1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

24-1-2015 Re EWOV2004-317-570- etc

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria
daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

24-1-2015

Cc: Energy and Water Ombudsman Victoria ewovinfo@ewov.com.au

Chairman Peter Vogel (And other members of the Board of Directors) GWMWater
info@gwmwater.org.au Ref: 2305224
Credit Collect

creditcollect@creditcollect.com.au Ref 369335

Ref; 20150124- G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria
-Re EWOV2004-317-570-etc-

Daniel,
regretfully it appears you have as yet not responded to my 31-12-2014 correspondence but
to ensure you that I am at least so to say still on the job I will below set out further matters.
QUOTE 31-12-2014 CORRESPONDENCE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria
daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

31-12-2014

Ref; 20141231- G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews Prenmier of Victoria

-Re Safe Drink Water Act 2003-etc-

Daniel,
after the recent state election you made clear that you wouldnt change from what you had
stated during the election (regarding the east-west link) and I seek the same commitment as to
what you stated in the Parliament.
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE
MBLY&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&date2=M
ay&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+%29
QUOTE

35
36
37
38
39

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking Water Bill. This bill forms part of the
government's strategic approach to water management, with specific attention being paid to water quality and risk
management as matters of public health. It is worth noting that this is a debate about public health and about making sure
that each community across our state has access to the highest quality water. It is also worth noting that this bill has been
introduced by the Minister for Health as a matter of public health.

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

The bill has four specific objectives. Before going on to those I welcome the support shown by the Liberal and National
parties for this bill. Every endeavour has been made to try to provide as much information as possible.

END QUOTE
END QUOTE 31-12-2014 CORRESPONDENCE

One of the issues the EWOV has claimed(on behalf of GWMWater) is that GWMWater as an
authority can charge me as a landholder (property owner) regarding water supply irrespective if I
am or not connected to water supply.
In 1999, then as a INDEPENDENT candidate for the Northern area in the Victorian state election
I then pursued water issues, and a person in Patchewollock then had an issue with GWMWater as
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 making a reservation, E-mail
INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com, www.scribd.com/inspector-rikati

50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103

2
24-1-2015 Re EWOV2004-317-570- etc
to being charged for water connection this even so he had no connection to water supplies but
merely as a property owner. As such it in my view amounted to a property tax generally referred
to as a land tax.
Again EWOV appeared to me to be more as the mouthpiece for GWMWater rather than an
independent authority. This, as I view as an INDEPENDENT authority it should have considered
if GWMWater claims, if they made them at all, was constitutionally valid.
As you are ware I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and hold it essential that governments operate
as to the true meaning and application of the constitution. Because States were created within
s106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) subject to this
constitution then they are bound by the constitution and the legal principles embedded within
it.
The EWOV therefore should have rejected any notion that a water provider such as GWMWater
can charge any landholder (property owner) a charge merely upon being a land holder (property
owner) irrespective of not having any water connection, this as it would constitute a land tax
(property tax) that is prohibited by the Commonwealth, and s109 of the constitution clearly
defeats any State land tax (property tax).
It is obvious of concern that as I stated above the EWOV seems to be more a mouthpiece for
GWMWagter then an INDEPENDENT authority, and by this pursues a person to act
unconstitutionally by omitting to clarify this violation of s109 to a land holder (property owner).
Any form of taxation/charge that is based upon land ownership/property ownership and not being
a tax/charge for services rendered is unconstitutional! Likely State Stamp Duties regarding
properties may also be so, but I will not go into details about this now.
I will now quote of my 19-1-2015 correspondence forwarded to you previously:
QUOTE 20150119-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews-Re -council rates-state land taxes-etc

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria
daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc:

19-1-2015

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

Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.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
The mayor & councillors Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
The mayor Craig Langdon & councillors Banyule City Council enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20150119-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier of Victoria Mr Mr Daniel Andrews Re council rates-state land taxes-etc

Daniel,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I ask;
How much intelligence exist within the Victorian Parliament (and other state
Parliaments) by Members of Parliament, their legal advisors and those army of
lawyers working in or for the Parliaments when none of them seems to understand
that municipal/shire council rates are a delegated power of land taxation?
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Sydney%20Municipal%20Council
%20v%20Commonwealth%20)
QUOTE

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 making a reservation, E-mail
INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com, www.scribd.com/inspector-rikati

24-1-2015 Re EWOV2004-317-570- etc

104
105
106

Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904)
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

107

26 April 1904

108

Griffith, C.J.

109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149

In this action the Municipal Council of Sydney claims to recover from the Commonwealth municipal rates in
respect of land situate within the City of Sydney, and occupied by the defendants for the purposes of the
Departments of Customs, Posts and Telegraphs, and Defence, the land having become vested in the
defendants by virtue of sec. 85 (1) of the Constitution upon the transfer of those departments to the
Commonwealth. The defendants claim that the rates in question, which were made since the date of transfer,
are within the prohibition of sec. 114, which provides that "a State shall not without the consent of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth ... impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the
Commonwealth." For the plaintiffs it is contended, first, that a municipal rate is not a tax within the meaning
of sec. 114, and, secondly, that, if it is, the provisions of the Sydney Corporation Act 1879, by which (sec.
103, re-enacted as sec. 110 of the Sydney Corporation Act 1902) (1902 No. 35) Crown lands were expressly
declared to be liable to rates, were continued in force by sec. 108 of the Constitution until the Parliament of
the Commonwealth should think fit to legislate in a contrary sense, when, it is said, the provisions of sec. 109
of the Constitution would come into operation, and the State law, being inconsistent with the Federal law,
would cease to have effect. No such Federal law has yet been passed. A subsidiary contention was that, in
determining whether the rate, assuming it to be a tax within the meaning of sec. 114, was valid or not,
regard should be had to the date of the passing of the New South Wales Statute, and not to the dates
when the particular rates in question were made, and that, therefore, the rates for 1901 and 1902,
made under the Act of 1879, which was passed before the establishment of the Commonwealth, were
valid, even if those made under the Act of 1902 were invalid, which, however, was not conceded. There
can be no doubt that the right of taxation is a right of sovereignty. It may be exercised upon all
persons, and in respect of all property, within the jurisdiction of the sovereign power which exercises it.
Municipal taxation springs from this sovereign right, and is an exercise of it by delegation to the
municipality. No other origin for it can be suggested. It follows that if the authority which assumes to
create such a delegation does not itself possess the power, the delegation is void, since the spring cannot
rise higher than its source. A municipal corporation, therefore, cannot have any greater power to
impose taxation than the State by which it is created, and by which its own powers are conferred. It is
true that the word "tax" is sometimes used in the limited sense of an enforced levy for the purposes of
the general government, but, if a State itself has no power to make such a levy, it cannot confer the
power under another name. In a constitutional instrument, therefore, defining and limiting the power
of constitutional authorities, the word "tax" must be construed in the wider sense, and a prohibition of
the imposition of a tax must be held to include a prohibition of any such imposition by a delegated
authority, by whatever name the tax is called. The Sydney Corporation Act does not, of itself, purport to
impose rates, but merely requires the Municipal Council to make an annual assessment of the values of
land within the municipality, and to make an annual rate of such amount as they think proper, within
prescribed limits. The grant of the power, which is the act of the State, and the exercise of the power,
which is the act of the corporation, are essentially different. The Statute operates as a delegation of the
taxing power of the State, coupled with a direction when and how to use it. The assessment of land and
the striking of a rate together operate as municipal legislation in exercise of the power. It is clear,
therefore, that under this Act the imposition of a rate is the act of the corporation, and not of the State,
and that the tax is imposed from time to time when the rate for the year is made. It follows that the
prohibition of sec. 114, if applicable, applies to the rate for every year in which it is sought to levy it.

150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157

It is manifest from the whole scope of the Constitution that, just as the Commonwealth and State are regarded
as distinct and separate sovereign bodies, with sovereign powers limited only by the ambit of their authority
under the Constitution, so the Crown, as representing those several bodies, is to be regarded not as one, but as
several juristic persons, to use a phrase which well expresses the idea. No better illustration can be given than
is afforded by the lands now sought to be rated, which, having originally been "property of the State," i.e.,
lands of the Crown in New South Wales, have become "vested in the Commonwealth," i.e., vested in the
Crown in right of the Commonwealth. The change in constitutional ownership is accurately and
unmistakeably denoted by the language of sec. 85 in which it is expressed.

158
159

The term "the Crown" as used in the Sydney Corporation Act must be taken to mean the Crown in its capacity
as representing the State of New South Wales. In the Act of 1879, passed before the establishment of the

H C of A

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 making a reservation, E-mail
INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com, www.scribd.com/inspector-rikati

4
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215

24-1-2015 Re EWOV2004-317-570- etc

Commonwealth, it obviously had that meaning, and no wider one can be given to it in the re-enactment of
1902. The argument, therefore, sought to be founded upon the assent of the Crown, given through the
Governor of New South Wales, to the taxation of Crown lands, fails, since land vested in the Commonwealth
or in the Crown in right of the Commonwealth is not Crown land within the meaning of the Sydney Act. Nor,
in my judgment, can the liability of the land, while Crown land of New South Wales, to municipal taxation be
regarded as a liability running with the land, any more than if the land had afterwards been granted for a
purpose which would exempt it from such liability.
END QUOTE
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Sydney%20Municipal%20Council
%20v%20Commonwealth%20)
Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904)
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA H C of A 26 April 1904
QUOTE
For the plaintiffs it is contended, first, that a municipal rate is not a tax within the meaning of sec. 114, and,
secondly, that, if it is, the provisions of the Sydney Corporation Act 1879, by which (sec. 103, re-enacted as
sec. 110 of the Sydney Corporation Act 1902) (1902 No. 35) Crown lands were expressly declared to be
liable to rates, were continued in force by sec. 108 of the Constitution until the Parliament of the
Commonwealth should think fit to legislate in a contrary sense, when, it is said, the provisions of sec. 109 of
the Constitution would come into operation, and the State law, being inconsistent with the Federal law, would
cease to have effect. No such Federal law has yet been passed
END QUOTE

So let us look at Commonwealth legislation.

QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081

LAND TAX ABOLITION.

No. 81 of 1952.
[Assented to 6th November, 1952.]

B E it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of
Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows :1. This Act may be cited as the Land Tax Abolition Act 1952.
2. This Act snall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of July, One thousand nine
hundred and fifty-two.
3. Land tax shall not be levied and paid for the financial year which commenced on the first
day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or for any subsequent financial year.
4. Section fifteen of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1952 does not apply in respect of the financial year
which commenced on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or in respect of
any subsequent financial year.
END QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081

While the Commonwealth abolished the payment of land taxation it did however also show:
QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081
3. Land tax shall not be levied and paid for the financial year which commenced on the first
day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or for any subsequent financial year.
END QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081

This part of the law remains in force and so also the right of uniform taxation (land tax)
throughout the Commonwealth, and no land taxation can be applied and any State
(delegated municipal/shire council rates are therefore in violation of this part of the act!
Further, constitutionally while the States can refer to the Commonwealth within s51(xxxvii)
legislative powers the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
doesnt allow for a reversal of legislative powers.
Further, in Sydney Council v Commonwealth (1904) the High Court of Australia held that
council rates were a delegated State power of land taxation.
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 making a reservation, E-mail
INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com, www.scribd.com/inspector-rikati

216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272

5
24-1-2015 Re EWOV2004-317-570- etc
At that time State land taxation was valid however when the Commonwealth commenced the
Land Tax Office on 11 November 1910 then State land taxation and so the delegated
municipal/shire council rates no longer ware legally permissible.
Nevertheless municipal/shire councils continue to charge rates (a form of land taxation) in
defiance of s109. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear any taxation collected without
legal justification has to be refunded.
I recall in the past having raised with Buloke Shire Council the issue of unconstitutional rates and
as such Buloke Shire Council having nevertheless ignored this I view would have a case to
answer.
Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HOWE.The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the meantime until the Federal
Parliament took the matter in hand.
END QUOTE

Clearly it is only until the Commonwealth legislates upon a subject that the states have
concurrent legislative powers. The moment the Commonwealth commenced to legislate it
was a different legislative area, that of the Commonwealth. Only the Commonwealth could have
re-introduced any land tax system. And it can only do so in a uniform manner. Hence, it
couldnt retrospectively validate non-uniform rates.
Again:
QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081
3. Land tax shall not be levied and paid for the financial year which commenced on the first
day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or for any subsequent financial year.
END QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081

As this is a law that is still in force then s109 of the constitution applies.
QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

109 Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall
prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
END QUOTE

For the above the Abolition of land taxes was more than just to abolish land taxes as it also
prohibited any further land taxation!
Below is a mere few quotations of a long record of correspondences but which may clarify what
is wrong with how state government perceive matters, as shown above Commonwealth
legislation remains in force!
This as section 4 clearly in itself abolished land taxation as from 1 July 1952 and or in respect
of any subsequent financial year. And as such section 3 was not required unless it specifically
prohibited any future land taxation.
QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081
4. Section fifteen of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1952 does not apply in respect of the financial year
which commenced on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or in respect
of any subsequent financial year.
END QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081

In University of Wollongong v Mohamed Naguib Fawzi Ahmed Metwally & others [1984]
HCA 74; (1984) 158 CLR 447 (22 November 1984) the High Court of Australia held that when
the Commonwealth abolished a certain law then the states can continue to apply its previous
legislation which so to say was held to be on hold where it violated s109 of the constitution,.
However, this I view is an incorrect reading of s109 and the court at no time in fact referred to or
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 making a reservation, E-mail
INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com, www.scribd.com/inspector-rikati

273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328

6
24-1-2015 Re EWOV2004-317-570- etc
quoted the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the
Debates of the National Australasian Convention) but instead sought to analyse the wording
in the constitution as to what might be applicable in other jurisdictions.
As one judge stated in University of Wollongong v Mohamed Naguib Fawzi Ahmed Metwally & others [1984]
HCA 74; (1984) 158 CLR 447 (22 November 1984
QUOTE
In its express stipulation of invalidity, the section has no parallel in the Constitutions of the United
States or Canada and there is little point in looking to decisions of the Supreme Courts of those
countries for assistance in the resolution of the question involved in the present case
END QUOTE

Indeed, one must first consult Hansard records to gather the intentions of the Framers of the
Constitution and then it is very clear that any s52 of the constitution subject matter upon which
the Commonwealth legislate then be comes as like s52 an exclusive legislative power.
While the constitution in s51(xxxvii) provides for the States to refer legislative powers to the
Commonwealth the reverse is not provided for.
The Commonwealth cannot allow States to legislate on its behalf, as some of the judges of the
High Court of Australia seemed to imply as once under Commonwealth law then only
Commonwealth can legislate. Neither could the Commonwealth retrospectively repeal section 3
of the LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081, as a way to try to pursue to legally justify
municipal/shire delegated taxation powers of land taxes(rates) or the States themselves having
legislated for land taxation in addition to the municipal/shire councils already doing so (as such
doubling up land taxation Land Tax Act 2005 Victoria) this as all landholders currently have
the legislative right for uniform taxation, so land taxes and as council/shire rates are held by
the High Court of Australia in Sydney Council v Commonwealth (1904) to be a State delegated
power of taxation then such retrospective validation of double land taxation can neither be
legally justified.
Neither can the Commonwealth authorise the States (so also or as delegated land taxation
powers) the municipal/shire councils retrospectively having applied land taxers (including rates)
for and on behalf of the Commonwealth, this as all land taxes (rates) must be uniform throughout
Australia, and also all taxes must be paid into the Commonwealth Consolidation Revenue Funds
and monies could only be drawn by way of Appropriation Bills.
END QUOTE 20150119-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews-Re -council rates-state land taxes-etc

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Sydney%20Municipal%20Council
%20v%20Commonwealth%20)
Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904)
QUOTE

In a constitutional instrument, therefore, defining and limiting the power of constitutional authorities,
the word "tax" must be construed in the wider sense, and a prohibition of the imposition of a tax must
be held to include a prohibition of any such imposition by a delegated authority, by whatever name the
tax is called.
END QUOTE

GWMWater therefore persisting in sending me escalating claims of demands for monies I view
not only is a form of terrorism upon me and upset my 82 year old wife considerably but is
unconstitutional, as it is a demand in violation to s109 of the constitution.
In my view any law, State/Territorial and delegated authority that essentially is based upon
land/property ownership and requires and/or applies a financial charge in relation to that is
unconstitutional
Again:
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 making a reservation, E-mail
INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com, www.scribd.com/inspector-rikati

24-1-2015 Re EWOV2004-317-570- etc

329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361

QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081

3. Land tax shall not be levied and paid for the financial year which commenced on the first
day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or for any subsequent financial year.
END QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081

362

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html

363

QUOTE

Even the Commonwealth cannot apply such a tax/charge without first abolishing this section 3.
What appears to be the error many make, in particular politicians/legislators is that they consider
that the LAND TAX ABOLITION. No. 81 of 1952. [Assented to 6th November, 1952.] merely
abolished Commonwealth land taxes and that is it. However, as exposed above, it did more than
that, it actually prohibit any further land taxation. Hence, any water charge based upon
land/property ownership not being a charge for services rendered is in violation to this legislation
and by way of s109 of the constitution is therefore ULTRA VIRES (NULL AND VOID).
I VIEW IT IS NOT JUST UNFAIR BUT AN UTTER DISGRACE THAT THE EWOV
HAS IN THAT REGARD AS IT SOUGHT TO HOODWINK ME IN ACCEPTING THAT
GWMWater CAN CHARGE AS A LAND/PROPERTY OWNER IRRESPECTIVE OF
ANY SERVICES RENDERED.
Hence it appears to me that it is for this also more acting so to say as a lawyer (mouthpiece) for
GWMWater then to act impartial and consider legal aspects first before putting them to me as a
complainant. One has to ask how often EWOV has participated in this kind of what I view
rot/terrorism upon others who may lack the kind of knowledge I have set out above?
.

One may ask how often has Credit Collect or other debt collect ion agencies unaware of the
commonwealth legislation prohibiting any form of land/property tax successfully obtained orders
in the courts against alleged defaulters where the courts neither were aware of the prohibition
within the aforementioned act?
.

The entire judicial system is to a great extend corrupted and we merely have to consider what
John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria stated:
From The Age

364

The corporatising of our courts

365

Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria

366

March 24, 2005

367
368

In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of the
court's independence.

369
370
371

For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and
rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had to
bite my tongue.

372
373
374
375
376

I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench, and
especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the perception of this
court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of that now because I have
been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes effective, I fear that nobody
will listen.

377
378

As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what they
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 making a reservation, E-mail
INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com, www.scribd.com/inspector-rikati

24-1-2015 Re EWOV2004-317-570- etc

379
380

can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but while I
have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's independence.

381
382
383
384

One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on
remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing both
Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial salaries and
so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking.

385
386
387

Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive officer
be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be ultimately
answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.

388
389
390

That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming
absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a
movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.

391
392
393
394
395

This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court of
plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is the third
arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is to control
and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms and the
citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.

396
397
398

Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe - as
"Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which indiscriminately
includes all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.

399
400
401
402

This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are prescribed
by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the department at its
discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in this court, apparently in
disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of court.

403
404
405
406
407

And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the
department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily avail
themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But access is
possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is the major
litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.

408
409
410
411

Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly, otherwise
than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is evolving is a
perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice, a perception
which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.

412
413
414
415
416

Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure and
its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no different
from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is simply not
the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over the years, and it
must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not 2to be subverted.

417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424

The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be,
impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all, and
ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of government.
Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a tribunal, properly
so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things flow from that. Such a
tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed terms, with the possibility
of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see that their remuneration is
fixed independently of the executive.

425
426
427
428
429

You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members
appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm when,
in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for the latter is
altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure.
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 making a reservation, E-mail
INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com, www.scribd.com/inspector-rikati

24-1-2015 Re EWOV2004-317-570- etc

430
431
432
433
434
435
436

There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising judicial
power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to this court for
a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary appointments at the
discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of tenure or, in a relatively
small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts have been remarkably free
from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be, and be seen to be, impartial and
so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to conflict or the appearance of bias.

437
438
439
440

In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals pass
like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness but in
one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is demanded
of the appointee.

441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472

John D. Phillips is retiring as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is part of his farewell address to
the court.

473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485

END QUOTE
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of liberty and safety in
regard to the processes of law, and also would have a guarantee of the equal administration of the law as it
exists. I think Mr. Isaacs will bear me out, that in the United States it has been decided that the title to equal
treatment under the law does not mean that you cannot make a law which differentiates one class of the
community from another; but, as has been decided, it means that in the administration of the laws you have
made, all the citizens shall be treated equally. And that should be so.
END QUOTE
.

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

(Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
1.

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."

END QUOTE
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 making a reservation, E-mail
INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com, www.scribd.com/inspector-rikati

10
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532

It neve r ought to be that merely because I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and (retired)

Professional advocate I somehow may succeed where others fail because they lack the extensive
knowledge about constitutional matters. We have a judiciary for this and it should be up to date
with what is constitutionally permissible or not, but it appears we regretfully lack properly
educated judiciary in constitutional issues.
.

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE

As I understand it many have even committed suicide because they had orders made against
them in violation of their constitutional rights because judiciary officers simply lacked the
understanding and even blatantly disregard the application of constitutional provisions.
I refer to Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013,
S172/2012 & S179/2012, in which judges of the High Court of Australia the court held that
because the defendants had referred to constitutional issues then the matter became a federal
issue that required to be dealt under federal jurisdiction.
On that basis any issues regarding GWMWater in this matter is to be dealt with invoking federal
jurisdiction and this VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) has no powers to do
so, this as it is not a Chapter III court of the constitution invested with federal jurisdiction, this
even so it tend to ignore this limitation!
While I have referred to CreditCollect as a debt collection agency I do wish to make it very
clear that I view its conduct towards me has been beyond criticism and I view that it acted in
good faith. I hold it essential as to make clear that unlike the general modus operandi of a debt
collecting agency I had the experiences of courtesy from CreditCollect and hold it important to
acknowledge this, even so its original involvement was a distress to my wife also. Since however
I personally explained matters to one of its representatives it has refrained from pursuing matters
and as such avoided any further escalation of problems on its behalf. Hence, I provide it with
copies of most of my writings regarding GWMWater so it may likewise reconsider other cases it
acts for in regard of GWMWater or other authorities which pursues some kind of land/property
tax/charge.
I urge you hereby to have all State legislative provisions checked and amended/abolished for so
far they rely upon what effectively might be a land/property tax/charge in violation to section 3
of the LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081. And stamp duties regarding land/property
ownership might be one of them also. And obviously deal with the issues regarding the EWOV
referred to above, so it, as I view it, no longer may misled/deceive complainants?
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

533
534
535

24-1-2015 Re EWOV2004-317-570- etc

(
Awaiting your response,

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

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 making a reservation, E-mail
INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com, www.scribd.com/inspector-rikati