1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM

20-7-2015

C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Cc:

10

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

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Bronwyn.Bishop.MP@aph.gov.au
Ref; 20150720-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM-Re Bronwyn Bishop Speakers abuse of funds

15

20

25

Tony,
I understood from media reports from what you stated that Speaker Bronwyn Bishop is on
probation.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I wish to remind you that the Speakers position is not depending
upon who is the Prime Minister. All you may argue is that you may have the majority of
Members in the House of Representatives but it would be foolish for Members eve n if they are
of the coalition to have you dictating whop shall be the Speaker. A Prime Minister has no
constitutional power in the House of Representatives, as he/she is equal in power as any other
Member. The quotations below ought to indicate that the Speaker/president position is to deal
with matters as to what is constitutionally appropriate and even can seek clarification from the
High Court of Australia.
.

A Speaker is employed in a political office but must rule on issues as a Speaker without
any favouritism to any political party on issues, albeit can make a casting vote is votes are tied
between those voting for and against an issue being voted upon.
30

One should notice from below But, as against the other sub-clauses, looking at it as a matter of English, and
as clearly defining the rights in the Constitution, it seems to me that they ought not to be disturbed. .
.

35

40

What should be understood is that a Speaker/President must be ruling impartial and be seen
to rule impartial. The Speaker as well as the president must therefore not get involved in political
parties issues. Hence in my view Bronwyn Bishop as a Speaker cannot claim (as I understood
was being done.) that she was attending a Liberal party fund raising event with a helicopter ride
as taxpayers cost, because her position as a Speaker should keep away from such political
campaigns. Fancy she goes to a fund raising event of her political party that promotes a certain
issue which is in dispute with the opponent party/parties. She would implied be bias in her
rulings as result of attending to such an event.
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE

45

Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
p1
20-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard
against officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page
654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision
of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision
than the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of
parliament who was being paid 500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of
the Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament.
END QUOTE

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

As for teaching anyone about the House of Representatives (Speaker) or the Senate (President)
such kind of exercises must be without any particular party being involved. As such claiming to
attend to a political party function (raising funds for the party) in my view is a gross misuse and
abuse of the position as a Speaker/President as well as to charge such travel to and from at
taxpayers monies. Moreover, as I did criticise Joe (smoking) Hockey when a person holds an
employments then the person no longer is entitled to claim allowances.
Again: Some provision is required in order to guard against officials being paid double. When a member of
parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of
parliament lapses..

Therefore, I view Joe (smoking) Hockey was/is a thief to charge cost for staying at a residence
owned by his wife and himself. In my view, the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the
constitution the legal principle that a Member of Parliament when employed as a Minister he is
no longer entitled to the provisions ordinary applicable for a Member of Parliament. The member
no longer is a distant representative having as time to travel to the Parliament but is full; time
employed as a Minister, and therefore if he/she decides to live nearby the place of employment
or remains to live elsewhere then that is a personal decision.
Also, Members of Parliament cannot flaunt the constitution on junket trips, not a Minister and/or
Speaker/President because they can only travel within what is to travel to and from place of
employment or with ordinary members they have free travel or the travel being paid to the person
providing the same. As such, if Joe (smoking) Hockey charged for his living at a house (party
owned by himself) then who did he pay and was this declared for taxation purposes?
To me this is thieving that is far too often eventuating and you are not a stranger to the
same as I understand it.
But lets make it very clear that I understand it is not just one kind of political party doing so.
When Geoff Shaw (as a Member of the Victorian Parliament at the time) went to work in his
office away from the Victorian Parliament there was an outcry. Yet, this is precisely what
Members of Parliament not employed are to do.
As I wrote to you about in the past, when there is an election called not a single member of
parliament then can use traveling and other expenses to promote any candidate (including
herself/himself) because it is not for public purposes.
I understand you got a law degree but seems to lack to understand the principle loan, the
constitution, and it seems that Bronwyn Bishop as Speaker also lacks the competence about the
same.
Do keep in mind that a vote against Browyn Bishop to remain as speaker counter acted by those
voting to retain her I view the vote for her to remain is a vote to continue to swindle/rob the
citizens of Australia. We, the People are sick and tired of those cover-ups. If Bronwyn Bishop as
Speaker didnt understand the legal principles embedded in the constitution then she is in my
view incompetent to be a Speaker and should resign. Failing her to resign then the Parliament
should kick her out.
p2
20-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

3
I as a person who came from The Netherlands, had to learn English (my kind of Crummy
English) but seems to have mastered a far superior understanding of the true meaning and
application of the constitution then most if not all Members of Parliament do, even so they get
monies to be in the Parliament whereas I am not. No one ever paid me to study the true meaning
and application of the constitution as it simply is my interest. Those who one way or another are
being paid to attend to the Parliament should I view show a far better ability in constitutional
matters. The truth is their arrogance of being a Member of Parliament to be so to say above
ordinary citizens, which they are actually to represent, is that is the real problem! The thieving
and robbing continues when other Members of Parliament are covering up.
We had the recent revelation of paedophilia in the British Parliament as well as including judges,
and other high ranking persons. This is the problem that this cover up as I scratch your back and
then you scratch my back mentality is why we continue to have those kind of criminals in the
Parliament.
When fellow parliamentarians are willing so to say to close their eyes for this thieving of the
taxpayers then what else are they doing likewise?
To ordinary citizens the question will be if other Members of Parliament may seek to support
Bronwyn Bishop, as I view it, stealing from/defrauding the Consolidated Revenue Funds
(taxpayers) because of their own skeletons in their closets, or will they finally make a stand and
make clear that a Speaker/President being the office holder in the Parliament must be
standing as a model Member of Parliament and therefore such breaches as claimed against
Bronwyn Bishop are inexcusable.
Any claim that Browyn Bishop was advised that the travelling was permitted is no excuse, as she
as the Speaker should know the true meaning and application of the constitution and so any
implied legal principle. What if anything in my view she makes clear is that she is the Speaker
who lacks the competence to understand/comprehend the constitution and seek to delegate her
responsibilities upon others. Get rid of such a person, it my view the best solution.
It appears to me Bronwyn Bishop is more interested in pursuing political donations, etc, for the
political party she is a member of then to maintain the independence of the Speaker.
We, the people ae entitled to have a more competent person as Speaker who is willing to
understand and comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution, as to be able to
be and be seen an impartial Speaker.
The quotations below may assist to get a better understanding/perception of the role of the
Speaker and as like a Minister cannot claim allowance provisions as the Speaker is in
employment, whereas non Ministers/Speaker/President are not.
HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

40

45

50

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of
Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary
offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that really the
Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates, and
those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by the
Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown. I think
that that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere. As to the word
"person," the British Interpretation Act of 1889, which will be largely applied to the construction of this
statute by the Imperial authorities, provides that where the word "person" is used, unless the Act otherwise
provides, the word "corporation" shall be included.
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-If a man agrees to get paid for services done in Parliament, or for the
Commonwealth, and if he does the work, and, having done the work, he resigns, is there no penalty? Is there
no punishment in such a case for a man who guarantees that he will use his position in Parliament in order to
make money, and, having made it, resigns!
p3
20-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No; and there is a reason for that. If I recollect correctly there was
some provision in the Bill in Adelaide in that respect, but that provision was omitted in the sitting of the
Convention at Sydney as a matter [start page 2449] of policy. Mr. O'Connor suggests that it is quite probable
that in such a case an action would lie at common law. However that may be, the policy of inserting such a
provision was reversed in Sydney, and therefore the Drafting Committee could not frame any proposal to that
effect.
END QUOTE

10

Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Clause 49.-The Senate and the House of Representatives may each of them from time to time adopt
standing rules and orders as to the following matters:
I. The orderly conduct of the business of the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively:

15

II. The mode in which the Senate and the House of Representatives shall confer, correspond, and
communicate with each other relative to votes or proposed laws:
III. The manner in which notices of proposed laws, resolutions, and other business intended to be submitted
to the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively may be published for general information:
IV. The manner in which proposed laws are to be introduced, passed, numbered, and intituled:

20

V. The proper presentation of any proposed laws passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives
to the Governor-General for his assent: and
VI. The conduct of all business and proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives severally
and collectively.

25

Mr. WISE: It will be necessary to make an addition here to give full effect to section 8. By section 8 the
two Houses have full power to define the privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and House of
Representatives. In section 49 to give effect to that there ought to be a clause to this effect:
Maintain, regulate, and exercise their respective powers, privileges, and immunities.
Mr. BARTON: We have considered that, and I do not think it necessary.

30

35

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: The clause as it now stands clearly limits the Federal Parliament in the matters
therein mentioned. The Constitution of New South Wales limits the power of that Parliament to pass
standing orders best adapted to the ordinary conduct of the Council and Assembly respectively. On a recent
occasion a member was addressing the Chamber, and a person in the gallery began throwing stones at him
on the floor of the House. The gentleman addressing the chair was a labor member, and he was reproving
another person for having thrown stones at the labor party.
Mr. BARTON: That is a little nearer here than New South Wales.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: And a person in the gallery immediately said, "You want a stone at your head,"
and he thereupon threw two stones into the Assembly. It struck meMr. PEACOCK: What, the stones struck you?

40

45

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: No; they did not strike me. But it struck me as I sat there presiding over that
Assembly as an extraordinary thing that the Parliament there could not punish the person guilty of such an
outrage. We had to hand him over to the police, and he was brought up at the Police Court and fined twenty
shillings. It weakens the power and it weakens the influence of Parliament that it cannot control disorder
within its own doors and within its own boundaries, and if we accept these six provisions we limit the
power of Parliament to make standing orders for the purposes indicated there. Under the eighth section of
the Bill hon. members will see:
The privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives respectively, and
of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared by
the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United
p4
20-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5
Kingdom, and of the Committees and members thereof respectively, at the establishment of the
Commonwealth.
But viewing this forty-ninth clause in its restricted form, it appears to me that if we attempt to pass
Standing Orders we can only pass Standing Orders in accordance with that section. I therefore move:

That all the words after "as" in line 4 be omitted to the end of the clause in line 21, with a view of the
insertion of the words "as they or each may deem to be necessary, and all such rules and orders shall have
the force of law."
Perhaps it might be as well to put in [start page 757] what is put in the other constitutions of colonies,
namely:

10

15

Upon being assented to by the Governor. Mr. BARTON: I do not like that.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I am not particular about that, but I think at all events the Federal Parliament
ought to have power to make its own standing orders for the purpose of preventing disorder. When I say
this I do not suppose the Commonwealth Parliament would attempt to exercise control with regard to
people out of its own doors. But within our own dominion we ought to be absolute. If we summon a
witness in any of our local Parliaments to the bar of the House, he can decline to give evidence, laugh at us,
and walk away. The case I have just mentioned shows the necessity of Parliament having control over any
disorder.
Mr. TRENWITH: Anything to stop them throwing stones at labor members.

20

25

30

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In Victoria they took the matter in a wholesale manner, and passed an Act of
Parliament declaring that the Victorian Legislature had all the powers, privileges, and immunities of the
House of Commons. There was no mincing of matters there, and it was in consequence of the Parliament
of Victoria having arrested a man, and it having been decided that they had no power to do so, that
they immediately declared they had all of the powers of the House of Commons. The man, I think, was
connected with Goldsbrough's Company, and named Glass. He did something, and the Parliament
arrested him, brought him to the bar of the House, and it was declared that they had no power to do
so. In all the decisions of the Privy Council in reference to the powers of Parliament, the Privy
Council has invariably declared that Parliament has no power outside the very words of the
Constitution Act. In the own of Hampton and Fenton, I think, in Tasmania they had the audacity to
tell a great colony like Tasmania that so far as it was concerned it had no greater powers than a
municipality.
Mr. BARTON: The Speaker only had the power of a chairman of a public meeting.

35

Mr. DOUGLAS: Regarding the case alluded to by the hon. member, I happened to be present when the
decision was given. The Privy Council did not declare that the colony had no power, but that any
colonial Government, being under a Statute, would have no power beyond that Statute. The result was
that the Tasmanian Parliament passed a law giving the powers to which the hon. member has made
reference.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON: I think that the amendment which the hon. member has proposed must be
considered in connection with clause 8, page 4 of the Bill, which provides:

40

45

50

The privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives respectively, and
of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared by
the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United
Kingdom, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, at the establishment of the
Commonwealth.
If the hon. member's amendment is to include the power of punishment it will scarcely be necessary. The
effect of the decision of the Privy Council to which my hon. friend has alluded must be read in connection
with the Constitutions of the several colonies, which were affected at the time of the pronouncement of
these decisions. In New South Wales, and I think in Tasmania, what exists at the present time is a
Legislature as distinct from a Parliament. A Sovereign Parliament has punishing power. A Legislature
which is created by Act of Parliament, and with the equivalent powers conferred upon it, as they are
conferred by section 8, has, in the case of New South Wales and Tasmania, no power except such as can be
gathered from the necessary implication of the words of the Constitution. In the present instance we have
p5
20-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

passed a clause which states that the [start page 758] privileges, immunities, and powers of the Federal
Parliament shall be those declared by the Parliament, and until a declaratory Act is passed the privileges,
immunities, and powers of the House of Commons will be accepted. The power of punishment exists in the
House of Commons, and the same power would exist in the Parliament of the Commonwealth under clause
8. An outrage committed within the walls of the Federal Parliament could be punished in the same way as
in the House of Commons. If a man ventured to throw a stone into the Imperial Parliament, though
unfortunately the thrower is not always caught, it would be contempt of Parliament, and that would be a
matter to be dealt with by the Commons according to the powers, privileges, and immunities it possesses.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Has not the House of Commons power to make Standing Orders?

10

Mr. BARTON: Yes.

Sir GEORGE TURNER: Then where is the necessity for this clause?

15

20

Mr. BARTON: The necessity for it does not arise out of the powers of the Standing Orders, which are
merely regulations for the conduct of the business within the House, but out of the power of punishment in
cases where contempt is exercised by persons within the walls of Parliament. If, for instance, a person
throws a stone and the Sergeant-at-Arms can catch him he can be brought before the Parliament and can be
imprisoned or dealt with otherwise for contempt. Under the operation of the clause similar action can be
taken by the Federal Parliament, and that goes far enough. It does not require Standing Orders to deal with
the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament. They exist, and if you made Standing Orders you
would really only limit them. Under the Bill we have taken the powers, privileges, and immunities
possessed by the House of Commons.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOT: Then why do you want clause 49?

25

30

Mr. BARTON: I have already explained that, but I will return to it if my hon. friend wishes. I say in the
meantime you have already taken the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons, and
there is no necessity to pass Standing Orders with reference to them. They do not need definition in the
Standing Orders; they are not the subject of definition in the Standing Orders; they are totally different in
their whole circuit to the Standing Orders which relate to the conduct of the business of each House and its
transactions with the other House. That is not a question of the powers, privileges, and immunities of the
House of Commons, which exist independently of the Standing Orders. They have a historical application
in the House of Commons, and they can be applied to the Federal Parliament.
Mr. TRENWITH: Could they not make Standing Orders?
Mr. BARTON: The Federal Parliament, of course, will have power to make Standing Orders for
the regulation of its internal business.
Mr. TRENWITH: If we adopt clause 49 do we not restrict the power of the Federal Parliament with
regard to any Standing Orders they may make?

35

Mr. BARTON: No. You do not restrict them because you have the clause in the most general terms. My
hon. friend wishes the clause to read:
The Senate and the House of Representatives may each of them from time to time adopt Standing Orders as
they or each may deem to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have he force of law.
That is altogether too wide, as the Standing Orders would then have the effect of law outside the House.

40

45

Mr. PEACOCK: Hear, hear. That is the point.

Mr. BARTON: It is the point to which I think the hon. member was anxious to come. What we have
done is to adopt a clause giving the Federal Parliament power to pass Standing Orders for the con- [start
page 759] duct of their business, and so that there should be no doubt the power has been taken in the
widest possible words. The House of Commons does not make its Standing Orders by reason of its powers,
privileges, and immunities, but by virtue of its inherent powers as a sovereign Parliament. The Standing
Orders are for the internal regulation of the House of Commons, but my friend would like to say that the
Federal Houses may make Standing Orders for any matter it may deem necessary. This would have the
effect of passing laws without the royal assent. I ask my friend if the clause as it stands is not sufficient.
p6
20-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. HIGGINS: I am strongly of the opinion that the amendment is too wide. Section 8 gives this
Parliament all the powers, privileges and immunities which the House of Commons has and members also,
and we want no more than that. Clause 49 merely makes assurance doubly sure by providing that each
House of Parliament shall make Standing Orders for the conduct of its own business, and if the amendment
be carried as proposed it means that one House of Parliament is able to make laws although the
Constitution means that both Houses must concur in making laws. If one House can make laws it will
have a very important bearing on the liberty of the subject and the liberty of the press. The words in
the amendment are:
As each of them may doom to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have the force of laws.

10

There is no question which comes up more than that of libel, and it is important to see that one House of
Parliament shall not make any law affecting the freedom of the press in referring to the conduct of
members. Any such law ought to be framed by both Houses; but the effect of this is that one House of
Parliament is able to make laws to alter the law of libel and such matters. I think the Speaker of New South
Wales will see there is no need for this.

15

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I do not agree with Mr. Barton, when he states that this House of Parliament will
have inherent powers. The Privy Council has frequently declared that colonial Parliaments have no
inherent powers whatever. They only have the powers given to them by the Constitution Act. I think
that with clause 8 there is no need for clause 49.
Mr. PEACOCK: They have not a clause like clause 8 in their Constitution.

20

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: Then where is the necessity for clause 49? Mr. Higgins says all kinds of
things might be done with regard to the press. I have such a regard and love for the press that I
cannot realise that Parliament would do anything to injure that great body. But the hon. member
forgets that the eighth clause gives Parliament power to do what it likes with the press.
Mr. HIGGINS: But both Houses.

25

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: No. Clause 8, which has been passed, provides that the:
Privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives respectively, and of
the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared by
the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United
Kingdom.

30

No one knows what the powers of the House of Commons are. It is a fact that within the last thirty years
they have given up the practice of summoning to the bar members of the press for matters of libel.
The hon. member who is so anxious and careful about the pressMr. HIGGINS: And the outside public.

35

40

45

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I ask the hon. member who is in charge of the Bill whether there is any
necessity for clause 49, having regard to clause 48. I am anxious that the powers of Parliament should be
limited to within its walls.
Mr. GLYNN: Undoubtedly the effect of the amendment would be to deal with the outside public-that
power which does [start page 760] not exist in the House of Commons. In Stockdale v. Hansard it was
held that the courts of law were not precluded by a resolution of the House of Commons from
inquiring into the legality of the act complained of, and in delivering judgment in the Court of
Queen's Bench, Patterson (Justice) drew a distinction between powers -especially the power of
invading "the rights of others"-and privilege. These powers are matters of common law in England, and
are liable to be restrained by the Court. Under the proposed amendment, the House of Representatives
could pass a resolution that would have the force of law to an extent denied to be a similar resolution in the
House of Commons.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In deference to the opinion expressed on the other side, I am prepared to
withdraw my amendment.
Leave given.
p7
20-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

8
Clause as read agreed to.
END QUOTE

10

15

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-It is worth while considering the stages that a proposed law has
to go through, and the opportunity afforded to a member of either House or a member of the Executive to call
attention to any infraction or infringement of the Constitution. It does not require a majority of the members
of the House of Representatives to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed in the matter of procedure; it
only requires one solitary member to rise to a point of order, and the Speaker has to give a legal
interpretation of the rules of procedure. It only requires one member of the Senate to call the attention of
the President to the fact that a Bill is introduced contrary to the Constitution for that proposed law to
be ruled out of order. It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the Constitution shall be
obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the Constitution. Neither House
could pass the standing order which would give the majority power to dissent from the Speaker's or
President's ruling. The standing orders only confer certain explicit power. They give no power to either House
to pass an order which would enable its members to amend the Constitution.
END QUOTE

20

25

30

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he
pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxation
including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill going outside the
ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be
imperatively required, in the discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage
of its existence.
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE

35

Mr. TRENWITH.-And yet this clause is throwing legislation into the hands of those people who cannot
agree.
MR. REID.-The lawyers.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-The lawyers?
Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, thrusting it on them.

40

Mr. MCMILLAN.-That is one of those commonplaces which are always used. There is no clause or subclause of any Bill in the world, even if it were framed by an angel from Heaven, that would not be the subject
of litigation.
Dr. COCKBURN.-The disagreement is not legal, but constitutional.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-You do not got lawyers from Heaven.
Mr. ISAACS.-No, lawyers are sent there; they are not drawn from there.

45

50

Mr. MCMILLAN.-Looking at the clause from a common-sense point of view, are the provisions a vital
condition of the Constitution? Was it worth our while to spend days and weeks thrashing out these matters as
a compromise to the financial scheme? We are dealing now with one of the great compromises of our
financial scheme. Is that compromise, of vital importance in the financial scheme, to be made a matter of
simple procedure in the House, liable to the judgment of a Speaker or a President? Or is it, like hundreds of
other things, embedded in the Constitution, so that, if at any time there be an infringement, the law passed
would be invalid, and the High Court would protect the people of the country? Apart from all legal quibbles,
that seems to be the plain English of the fact. Speaking as an ex-Treasurer, I say that it is impossible to
safeguard you in the third section. I would be quite willing to put in the word "proposition," or "Bill," or
p8
20-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

9
anything of the kind. All the arguments used to-day are valid against the third sub-clause. But, as against the
other sub-clauses, looking at it as a matter of English, and as clearly defining the rights in the Constitution, it
seems to me that they ought not to be disturbed.

END QUOTE
Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE

10

Mr. HIGGINS.-Ought you not to have the same phrase in sub-section (2) as you have in sub-section (3) of
clause 45?

15

Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. That would get over the difficulty. If in sub-section (2) of clause 46 you put an express
reference to a certain class of insolvency, that must exclude by inference any other class of insolvency. There
is another point, and this is also a very serious one, to which the Premier of Victoria drew my attention before
lunch. Sub-section (3) of clause 46 provides that the seat of a senator or member of the House of
Representatives is to become vacant if hedirectly or indirectly accepts or receives any fee or honorarium for work done or service rendered by him for
and on behalf of the Commonwealth while sitting as such member.

20

No exception is made to meet the case of a Minister of the Crown. There is provision made elsewhere in
the Constitution for the payment of salary to Ministers for services rendered to the Commonwealth,
which might include his services as a senator. Clause 48A provides thatUntil the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator, and each member of the House of Representatives,
shall receive for his services an allowance of 400 a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his
seat.

25

The allowance spoken of there might be regarded as an honorarium, or as a fee, but it is an allowance for
"services," which is the word used in sub-section (3) of clause 46.
END QUOTE

30

35

40

45

50

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There are, of course, many formal matters relating to both houses, such as the election of president and
speaker, disqualifications, the issue of writs, elections, and so on, with which I shall not on this occasion
trouble the Convention. It is provided, then, that each member of either house shall have an annual
allowance for his services, which is proposed to be fixed in the meantime at 500 a year. The ordinary
disqualifications are inserted as to members holding offices of profit, with the exception of ministers of the
Crown, or becoming public contractors and other similar provisions.
END QUOTE
Hansard 21-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. TRENWITH: I mean Tasmania. I was pointing out that the instincts of our people tend towards
payment of members of Parliament for their work. My hon. friend, Sir William Zeal, interjected that we have
free railway passes. I would remark that any person who knows anything about travel must recognise
that it carries with it a large amount of expense. Those who are here, away from their homes, know
that if they were getting 400 a year for this work, they would be losing money, and they would not
even be reimbursed for the expenditure incurred. Those who urge that the amount should be left as
proposed in the Bill, are not in favor of payment of members, but are simply favorable to reimbursing
members for the disbursements they make in connection with the performance of their duties.
Mr. HIGGINS: I was always in favor of payment of members.
Mr. TRENWITH: I feel confident that my hon. friend Mr. Higgins could not have looked thoroughly at
the question or he would not have spoken as he did.

p9
20-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: He is losing now ten times as much as he will ever get for being here, but he is
bearing it cheerfully.

10

Mr. TRENWITH: There are some who could not afford to lose anything at all. Parliament is to be
composed, as it ought to be, of representatives of all sections of the community. There must be in Parliament
some who cannot afford to lose anything at all, and who must be paid for their services, and if those services
are worth having, there ought to be adequate remuneration for them. I sincerely hope that the higher figure
will be [start page 1034] adopted, not because I believe in extravagance, but because I believe that any lesser
sum will not pay members of Parliament for their work.
Question-That the word "four," proposed to be struck out, stand part of the question-put. The Committee
divided.
Ayes, 26; Noes, 9. Majority, 17.
END QUOTE

15

20

Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Clause 3. The annual salary of the governor-general shall be fixed by the Parliament from time to time, but
shall not be less than ten thousand pounds, and the same shall be payable to the Queen out of the
consolidated revenue fund of the commonwealth. The salary of a governor-general shall not be diminished
during his continuance in office.
Mr. BARTON: I propose to omit the words "the same" as being quite unnecessary. The alteration will, I
think, improve the bill.
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: I should like to see all the words after "from time to time" omitted, for I do not
see why we should fix the amount at 10,000. I therefore move:

25

That the words "but shall not be less than ten thousand pounds" be omitted.
Mr. GILLIES: I should like to know from the hon. member the object of omitting the words. Is it that
there shall be no salary at all?
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: No; it is that the federal parliament shall be left perfectly free to deal with
the question of salary itself.

30

An HON. MEMBER: I suppose the hon. member would do the same with the ministers?
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: I should do exactly the same with the ministers!

35

40

45

50

Mr. MUNRO: I feel that the hon. member, Sir Harry Atkinson, cannot have considered what he proposes
to do. The governor-general must be appointed before the parliament is called into existence, and does the
hon. member think that any one will take the office without some assurance that he will get a salary of some
sort? Surely the governor-general ought to know Something about the office be is to fill and the emolument
attached to, the position! If the amendment be made the result will be that the appointment will be made
without any assurance as to the emolument which the holder is to receive. The hon. member says he will
make a similar proposal with regard to the ministers of the Crown. I venture to say that the two proposals are
really unwise, and that we ought now to attach some decent salary to the office giving power to the
parliament to vary it, but not to reduce it during the term of office of the gentleman appointed afterwards. My
conviction is that a salary of 10,000 is altogether inadequate for the office. My feeling is that the gentleman
to be appointed ought [start page 579] to be equal to the gentleman appointed as governor-general of India.
He ought to be a gentleman capable of being a cabinet minister in England, and for that purpose the
salary ought to be very much larger than what is proposed. I do not think it is to the advantage of the
colonies to hawk this position about in such a way that no man of good standing or position will take it.
When the Constitution of Victoria was agreed to many years ago, I think the population of the colony
was about only 250,000, and yet they fixed the governor's salary at 10,000, with an allowance of
5,000, making it 15,000 in all. Since then it has been reduced to 10,000 a year, but a house is
provided furnished, so that practically the emolument comes to 15,000 a year now. Now, this
Convention, representing the whole of Australia, is going to give the governor-general a salary equal to what
is given to the Governor of Victoria at the present time.
p10
20-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

11
Mr. CLARK: You will reduce yours!

10

15

20

Mr. MUNRO: No, we do not intend to reduce ours. We think the Governor of Victoria is entitled to the
salary, and perhaps more, if we could afford it. At any rate, I think that instead of striking out these words,
and making the amount indefinite-in fact, making no provision at all-the words ought to be struck out with
the view of increasing the amount very considerably.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Another reason why the words should not be struck out is not only the
importance of the first governor-general knowing how much be is to get-a very important consideration in
choosing him-but that the federal parliament might simply by reducing the salary cut the connection with
Great Britain altogether. Supposing that it were to reduce the salary to 100 or 1,000 a year! That is the
reason why in all the constitution acts there has been the reservation of a fixed sum, which is made payable
to her Majesty, so that she has always money to pay her governor-general, and therefore can always
secure the appointment in the country of her representative with an adequate salary. I agree with the
hon. member, Mr. Munro, that the salary is too small, having regard to the salary given to the Governor of
Victoria.
Sir JOHN BRAY: I think it is desirable to fix the salary of the first governor-general. The clause says that
the salary shall not be less than 10,000. It is very possible, I think, that that expression may lead to very
serious misunderstanding. It is an intimation to the governor-general that he shall get 10,000 a year, and
probably a good deal more than that. He ought to know when appointed what his salary is to be, and I think,
therefore, that the salary of the first governor-general should be fixed in the bill. The words "but shall not be
less than" should therefore be omitted.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That would enable the federal parliament to reduce the salary to 1,000!

25

30

Sir JOHN BRAY: No, because the clause provides that the salary shall not be diminished during the
governor's continuance in office. But I am astonished to hear it suggested that the federal parliament would
be so supremely ridiculous as to fix a nominal salary for a governor-general. It is to my mind utterly out of
the question to imagine that such would be the case. If we leave the clause as it stands we say to the federal
parliament, "We cannot trust you to fix the salary; we will fix it at not less than 10,000, whatever the
circumstances of the federal government may be." Surely if we give the federal government the powers
which it is proposed to give them we can trust them to see that proper provision is made for the salary of the
governor-general. I think we should fix the salary, of the first [start page 580] governor-general at 10,000,
leaving it to the federal government to fix the salary subsequently.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The hon. member, Sir John Bray, surely could not have heard my argument.
Does he suggest that the framers of the constitutions of the various colonies did not understand their
business? This reservation in regard to the salary of governors is made in the whole of the acts.
Sir JOHN BRAY: But there is power to alter the act!

35

40

Mr. GILLIES: Only by a certain majority!

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The salary cannot be diminished unless by an amendment of the act, and
that is the object of the reservation. The idea is to secure the means of providing a representative of the
Queen in the colony with an adequate salary. I will put this illustration. If you give to the federal
parliament absolute power to reduce the salary, some persons may be constantly endeavouring to earn
a little cheap popularity by proposing reductions. You will have continual agitations for the reduction
of the salary to 8,000, or 6,000 or less. It would, perhaps, be regarded as a very popular move on the
part of some persons.
END QUOTE

45

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE

50

Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for
his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other
provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred
pounds.
p11
20-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

12
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.

Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!

Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those
colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement
of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are
actually paid a salary for their work, which they are not.

10

Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say
that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
move as an amendment:
That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

15

20

25

30

35

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654]
Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that
kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than
the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of
parliament who was being paid 500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of
the Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational
manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own
judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are likely to do well
to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give proper attention to further work tonight. I should like to say a word or two in reference to what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in
regard to the absence of provision on matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting
committee was concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution
with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the commonwealth in its first
session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great number of other matters of that kind. We have,
therefore, given them power to deal with this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a
payment of members bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual
allowance for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at 500.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.

40

END QUOTE

I look forwards to your reply addressing the issues I raised.

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
45

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

(
Awaiting your response,

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

p12
20-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati