Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC 26-8-2010

Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia

5 Canberra
governor-general@gg.gov.au
.
Ref: various constitutional issues
FORMAL COMPLAINT, etc
10 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Madam,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I consider matters as to the true intention of the Framers of the
Constitution.
15 .
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+p
arliament%22#fn50
QUOTE
20 Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the
search for the intention of its makers[51].
END QUOTE
My complaint is against both Ms Julia Gillard and Mr Tony Abbott as well as what appears to
25 involve three INDEPENDENTS named Tony Windsor, bob Katter and Rob Oakeshot and a
Australian Green elected Member of Parliament Mr Adam Bandt as to publicly causing a
defamation and conduct unbecoming to the Office of the Governor-General.
For example, news reports showed Ms Julia Gillard using the office of the Prime minister
handing over folders to the three forenamed INDEPENDENT elected members of parliament and
30 stating as I understood it (has achieved in their electorate” referring to what the ALP dominated
government did and she also appeared to comment in regard of the West Australian in current
still undecided electorate to state “plans for his constituency”. As such Ms Julia Gillard is using
the Office of the Prime Minister to indicate that she is not at all acting within the constitutional
frame work of the Constitution to govern for the “whole” of the Commonwealth of Australia but
35 that she is having special deals for particular electorates (known as pork barrelling). The Framers
of the Constitution specifically sought to avoid such kind of conduct by insisting that for any
deviation from the “whole” of the Commonwealth in trade and commerce there “shall” be a
Inter-State Commission and it alone could based on what might be in the best interest of each
particular State by non elected officials to be decided what was to be relevant for each particular
40 State. What it now comes down to is that both Ms Julia Gillard and Mr Tony Abbott and some
other Members of parliament aforementioned have indicated that not the governor-General shall
decide who shall be the advisors (Ministers) for the Governor-General but that they themselves
decide who they shall dictate to the Governor-General who shall govern.
.
45 In my view a Governor-General cannot permit this kind of abuse and misuse of the Office of the
Prime Minister and neither tolerate that any Member of Parliament gets involved in this.

26-8-2010 Page 1 Appointment of Prime Minister, etc

PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
 There is a distinct difference as to a Member of Parliament being elected to the Parliament to
represent a particular constituency versus to dictate or being involved to dictate to the Governor-
General who shall be the advisor to the governor-General and by this interfere and/or undermine
with the prerogative powers of the governor-General.
5 .
We saw this media report where the INDEPENDENTS were seeking a certain list of demands
being attended to by the Ms Julia Gillard and also Mr Tony Abbott, albeit Mr Tony Abbott did
indicate to reserve his views in relation to costing of his promises during election. Again, what
either ms Julia Gillard and/or Mr Tony Abbott may or may not have promised during an election
10 is immaterial as to who shall be the advisor of the Governor-General because the constitution
doesn’t permit for an election of the Prime Minister or for the election of a Minister on the basis
of what was promised during an election campaign. Indeed, a candidate during an election may
so to say promises the world but after elected may found a drastic change in economical or other
circumstances that there might be a total turn about of what the person subsequently of being
15 elected might vote for versus what was promised during an election.
Hence, one cannot tie down any group of elected politicians to what they may have promised
because it would interfere with the freedom of elected members of parliament how to vote on
each and every Bill. This is what both Ms Julia Gillard and Mr Tony Abbott as well as some
other aforementioned are currently engaged in.
20 .
It is constitutionally permissible for elected Members of Parliament to seek to work out who
shall form a government AFTER the Governor-General has commissioned a person to form a
government but not prior to it. As such, hypothetically if the Governor-General were to appoint
myself as Prime Minister then the onus would be upon me to seek to achieve enough persons to
25 join me as a government irrespective if this was or wasn’t including the majority of the House of
Representatives. This, as Members of Parliament as representatives for their constituencies
cannot trade away their responsibilities towards their respective constituencies merely to gain
political advantages. Each person who joins a government formation must do so apart of political
bias as while voting on Bills may be on basis of political views being an advisor and as such
30 heading a Department must be without political interference as otherwise the Governor-General
is being advised not by its advisors but by whomever may donate large sums of monies to a
particular advisor (Minister) what shall or shall not be done by the government.
.
The constitutional structure is that the Parliament and only the parliament determines what
35 powers an executive Government shall have, by providing legislative provisions and within those
powers alone can a Government of the Day operate. As such if a government of the Day
operates, in care taking mode or otherwise, in conflict of its powers then the Governor-General is
there to ensure that the Governor-General takes appropriate action against those offending the
RULE OF LAW which may include the removal/withdrawal of the commission to act as an
40 advisor (Minister) to the Governor-General. As such the Ms Julia Gillard now indicating to use
the treasury department for costing of what her political party offered during the election is using
the treasury Department for political purposes and so an abuse of this Department. It is not the
purpose of the treasury Department to engage in political matters as such. Neither is it relevant
and indeed permissible as to use the treasury Department for purposes as to interfere in the
45 prerogative powers exercised by the Governor-General. Hence, the treasury Department should
not be permitted to get involved in any costing of promises because they are made for purpose of
elections and has nothing to do with who shall govern or indeed who the Governor-General shall
in her discretion determine who shall be commissioned to form a government.
Constitutionally it is permitted for Members of Parliament to seek to so to say get into horse-
50 trading conduct where it comes to passing Bills that are before the Parliament but it never can
and neither should be to give powers to any Member of Parliament to get involved in to decide
who shall be the advisor to the governor-General or who shall be commissioned to be the Prime
Minister of for that any other Minister. The Governor-General may very well elect to appoint

26-8-2010 Page 2 Appointment of Prime Minister, etc

PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
 advisors to act as Ministers from different political background as after all the Governor-General
and the Governor–General alone determines who shall be her advisors. The Constitution
specifically doesn’t refer to “Governor-General in council” as such.
.
5 In my view by the conduct displayed by the relevant persons referred to above each and everyone
of them are in my view not competent to be a proper advisor (Minister) to the Governor-General
because each and everyone have made a spectacular that they can get involved dictating the
Governor-General how to exercise her prerogative powers. As such what each and everyone of
them indicated is that they can do, so to say, wheeling and dealing and perhaps involve what is
10 known as pork barrelling, as to get enough Members of parliament to join them as being a
dominated force in the parliament and hence dictate to the Governor-General who shall be
commissioned to become Prime Minister, etc.
.
In my view the Governor-General should take immediate action as to stop this kind of
15 inappropriate conduct by the persons referred to above because it is unbecoming to the office of
the Prime Minister and unbecoming to the Office of the Governor-General as well as
unconstitutional for any Member of Parliament to be engaged in such matters.
.
As I indicated there is a need for an OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN under direct control of the
20 governor-General as to avoid political bias interfering with its independence as to advise what is
constitutionally appropriate because obviously the Constitution Policy Unit now advising the
government of the Day appears to be unable to provide appropriate advise for this.
.
In my view the scandalising of the Office of the governor-General now directly and/or indirectly
25 displayed by various Members of Parliament that somehow they can dictate to the Governor-
General how prerogative powers are to be exercised should not be permitted to continue and it
may very well be that as Governor-General you may not permit those involved to take up a seat
in the Parliament. As perhaps unbeknown to electors and indeed those in the parliament that
while the electors elect a representative to the parliament it is not at all so to say a stone clad
30 guarantee that such elected person actually then becomes a member of parliament!
For example in the woods case the High Court of Australia nullified the appointment of Senator
Wood dure to certain irregularities. As such what an election means is that the person elected is
deemed to be the most suitable person the constituency may prefer to represent them but then
other constitutional provisions such as s.44 or others may prevent this person to be elected by the
35 Governor-General to take up a seat. For example, the Framers of the Constitution debated at
length that the electorate may vote for a person who constitutionally may not be permissible to be
a Member of Parliament. As they indicated the eligibility may or may not be known before an
election was held. It may very well be that a candidate is elected on the very day a court may
have a special sitting declaring the candidate a bankrupt or may declare the person bankrupt days
40 after being elected and declared by the electoral commission to be the elected person and yet this
person then still couldn’t take up a seat in the parliament because of s.44.
The fact that the Governor-General at the time had elected Mr Wood as Senator was irrelevant as
the Governor-General is bound by the constitution to act within the confines of the constitution
and as such the moment it became clear Mr Wood was ineligible to be a Member of the
45 Parliament then the appointment by the Governor-General was without legal force.
.
There is a distinct difference between being elected as a member of parliament and that of being
a member of the government. We cannot have that some single Member of the Parliament can
dictate government policy. That is for the governor-General to determine if this is within the
50 RULE OF LAW. The Governor-General cannot interfere with political decisions but can
interfere with any conduct by any advisor (Minister) that is unlawful, indeed is obligated to do so
as a Minister cannot be permitted to act as a dictator or otherwise disregard the RULE OF
LAW.
26-8-2010 Page 3 Appointment of Prime Minister, etc
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
 What now appears to be going on is that some INDEPENDENT and Australian Green Members
of Parliament are seeking not to just exercise their voting powers as to what Bill shall or shall not
be passed through the Parliament but in fact how a Government of the Day shall or shall not be
permitted to govern within its legislative powers provided by the Parliament and this is beyond
5 the powers of a Member of Parliament. It would interfere with the separation of powers of the
Executives and the Parliament also as well as the prerogative powers of the governor-General.
.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the governor-General couldn’t interfere in the
daily running of governance that was exercised within the powers permitted by the Parliament.
10 As such the Governor-General is bound to observe that any legislative powers provided within
the framework of the constitution is freely permissible exercised by those who are commissioned
to govern as Ministers.
.
There was this suggestion as I understood it by ALP advisor Mr Bruce Hawker that perhaps
15 people be appointed to act as Ministers not elected and not having voting powers but still
accountable to the Parliament but are appointed by the Prime Minister. This kind of conduct
would be unconstitutional because the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any such
appointment would be for the Governor-General (not Governor-General in council” to be made.
If for example the Governor-General were to appoint myself, even so not elected to the
20 parliament, for up to three months as Prime Minister then effectively I would be heading what
ever Department I was appointed to and be responsible to the Parliament but cannot exercise any
voting power in the parliament. As such what I understood Mr Bruce Hawker (Labor strategist)
to propose, as it came down to this, is the actual removal of the prerogative powers of the
Governor-General and hand it over to the Prime Minister!
25 .
In my view a Governor-General cannot permit this kind of conduct to continue as it causes a
misconception amongst the constituents as to what really is or are the powers of the Governor-
General and indeed undermines and place in question the standing of a Governor-General.
.
30 What certainly is being displayed is that there appears to be no one in the Parliament (elected by
the latest election) who has a clue as to what is constitutionally applicable. Obviously those
referred to above haven’t got a clue as they are bubbling on about some kind of arrangement they
can achieve as to who shall govern even so this is for the Governor-General and the Governor-
General alone to determine. In my view Ms Julia Gillard is abusing and misusing her current
35 position as caretaking Prime Minister in a manner to so to say undermine the prerogative powers
of the Governor-General. She is not at all engaged in seeking to so to say cement the passing of a
Bill though the Parliament as to perhaps secure some legal powers for the government of the Day
to act appropriately but rather is abusing and misusing her powers for ulterior purposes such as to
basically dictate the Governor-General who to appoint as advisors (Ministers). This so to say
40 pork barrelling has gone long enough and is a direct result of the unconstitutional abolishment of
the Section 101 Inter-State Commission in 1987 and I view this also must be stopped!
We cannot tolerate that what essential may be a form of terrorism upon the Australian electors;
some Members of Parliament are going to dictate who shall govern the Commonwealth of
Australia and in what circumstances pending certain unconstitutional concessions. Again, the
45 Federal government can only exercise its governance powers for the “whole” of the
Commonwealth and any trade and commerce powers to be used other then for the “whole” of the
Commonwealth can only be exercised by the Section 101 Inter-State Commission and no other.
Hence the question is why Ms Julia Gillard didn’t have an Inter-State Commission where as the
Framers of the Constitution made clear there always MUST be an Inter-State Commission? I will
50 refrain from quoting relevant passages as to avoid this correspondence to be of great length but
can assure you I have set this out already extensively in my books published in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues and can present
them to you if that is desired.
26-8-2010 Page 4 Appointment of Prime Minister, etc
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
 .
It is obvious that political parties do not seek my assistance because my views are expressed
without political motivations because my concern is as to the proper interpretation and
application of the constitution, and it makes in that regard not one of iota difference to me if the
5 constitution is amended by any referendum because it is not for me to determine the context of
the constitution as that is for the electors to decide by referendums, but rather what is provided
for and how it is applied. Hence, a parliament may provide legislation within constitutional
framework and a Government of the Day may nevertheless not exercise such a constitutional
valid legislative power such as the former land Tax Act that was effectively abolished in 1952
10 however there is no constitutional power for a reversal of legislative powers from the
Commonwealth to the States and as such once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to
“Land Tax” then it became an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power and as such the
States never again can exercise such legislative powers as for example s.51(xxxvii) allows a
reference of legislative powers from the States to the Commonwealth but not visas versa!
15 .
I promote myself as using “Crummy English” (not being my native language) and proud thereof
and when representing parties in the courts/tribunals not as a lawyer but as a Professional
Advocate, Attorney, CONSTITUTIONALIST, etc, I am proud upon the fact I can do so
successfully despite my so to say “Crummy English” because my lack on proper English is well
20 overcome by my desire and ability to understand and comprehend what is constitutionally
permissible and what is not.
.
If you desire to have communication with me then do not hesitate to contact me so appropriate
arrangements can be made for this and again my views are expressed non-politically as a
25 CONSTITUTIONALIST. In my view this is the kind of advice you should have been provided
with in the first place by your constitutional advisors but I doubt they really
understand/comprehend what I did set out above as being constitutionally applicable and so how
then can they give you appropriate advise one may ask?
.
30 A copy of this document will be published also for the electors to be aware of what I write about.
.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

.
(Our name is our motto!)
35 .

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

26-8-2010 Page 5 Appointment of Prime Minister, etc

PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com