not being part of annual services and then go on a
spending spree like a drunken sailor as if there is no tomorrow without the required
Appropriation Bills passed by the Parliament for such spending? Was this the ills of the Rudd
p1
26-2-2015
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
2
government on spending huge amount of monies without Parliament approval such as in regard
of the sports halls and the infamous insulation bats?
.
Was this also how Joe Hockey played Father Christmas shortly after the 2013 federal election to
give away to the reserve ban k of Australia a reported $8 billion even so writs had not by then
been returned and as such no Parliament was in session to approve such an Appropriation Bill?
.
10
One then has to ask, if all those giveaways under the cover of aid, etc are not part of the
ordinary annual expenditure of Department, then how much moneys is being syphoned off by
bureaucrats and others without any check and balances being in place?
We have a constitution and clearly no aid to any country or no expenditure within the
commonwealth of Australia that is not part of the ordinary annual expenditure can be permitted
unless for each such spending an Appropriation Bill was passed by the parliament.
.
15
It also means that no Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet can spend moneys on pork
barreling unless the monies being spend is for ordinary annual expenditure and not once of
payment or giveaways.
See also my correspondences to Mr Tony Abbott such as:
20
20150220-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re spending
spree-Appropriation Bills-etc
25
30
35
It is not if aid is cut down/off but if any aid is constitutionally permissible and appropriate in
the first place.
It always should be remembered that politicians are not giving away their own moneys, as I
doubt they then would go along with it, but are effectively unconstitutionally giving away the
future of Australians.
As I view it Foreign Aid is NOT part of the external affairs provision. And it is absurd to
hold that any Foreign aid to countries like Indonesia and Israel both well known for their
purchase of weapons, etc, is appropriate.
Some of the numerous correspondence about this issue has been listed below
20150109-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re retrospective
legislation-terrorism
40
20150114-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Where the hell

are you-rates-state land taxes-etc
20150206-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Senate Committee SUBMISSION Re
privatisation of state and territory assets and new infrastructure-DRAFT
45
20150211-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Trans-Pacific
Partnership-etc
50
20150212-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re The spending

rorts-etc
20150215=16-35-Where is the constitutional validity to lend monies to Indonesia re. Your
message to the Prime Minister
p2
26-2-2015
3
Needless to say so far not a single reasonable appropriate response.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
When will my agent accept my instructions not to unconstitutionally spend monies from
Consolidated Revenue Funds on so called Foreign Aid or other rorts?
Hansard 17-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. MACROSSAN:
As to the ministry being responsible to both houses, I think that is an utter impossibility. I do not see
how a ministry can be held in any way to be responsible to both houses of parliament, especially as one
of those houses is to have a continuity of existence. If the senate was to be placed on the same footing as
the house of representatives, and was to be dissolved on the same occasions, there might be something
in the proposal. But as it will have a continuous life, and as whatever definite responsibility it may have
will be through the nominations of the legislatures of the different states, I do not see how a federal
ministry can be responsible to any house but the house of representatives.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: As a possible working out in time. I do admit that there is a great deal of force in the
suggestion that there are certain phases of constitutional development which, to a great extent, must be left to
the working-to that which express provisions will evolve from themselves, rather than to attempt to define
them too strictly at the outset; but I fail to see how the working of any such constitution as is likely to be
framed will result in a limited ministerial responsibility of that kind. I take it that we [start page 99] shall be
shut up to the choice of one of two things, the American system of dissociation of the executive, or the
adhering to that which we individually have found to work as well as anything else can work in the present
stage of political development, that is, the ordinary principle of constitutional government. In that respect I
think that, irrespective of any question of a referendum, which I have heard suggested, we shall find ourselves
safer in relying on the old lines of constitutional responsibility at the hands of one chamber, although it
may not take unto itself the whole of the representative principle, than we shall be by attempting either to
weld two chambers together for executive purposes-which I think would be a clumsy expedient-or by
venturing upon the dissociation of the executive from the representative body, the segregation of ministers
from parliament, resulting, as we know it has resulted elsewhere, in a body of ministers not possessing indeed
the whole executive power, and whose working is hampered to this extent: that, being individually amenable
to a president, they are only in the very slightest degree animated by a common policy so far as regards their
common action. That is a state of things which I do not think would conduce to good government, and I
therefore think, notwithstanding the embodiment of the federal principle in our second chamber,
notwithstanding the embodiment of a proportion of the representation of the country in it, we must give up the
idea that we are to dissociate our executive from our parliament. We shall be much safer in taking our
stand upon the solid constitutional ground of responsibility to one house alone. And there is a reason for
it in this case to be found in this way: that the chamber to which it is proposed that ministers should be
responsible, is that chamber which is most charged with the conservation of the general rights of which the
executive is the exponent: that is to say, viewing the federal executive in its distinction from the various
executives of the provinces, the chamber which has most to do with the conservation of the powers and
functions of that executive, and within the lines of which it will oftenest act in its relation to the individuals of
the state, will be the house of representatives; and if we work upon that line, I think we shall find it to be,
perhaps, by no very great stretch of principle a decided gain in the working of our political system, and we
shall find it possible to conserve the principle of ministerial responsibility, and responsibility to that house
alone.
END QUOTE
We seem to have Senate estimates questioning all kinds of people, but how much of it is
constitutionally valid if in fact it is to violate the House of Representatives jurisdiction/powers?
p3
26-2-2015
10
15
20
25
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: What is the way to do it I am not now considering. But I hope I am not
misunderstood in calling attention to that difficulty as likely to arise. I believe myself that the system which
we call responsible government is the best that has yet been invented in the history of the world for carrying
on the good government of the people, and I hope that it will be instituted in the Federal Government of
Australia. But, at the same time, I desire to point out the great possibility-almost probability-that that
system, as we have it at the present time, if we insist upon members of the executive being members of
the legislature, and insist upon their commanding always a majority in one house of the legislature,
may not work. We have to devise a constitution that will work, that will have within its bounds sufficient
scope to allow of any development.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
. I quite admit that the United States system suits them; and if we are simply going to form a republic,
and to establish an institution in which the executive will not be in Parliament, and will not be
responsible, the state of affairs will be totally different. But I am contemplating that this Convention has in
view the formation of true responsible government.
END QUOTE
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN:
The people of Victoria are under many obligations to their distinguished Chief Justice and especially for his
judgment in this suit, in which he has displayed the acumen of the lawyer, the eloquence of the orator, and
the grasp of the statesman. Chief Justice Higinbotham said:
30
It was the intention of the Legislative Council to provide a complete system of responsible government in
and for Victoria, and that intention was carried into full legislative effect with the knowledge and approval
and at the instance of the Imperial Government by the "Constitution Statute," passed by the Imperial
Parliament.
He was supported in his opinion by Mr. Justice Kerferd, who for some time was Attorney-General of
Victoria. Mr. Justice Kerferd said:
35
40
All the prerogatives necessary for the safety and protection of the people, the administration of the law, and
the conduct of public affairs in and for Victoria, under our system of responsible government, have passed
as an incident to the grant of self-government (without which the grant itself would be of no effect) and
may be exercised by the representative of the Crown in the advice of responsible ministers.
These two quotations embody the belief which was held until lately in Victoria; the majority of our own
Supreme Court overruled this reading. Mr. Justice Williams said:
I have been for years in common with, I believe, very many others, under the delusion (as I must term it)
that we enjoyed in this colony responsible government in the proper sense of the term. I awake to find, as
far as my opinion goes, that we have merely an instalment of responsible government.
45
Mr. Justice Holroyd considers that we have only a measure of self-government, and two other judges
concur. My colleague, Mr. Wrixon, who argued the case with great force and ability before the Privy
Council, says:
If the reading put by the Supreme Court in Victoria upon our Constitution Act be correct, then not
only in the colony of Victoria, but in all the groups of Australasian colonies, the governments which
we now enjoy are without warrant of law.
50
55
That is a strong statement, and the judgment of the majority of our Supreme Court justifies me in asserting
that this Convention cannot too soon face the issue involved in it. I take it that the people of Australasia will
not be satisfied with any "instalment" or any "measure" of responsible government, or any limitations,
except such as are necessary to the unity of the empire. We claim, without shadow of doubt or vestige of
qualification, all the powers and privileges possessed by Englishmen. The governor-general, as
representative of the Queen in these federated colonies, should be clothed by statute with all the powers
p4
26-2-2015
10
15
which should belong to the representative of her Majesty; he should be above all risk of attack, because he
should act only on the advice of responsible ministers, who should be prepared either to obtain the
sanction of Parliament for their acts or vacate office. Parliament, in its turn, should be brought into
intimate relation with the electorates. This is true, popular government.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
END QUOTE
Yet, we seem to have anything but a responsible government.

20
25

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
.
30
35
40
45
50
55
60

QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us, I am happy to
say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the book which he was good enough
to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form: That it is desirable there should be a union of the
Australian colonies. That is one of the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments. Second,
that such union should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in order that
the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under the Crown. Now, I
am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with which we have to deal-that the union
that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown. Fourth, that it should be under one legislative and
executive government. That also is laid down by our various parliaments.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Dr. QUICK.-Certainly, with regard to constitutional questions. I am prepared, if necessary, to give up the
subject's right of appeal; but I emphatically assert that there should be a right of appeal from the decision of
the High Court in regard to this Constitution, a Constitution embodying novel provisions and giving
important powers, including the power of the Federal Court to review the procedure of Parliament. The
Federal High Court is empowered to-declare a law passed by both Houses and assented to by the
Crown ultra vires, not because the Legislature has exceeded its jurisdiction, but because of some fault
of procedure. Appeals would be made only when there was a reasonable doubt in the minds of the
responsible advisers of the Commonwealth that the decisions of the High Court were open to question. The
knowledge of this right of appeal would be an incentive to the High Court to be most careful in its decisions,
and especially in its early decisions. I need not enumerate the cases in which, if the amendment is carried,
there will be no right of appeal. There will be no right of appeal in regard to the letter of the Constitution
itself. There will be no opportunity to review a decision, for instance, in regard to legislation under clause 52,
sub-section (1)-"The regulation of trade and commerce." Then, again, it is provided that all taxation is to
be uniform, and all legislation under this provision will be taken out of the purview of the Privy Council.
END QUOTE
Here we have, albeit unconstitutionally abandoned even the right to question some of the most
absurd, idiotic, unconstitutional decisions of the High Court of Australia which includes Sue v
p5
26-2-2015
6
Hill and Sykes v Cleary. We now ended up with unelected judges unconstitutionally by backdoor
manner amending the true meaning and application of the constitution!
5
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:
I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the
evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as
they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any
powers beyond the ambit of those specified.
10
The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the
Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might
not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace,
order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be
contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the
parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their
legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is
sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good
government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full
consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had
better not be left out of the bill altogether.
15
20
The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting
Committee.
25
Amendment negatived.
END QUOTE
.
30
35
40
45
50
55
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law
that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union,
because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power,
until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue
for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a
state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has anyand if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be
inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should
say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not
be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
p6
26-2-2015
7
Mr. ISAACS.-You are referring to paragraph (4) of clause 52?
Mr. HOLDER.-Yes.
Mr. OCONNOR.-But that money could not be spent upon any object the Federal Parliament thought
fit.
Mr. HOLDER.-I want an expression of opinion which shall be authoritative on the point. I see that,
according to the provision I have quoted, there is power given to the Federal Parliament to borrow money on
the credit of the Commonwealth, and I say again that I do not know of any limitation of the expenditure of
that money except the limitation which would be specified in the Loan Act authorizing the borrowing of the
money. Of course, these words cover the raising of the money for the building of railways for instance, and in
such a case the limitation would be the terms of the Loan Act. But is there anything anywhere to prevent a
Loan Act being passed by the Federal Parliament authorizing the raising of a certain sum of money, the
proceeds of which loan might be divided according to the terms of the Act among the states according to their
needs, or upon some other principle?
10
Mr. GLYNN.-The first three lines of clause 52 affect that point.
15
Mr. ISAACS.-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order, and good government
of the Commonwealth," not of the states.
END QUOTE
.
20

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
.
25
30
35
40
45
50
55

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
In my view all and any spending not for the peace, order and good government for the
commonwealth therefore cannot be justified as the ambit of the constitution doesnt allow to
provide foreign Aid for the good, peace and order and good government of foreign
countries when the Commonwealth cannot even do so for the States!
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but
every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have
made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a
Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other
p7
26-2-2015
10
15
20
questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the
constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be
above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of
saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or
any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that
Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE
Considering the above do you really desire to boast about cutting back on unconstitutional so
called foreign aid while still allowing other so called Foreign aid to continue?
.
25

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
30
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
35
40
And while you are acting as a sentry then also question where is the constitutional powers for
the Commonwealth to fund sport? Where is the constitutional power to fund Art? Where is
the constitutional power to fund music? And on and on I can go.
What kind of responsible government do we really have who is squandering the tax paid by
hardworking Australians to unconstitutional spending spree/rorting?
QUOTE EMAIL Re: Fw. Overseas Aid/Cafe's, Coffe & Computers
Re: Fw. Overseas Aid/Cafe's, Coffe & Computers

People
Bev Pattenden
45
Today at 9:58 AM
Hogan, Kevin (MP)
To
Photos
50
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
p8
26-2-2015
image004.jpg
image005.jpg
Download All
5
10
15
20
25
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for your reply.
Puts a stop to the widespread belief that emails and visits to politicians is a waste of time.
All we need to do now is to re-introduce tariffs and we might get our country back, but I wont
be holding my breath.
I grew up in this country which had high tariffs, full employment and everything was of high
standard and long lasting, until the free trade
ideology raised its ugly head, (having been dead under the rule of the Liberal government of
Robert Menzies)
Free trade is just another name for International Socialism as far as I can see and was one of the
main reasons for the French Revolution, where the government sold the grain and did not keep
enough to feed their own people.
Sound familiar?
I will probably passed on before it happens, but it will happen one day because you cannot
retain a high standard of living
when you are competing with those who have nothing.
Now we have no manufacturing at all, and the only industry we have is cafes, coffee and
computers.
You have to ask yourself, how and why we became a prosperous nation in order to retain that
prosperity.
Good government, protection of their assets, and hard work by the people.
30
Regards,
Bev Pattenden.
35
From: Hogan, Kevin (MP)

Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 4:41 PM
To: 'Bev Pattenden'
Subject: RE: Fw. Overseas Aid
Hi Bev,
Ive written to Julie Bishop about your enquiry about our Foreign Aid program.
40
Our government has slashed the Foreign Aid budget by billions.
Australia does not provide any Foreign Aid for European countries such as Russia or Kazakstahn.
p9
26-2-2015
10
We have phased out Aid to Latin American countries.
In future, the Australian aid program will focus on South East Asia and the Pacific region and be aimed at
helping those countries to become more self sufficient.
Always good to hear from you.
Kevin Hogan MP
Member for Page
p 02 6621 4044
m 0412 167 256
f 02 6621 4255
email kevin.hogan.mp@aph.gov.au
web www.kevinhogan.com.au
Lismore Office
p 02 6621 4044
f 02 6621 4255
Grafton Office
p 02 6643 3973
f 02 6621 4255
63 Molesworth Street
Lismore, NSW, 2480
Suite 1, 83a Prince Street

Grafton, NSW, 2460
@KevinHoganMP
KevinHoganMP
Kevin Hogan MP
Getting on with the job for the local community
10
p10
26-2-2015
11
10
From: Bev Pattenden [mailto:lbpattenden@bordernet.com.au]

Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2015 8:40 AM
To: Hogan, Kevin (MP)
Subject: Fw. Overseas Aid
Dear Kevin.
This email is being widely distributed across the country and brings disrespect to our
government. Could you please pass this on to the appropriate Minister for his/her response as
to whether these figures are correct and what the current situation is.
15
We are aware that this money has to be borrowed in order to give it away, which seems
profoundly stupid in view of the fact that we now have no manufacturing, mining is on the
decline, our assets are being sold and we have over 100,000 homeless people.
20
25
Our standard of living cannot be maintained if this ideology continues and the world will
become Paul Keatings level playing field with the poorest of nations, just what the
Communists ordered, but not wanted or envisaged by the majority of Australians and should
not be the agenda of the current Liberal/National party government.
As my Federal member I trust you will give this matter your consideration and I look forward to
your response.
Bev L. Pattenden
Grafton. 2460
30
From: R.W.
Subject: FW: The 1% Rule
p11
26-2-2015
12
Subject: The 1% Rule
5
Too True
The 1% Rule
We read the jokes and messages, choosing to forward the good ones, but I just
wonder who will pass this one on.
How about you sending it on (and back to me). I wonder how many I will get
back!
Someone, please tell me what the Hell is wrong with all the people that run
this country!!!
Both LABOR & LIBERALS say... We're "broke" and can't help our "own",
the Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless, Unemployed. They are all deemed
'too expensive', yet... In the last years we have provided direct cash
aid to...
Congo - 359 M
Egypt - 397 M
Ethiopia - 981 M
Haiti - 1.4 B
Hamas - 351 M
Iraq - 1.08 B
Jordan - 463 M
Kazakhstan - 304 M
Kenya - 816 M
Libya 1.45 B
Mexico - 622 M
Mozambique - 404 M
Nigeria - 456 M
Pakistan - 2 B
Russia - 380 M
ISRAEL 367 M
p12
26-2-2015
13
Senegal - 698 M
South Africa - 566 M
Sudan - 870 M
Tanzania - 554 M
Uganda - 451 M
Zambia - 331 M,
Indonesia - The mind boggles as to how much they get, and with literally
Billions of Dollars and they still hate us!!!
Papua New Guinea, likewise receives and squanders millions of our dollars, per
day.
Add to this the amount paid out on "boat invadese". We are paying a high price
to have our country taken from us!
Our retired seniors are living on a 'fixed income'.
AUSTRALIA
A country where we have:- Homeless without shelter, children going to bed
hungry, elderly going without needed medication and mentally ill without
treatment.
Sad isn't it?
99% of people won't have the guts to forward this. I'm one of the 1%...
END QUOTE EMAIL Re: Fw. Overseas Aid/Cafe's, Coffe & Computers
I trust that by quoting your email within the context it was written I have not presented it out of
context. But you are welcome to clarify any issues you may have with me.
I look forwards to your detailed positive response.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
10
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
(
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p13
26-2-2015

20150226-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Kevin Hogan MP Re Appropriation Bills - Overseas Funding-Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

20150226-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Kevin Hogan MP Re Appropriation Bills - Overseas Funding-Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au

as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I present you with the following writing in view that I

20150114-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Where the hell

20150212-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re The spending

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Yet, we seem to have anything but a responsible government.

HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. GLYNN.-The first three lines of clause 52 affect that point.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Re: Fw. Overseas Aid/Cafe's, Coffe & Computers

Hogan, Kevin (MP)

From: Hogan, Kevin (MP)

Suite 1, 83a Prince Street

Getting on with the job for the local community

From: Bev Pattenden [mailto:lbpattenden@bordernet.com.au]

Subject: The 1% Rule

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

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

You might also like