20150729-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Bronwyn Bishop Speaker - Re Independence of The Parliament-Etc

1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5
Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker)

Bronwyn.Bishop.MP@aph.gov.au
Cc:
10
15
29-7-2015
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
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Bronwyn.Bishop.MP@aph.gov.au
Scott Morrison Scott.Morrison.MP@aph.gov.au
Mr Tony Abbott PM josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Andrew Wilkie andrew.wilkie.mp@aph.gov.au
Ref; 20150729-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Bronwyn Bishop Speaker -Re independence of the Parliament-etc
20
25
30
35
Bronwyn,
I below have quoted my correspondence 20150720-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott
PM-Re Bronwyn Bishop Speakers abuse of funds of which a copy was forwarded to you also, stilI repeat the
same.
.
As they say two wrongs doesnt make it right and I am concerned as a CONSTITUTIONALIST
how various Members of the Parliament have spoken out and by this I view are in CONTEMPT
OF THE PARLIAMENT. I understood from todays news bulletin that Sc ott Morison now had
gotten also involved as well as reportedly Bill Shorten demands that the Prime Minister sacks
you.
Our constitution provides for a separation of powers and we already have witnessed the
campaign against former High Court of Australia Michael Kirby that he was allegedly using com
cars for pursuing male entertainment.
So, let us look at the real constitutional issues, in addition to my previous correspondence. There
is a separation of powers and the head of the government is the Governor-General who is assisted
by his constitutional advisors such as Ministers, of which on call himself Prime Minister.
HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
The resolutions conclude:
40
45
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.
What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
p1
29-7-2015
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
END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
It appears to me there are incompetent constitutional advisors in that both Bill Shorten and
Tony Abbott seem to fail to understand that a Prime Minister has no powers over the Parliament.
As for Scott Morrison to argue reportedly about the use of public monies and the expectation by
the public, then let it be clear he obviously also lacks competence as a constitutional advisor
as a Minister.
.
The funding of the High Court of Australia is one where the Chief Justice submits to the
Parliament his estimated cost to run the High Court of Australia and the Chief Justice is then the
sole person responsible for the proper usage of monies. As such, any travel by any judge depends
upon the Chief Justice having approved this. Nothing to do with the Department of Social
Security.
It is therefore for the High Court of Australia to pay for any travel and other cost associated with
a judge during his tenor as a judge, for so far this is approved by the courts internal regulations.
If a judge abuses/misuses or is accused thereof the facilities/services then it is for the Chief
Justice and for the Chief Justice alone to decide if legal action ought to be undertaken against this
particular judge. To allow otherwise would undermine the independence of the judiciary and
would allow politicians to persecute a judge for whatever, if anything merely as to perhaps get
the judge to somehow make rulings in favour of the government t if it is involved in litigation.
It doesnt mean a judge cannot be held legally accountable for ordinary criminal activities not
involving his judicial position, being say drug smuggling, etc, but you cannot allow Parliament
or for that the Government of the Day to dictate to the court how judges should conduct
themselves. It doesnt mean judges can freely misuse and abuse funding to the court because
Parliament could simply make clear to the Chief Justice, when he/she next put in as budget
something like We will curtail the spending spree of the court as we view funding is misused
for ulterior purposes. That is a legitimate power of the Parliament. The same applies to the
budget submitted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.
.
The government cannot dictate to the Speaker how she has to conduct herself. Reportedly
Andrew Wilkie and Clive Palmer will pursue a No confidence motion in the Parliament
against the Speaker and that to me is the correct process to be followed, if there are genuine
grounds of concern.
In my view the Speaker must be and seen to be impartial and therefore ought to have followed
the British practice that the Speaker resigns from the political party he/she belongs to while
acting as a Speaker.
Neither should the Speaker (including a Deputy Speaker) be involved in fund raising of any
political party either directly or indirectly.
In my view the Speaker has no right whatsoever as to use allowances provisions that are only
for Members of Parliament which are not a Minister or a Speaker/President and so not on a
salary. As such not Scott Morrison sets the parameters of usage of travel of the Speaker but the
Parliament itself decides so where the speaker may or may not have done so.
As like with the separation of powers of the High Court of Australia (and so other courts)
likewise so the same applies to the Parliament. The Parliament may decide to cut the funding for
the House of Representatives as to the budget submitted by the Speaker if it holds there is a
misuse/abuse of funds but it cannot interfere with how the Speaker runs the House of parliament
and the President runs the Senate, other than to submitting a vote of no confidence.
The government has no part in this, as to allow this the Government could manipulate funding
for its own ends and with a so called hung Parliament this could be a very dangerous situation.
Therefore all and any travelling of the speaker should be within the budget of cost of the House
of Representatives as much as the travelling of the President is that of the Senate.
p2
29-7-2015
10
15
20
25
3
If therefore funding of the Speaker is paid outside the funding of the budget for the House of
Representatives than this is clearly unconstitutional. The same with judges who travel on budgets
outside the budget of the High Court of Australia.
Therefore, the relevant Minister for the Department of Administration that provides for travel,
etc, is at fault to allow in the first place the speaker or any judge to travel at cost outside the
respective budgets.
There is a reason for this. The Speaker has a salary while being a Speaker as much as the
president has while a President of the Senate, within their respective budgets. One they leave this
position that is the end of any further payments.
Actually the same applies to Ministers as they cannot be paid from Consolidated Revenue Funds
(as this would be to put their hands in the till and so stealing from Consolidated Revenue Funds,
as the constitution requires payments to be made to the Queen. Likewise the same with a
Governor-General.
Obviously in gross violation of the constitution the parliament provided otherwise but that in
itself doesnt make it constitutionally valid.
.
.
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
30

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE
.
35
40
45
50
55

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- 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
As such, purported conventions of unconstitutional arrangements cannot override the true

meaning and application of the constitution.
In my view it is CONTEMPT OF THE PARLIAMENT for Tony Abbott to claim the speaker is
on probation as it implies he somehow dictates what the dictates you as Speaker may or may
not be allowed to do.
For Bill Shorten to reportedly seek the Prime Minister to so to say get rid of you as Speaker also
I view is a CONTEMPT OF THE PARLIAMENT. How on earth can he be considered an
alternative Prime Minister if he doesnt understand separation of powers, etc, I wonder?
As for Scott Morrison, I view his conduct also is CONTEMPT OF THE PARLIAMENT as he
too is undermining the authority of the Speaker as I view it by his comments.
Nothing of the above must be held to seek to somehow condone any alleged misuse/abuse of
public monies for so far alleged, just that it must be done in an appropriate manner, which
depends upon what the Parliament/Speaker did set so to say as ground rules and the conflict of
interest for a Speaker to be and be seen to be impartial.
p3
29-7-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4
If in fact your travelling was paid for out of the budget for the House of Representatives then no
matter how much it may be deemed an abuse/misuse of public monies nevertheless the
Government of the Day can do nothing about it. That is why positions such as a Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the President of the Senate, A Chief Justice of a Court and ministerial
positions must be scrutinised if the person proposed for this actually is deemed to have the
competence to act responsible.
In my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST you ought to resign as to have some dignity left as it
appears to me you failed to uphold the independence of the Speaker, by attending to political
party fundraising events.
I have been besieged by people asking me about how often, apparently well over 400 times you
took sanction against a non-government Member of the House of Representatives, while seldom
at all doing so against a Government Member of Parliament. That in itself in my view underlines
a bias and implied bias.
In my view neither the Speaker of the House of Representatives (so its Deputy), the President of
the Senate (so its Deputy) or any Minister should accept any direct or indirect donations. This
also as it taints the person of being available for payment, even if channelled to a political
party or other such kind of organisation. As Minister must act impartially to represent the
general community and not just party faithful, I view that for example Joe (Smoking) Hockey
so to say sold himself to the highest bidder to attend some fund raising event. His job is not to be
political bias but to show he is there as an advisor for the Governor-General and run a
Department for the Governor-General, and so his political party business should not get into it.
What is remarkable is that most of the members of Parliament of the coalition may have been
involved in matters such as the unconstitutional invasion into Iraq. Yet, it appears to me they
couldnt care less about the harm inflicted upon soldiers who returned with mental issues. I last
Saturday happen to be given the understanding by a former soldier that he returned from another
theatre of war as a soldier in the Australian armed forces and with mental issues. His life upon
return totally disintegrated and for more than 2 decades he was a homeless disabled former
soldier. He ended up on drugs and only in the last few month got off it when his family such as
his brother came to his rescue and he was also given a job. He very much liked what I wrote to
Tony Abbott on 20 June 2015 about 20150620-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier D
Andrews & Tony Abbott-Re disabled-housing-constitution, etc in my email about this.
To pursue the plight of the disabled, decentralization, etc, I am willing to donate my Berriwillock
property to kick start it.
What I view is also scandalous is how neither Tony Abbott, Jackie Lambie, the Minister for
Social Security Scott Morrison or the Minister for Veterans Affairs, etc, couldnt bother to even
respond to me.
Scott Morrison is to me too busy to talk about getting rid of the Speaker then to actually deal
with relevant issues.
Here we have former soldiers having lost their secure future and many left on the streets and it
appears that Tony Abbott and his gang couldnt care less to try to do something about it.
The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/269136479/20150620-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Premier-DAndrews-Tony-Abbott-Re-Disabled-housing-constitution-Etc
50
QUOTE 21-6-2015 EMAIL TO Jacqui Lambie
p4
29-7-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Jacqui Lambie & see attachment

People
Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Jun 21
senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
To
Hide
CC
10
mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com
josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Hide
15
Attachments
20150621-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to MASTERS PRESTON - Re 'PR', promotions

and services-etc.pdf
Download All
20
Jacqui Lambie
Cc:
Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o

25
30
35
josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Jackie,
I happen to watch Channel 9 program 60 minutes about the
"silent death" with our former soldiers and while they are with
family, many others as I understand it have ended up with
broken up families and living on the street.
.
with Parliament to be adjourned for the winter b rake in about a
weeks time, all politicians should consider that the winter brake
for them nice and cosy in a warm house may be a cold period of
p5
29-7-2015
time under bridge or on benches and stairs cases by former

soldiers.
10
15
20
25
30
While politicians are enriching themselves in pay for having talk

fest in the Parliament, that if they even bother to turn up, those
who were facing the horrors of war have often been ignored
and so to say in left the gutter.
We need to change this kind of blatant ignorance and if you read
my writings and the references to my blog then I look forwards
to you being a force to reckon with and not to ignore those
former soldiers who now in turn needs to be rescued from their
horrors in civil life.
What the story in 60minutes didn't say, is that when you are in
an armoured tank or armoured personal carrier then ordinary
you have no way of knowing what is happening outside and so
cannot prepare yourself to any bomb blast as it comes when it
hits the tank/carrier, unless you are on top of the tank.
I served in the Royal Dutch Army at the then Iron Curtain
(NATO) in Germany and spend ample of time in personnel
carriers to know what it is about.
WE NEED TO GET FORMER SOLDIERS OF THE
STREETS AND PROVIDE THEM WITH THE DIGNITY
AND OTHER ASSISTANCE THAT I VIEW THEY ARE
ENTITLED UPON.
We need a program of "after service" where former soldiers are
routinely checked once every 5 years as to if they suffered or
could be suffering from any health problems since they left the
armed forces which could relate to their past armed forces
service.
.
p6
29-7-2015
10
15
20
25
30
To some former soldiers a health issue may not to them being

obvious to past armed services but those who were to do routine
check ups may discover many other former soldiers having
simular health problems and then may connect the dots and the
armed services then may address matters before they go out of
hand.
Perhaps you could also push for the kind of program I seek to
establish fort disabled former soldiers and others with my
property in Berriwillock.
.
I view it would be essential the Commonwealth were to taker
over the ownership of the property as to avoid any State's red
tapes to unduly delay the program.
.
Also I view we should have the Minister of defence having the
circumstances of former soldiers established as to provide any
services they may require. Some may linger on streets out of
sight of the politicians but may nevertheless need badly
assistance to which they may be in no frame of mind to
understand.
.
I recall about 2 years ago when I was in the City of Melbourne
when this unshaven old man started to talk to me when I
contemplated to walk past him. I went to seat next to him on the
bench and well for about half an hour he was giving me his story
about his past army services, how no one cared about him, how
he slept on the streets, etc. I left after about half an hour
knowing that at least he had someone to talk to, this even so I
was at the time in no position to assist him.
.
While the police may perhaps like to chase people sleeping on
the streets away as it may look bad for business, etc, I view we
p7
29-7-2015
10
15
20
do better to finally address the core issues that faces the

homeless and seek to address them.
Perhaps the government may assist in getting some to be
transported to area's where they need casual labour or something
like that and provide them with accommodation while they
work.
.
We do not want so called non-for-profit organisations to make a
lot of monies doing nothing, we need a Department that perhaps
sent out staff to ask people on the street what assistance they
desire, etc.
it is in my view imperative that one seeks to work with
homeless people as if you can motivate them then so to say half
of the battle is won.
Some may be able and willing to get a job if they are assisted
with it while others may be disabled or whatever and may
otherwise be assisted.
.
Don't worry I am not involving any kind of religious doctrine, as
that is not what drives me.
.
Perhaps politicians should so to say pass a hat around and donate
monies for this cause, as to show they actually have a heart
also. :)
25
30
I look forwards to your detailed response as to how you like to

be pro-active to finally address the homeless issue and so also
the disabled former soldiers to which we owe as lot of gratitude
but so far failed to show this.
.
And if you can get support of the political parties we might
actually have something interesting coming from their mouths
then just having to political slanging matchers that serve no
purpose but grandstanding with little or no action.
p8
29-7-2015
10
Perhaps (here it comes) every politicians will for the winter

brake take in one homeless person and then write an essay about
the persons life (without revealing the persons identity) and how
the particular politician would desire to address the issues
confronting his homeless guest. :)
Now that would be so to say on the job experiences!
Looking forwards to your response, and do not forget to wake
up Tony in case he wasn't alerted to my writings,
Gerrit
15
20
Constitutionalist & Consultant

25
30
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209
.
Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
The content of this email and any attachments are provided
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless specifically otherwise stated.
p9
29-7-2015
10
If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read

it, all you now need to do is to consider the content
appropriately!
5
A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE

QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED TO BE
LABELLED A FOOL.
10
----- Forwarded Message -----
15
From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>

To: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Sunday, 21 June 2015, 17:31
Subject: Fw: Oops, now with attachment 20150621-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to MASTERS
PRESTON - Re 'PR', promotions and services-etc
I also quote my email to Tony Abbott about the same and more.
This as I have not received copies of the same.
20
25
30
35
QUOTE 17.20 21-5-215 EMAIL

Tony,
earlier today I forward to you an email regarding my aim to
donate my Berriwillock property to be used to house homeless
disabled former soldiers, etc. I didn't receive a copy of this email
back, can you provide it to me?
.
Also, I understand that there is a citizenship white paper. I view
that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am one of the foremost
experts on citizen ship, and having defeated the Commonwealth
in court on the same I am surprised no one bothered to contact
me about this.
I urge you to ensure that those involved in the white paper
provide me with a copy asap and also if there is a faci8lity to
provide submissions to advised me thereof.
p10
29-7-2015
11
10
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257

(1821): When a judge acts where he or she does not have
jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of
treason.
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: We are bound to interpret the
Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was
adopted.
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): The Constitution
is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That
which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.
Hence, I view the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill
committed "treason" as they purported some independent nation
where none exist.
15
20
25
30
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we
desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the
Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will
therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is
to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the
country or nation which we are going to create under that Union
. The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is
expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies
into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political
Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a
dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name
p11
29-7-2015
12
10
15
20
25
30
of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that

in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.
The High Court of Australia had no jurisdiction to violate the
true meaning and application of the constitution and any and
every lawyer and official who seeks to enforce this treasonous
ruling by this are acting also as to misprison of treasonous
conduct.
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958): No state
legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the
Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation, which would abrogate them.
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction
to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v.
Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 .Ed.2d 392, 406
(1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed
257 (1821)
Any judge or attorney who does not report such judges for
treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of
misprison of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382.
Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no
binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly
void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and
perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by
extrinsic fraud. [Citations.] (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra,
Judgment, 286, p. 828.).
p12
29-7-2015
13
10
15
20
25
30
I look forwards to your response and that you have authorised

the Attorney General Gerorge Brandis and others to immediately
arrest those who acted in a treasonous matter as referred to
above..
I may state that judges appointed to uphold the constitution
under the British Crown cannot hand down a decision in
violation to this British Crown.
Neither to my knowledge were any judicial officers at the time
rfe0-swornb as to serve the purported Queen of Australia, and as
such all or any of them lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate in cases.
Upon the independence of the Republic of Singapore we may
note its constitution:
PART III
PROTECTION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE REPUBLIC
OF SINGAPORE
No surrender of sovereignty by merger or in any other manner,
nor relinquishment of control over the Police Force or the
Armed Forces unless supported by not less than two-thirds of
total votes cast by electors at a referendum.
No amendment to this Part unless supported by not less than
two-thirds of total votes cast by electors at a referendum.
8. --(1) A Bill for making an amendment to this Part shall not be
passed by Parliament unless it has been supported, at a national
referendum, by not less than two-thirds of the total number of
votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary
Elections Act.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Part VA;
p13
29-7-2015
14
10
15
20
25
30
"existing law" means any law having effect as part of the law of
Singapore immediately before the commencement of this
Constitution;
END QUOTE
QUOTE
"law" includes written law and any legislation of the United
Kingdom or other enactment or instrument whatsoever which is
in operation in Singapore and the common law in so far as it is
in operation in Singapore and any custom or usage having the
force of law in Singapore;
END QUOTE
No such legal provisions existed by the announcement of the
Sue v Hill decision.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official
Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
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.
p14
29-7-2015
15
10
15
20
25
30
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 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
p15
29-7-2015
16
10
15
20
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
One cannot have that Heather Hill as a subject of the British
Crown was a foreigner whereas for example taxation laws
enacted by the same monarch are legitimate.
One cannot have that the constitution that requires payments to
the British crown to pay its Ministers of the Crown then
somehow are employed by a different Monarch being the Queen
of Australia, even so no such monarchy exist.
This charade of a purported Queen of Australia is very
dangerous indeed, this as if we can have unelected judges of the
High Court of Australia willy nilly amend the true meaning and
application of the constitution then what if they decide to
declare we are part of Iran, Indonesia or whatever?
25
Constitutionally "citizenship" and so "Australian citizen ship" is

being a person residing in a State/Territory and by this
AUTOMATICALLY obtaining "Australian ci8tuizenship"
which has nothing to do with nationality and so alliance.
30
See also my correspondence to you "20150614-G. H. SchorelHlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re removal of
citizenship-etc"
p16
29-7-2015
17
Citizenship and nationality are different issues, and on 19-62006 the Court upheld my submissions regarding this.
10
The document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/268637264/20150614-G-HSchorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-TONY-ABBOTT-PM-ReRemoval-of-Citizenship-etc
Do try to show real concerns and provide an appropriate
response, as after all if you fail to act then you may just also be
in volation and considered to be guilty of misprison of treason.
Gerrit
15
END QUOTE 17.20 21-5-2015 EMAIL

Gerrit
Constitutionalist & Consultant
20
25
30

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209
.
Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
The content of this email and any attachments are provided
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless specifically otherwise stated.
If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read
it, all you now need to do is to consider the content
appropriately!
p17
29-7-2015
18
A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE

QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED TO BE
LABELLED A FOOL.
5
----- Forwarded Message ----10
From: G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com>

To: 7755dmhardware@masters.com.au
Cc: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com
Sent: Sunday, 21 June 2015, 14:18
Subject: Oops, now with attachment 20150621-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to MASTERS PRESTON Re 'PR', promotions and services-etc
15
20
Masters (Board of Directors, etc)

2015
85 Chifley Dr, Preston
C/o 7755dmhardware@masters.com.au
21-6-
Ref: 20150621-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to MASTERS PRESTON - Re 'PR', promotions and servicesetc.doc
Sammy,
25
my earlier email omitted to have the attachment.
30
See attachment 20150621-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to MASTERS PRESTON - Re 'PR', promotions and
services-etc
Masters fasters growing hardware business can show it cares for our disabled, in my propose
program.
35
You can download the document from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/269245636/20150621-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-MASTERSPRESTON-Re-PR-Promotions-and-Services-etc
40
Gerrit
45
.
107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084
Victoria, Australia
Reply Email address: admin@inspector-rikati.com
p18
29-7-2015
19
Blog (constitutional issues) http://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati

.
Website: http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/
The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless
specifically otherwise stated.
10
If you find any typing/spelling/grammatical/syntax errors then I know you read it, all you now
need to do is to consider the content appropriately!
15
A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING

CONCERNED TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.
END QUOTE 21-6-2015 EMAIL TO Jacqui Lambie
20
QUOTE Ref; 20150720-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM-Re Bronwyn Bishop Speakers abuse of funds
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM
25
20-7-2015
C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Cc:
30

Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Bronwyn.Bishop.MP@aph.gov.au
Ref; 20150720-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM-Re Bronwyn Bishop Speakers abuse of funds
35
40
45
Tony,
I understood from media reports from what you stated that Speaker Bronwyn Bishop is on
probation.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I wish to remind you that the Speakers position is not depending
upon who is the Prime Minister. All you may argue is that you may have the majority of
Members in the House of Representatives but it would be foolish for Members eve n if they are
of the coalition to have you dictating whop shall be the Speaker. A Prime Minister has no
constitutional power in the House of Representatives, as he/she is equal in power as any other
Member. The quotations below ought to indicate that the Speaker/president position is to deal
with matters as to what is constitutionally appropriate and even can seek clarification from the
High Court of Australia.
.
A Speaker is employed in a political office but must rule on issues as a Speaker without
any favouritism to any political party on issues, albeit can make a casting vote is votes are tied
between those voting for and against an issue being voted upon.
50
One should notice from below But, as against the other sub-clauses, looking at it as a matter of English, and
as clearly defining the rights in the Constitution, it seems to me that they ought not to be disturbed. .
.
What should be understood is that a Speaker/President must be ruling impartial and be seen
to rule impartial. The Speaker as well as the president must therefore not get involved in political
p19
29-7-2015
20
parties issues. Hence in my view Bronwyn Bishop as a Speaker cannot claim (as I understood
was being done.) that she was attending a Liberal party fund raising event with a helicopter ride
as taxpayers cost, because her position as a Speaker should keep away from such political
campaigns. Fancy she goes to a fund raising event of her political party that promotes a certain
issue which is in dispute with the opponent party/parties. She would implied be bias in her
rulings as result of attending to such an event.
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
10
QUOTE
Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
15
20
If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard
against officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page
654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision
of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision
than the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of
parliament who was being paid 500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of
the Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament.
END QUOTE
25
30
As for teaching anyone about the House of Representatives (Speaker) or the Senate (President)
such kind of exercises must be without any particular party being involved. As such claiming to
attend to a political party function (raising funds for the party) in my view is a gross misuse and
abuse of the position as a Speaker/President as well as to charge such travel to and from at
taxpayers monies. Moreover, as I did criticise Joe (smoking) Hockey when a person holds an
employments then the person no longer is entitled to claim allowances.
Again: Some provision is required in order to guard against officials being paid double. When a member of
parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of
parliament lapses..
35
40
45
50
Therefore, I view Joe (smoking) Hockey was/is a thief to charge cost for staying at a residence
owned by his wife and himself. In my view, the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the
constitution the legal principle that a Member of Parliament when employed as a Minister he is
no longer entitled to the provisions ordinary applicable for a Member of Parliament. The member
no longer is a distant representative having as time to travel to the Parliament but is full; time
employed as a Minister, and therefore if he/she decides to live nearby the place of employment
or remains to live elsewhere then that is a personal decision.
Also, Members of Parliament cannot flaunt the constitution on junket trips, not a Minister and/or
Speaker/President because they can only travel within what is to travel to and from place of
employment or with ordinary members they have free travel or the travel being paid to the person
providing the same. As such, if Joe (smoking) Hockey charged for his living at a house (party
owned by himself) then who did he pay and was this declared for taxation purposes?
To me this is thieving that is far too often eventuating and you are not a stranger to the
same as I understand it.
But lets make it very clear that I understand it is not just one kind of political party doing so.
When Geoff Shaw (as a Member of the Victorian Parliament at the time) went to work in his
office away from the Victorian Parliament there was an outcry. Yet, this is precisely what
Members of Parliament not employed are to do.
p20
29-7-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
As I wrote to you about in the past, when there is an election called not a single member of
parliament then can use traveling and other expenses to promote any candidate (including
herself/himself) because it is not for public purposes.
I understand you got a law degree but seems to lack to understand the principle loan, the
constitution, and it seems that Bronwyn Bishop as Speaker also lacks the competence about the
same.
Do keep in mind that a vote against Browyn Bishop to remain as speaker counter acted by those
voting to retain her I view the vote for her to remain is a vote to continue to swindle/rob the
citizens of Australia. We, the People are sick and tired of those cover-ups. If Bronwyn Bishop as
Speaker didnt understand the legal principles embedded in the constitution then she is in my
view incompetent to be a Speaker and should resign. Failing her to resign then the Parliament
should kick her out.
I as a person who came from The Netherlands, had to learn English (my kind of Crummy
English) but seems to have mastered a far superior understanding of the true meaning and
application of the constitution then most if not all Members of Parliament do, even so they get
monies to be in the Parliament whereas I am not. No one ever paid me to study the true meaning
and application of the constitution as it simply is my interest. Those who one way or another are
being paid to attend to the Parliament should I view show a far better ability in constitutional
matters. The truth is their arrogance of being a Member of Parliament to be so to say above
ordinary citizens, which they are actually to represent, is that is the real problem! The thieving
and robbing continues when other Members of Parliament are covering up.
We had the recent revelation of paedophilia in the British Parliament as well as including judges,
and other high ranking persons. This is the problem that this cover up as I scratch your back and
then you scratch my back mentality is why we continue to have those kind of criminals in the
Parliament.
When fellow parliamentarians are willing so to say to close their eyes for this thieving of the
taxpayers then what else are they doing likewise?
To ordinary citizens the question will be if other Members of Parliament may seek to support
Bronwyn Bishop, as I view it, stealing from/defrauding the Consolidated Revenue Funds
(taxpayers) because of their own skeletons in their closets, or will they finally make a stand and
make clear that a Speaker/President being the office holder in the Parliament must be
standing as a model Member of Parliament and therefore such breaches as claimed against
Bronwyn Bishop are inexcusable.
Any claim that Browyn Bishop was advised that the travelling was permitted is no excuse, as she
as the Speaker should know the true meaning and application of the constitution and so any
implied legal principle. What if anything in my view she makes clear is that she is the Speaker
who lacks the competence to understand/comprehend the constitution and seek to delegate her
responsibilities upon others. Get rid of such a person, it my view the best solution.
It appears to me Bronwyn Bishop is more interested in pursuing political donations, etc, for the
political party she is a member of then to maintain the independence of the Speaker.
We, the people ae entitled to have a more competent person as Speaker who is willing to
understand and comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution, as to be able to
be and be seen an impartial Speaker.
The quotations below may assist to get a better understanding/perception of the role of the
Speaker and as like a Minister cannot claim allowance provisions as the Speaker is in
employment, whereas non Ministers/Speaker/President are not.
HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
p21
29-7-2015
22
10
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of
Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary
offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that really the
Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates, and
those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by the
Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown. I think
that that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere. As to the word
"person," the British Interpretation Act of 1889, which will be largely applied to the construction of this
statute by the Imperial authorities, provides that where the word "person" is used, unless the Act otherwise
provides, the word "corporation" shall be included.
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-If a man agrees to get paid for services done in Parliament, or for the
Commonwealth, and if he does the work, and, having done the work, he resigns, is there no penalty? Is there
no punishment in such a case for a man who guarantees that he will use his position in Parliament in order to
make money, and, having made it, resigns!
15
20
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No; and there is a reason for that. If I recollect correctly there was
some provision in the Bill in Adelaide in that respect, but that provision was omitted in the sitting of the
Convention at Sydney as a matter [start page 2449] of policy. Mr. O'Connor suggests that it is quite probable
that in such a case an action would lie at common law. However that may be, the policy of inserting such a
provision was reversed in Sydney, and therefore the Drafting Committee could not frame any proposal to that
effect.
END QUOTE
25
QUOTE
Clause 49.-The Senate and the House of Representatives may each of them from time to time adopt
standing rules and orders as to the following matters:
I. The orderly conduct of the business of the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively:
30
II. The mode in which the Senate and the House of Representatives shall confer, correspond, and
communicate with each other relative to votes or proposed laws:
III. The manner in which notices of proposed laws, resolutions, and other business intended to be submitted
to the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively may be published for general information:
IV. The manner in which proposed laws are to be introduced, passed, numbered, and intituled:
35
V. The proper presentation of any proposed laws passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives
to the Governor-General for his assent: and
VI. The conduct of all business and proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives severally
and collectively.
40
Mr. WISE: It will be necessary to make an addition here to give full effect to section 8. By section 8 the
two Houses have full power to define the privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and House of
Representatives. In section 49 to give effect to that there ought to be a clause to this effect:
Maintain, regulate, and exercise their respective powers, privileges, and immunities.
Mr. BARTON: We have considered that, and I do not think it necessary.
45
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: The clause as it now stands clearly limits the Federal Parliament in the matters
therein mentioned. The Constitution of New South Wales limits the power of that Parliament to pass
standing orders best adapted to the ordinary conduct of the Council and Assembly respectively. On a recent
occasion a member was addressing the Chamber, and a person in the gallery began throwing stones at him
on the floor of the House. The gentleman addressing the chair was a labor member, and he was reproving
another person for having thrown stones at the labor party.
Mr. BARTON: That is a little nearer here than New South Wales.
p22
29-7-2015
23
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: And a person in the gallery immediately said, "You want a stone at your head,"
and he thereupon threw two stones into the Assembly. It struck meMr. PEACOCK: What, the stones struck you?
10
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: No; they did not strike me. But it struck me as I sat there presiding over that
Assembly as an extraordinary thing that the Parliament there could not punish the person guilty of such an
outrage. We had to hand him over to the police, and he was brought up at the Police Court and fined twenty
shillings. It weakens the power and it weakens the influence of Parliament that it cannot control disorder
within its own doors and within its own boundaries, and if we accept these six provisions we limit the
power of Parliament to make standing orders for the purposes indicated there. Under the eighth section of
the Bill hon. members will see:
15
The privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives respectively, and
of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared by
the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United
Kingdom, and of the Committees and members thereof respectively, at the establishment of the
Commonwealth.
But viewing this forty-ninth clause in its restricted form, it appears to me that if we attempt to pass
Standing Orders we can only pass Standing Orders in accordance with that section. I therefore move:
20
That all the words after "as" in line 4 be omitted to the end of the clause in line 21, with a view of the
insertion of the words "as they or each may deem to be necessary, and all such rules and orders shall have
the force of law."
Perhaps it might be as well to put in [start page 757] what is put in the other constitutions of colonies,
namely:
Upon being assented to by the Governor. Mr. BARTON: I do not like that.
25
30
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I am not particular about that, but I think at all events the Federal Parliament
ought to have power to make its own standing orders for the purpose of preventing disorder. When I say
this I do not suppose the Commonwealth Parliament would attempt to exercise control with regard to
people out of its own doors. But within our own dominion we ought to be absolute. If we summon a
witness in any of our local Parliaments to the bar of the House, he can decline to give evidence, laugh at us,
and walk away. The case I have just mentioned shows the necessity of Parliament having control over any
disorder.
Mr. TRENWITH: Anything to stop them throwing stones at labor members.
35
40
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In Victoria they took the matter in a wholesale manner, and passed an Act of
Parliament declaring that the Victorian Legislature had all the powers, privileges, and immunities of the
House of Commons. There was no mincing of matters there, and it was in consequence of the Parliament
of Victoria having arrested a man, and it having been decided that they had no power to do so, that
they immediately declared they had all of the powers of the House of Commons. The man, I think, was
connected with Goldsbrough's Company, and named Glass. He did something, and the Parliament
arrested him, brought him to the bar of the House, and it was declared that they had no power to do
so. In all the decisions of the Privy Council in reference to the powers of Parliament, the Privy
Council has invariably declared that Parliament has no power outside the very words of the
Constitution Act. In the own of Hampton and Fenton, I think, in Tasmania they had the audacity to
tell a great colony like Tasmania that so far as it was concerned it had no greater powers than a
municipality.
Mr. BARTON: The Speaker only had the power of a chairman of a public meeting.
45
Mr. DOUGLAS: Regarding the case alluded to by the hon. member, I happened to be present when the
decision was given. The Privy Council did not declare that the colony had no power, but that any
colonial Government, being under a Statute, would have no power beyond that Statute. The result was
that the Tasmanian Parliament passed a law giving the powers to which the hon. member has made
reference.
p23
29-7-2015
24
Sir EDWARD BRADDON: I think that the amendment which the hon. member has proposed must be
considered in connection with clause 8, page 4 of the Bill, which provides:
10
15
20
The privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives respectively, and
of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared by
Kingdom, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, at the establishment of the
Commonwealth.
If the hon. member's amendment is to include the power of punishment it will scarcely be necessary. The
effect of the decision of the Privy Council to which my hon. friend has alluded must be read in connection
with the Constitutions of the several colonies, which were affected at the time of the pronouncement of
these decisions. In New South Wales, and I think in Tasmania, what exists at the present time is a
Legislature as distinct from a Parliament. A Sovereign Parliament has punishing power. A Legislature
which is created by Act of Parliament, and with the equivalent powers conferred upon it, as they are
conferred by section 8, has, in the case of New South Wales and Tasmania, no power except such as can be
gathered from the necessary implication of the words of the Constitution. In the present instance we have
passed a clause which states that the [start page 758] privileges, immunities, and powers of the Federal
Parliament shall be those declared by the Parliament, and until a declaratory Act is passed the privileges,
immunities, and powers of the House of Commons will be accepted. The power of punishment exists in the
House of Commons, and the same power would exist in the Parliament of the Commonwealth under clause
8. An outrage committed within the walls of the Federal Parliament could be punished in the same way as
in the House of Commons. If a man ventured to throw a stone into the Imperial Parliament, though
unfortunately the thrower is not always caught, it would be contempt of Parliament, and that would be a
matter to be dealt with by the Commons according to the powers, privileges, and immunities it possesses.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Has not the House of Commons power to make Standing Orders?
25
Mr. BARTON: Yes.

Sir GEORGE TURNER: Then where is the necessity for this clause?
30
35
Mr. BARTON: The necessity for it does not arise out of the powers of the Standing Orders, which are
merely regulations for the conduct of the business within the House, but out of the power of punishment in
cases where contempt is exercised by persons within the walls of Parliament. If, for instance, a person
throws a stone and the Sergeant-at-Arms can catch him he can be brought before the Parliament and can be
imprisoned or dealt with otherwise for contempt. Under the operation of the clause similar action can be
taken by the Federal Parliament, and that goes far enough. It does not require Standing Orders to deal with
the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament. They exist, and if you made Standing Orders you
would really only limit them. Under the Bill we have taken the powers, privileges, and immunities
possessed by the House of Commons.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOT: Then why do you want clause 49?
40
45
Mr. BARTON: I have already explained that, but I will return to it if my hon. friend wishes. I say in the
meantime you have already taken the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons, and
there is no necessity to pass Standing Orders with reference to them. They do not need definition in the
Standing Orders; they are not the subject of definition in the Standing Orders; they are totally different in
their whole circuit to the Standing Orders which relate to the conduct of the business of each House and its
transactions with the other House. That is not a question of the powers, privileges, and immunities of the
House of Commons, which exist independently of the Standing Orders. They have a historical application
in the House of Commons, and they can be applied to the Federal Parliament.
Mr. TRENWITH: Could they not make Standing Orders?
Mr. BARTON: The Federal Parliament, of course, will have power to make Standing Orders for
the regulation of its internal business.
Mr. TRENWITH: If we adopt clause 49 do we not restrict the power of the Federal Parliament with
regard to any Standing Orders they may make?
50
Mr. BARTON: No. You do not restrict them because you have the clause in the most general terms. My
hon. friend wishes the clause to read:
p24
29-7-2015
25
The Senate and the House of Representatives may each of them from time to time adopt Standing Orders as
they or each may deem to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have he force of law.
That is altogether too wide, as the Standing Orders would then have the effect of law outside the House.
Mr. PEACOCK: Hear, hear. That is the point.
10
15
20
Mr. BARTON: It is the point to which I think the hon. member was anxious to come. What we have
done is to adopt a clause giving the Federal Parliament power to pass Standing Orders for the con- [start
page 759] duct of their business, and so that there should be no doubt the power has been taken in the
widest possible words. The House of Commons does not make its Standing Orders by reason of its powers,
privileges, and immunities, but by virtue of its inherent powers as a sovereign Parliament. The Standing
Orders are for the internal regulation of the House of Commons, but my friend would like to say that the
Federal Houses may make Standing Orders for any matter it may deem necessary. This would have the
effect of passing laws without the royal assent. I ask my friend if the clause as it stands is not sufficient.
Mr. HIGGINS: I am strongly of the opinion that the amendment is too wide. Section 8 gives this
Parliament all the powers, privileges and immunities which the House of Commons has and members also,
and we want no more than that. Clause 49 merely makes assurance doubly sure by providing that each
House of Parliament shall make Standing Orders for the conduct of its own business, and if the amendment
be carried as proposed it means that one House of Parliament is able to make laws although the
Constitution means that both Houses must concur in making laws. If one House can make laws it will
have a very important bearing on the liberty of the subject and the liberty of the press. The words in
the amendment are:
As each of them may doom to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have the force of laws.
25
30
There is no question which comes up more than that of libel, and it is important to see that one House of
Parliament shall not make any law affecting the freedom of the press in referring to the conduct of
members. Any such law ought to be framed by both Houses; but the effect of this is that one House of
Parliament is able to make laws to alter the law of libel and such matters. I think the Speaker of New South
Wales will see there is no need for this.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I do not agree with Mr. Barton, when he states that this House of Parliament will
have inherent powers. The Privy Council has frequently declared that colonial Parliaments have no
inherent powers whatever. They only have the powers given to them by the Constitution Act. I think
that with clause 8 there is no need for clause 49.
Mr. PEACOCK: They have not a clause like clause 8 in their Constitution.
35
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: Then where is the necessity for clause 49? Mr. Higgins says all kinds of
things might be done with regard to the press. I have such a regard and love for the press that I
cannot realise that Parliament would do anything to injure that great body. But the hon. member
forgets that the eighth clause gives Parliament power to do what it likes with the press.
Mr. HIGGINS: But both Houses.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: No. Clause 8, which has been passed, provides that the:
40
Privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives respectively, and of
the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared by
Kingdom.
No one knows what the powers of the House of Commons are. It is a fact that within the last thirty years
they have given up the practice of summoning to the bar members of the press for matters of libel.
The hon. member who is so anxious and careful about the press-
45
Mr. HIGGINS: And the outside public.

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I ask the hon. member who is in charge of the Bill whether there is any
necessity for clause 49, having regard to clause 48. I am anxious that the powers of Parliament should be
limited to within its walls.
p25
29-7-2015
26
10
Mr. GLYNN: Undoubtedly the effect of the amendment would be to deal with the outside public-that
power which does [start page 760] not exist in the House of Commons. In Stockdale v. Hansard it was
held that the courts of law were not precluded by a resolution of the House of Commons from
inquiring into the legality of the act complained of, and in delivering judgment in the Court of
Queen's Bench, Patterson (Justice) drew a distinction between powers -especially the power of
invading "the rights of others"-and privilege. These powers are matters of common law in England, and
are liable to be restrained by the Court. Under the proposed amendment, the House of Representatives
could pass a resolution that would have the force of law to an extent denied to be a similar resolution in the
House of Commons.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In deference to the opinion expressed on the other side, I am prepared to
withdraw my amendment.
Leave given.
Clause as read agreed to.
15
END QUOTE
QUOTE
20
25
30
35
40
45
Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-It is worth while considering the stages that a proposed law has
to go through, and the opportunity afforded to a member of either House or a member of the Executive to call
attention to any infraction or infringement of the Constitution. It does not require a majority of the members
of the House of Representatives to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed in the matter of procedure; it
only requires one solitary member to rise to a point of order, and the Speaker has to give a legal
interpretation of the rules of procedure. It only requires one member of the Senate to call the attention of
the President to the fact that a Bill is introduced contrary to the Constitution for that proposed law to
be ruled out of order. It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the Constitution shall be
obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the Constitution. Neither House
could pass the standing order which would give the majority power to dissent from the Speaker's or
President's ruling. The standing orders only confer certain explicit power. They give no power to either House
to pass an order which would enable its members to amend the Constitution.
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
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. TRENWITH.-And yet this clause is throwing legislation into the hands of those people who cannot
agree.
MR. REID.-The lawyers.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-The lawyers?
50
Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, thrusting it on them.

Mr. MCMILLAN.-That is one of those commonplaces which are always used. There is no clause or subclause of any Bill in the world, even if it were framed by an angel from Heaven, that would not be the subject
of litigation.
p26
29-7-2015
27
Dr. COCKBURN.-The disagreement is not legal, but constitutional.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-You do not got lawyers from Heaven.
Mr. ISAACS.-No, lawyers are sent there; they are not drawn from there.
10
15
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Looking at the clause from a common-sense point of view, are the provisions a vital
condition of the Constitution? Was it worth our while to spend days and weeks thrashing out these matters as
a compromise to the financial scheme? We are dealing now with one of the great compromises of our
financial scheme. Is that compromise, of vital importance in the financial scheme, to be made a matter of
simple procedure in the House, liable to the judgment of a Speaker or a President? Or is it, like hundreds of
other things, embedded in the Constitution, so that, if at any time there be an infringement, the law passed
would be invalid, and the High Court would protect the people of the country? Apart from all legal quibbles,
that seems to be the plain English of the fact. Speaking as an ex-Treasurer, I say that it is impossible to
safeguard you in the third section. I would be quite willing to put in the word "proposition," or "Bill," or
anything of the kind. All the arguments used to-day are valid against the third sub-clause. But, as against the
other sub-clauses, looking at it as a matter of English, and as clearly defining the rights in the Constitution, it
seems to me that they ought not to be disturbed.
END QUOTE
20
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Ought you not to have the same phrase in sub-section (2) as you have in sub-section (3) of
clause 45?
25
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. That would get over the difficulty. If in sub-section (2) of clause 46 you put an express
reference to a certain class of insolvency, that must exclude by inference any other class of insolvency. There
is another point, and this is also a very serious one, to which the Premier of Victoria drew my attention before
lunch. Sub-section (3) of clause 46 provides that the seat of a senator or member of the House of
Representatives is to become vacant if hedirectly or indirectly accepts or receives any fee or honorarium for work done or service rendered by him for
and on behalf of the Commonwealth while sitting as such member.
30
35
No exception is made to meet the case of a Minister of the Crown. There is provision made elsewhere in
the Constitution for the payment of salary to Ministers for services rendered to the Commonwealth,
which might include his services as a senator. Clause 48A provides thatUntil the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator, and each member of the House of Representatives,
shall receive for his services an allowance of 400 a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his
seat.
The allowance spoken of there might be regarded as an honorarium, or as a fee, but it is an allowance for
"services," which is the word used in sub-section (3) of clause 46.
END QUOTE
40
45
50
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There are, of course, many formal matters relating to both houses, such as the election of president and
speaker, disqualifications, the issue of writs, elections, and so on, with which I shall not on this occasion
trouble the Convention. It is provided, then, that each member of either house shall have an annual
allowance for his services, which is proposed to be fixed in the meantime at 500 a year. The ordinary
disqualifications are inserted as to members holding offices of profit, with the exception of ministers of the
Crown, or becoming public contractors and other similar provisions.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
p27
29-7-2015
28
Mr. TRENWITH: I mean Tasmania. I was pointing out that the instincts of our people tend towards
payment of members of Parliament for their work. My hon. friend, Sir William Zeal, interjected that we have
free railway passes. I would remark that any person who knows anything about travel must recognise
that it carries with it a large amount of expense. Those who are here, away from their homes, know
that if they were getting 400 a year for this work, they would be losing money, and they would not
even be reimbursed for the expenditure incurred. Those who urge that the amount should be left as
proposed in the Bill, are not in favor of payment of members, but are simply favorable to reimbursing
members for the disbursements they make in connection with the performance of their duties.
Mr. HIGGINS: I was always in favor of payment of members.
10
Mr. TRENWITH: I feel confident that my hon. friend Mr. Higgins could not have looked thoroughly at
the question or he would not have spoken as he did.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: He is losing now ten times as much as he will ever get for being here, but he is
bearing it cheerfully.
15
20
Mr. TRENWITH: There are some who could not afford to lose anything at all. Parliament is to be
composed, as it ought to be, of representatives of all sections of the community. There must be in Parliament
some who cannot afford to lose anything at all, and who must be paid for their services, and if those services
are worth having, there ought to be adequate remuneration for them. I sincerely hope that the higher figure
will be [start page 1034] adopted, not because I believe in extravagance, but because I believe that any lesser
sum will not pay members of Parliament for their work.
Question-That the word "four," proposed to be struck out, stand part of the question-put. The Committee
divided.
Ayes, 26; Noes, 9. Majority, 17.
END QUOTE
25
30
Convention)
QUOTE
Clause 3. The annual salary of the governor-general shall be fixed by the Parliament from time to time, but
shall not be less than ten thousand pounds, and the same shall be payable to the Queen out of the
consolidated revenue fund of the commonwealth. The salary of a governor-general shall not be diminished
during his continuance in office.
Mr. BARTON: I propose to omit the words "the same" as being quite unnecessary. The alteration will, I
think, improve the bill.
35
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: I should like to see all the words after "from time to time" omitted, for I do not
see why we should fix the amount at 10,000. I therefore move:
That the words "but shall not be less than ten thousand pounds" be omitted.
Mr. GILLIES: I should like to know from the hon. member the object of omitting the words. Is it that
there shall be no salary at all?
40
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: No; it is that the federal parliament shall be left perfectly free to deal with
the question of salary itself.
An HON. MEMBER: I suppose the hon. member would do the same with the ministers?
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: I should do exactly the same with the ministers!
45
Mr. MUNRO: I feel that the hon. member, Sir Harry Atkinson, cannot have considered what he proposes
to do. The governor-general must be appointed before the parliament is called into existence, and does the
hon. member think that any one will take the office without some assurance that he will get a salary of some
sort? Surely the governor-general ought to know Something about the office be is to fill and the emolument
attached to, the position! If the amendment be made the result will be that the appointment will be made
without any assurance as to the emolument which the holder is to receive. The hon. member says he will
make a similar proposal with regard to the ministers of the Crown. I venture to say that the two proposals are
p28
29-7-2015
29
10
really unwise, and that we ought now to attach some decent salary to the office giving power to the
parliament to vary it, but not to reduce it during the term of office of the gentleman appointed afterwards. My
conviction is that a salary of 10,000 is altogether inadequate for the office. My feeling is that the gentleman
to be appointed ought [start page 579] to be equal to the gentleman appointed as governor-general of India.
He ought to be a gentleman capable of being a cabinet minister in England, and for that purpose the
salary ought to be very much larger than what is proposed. I do not think it is to the advantage of the
colonies to hawk this position about in such a way that no man of good standing or position will take it.
When the Constitution of Victoria was agreed to many years ago, I think the population of the colony
was about only 250,000, and yet they fixed the governor's salary at 10,000, with an allowance of
5,000, making it 15,000 in all. Since then it has been reduced to 10,000 a year, but a house is
provided furnished, so that practically the emolument comes to 15,000 a year now. Now, this
Convention, representing the whole of Australia, is going to give the governor-general a salary equal to what
is given to the Governor of Victoria at the present time.
Mr. CLARK: You will reduce yours!
15
20
25
30
Mr. MUNRO: No, we do not intend to reduce ours. We think the Governor of Victoria is entitled to the
salary, and perhaps more, if we could afford it. At any rate, I think that instead of striking out these words,
and making the amount indefinite-in fact, making no provision at all-the words ought to be struck out with
the view of increasing the amount very considerably.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Another reason why the words should not be struck out is not only the
importance of the first governor-general knowing how much be is to get-a very important consideration in
choosing him-but that the federal parliament might simply by reducing the salary cut the connection with
Great Britain altogether. Supposing that it were to reduce the salary to 100 or 1,000 a year! That is the
reason why in all the constitution acts there has been the reservation of a fixed sum, which is made payable
to her Majesty, so that she has always money to pay her governor-general, and therefore can always
secure the appointment in the country of her representative with an adequate salary. I agree with the
hon. member, Mr. Munro, that the salary is too small, having regard to the salary given to the Governor of
Victoria.
Sir JOHN BRAY: I think it is desirable to fix the salary of the first governor-general. The clause says that
the salary shall not be less than 10,000. It is very possible, I think, that that expression may lead to very
serious misunderstanding. It is an intimation to the governor-general that he shall get 10,000 a year, and
probably a good deal more than that. He ought to know when appointed what his salary is to be, and I think,
therefore, that the salary of the first governor-general should be fixed in the bill. The words "but shall not be
less than" should therefore be omitted.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That would enable the federal parliament to reduce the salary to 1,000!
35
40
45
Sir JOHN BRAY: No, because the clause provides that the salary shall not be diminished during the
governor's continuance in office. But I am astonished to hear it suggested that the federal parliament would
be so supremely ridiculous as to fix a nominal salary for a governor-general. It is to my mind utterly out of
the question to imagine that such would be the case. If we leave the clause as it stands we say to the federal
parliament, "We cannot trust you to fix the salary; we will fix it at not less than 10,000, whatever the
circumstances of the federal government may be." Surely if we give the federal government the powers
which it is proposed to give them we can trust them to see that proper provision is made for the salary of the
governor-general. I think we should fix the salary, of the first [start page 580] governor-general at 10,000,
leaving it to the federal government to fix the salary subsequently.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The hon. member, Sir John Bray, surely could not have heard my argument.
Does he suggest that the framers of the constitutions of the various colonies did not understand their
business? This reservation in regard to the salary of governors is made in the whole of the acts.
Sir JOHN BRAY: But there is power to alter the act!
Mr. GILLIES: Only by a certain majority!
50
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The salary cannot be diminished unless by an amendment of the act, and
that is the object of the reservation. The idea is to secure the means of providing a representative of the
Queen in the colony with an adequate salary. I will put this illustration. If you give to the federal
parliament absolute power to reduce the salary, some persons may be constantly endeavouring to earn
a little cheap popularity by proposing reductions. You will have continual agitations for the reduction
p29
29-7-2015
30
of the salary to 8,000, or 6,000 or less. It would, perhaps, be regarded as a very popular move on the
part of some persons.
END QUOTE
Convention)
QUOTE
10
15
Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for
his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other
provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred
pounds.
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.
Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
20
Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those
colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement
of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are
actually paid a salary for their work, which they are not.
Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say
that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
move as an amendment:
That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
25
Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
30
35
40
45
If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654]
Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that
kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than
the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of
parliament who was being paid 500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of
the Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational
manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own
judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are likely to do well
to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give proper attention to further work tonight. I should like to say a word or two in reference to what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in
regard to the absence of provision on matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting
committee was concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution
with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the commonwealth in its first
session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great number of other matters of that kind. We have,
therefore, given them power to deal with this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a
payment of members bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual
allowance for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at 500.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.
50
END QUOTE
p30
29-7-2015
31
I look forwards to your reply addressing the issues I raised.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
5

Our name is our motto!)
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
Awaiting your response,
END QUOTE Ref; 20150720-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM-Re Bronwyn Bishop Speakers abuse of funds
10
15
20
25
I am often asked why dont I just sell the properties and perhaps purchase a new car, but to me
we need to do something for our returning service men and women who have basically their lives
destroyed due to involvement in war activities. For sure, I have my objections to you remaining a
Speaker (As set in this correspondence also) (See also my radio interview published at
http://sharonfirebrace.com) but the obsession by some that somehow they can interfere with the
Authority of the Speaker in my view underlines how ignorant they are of what is constitutionally
applicable and permissible.
We must not allow the undermining of the independence of the Speaker by anyone, including
those serving as Speaker.
And, I view perhaps I would do better to seek to educate people about constitutional issues then
you may be able to do so, as after all if you were using allowances specifically only
constitutionally that is for Members of Parliament who are not in a salary with the
Commonwealth of Australia and/or are a Speaker/President, then any usage nevertheless of
allowance in my view is an abuse and misuse of consolidated Revenue funds, regardless what
may have been provided for in regulations. The responsible Minister for the Department of
Administration must then be held legally accountable for having allowed this in the first place.
I look forwards to your reply addressing the issues I raised.
30
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

Our name is our motto!)
(
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p31
29-7-2015

20150729-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Bronwyn Bishop Speaker - Re Independence of The Parliament-Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

20150729-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Bronwyn Bishop Speaker - Re Independence of The Parliament-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

20150729-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Bronwyn Bishop Speaker - Re Independence of The Parliament-Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker)

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

HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

As such, purported conventions of unconstitutional arrangements cannot override the true

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Jacqui Lambie & see attachment

Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20150621-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to MASTERS PRESTON - Re 'PR', promotions

Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o

time under bridge or on benches and stairs cases by former

While politicians are enriching themselves in pay for having talk

To some former soldiers a health issue may not to them being

do better to finally address the core issues that faces the

I look forwards to your detailed response as to how you like to

Perhaps (here it comes) every politicians will for the winter

Constitutionalist & Consultant

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read

A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE

From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>

QUOTE 17.20 21-5-215 EMAIL

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257

of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that

I look forwards to your response and that you have authorised

Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of

degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so

Constitutionally "citizenship" and so "Australian citizen ship" is

The document can be downloaded from:

END QUOTE 17.20 21-5-2015 EMAIL

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE

----- Forwarded Message ----10

From: G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com>

Masters (Board of Directors, etc)

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

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

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

Mr. BARTON: Yes.

Mr. HIGGINS: And the outside public.

Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, thrusting it on them.

Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

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

Awaiting your response,

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

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

You might also like