Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
20140515-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM- Re Various Issues

20140515-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM- Re Various Issues

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Pensioners slugged but not to reduce the deficit!
Pensioners slugged but not to reduce the deficit!

More info:

Categories:Types, Presentations
Published by: Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka on May 14, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/16/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
 p1 15-5-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1
st
 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
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott MP
5
Ref: 20140515-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM- Re various issues
Tony, When I was in a committee to set up a branch bank I refused to get involved in something that I held constituted insiders trading by some committee members and in the end they voted me out. Still, I never regretted standing up for my credibility. 10 When as a Professional Advocate I represented parties I made clear that if I discovered they lied then I would get out of the case. And at time I did so. Again, to me my credibility was not for sale.
What is the worth of as person who cannot keep his word?
You made (and I view correctly) much about Julia Gillard
s
NO CARBON TAX
 but now it seems you have done a similar deception upon electors. 15  Now, other than a few years ago when I had 3 operation in one year, and much also because when I attended to a doctor years earlier he failed to appropriately attend to the issues and hence it got worse and the Government ended up paying for operations as result. As such, making doctors attendance expensive may deter many to see a doctor and then when they need to it may be more costly to the Government in the end. At least in my case the doctor 20 had failed to ensure appropriate attention. In fact even when I came back after a few years for the same, he gave me the understanding it would be going away in a few years. I then reminded him he had stated the same years ago, and that is when he realised I was more serious and again ending up than not much longer after this having operations. Generally I do not attend to any doctors on average perhaps once a year if at all. As such, the 25 $7.00 may not be such a great disaster to me. And, as I generally refuse pain killers, etc, then it neither cost me any prescription cost either. I just view that it is better not to use painkillers and suffer the pain then to get side-affects from pain killers. But when it comes to my 81 year old wife, well she regularly has to attend to doctors to get  prescriptions because she has done so for more than 40 odd years. One has to ask if a person is 30 for that long on the same prescription then why need to have ongoing doctor 
s prescriptions and see as specialist at a higher
initial cost
 when this is the same issue for over 40 years I wonder? Why indeed give a prescription that runs out time and time again instead of large prescriptions? Then, when I went to the chemist to get her prescription (on which she is for over 40 years) I was told that because I was 1 day out my wife had to get a new one of her specialist. You see the 35  previous day my wife wanted to go to the chemist but during the drive fell ill and requested me to drive home. This I did. So, to get a new prescription it means to attend to a GP to get a referral and then pay the specialist for an
initial
 consultation (after already attending for some 40 years) rather than being an ongoing consultation. It means that my wife is about $100.00 or more out of pocket besides the government payment towards doctor 
s charges and this for what? 40 Where in fact the doctor is permitted to issue the prescription himself? Prescription that will be now (That is if it passed through the Parliament) plus $5 may cost more than without prescription, if available. As my wife explained to me if she has to pay for $7.00 to see the doctor then is this also applicable where the doctor sent her to one address for an X-ray and another for other tests, rather than doing it all on the premises? 45
 
 
 p2 15-5-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1
st
 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
 And obviously this is not about the budget line to save monies because the co-payment would be allegedly (That is until another government takes it as was done with the pension payments over the decades) saved in Consolidated Revenue Funds to save for a S20 billion medical research system. But wait
 there is more. When then research is done those involved then can claim a  patent and make millions if not billions of dollars at cost of the sick! So the real benefit will be to 5 the scientist who will claim a patent for discoveries at cost of the sick and the elderly. Clearly, there is no financial benefit for budget purposes in that regard. And so what was Joe Hockey about that we all should contribute? Did you bother to check how much the co-payments (for medical services) will amount to in percentage versus what high earing incomers will have to  pay? Joe Hockey and neither you made the decision not to increase salaries as this was already 10 decided, as I understand it, about a month ago by the Remuneration Tribunal. As such it was to me a deceptive e claim. And this now to tie pensions to the CPI as I understand this was already applicable since 2009, as I wrote about it on previous occasions. But, it is noticeable that nothing is done to bind the states to comply with this also and not increase its charges ongoing about double, or more, that of CPI 15
Hansard
 
17-2-1898 
 
Constitution Convention Debates
(
Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention
) (Re Section 96 of the
Constitution 
) QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR 
.-It is nicely wrapped up. Any one who reflects upon the conditions which must exist
20
 before this provision can be brought into operation will see that it assumes that the states must be reduced to a condition of pauperism before they can take advantage of it.
Sir JOHN FORREST
.-What would you do if they were?
Mr. OCONNOR 
.-
I will come to that. Mr. Wise seems to be of opinion that there is some power implied in the Constitution to give such aid. Now, from the consideration and study which I have been
25
able to give to the Constitution, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is no such power implied.
 The Constitution is formed for certain definite purposes. There are definite powers of legislation and definite powers of administration,
and the clause that the Right Hon. Sir John Forrest called attention to  just now-clause 81-expressly provides that the revenues of the Commonwealth shall form one consolidated fund,
 to be appropriated for the
public service
s of the Commonwealth in the manner and
30
subject to the charges provided in this Constitution.
Mr. WISE
-The order and good government of the Commonwealth would come under the term "
public service
s of the Commonwealth."
Mr. OCONNOR 
.-
I do not agree with the honorable member in his interpretation of the powers of the Commonwealth, especially when dealing with the expenditure of the money of the taxpayers.
 In such a
35
case there will be a great deal of care taken to keep the nose of the Federal Parliament to the grindstone in the matter of this expenditure.
 I do not think any expenditure will be constitutional which travels outside these limits. 
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits.
In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
 
If any Act were carried giving
40
monetary assistance to any state it would be unconstitutional, and the object sought would not be attained. 
That brings me to the question of whether it is desirable that there should be any such power either expressed or implied. I have no hesitation in saying that it would be a disastrous thing for the future of the [start page 1109] Commonwealth if there was any such power given. END QUOTE
45
Hansard
 
17-2-1898 
 
Constitution Convention Debates
(
Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention
) QUOTE
 Mr. ISAACS
.-You are referring to paragraph (4) of clause 52?
50
 
 
 p3 15-5-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1
st
 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
Mr. HOLDER 
.-Yes.
Mr. OCONNOR 
.-
But that money could not be spent upon any object the Federal Parliament thought fit.
 END QUOTE
5 How does the
FUTURE FUNDS
 set up and now organised by Mr Peter Costello fit into the
expressly provides that the revenues of the Commonwealth shall form one consolidated fund
, I may well ask? In my view, any legitimately of Joe Hockey about trying to reduce the debt and so interest rates 10 would have been more reliable if the monies that is proposed to be charged as a co-payment (regardless of my opposition to it) if it had been to reduce the budget deficit. And likewise, the proposed twice yearly increase in taxes on fuel, if it is going to go into Consolidated Revenue Funds and not in the pocket of politicians/private corporations then why  bother about state infra structures which are the responsibilities of the States? 15 We cannot have the States giving away monies to private corporations upon the basis that it will aid in employment when the Commonwealth pretends to do the same. This besides the fact that
order, peace and good government
 is not relating to running or funding private corporations. It will however likely give more than triple if not more the return of financial donations to political  parties that I do not doubt. 20 What I view is that any corporation/business entity or private person who makes a donation to any candidate and/or his political party must be automatically be banned from engaging in any financial contract or other contract that may have certain financial benefits associated with it for not less than 7 years after the donation was made. Now that I view is management! As you cut 25 out a lot of corruption! Also, the issue of
age of entitlement
 cannot be applied to senior citizens who retired and paid their taxes, which included a levy for pension, as they do no more but claim back some of their monies paid (as such they are in an
age of rights
), that is if politicians have not already defrauded it or otherwise squandered the monies the pensioners paid (for a pension) during their 30 working life. And, let
s cut the so called public service by making sure that no Member of Parliament shall have more than one person paid for by taxpayers. The rest the Member of Parliament must pay for out of his/her own pocket. Also, no more phone calls regarding political issues as it is in my view theft (fraud). 35
 
Ethics Orientation for State Officials
Misuse of Public Funds
40
Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that public funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose when its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes. Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses
45
only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly. The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are they authorized. The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit may
50
result from an expenditure of public funds.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->