ISSUE: 20171205- Re: INTER-STATE COMMISSION & Waterside workers, etc & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

Now we have yet another waterside strike and just before the festivities not only can send some
businesses broke (up the wall) but also will have an effect upon customers.
Here we had Members of Parliament going mad about SSM and in the process disregarding what
they rule should be about. Personally I deal with people equally regardless if they have a
heterosexual phobia or not.
What I view should have been done is to first present legislation proposed to the parliament and
then have a REFERENDUM if people accept this proposed legislation.
https://activistmommy.com/jeweler-makes-ring-lesbian-coupl/
Lesbian Couple Demands Refund From Jeweler Because Hes Christian Activist Mommy
Meaning that the jeweller could be sued if he refuses to make a ring but also be sued for making
a ring being a Christian. While this might be relating to a USA case, nevertheless the same likely
will be eventuating in the Commonwealth of Australia. So much for Prime Minister Malcolm
Turnbull claiming safety is in the legislation.
As stated below:
It should be understood that the wording shall be in Section 101 means there always must
be an Inter-State Commission. No legislation is required for this as the constitution already
provide for this. The same as with the High Court of Australia, no legislation is required to
create the High Court of Australia this as the constitution provide for its existence also.
The Framers of the Constitution themselves from onset made clear that the Section 101 Inter-
State Commission would not be permitted any judicial powers, and as such the 1912 Act clearly
was beyond constitutional powers, however it also should be understood that the Inter-State
commission is the only body that can enforce Trade and commerce legislative provisions such
as to tariffs, etc. The issue of watersides workers the Framers of the Constitution held fell within
Commonwealth legislative powers, this as any waterside worker strike likely would go into other
states also.
The Patricks Melbourne issue with then Minister Peter Reith in my view was wrongly dealt with.
It is a Commonwealth and not a State issue. Likewise the current Waterside workers strike is a
Commonwealth issue.
My previous submission has now been re-published with a 12-12-2017 date. (see pages 16-17)
QUOTE
Who can forget the late 1990s debacle of Patrick Stevedore versus the Commonwealth.
And yet, even so the Commonwealth lost the case in the end it should have actually
succeeded, this because the Framers of the Constitution held that waterside workers fell
under Commonwealth legislative powers.
END QUOTE

When will politicians learn that they need to conduct matters within the true meaning and
application of the constitution?
The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/366972839/20171212-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Senate-Committee-
SUBMISSION-Re-Privatisation-of-State-and-Territory-Assets-and-New-Infrastructure
p1 12-12-2017 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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
QUOTE (THE INCORRECT HEADING DATE 6-3-2015 WAS IN THE FOOTING THE ACTUAL 6-2-2015 DATE)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Senate Standing Committees on Economics 6-3-2015

PO Box 6100, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 3540, Fax: +61 2 6277 5719
economics.sen@aph.gov.au

Submission: inquiry into the privatisation of state and territory assets and new infrastructure to the Senate
Economics References Committee

Sir/Madam,
this submission is later than the 30 January 2015 deadline but as shown below
permission was requested and granted to make this submission out-of-time.
END QUOTE (THE INCORRECT HEADING DATE 6-3-2015 WAS IN THE FOOTING THE ACTUAL 6-2-2015 DATE)

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are about to say that an Inter-State Commission shall be appointed to execute and
maintain the Commonwealth provisions relating to trade and commerce. I understand that the general sense
of the Convention is that the restriction to railways and rivers should disappear; that the Inter-State
Commission should deal with commerce throughout the states without any restriction. Then the clause would
read:-
The Parliament shall make laws constituting an Inter-State Commission to execute and maintain within the
Commonwealth the provisions of this Constitution relating to commerce.[start page 1526] That seems to me
to be the charter of the Inter-State Commission.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Would you add "and the laws for the time being passed by the Parliament"?
Mr. BARTON.-I think that is un-necessary. They will have to maintain the constitutional provisions with
regard to trade and commerce. It is obvious that we must give a certain amount of discretion to Parliament,
and Parliament having a commission already in existence will not pass any laws relating to trade and
commerce without leaving the determination of those laws to the Inter State Commission. It may be only a
difference of form, but I think there would be no advantage in adding the words suggested. We are giving in
the Constitution power to the Inter-State Commission to execute and maintain within the
Commonwealth the provisions relating to trade and commerce. Then we have in Mr. Grant's amendment
the determination of certain other matters confided to the Inter-State Commission, and I understand that the
Right Hon. Sir George Turner consented yesterday to have similar words inserted in his clause. It is clear
then that the provisions we are inserting in the Constitution in relation to trade and commerce will be under
the jurisdiction of the Inter-State Commission, and that is really all we want. We might go further and make
some provision as to the laws, but that is unnecessary. It is inconceivable that Parliament would pass laws,
and take away from the Inter-State Commission the power of adjudicating on them. What I do want to
impress on honorable members is that there is no necessity to say that there shall be an Inter-State
Commission. If we say that Parliament shall constitute an Inter-State Commission, then we make it
clear that it is the Parliament, and not the Executive, that is deal with the commission in the first
instance and to define its powers. That is necessary, as we might otherwise find the Executive Government
taking this as a direction to appoint an Inter-State Commission before a statute had been passed, and then
there might be some trouble with the High Court.
END QUOTE

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-I doubt whether that would be sufficient. It might not be. I quite agree with honorable
members that it is not likely that there would be, or that we could contemplate, appeals in ordinary matters
from the decision of experts to the High Court. I should be sorry to see anything of that kind. It would
introduce political questions and matters of policy that would tend to derogate from the position which the
High Court should occupy under this Constitution. But, at the same time, Parliament might think fit, and
probably would, under the exhaustive powers of clause 96, to say that there were certain matters on which
they would allow an appeal on points of law; and I suggest that we should put in after the words "Inter-State
Commission" the words-"If Parliament allows such appeal." This would give jurisdiction to the High Court to
entertain an appeal, [start page 2284] and it would leave it to the Parliament in constituting the Inter-State
Commission to say whether, in any particular matter, there should be an appeal on a point of law. The danger
p2 12-12-2017 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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 is that whilst the Parliament would give a jurisdiction to the High Court to entertain an appeal it might not
have power to give an appeal from the Inter-State Commission. That is what should be guarded against.
Leave the Parliament to say, when constituting the Inter-State Commission, upon what there shall be appeals.
That would save any question whether or not this might not involve an appeal at all hazards from the Inter-
State Commission. It would leave the matter to Parliament.
END QUOTE
INTER-STATE COMMISSION ACT 1975
In 1974 Prime Minister Geoff Whitlam MP made known that he would re-establish the Inter-
State Commission. Just that the Inter-State Commission always exist, at least as per section 101
of the constitution.
Hansard 6-3-1974 Senator WRIGHT (Tasmama) (4.33) QUOTE
I suggest that a remedy lies in the reconstitution of the Inter-State Commission. Section 101 of the Constitution
provides that there shall be an Inter-State Commission to administer not only the provisions of the Constitution
dealing with interstate trade but also to administer the laws made under the Constitution relating to interstate trade of
which shipping, of course, is an important integer. Between 1912 and 1920 the Commission was in operation. It
functioned for the purpose of supervising some tariffs, some freights and some costs in industry. By inquiry and
administration it was beginning to take effect when the High Court, in a technical decision, somewhat left it with
only one arm. But from the point of view of commercial efficacy that matters not a whit. The Commission is
required by the Constitution to be set up to administerlet us forget about adjudicationthe laws of the
Constitution and the laws made under the Constitution relating to interstate trade. END QUOTE

Hansard 6-3-1974 Senator WRIGHT (Tasmama) (4.33) QUOTE

We have got to the fantastic situation where an able bodied seaman on the coastal trade of Australia receives $8,500
plus his keep for 30 weeks work. I f anyone can convince me that those rates are justified by any reasonable
comparison with seamen's rates anywhere else in the world I am a Dutchman. I should like to see a co-ordination on
the part of the bodies which are responsible for those rates and waterside workers' rates, under the supervision and
administration of an overall administrator such as the Inter-State Commission.
Lastly, and probably most importantly of all, there is an essential need for the Inter-State Commission, the one and
only fair Commonwealth- State agency that is created in the Constitution, if only because of the operations
interstate, and particularly in Tasmania, on the sea road by the freight forwarders END QUOTE

Hansard 10-4-1974 QUOTE

Inter-State Commission (Question No. 517) Mr Snedden asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: When will the
Government restore the Inter-State" Commission. Mr WhitlamThe answer to the right honourable member's question is
as follows: The Constitution states (Section 101): There shall be an Inter-State Commission.' One of the first acts of the Menzies
Government in 1950 was to repeal the Act establishing the Commission passed by the Fisher Labor Government in 1912. The
Government will introduce a Bill to re-establish the Commission after the double dissolution. END QUOTE

Hansard 5-3-1975 Mr KEVIN CAIRNS (LUley) (10.2) QUOTE

So I have proposed and will continue to propose that in these circumstances there ought to be a resurrection of the
Inter-State Commission in order to evaluate between States of the Commonwealth the benefits and the burdens of
the tariff structure. END QUOTE

Hansard 5-3-1975 Mr KEVIN CAIRNS (LUley) (10.2) QUOTE

The Inter-State Commission I have put this to the Government and I have put it to the Parliamentought to be
resurrected. END QUOTE

Hansard 9-4-1975 QUOTE

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL 1975 Bill presented by Mr Charles Jones, and read a first time. Second Reading Mr
CHARLES JONES (Newcastle-Minister for Transport) (8.1) I move That the Bill be now read a second time. The object of the
Bill is to re-establish the Inter- State Commission in accordance with the provisions of section 101 of the Constitution, which
states: There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the ParUament deems
necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade
and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder. Honourable members will note that the Constitution refers to the trade and
commerce provisions and laws made thereunder. However it is not the Government's intention at this time for the Inter-State
Commission to operate under these provisions other than in the field of transport. Hence the responsibility for introducing this
Bill has been allocated to the Transport portfoUo. I need hardly emphasise that transport is a wide and important activity. In
1972-73 it has been estimated that Government and private capital expenditure directly attributed to transport was ofthe order of
$2,700m whUe current expenditure was approximately $2,200m. Recent figures wUl be considerably in excess of these amounts.
The investment decisions which are made at the present time undoubtedly influence the overaU character of personal, private and
commercial transport for many decades ahead. service function concerned with the efficient movement of people, freight and raw
materials. Very few of these movements can, in fact, be completed with the use of only a single mode of transport and hence it is
important that there is adequate co-ordination within, and between, the various modes of transport. But the history of transport in
Australia is studded with examples of lack of co-ordination at many levels. I will mention 3 examples to Ulustrate my point. The
p3 12-12-2017 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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
differences in raU gauges is the most notable and long standing. Another is the differing approaches to road networks in the
various regions, which we are endeavouring to rectify through road legislation. Then, again, approaches to vehicle dimensions
and axle load limits are not standard. These are all instances of physical differences. There are other administrative and
operational differences of equally serious concern. Users of transport are often frustrated in attempting to obtain rectification of
the problems they encounter. There is no single entity to which they can refer for positive assistance in the investigation of their
complaints. Rather, they are faced with trying to obtain satisfaction from operator controlled organisations whose own interests
are paramount. Furthermore, a great majority of the transport tasks require the use of more than one mode of transport and the
user has a variety of operator organisations to deal with, compounding his difficulties. The Government has decided that these
considerations call for the re-establishment of the Inter-State Commission. The deliberations which led to the drafting of the
Constitution envisaged the role of the Commission as being complementary to Parliament, the Executive and the
judiciary, and the existence of a body of such stature, with wide powers to deal with the interests of all parties involved in
or affected by, transport has been a persuasive argument in leading the Government to this decision. (Quorum formed)
Apart from one short period between 1913 and 1920, Australia has been without the Commission since Federation. It may well be
that this omission is in itself one of the root causes of some of the major distortions which have occurred in the evolution of
Australian transport. The Inter-State Commission was first appointed in 1913 pursuant to the Inter-State Commission Act 1912.
The powers given to the Inter-State Commission included powers of investigation over a very wide range of matters going well
beyond matters relating to interstate trade or commerce and power to determine a nter-State Commission Bill 9 April 1975
REPRESENTATIVES 1419 great variety of disputes, including disputes as to preferences or disadvantages given or made by any
State or by any common carrier in contravention of the Act or the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce.
The Commission was given wide powers to grant relief to the parties before it and was empowered to grant injunctions. In what
is now known as the wheat caseNew South Wales v. the Commonwealth (1915)-New South Wales appealed to the High Court
from a decision of the Inter-State Commission. Section 73 of the Constitution provides for appeals from decisions of the
Inter-State Commission on questions of law. The Commission held that the Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 of New South Wales
was invalid as contravening section 92 of the Constitution. The High Court, by a majority, held that section 101. of the
Constitution did not authorise the establishment of the Inter-State Commission as a court and therefore the provisions of
Part V conferring judicial powers upon the Inter-State Commission were invalid. The Inter-State Commission continued to
exercise some investigatory functions for a limited period after the wheat case. However, by 1920 the appointments of
commissioners had terminated by reason of resignation or lapse of time. The Act remained on the statute book until 1950 when it
was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1950.1 seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a paper containing the relevant
extracts from the Constitution which relate to the Inter- State Commission. Mr SPEAKER-Is leave granted? There being no
objection leave is granted. (The document read as foUows) Constitutional Provisions The Inter-State Commission is referred to
in the following sections of the Constitution: 73. The High Court shall have jurisdiction, with such exceptions and subject to such
regulations as the Parliament prescribes, to hear and determine appeals from all judgements, decrees, orders, and sentences (iii)
Of the Inter-State Commission, but as to questions of law only: and the judgement of the High Court in all such cases shall be
final and conclusive. 101. There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the
Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution
relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder. 102. The Parliament may by any law with respect to trade or
commerce forbid, as to railways, any preference or discrimination by any State, or by any authority constituted under a State, if
such preference or discrimination is undue and unreasonable, or unjust to any State; due regard being had to the financial
responsibilities incurred by any State ways. But no preference or discrimination shall, within the meaning of this section, be taken
to be undue and unreasonable, or unjust to any State, unless so adjudged by the Inter- State Commission. 103. The members of
the Inter-State Commission: (i) Shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council; (ii) Shall hold office for seven years, but
may be removed within that time by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the
same session praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity; (hi) Shall receive such remuneration
as the Parliament may fix; but such remuneration shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. 104. Nothing in this
Constitution shall render unlawful any rate for the carriage of goods upon a railway, the property of a State, if the rate is deemed
by the Inter-State Commission to be necessary for the development of any territory of the State, and if the rate applies equally to
goods within the State and to goods passing into the State from other States.

States. Mr CHARLES JONES-This Bill does not cloak the Commission with judicial powers which the High Court found so
objectionable with regard to the first Inter-State Commission. The provisions in the Bill are based on the Inter- State Commission
being given adjudicatory, investigatory, arbitration and administration functions in respect of which it would be empowered to
determine any necessary issues of fact, its decisions being appealable in matters of law to the High Court. Honourable members
might be interested to know the range of issues the Inter-State Commission could deal with under the 4 broad headings to which I
have referred. Dealing first with adjudication, which represents a decision making role of the Commission, the Constitution
through sections 102 and 104 gives the Commission a clear role to adjudicate on railway rates. Thus it would be able to deal with
situations similar to those revealed in the 1972 Bland report of rates so set that interstate trade is disadvantaged compared with
intrastate trade. A rail rate which is lower to a further port compared to the nearest port, which happens to be interstate, would
certainly be a matter the Inter-State Commission would investigate and adjudicate upon. This Bill gives the Inter-State
Commission the power where it is equally sorely needed over all the other modes of transport and is not narrowly restricted to
carrier operations. The efficient use of transport involves a proper understanding of the inter-relationships between the terminal,
the way and the vehicular systems, and the Bill ensures that the Commission is free to investigate all relevant aspects of the
transport task. Instances have been brought to my notice where practices and charges differ markedly between different transport
users for apparently the same service. Examples of the matters brought to my notice are the preferential reservation of cargo
space on ships, the provision of the same service at different rates, and variations in the availability of equipment. The next
heading is investigation, which is an exceedingly important function. It has 2 aspects. There is the investigation necessary before
the Commission could reach a decision in an adjudication and the general investigation into broad industry or multi-modal issues
which would generally result in recommendations. An example of a general investigation would be an assessment of the most
appropriate mode to carry certain commodities in interstate trade. Thirdly, the expertise the Commission will acquire in the field
of interstate transport will lead to requests that it act as an arbitrator between parties in dispute. For example, there could be a
p4 12-12-2017 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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
disagreement between Railways of Austraha and freight forwarders over the rates to be charged for equipment. The Commission
would be an appropriate body to arbitrate and it has power to enforce its decision. It would also be available to arbitrate on
matters associated with the transfer of railway systems to the control of the Australian Government. Lastly the Commission's
administration function is designed to draw upon its expert knowledge of requirements in transport arising from its investigations.
It would be useful in reviewing the effectiveness of expenditure which the Government has provided to overcome a particular
transport deficiencyfor example, the provision of rolling stock. The procedure of the Commission will, of course, be
established to a large extent in the light of experience as time goes on. However, the Bill establishes certain principles. The
Commission will be accessible to the individual, the man in the street, the small private company and the big corporation, any of
whom may have an issue or a complaint to raise. I should stress at this point that statutory authorities of either the Australian or
State governments wUl also have access to the Commission. The Commission will be able to launch an investigation on its own
initiative or in response to a complaint. It can receive requests for investigations directly from the States. It is its judgment alone
whether the investigation will be launched. The third means by which an investigation may begin is upon direction by the
Minister. Provision is made for investigations of the Commission to be amplified should circumstances require, at the direction of
the Minister.
Proposed investigations must be notified to the public. The Commission will be able to sit as a commission on the investigation
or authorise one of its members, or member of the staff, or another authorised person to take evidence on behalf of the
Commission and to furnish a report on the evidence. Witnesses appearing before the Commission will have the usual immunities.
The Bill is designed to ensure that the private citizen may be heard. Upon assessment of the facts the Commission may, according
to its terms of reference, make a recommendation to the Government or proceed to adjudicate the issue and make an order which
will have the force of law. The High Court will have jurisdiction on appeals on matters of law as the Commission's decisions are
final on matters of fact. Under clause 16 prosecutions can be instituted in the High Court for contravention of or failure to comply
with an order of the Commission. Also, the Attorney-General may apply to the High Court for an injunction to restrain a person
or body from contravening the Act, including orders made by the Commission under the Act. In the event that a State government
were to fail to comply with an order, an injunction from the High Court could be sought if necessary under this clause. The
Australian Government would of course be bound by the orders of the Commission. Because of the Commission's special stature
and expected capabilities it is well suited to undertake tasks extending beyond the investigatory and adjudicatory role to which I
have referred. The Government will ask the Commission to report from time to time on multimodal transport issues. For example,
the Government will want advice on the most suitable modes for the carriage of various types of freight and raw materials
between interstate centres to determine rail, sea, road and air infrastructure requirements. The Commission, with its wide
investigatory powers, will be an expert body well suited to provide advice to governments on such planning issues, and the
Australian Government would expect that State governments will also be anxious to avail themselves of its services. The re-
establishment of the Commission will, therefore, be compatible with our policy and a very useful source of advice. Indeed, during
our period in office, and lacking an Inter-State Commission, we have been obliged to establish individual commissions to inquire
into particular transport matters where advice was required. As examples I instance the commissions of inquiry into the maritime
industry and into transport disabilities in Tasmania. Such inquiries could in future be referred to the Inter-State Commission. This
ability to refer would also obviate the administrative exercise involved in setting up individual commissions of inquiry. To
demonstrate the consistency and logic of our approach I will briefly outline the key elements of our transport policy. The policy is
based on the belief that efficient transport can only be achieved where each mode is used for the task for which it is most suited.
We believe that the beneficiaries and the users of transport should pay for the cost of that transport. Naturally there will be
occasions when transport should be used to achieve other social or economic aims but if this is to be done the cost of achieving
those aims through transport should be clearly known, for those social and economic aims are direct beneficiaries of the transport
system. A national transport approach is absolutely necessary if we are to meet the needs of the Australian community and permit
the proper development of this country. The Government has amalgamated the 2 former major transport portfolios under the one
Minister. This has brought together the former Departments of Transport and Civil Aviation together with Government's transport
operating authorities, Qantas Airways Ltd, Trans- Australia Airlines, the Australian National Line and Comrail, and the Bureaus
of Roads and Transport Economics. We propose to have an integrated transport budget and at the end of this year our financial
assistance for roads and urban transport will be combined in one piece of transport financial assistance legislation for the period
commencing July 1977. We have already initiated new roads legislation with particular emphasis on national highways, export
and commercial roads and urban freeways. We also are preparing a proposal for the establishment of a Transport Accident
Investigation Authority to take over the functions of courts of marine inquiry and other like matters. Honourable members are
also aware of our intentions in respect of the Road Safety and Standards Authority. Apart from the major roles to which I have
referred, the Bill provides for a possible interstate licensing function by the Commission should circumstances warrant in the
light of experience and the passage of appropriate legislation. The possible licensing areas described in the Bill include aircraft,
vessels, vehicles or pipelines. It is not proposed that the Commission would set the safety standards or undertake the technical
judgments required, but it would take ority. I have already referred to our intention to establish a Transport Accident
Investigation Authority and accordingly it is, of course, inappropriate to allocate a transport accident investigation function to
the Inter-State Commission. Honourable members will see that this Bill ensures that after a lapse of 50 years the Inter- State
Commission will play the key role which is identified for it in the Constitution. The Government will complement the work of the
Commission by continuing to pursue national transport policies. These influence and respond to the social and economic needs
and objectives of both the private and public sectors. The Government will continue to provide such terminal, way and vehicular
services as are appropriate for provision by governments and to establish and maintain operational standards. The Government
will, of course, continue to encourage and promote socially and economically desirable transport developments and innovations.
The Prices Justification Act and the Trade Practices Act both overlap into the ambit of the Inter-State Commission. It is the
Government's view that the Inter-State Commission, because of its unique stature arising from the Constitution must be supreme.
Such provision has been made in the Bill. But this provision will only need to come into operation if there is any conflict between
the orders of the Inter-State Commission and either of those Acts. Otherwise those Acts will continue to be administered in the
present manner. These proposals seek to eliminate unnecessarily rigid procedures which tend to have been adopted in the
commissions of some other countries that we have studied. The Bill will permit the Commission to adopt pricing guidelines to
allow flexibility to operators of transport systems who are subject to its provisions. The Bill also eliminates the need for repetitive
filing of rates. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an explanatory statement on the detail of the provisions of the Bill. It sets
p5 12-12-2017 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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
out the intentions and the objectives of each section. Mr SPEAKERI s leave granted? There being no objection, leave is
granted. The Minister will realise that leave is granted subject to the document being able to be printed and subject to its length. I
have not seen the document so I do not know what the position is. Mr CHARLES JONES-It is a document of, I think, about 5
pages. It contains quite a considerable amount of very important information 1422 REPRESENTATIVES 9 April 1975 Inter-
State Commission BiH which for obvious reasons is not read into the Bill. I believe that it should appear in the second reading
speech. The honourable member for Gippsland, the spokesman for the Opposition on these matters, agrees with this course. Mr
SPEAKER-We think that the Government Printer most probably can incorporate it. (The document read as follows) NOTES
ON BILL: INTER-STATE COMMISSION The bill is divided into six parts
Part 1, Preliminary;
Part II, Constitution of the Inter-State Commission;
Part III, Regulation of, and Powers of Commission in relation to, Trade and Commerce;
Part IV, Investigations by Commission; Part V, Administrative Provisions relating to the Commission, and
Part VI, Miscellaneous.
Part I incorporates five interpretative and clarifying clauses as to the operation of the Commission.
In Part II, provision is made for a President and four other members of the Commission who will be of senior status.
Qualifications called for are experience at a high level in industry, commerce, economics, law, public administration or some
other field of substantial relevance. Salaries are specified in
Part V. In Pan III,
Clause 9 exercises the power conferred on the Parliament by Section 102 of the Constitution. It forbids preferences or
discrimination by a State by means of railways where adjudged undue and unreasonable by the Commission. The saving
provisions of Sections 102 and 104 of the Constitution that regard shall be had to the financial obligations and developmental
responsibilities of a State are preserved in Clauses 9 and 12.
Clause 10 prohibits undue and unreasonable preferences and discriminations in interstate and overseas transport in all transport
modes, where so adjudged by the Commission.
Clause 11 provides that the terms and conditions on which a service by way of or in relation to interstate transport is provided
shall be reasonable and just. The clause broadens the base provided by Clauses 9 and 10 for the work of the Commission.
By virtue of Clause 13, regulations may authorise the Commission to exercise statutory powers of other authorities or tribunals
under any trade and commerce law, subject to the specified conditions. This clause is intended to cater for any future
requirements that may arise.
Clause 14 sets forth the powers of the Commission to hold investigations, which the Government sees as the essential first step in
the process leading to adjudications. A wide range of subject matter could be investigated, including: any matters relevant to, or
affected by, the provisions of ' the Constitution relating to trade and commerce (including matters relating to the operation and
effect of laws and practices of the States) with a view to considering the necessity for new laws, or changes to existing laws, of
Australia under the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce: any matters in respect of which an adjudication
by the Commission is relevant to the operation of the provisions of this bill; any matters relevant to the operation of Clause 11;
and any matters in respect of which the Commission is authorised to exercise powers in pursuance of Clause 13.
Other parts of Clause 14 provide that the Commission may exercise its powers to hold an investigation on its own initiative or at
the direction of the Minister, who may also extend an investigation by the Commission. The Commission shall conduct an
investigation whenever it considers that this is in the public interest. Any person, including' a State, may request the Commission
to exercise those powers.
There is provision through sub-Clause 14(9) for publication of the Commission's reports, findings and recommendations.
Sub-Clause 14(10) contains the basis for issuance by the Commission of pricing guidelines, which are also discussed in
connexion with the Commission's Orders in Clause 16. Sub-Clause 14(11) provides that a finding of fact by the Commission,
following an investigation will be conclusive for the purpose of its Orders.
Clause I6 gives the Commission a potentially useful power to arbitrate, with the consent of the persons concerned, on any matter
relevant to, or affected by, the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce.
Powers of the Commission to make orders are provided by Clause 16; and under Sub-Clause 16 (3) the Commission will have
power to make orders if necessary following action pursuant to Sub-Clause 14 (10), that is to say, in regard to pricing guidelines.
An order of the Commission will have effect notwithstanding anything in any law of Australia or of a State, any act or thing done
under such a law, or any contract. Substantial penalties are provided for non-compliance with the Commission's orders.
Jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court to hear and determine any prosecution, application or other proceeding and that
jurisdiction will be exclusive of the jurisdiction of any other court.
Clause 17 provides for other powers of the Commission including, but not limited to, the issuance of licences or requirement of
the Commission's consent in regard to the engaging in, or the use of aircraft, vessels, vehicles or pipelines in inter-state transport.
This clause is intended to cover any future requirements, when further legislation may be needed. Under Part IV, Procedure at
Investigations, beginning at Clause 18, the Commission is required to give public notice of its investigations.
The Commission would be empowered to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and to take
evidence on oath or affirmation. As a general rule, evidence would be taken in public but the Commission may decide, subject to
the regulations, to take confidential evidence in private. Remuneration and allowances of five members of the Commission are
stipulated in Part V.
Clause 26 provides that the President will receive a salary of $41,000 per annum, which is equivalent to a Justice of the High
Court and other members a salary of $35,000 which is equivalent to a Judge.
Clause 32 provides that a member shall not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office without the consent of the
Minister. By virtue of Clause 33, three members will form a quorum at a meeting of the Commission. Part VI deals with
Miscellaneous provisions. Transport pricing would be looked at by the Inter-State Commission as well as by the Prices
Justification Tribunal.
In cases where differences arise Clause 34 provides that the conclusions of the Inter-State Commission shall prevail. Clause 34
also provides that the Inter-State Commission's approvals will prevail in the area of trade practices. This will presumption that the
restrictive practices legislation will apply in the transport industry. It is envisaged that the Inter-State Commission will be able to

p6 12-12-2017 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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
draw upon existing organisations of the Australian Public Service for much of the senior support it will need in its investigations.
However, provision will be made for a small secretariat in the Commission.
Clause 35 provides that staff necessarily to assist the Commission shall be persons appointed or employed under the Public
Service Act 1922-1974. Sub-Clause 35(4) allows the President to engage other persons (such as consultants or assessors) to
provide services or perform functions for, or to furnish advice to, the Commission. Other machinery provisions are in Clause 38,
which provides protection of members, representatives and witnesses and Clause 39 which will enable the Commission to
authorize, if the need arises, a member of the Commission, a member of the staff or a person engaged under Sub-Clause 35 (4) to
take evidence on behalf of the Commission and furnish a report on the evidence so taken.
Clause 40 provides for an annual report to be tabled in Parliament, which must include particulars of Ministerial directions, and
Clause 41 provides for the making of regulations. I commend the Bill and remind honourable members that it will bring into
effect a body which is specifically provided for in the Constitution, one which has been said to be in the bond of the Federal
partnership agreement and .one whose absence has been sorely missed over a long period. Debate (on motion by Mr Nixon)
adjourned. END QUOTE

It should be understood that the wording shall be in Section 101 means there always must be an
Inter-State Commission. No legislation is required for this as the constitution already provide for
this. The same as with the High Court of Australia, no legislation is required to create the High
Court of Australia this as the constitution provide for its existence also.
Kristine Keneally if not succeeding in the seat for the House of Representatives may very well
then be chosen to be a Senator. It was her government that claimed to me personally in its
writings that the State had again legislative powers as to land taxation when in fact no such
provision exist in the constitution to revert a federal legislative power into a state legislative
power. And this is the problem we seem to have that persons are selected for a seat not because
of their competence but more, at least as I view it, because they might more likely win a seat,
regardless how incompetent the person might be. After all where is the evidence that Premier
Kristine Keneally relied upon that land taxation powers were returned to the States? Is she now
going to be in the federal parliament to make nonsense claims without a shred of evidence to
prove it, I wonder?
It is for the House (in this case the Senate) to decide about Sam Dastyari if he ought to
remain a Senator

You can download the document from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/366878692/20171211-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-
ISSUE-Re-Sam-Dastyari-Etc-the-Constitution

ISSUE: 20171211- Re: Sam Dastyari, QUALIFICATION, etc & the constitution
Well within hours of sending this also to Sam Dastyari he suddenly resigned from the Senate.
People are truly sick and tired of the utter and sheer nonsense that goes on in the federal
parliament and I view we should follow the Czech Republic example to just get rid of the lot and
imprison them for defrauding the Commonwealth and get truly honourable persons to represent
We, the People.
In my view it is utter deplorable that hard working business owners could be send broke because
our Members of Parliament are more involved in their personal sexual issues and egoistic
enrichment then to concentrate upon the real issues faced by citizens. In my view it constitutes a
gross derelict of duty by all concerned. Having a so called rainbow flag as a prop in the House of
Representatives may underlines the gutter tactics used rather than enforcing proper Standing
orders of the Parliament. An utter disgrace! In my view underlines an incompetent Speaker!
The current waterside workers strike is a federal issue and it is well overdue that the federal
government understand and comprehend this and act appropriately. If the Senate committee was
too in competent to understand my submission at the time then it could have requested
clarification. This it never did!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)
p7 12-12-2017 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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati