WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Australian Electoral Commission

5-9-2013

info@aec.gov.au
5

Cc: Mr Michael King, Returning officer, JAGAJAGA Mr Tony Abbott: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au Mr Kevin Rudd: Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au

10

Ref: 130905-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Australian Electoral Commission - COMPLAINTS

Sir, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware that the Framers of the Constitution held that even any person ineligible at the time of election to take up a seat because of s44 can still stand as a candidate. They used the example that a declared bankrupt could still stand as a candidate 15 and be validly elected provided that by the time he takes up the seat in the Parliament he no longer is a declared bankrupt. Technically, as outlined below in the quotation of an email I sent out today, any person who had his/her seat declared vacant is no longer a Member of Parliament. Hence, cannot be an “incumbent” Member of Parliament, as the seats are vacated the moment the Governor-General dissolved the House of Representatives and half of the Senate. Only after that 20 can writs be issued for “vacant’ seats”. While Mr Kevin Rudd as a Prime Minister is a Minister of the British Crown, he cannot get direct payments from the Consolidated Revenue Funds because he is not and never was employed by the Commonwealth of Australia. Not unless and until if ever at all the constitution is amended from the British Crown to some Australian Crown can a Minister be paid directly 25 from Consolidated Revenue Funds.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree. END QUOTE . Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. p1 5-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

30

35

40

45

END QUOTE Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Despite the High Court of Australia ruling in Sue v Hill there is no constitutional power for the 45 High Court of Australia to alter by back door manner or otherwise the true meaning and application of the constitution!
.

HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 50 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. END QUOTE Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 55 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN: In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this constitution. END QUOTE 60

Hence, it is immaterial if the High Court of Australia fancy any Australian Crown or Queen of Australia, as we only can recognise a British Crown.
p2 5-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

For the record the Australian Electoral Commission didn’t oppose these and other submission when I comprehensively defeated the AEC on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria and therefore is bound to accept this. I do not seek to alter the constitution rather to the contrary persist with the true meaning and 5 application of the constitution, and the AEC clearly went along with this, on 19 July 2006! Had it not its lawyers present at the court, and they could have stated it objected to certain submissions, I made and set out why! However, as it claimed it was “not in the public interest” to pursue further litigation, and oppose my “appeals” then it conceded defeat and acknowledged by this I was correct in my submissions.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union. END QUOTE
.

15

20

25

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 30 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again. We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution. END QUOTE
.

35

In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey (at p 926 of HLC (p 725 of ER)): 40 QUOTE (T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom. END QUOTE
.

45 Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. THYNNE: I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says: One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution. END QUOTE
.

50

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. THYNNE: 55 The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the p3 5-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each 5 assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority. END QUOTE 10 . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament. Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not? Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a 35 citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on. END QUOTE 40 Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. MUNRO: I do not see the necessity for considering the hon. member's proposal at the present time. I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be proud of that position. I have no 45 desire to weaken a single link binding us to that empire, whether as regards the appointment of a governor-general or anything else. END QUOTE Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 50 Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the 55 laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. END QUOTE Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST: 60 We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old p4 5-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

15

20

25

30

country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired his appointment. 5 END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 10 Mr. HOLDER: We want something which shall have two parts, which shall be democratic in the fact that it is based on the people's will, and that in it every personal unit of the population shall be recognised and his individuality preserved, and that, on the other hand, shall be a true Federation, in that each State unit shall also have its individuality preserved and its independence assured. I do not think we can afford to dispense with either of these two things. We cannot afford to dispense with the guarantee of the personal individual rights of every citizen of the Commonwealth, nor, on the other hand, can we afford to dispense with the individual or separate rights or interests of each of the separate States-if my hon. friend Mr. O'Connor prefers that term. We cannot neglect to provide for their due recognition. The next principle I shall lay down is this: That in dealing with this federal authority we should confer on it no powers which it cannot exercise more wisely and well and effectively than the States can exercise those powers. I would even go a step further, and lay down as the principle which should govern our conduct: To the States all that is local and relating to one State, to the Federal authority all that is national and inter-State. I wonder whether I can secure the absolute adherence, no matter where it may lead us, of a majority of this Convention to that principle: To the State everything that is local and relating to one State, to the Federal power everything that is national and of inter-State importance. I pass from these two general principles to a discussion of the only other preliminary I shall have to touch, and that is the question of the appointment of the representative of the British Crown in the person of the Governor-General. I do not take it that the words of the Enabling Act requiring us to frame a Constitution for a Federation "under the Crown" bind us in the matter of whether or not we shall elect our own Governor-General, because I take it that the legal bonds which bind us to the mother-country, to the great British Empire, are chiefly, first the right of veto which the Imperial authorities have over any Acts our local Legislature may pass, and which the Federal Legislature may pass, and next the right of the Imperial Legislature at any time to pass legislation which may affect us, or which may revoke any legislation affecting us. These are the great legal bonds which bind us to the British Empire. But above all this, the greater and wider, and, to my mind, much more important [start page 145] bonds than the legal bonds are those of kinship, of language, and of sympathy that must always bind us to the motherland. The mere appointment by the Crown of the Governor-General is not a real bond. That this is so is recognised to-day in that we have presiding, now and again, in the position of Acting-Governor of one or other of these colonies, gentlemen who so preside by virtue of their position upon the legal bench. In the appointment of the Governor we have only one link, and that link is again and again missing when gentlemen, owing to their legal position, temporarily occupy the office. Mr. SYMON: By vice-regal appointment. Mr. HOLDER: Yes, of course; the Commission from Her Majesty lies dormant until it is actually called into existence by the absence of the Governor; but we can at this moment, if the necessity arises, appoint a new occupant to the Supreme Court Bench, and that would qualify him to fill the office of Acting-Governor if need required it. Therefore I think it is clear that to that extent it lessens the argument that the main link that binds us to the mother-country is the appointment of the Governor, and shows that it is an argument which 45 has not half so much weight as some of the speakers would have us believe. But I take a very strong position against the election of the Governor-General by the Federation, not because I believe it would mean losing a link which binds us to England, but that we should have a man of such power and authority, derived directly from the people, that he would certainly clash with the other powers and authorities we propose to set up under this Constitution. 50 END QUOTE 40

15

20

25

30

35

And to use the High Court of Australia own words:
.

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 55 June 1999) Last Updated: 22 September 2000 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. p5 5-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

60

5

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." 2. The application which this Court has given to some words and phrases of the Constitution would almost certainly have surprised most of those who participated in the making of the Constitution. Most of them could not have foreseen the extent to which the application of those words and phrases would enable the Commonwealth to dominate the federation and reduce the power of the States to control their domestic affairs. But that does not mean that this Court's interpretation of our Constitution has lacked fidelity to the intentions of those who made the Constitution. 3. Where the interpretation of individual words or phrases of the Constitution is in issue, the current doctrine of the Court draws a distinction between connotation and denotation or, in other words, between meaning and application. Thus, in Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association[55] Windeyer J said: "We must not, in interpreting the Constitution, restrict the denotation of its terms to the things they denoted in 1900. The denotation of words becomes enlarged as new things falling within their connotations come into existence or become known. But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes." END QUOTE
.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DPP v Field [2001] VSC 472 (29 November 2001) QUOTE 45 24. Section 35 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides that in the interpretation of the provision of an Act consideration may be given to any matter or document that is relevant, including reports of proceedings in any House of the Parliament. The section further provides that a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying an Act is to be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object. Those provisions are well known. 50 QUOTE

And:
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) 55 QUOTE For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould. 60 END QUOTE p6 5-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942 QUOTE Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham, "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a 10 law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio. END QUOTE 15

5

Therefore, it is immaterial what the High Court of Australia may have ruled in Sue v Hill because simply it went beyond its jurisdiction as the constitution doesn’t allow it to amend the true meaning and application of the constitution but merely interpret the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and this it failed miserably to do so.

What this means is that b y s44 of the constitution anyone not being a British national is not eligible to be a candidate in the federal election!

If you check back on my numerous submissions that were at the time in writing before the 20 County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 then you find I canvassed this all, and again the AEC nor any Attorney-General invited to intervene bothered to challenge this and therefore for all purposes and intent all accepted my submissions for being correct in constitutional law.
.

25

For the record on 7 July 2006, prior to the hearing I published the following book:
.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3

30

In ”CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC”copies of submissions to the County Court of Victoria (19 July 2006) and other document were included!

Therefore, it was litigated and again the AEC lawyers submitted that it was not in the “public interest’ to oppose my appeals. hence, it by this unreservedly conceded not only defeat but also 35 to the correctness of my submissions. Therefore, I view that the AEC is bound to comply with \the courts decision to uphold my appeals and also refrain from fining anyone not voting and not allowing anyone to be a candidate who fails to hold the British nationality. As I also pointed out at the time the writs were issued on 8 October 2001 at 6 pm, but in error that the Special Gazette Officer had been off work in the morning he didn’t attend to the placing of the proclamation in the Gazette until the afternoon, too late for the 12.59am dissolving the House of Representatives and proroguing the Parliament at 12.00 and as the Printer (obtained under FOI) didn’t sent out copies of the Special Gazette until some on 9 October 2001 and others 45 on 10 October 2001, then the writs were issued prior to the proclamation having been published.
40
.

The magistrate on 17 November 2005 making known that if Mr John Howard was not validly elected in 2001 then the election in 2004 could neither have been valid. As my book underlines with the documents included this was one of my core arguments, that 50 there never was a valid election on 10 November 2001, because the writs had been issued prior to the Proclamation having been published in the Gazette. And for the record, when counsel for the AEC on 16 November 2005 filed, against my overruled objection, the Special Gazette noting the date being 8 October 2001, I then pointed out it was not a valid Gazette and contrary to the evidence I had. Counsel then withdrew the exhibited Gazette but as he had filed it I was able to 55 rely upon it, irrespective of it having been withdrawn. Therefore not a single candidate was validity elected on 10 November 2001, and this I relied upon also during the appeals before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006! And again the AEC didn’t oppose this.
p7 5-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

This is and remains a life and relevant issue (albeit not relating to the AEC), for that I am still pursuing that Mr John Howard as Prime Minister but not validly elected to the Parliament had his appointment terminated after 3 months, as with any other Minister!
.

5 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) QUOTE 64 Ministers of State The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the 10 Governor-General in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth. 15 Ministers to sit in Parliament After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. END QUOTE 20

Therefore, constitutionally we had no government after 3 months and neither then was Mr John Howard Prime Minister when he unconstitutionally authorised the armed invasion Into Iraq. Relevant also is, that therefore at the 2004 federal election “technically” those who were purportedly elected in 2001 were not and were neither standing for re-election! why then did the AEC allow them a square above the line, etc, where even the application of the legislation could not be used?

25

While perhaps in some so to say third world country one may expect some gross incompetence, 30 as well as in dictatorships and tyrannical governments, surely in the Commonwealth of Australia we ought to do better.
.

QUOTE( my earlier sent out email to sokme person(s) 35 it was interesting to read the article about the pensions for politicians, but it omitted a very critical issue and that is that none of them are entitled, that is constitutionally, once they leave their seat in the Parliament! As the Framers of the Constitution made clear only one person can be paid regarding a seat. Not a single Minister is in the employ of the Commonwealth of Australia, ass they are in the employment of the British Crown. Now you may also understand why they are pushing their barrel for a republic, because then they can nicely justify their current rip offs. 40 No former member of parliament can be entitled upon a so called re-settling compensation when they loose their seat in an election because their seats were declared "vacant' when the Governor-General published the proclamation to dissolve the House of Representatives and half of the Senate. They no longer were holding any seat in the Parliament from that day! And, therefore you cannot recall Parliament during an election because other then half the senate ( except in a double dissolution) there are no other Members of Parliament existing. Ministers of the Crown continue in their positions until the Governor-General appoints a new government. . what this means is that not a single former member of the House of Representatives is entitled to use taxpayers funded trips for electioneering, etc. Also, the provisions in the electoral Act that a sitting member can have a square above the line, etc, cannot apply to any former Member of the House of Representatives and any Senator standing for re-election as technically they are no longer Senators the moment their seat were declared vacant. I decided not to stand as an INDEPENDENT candidate in this election because I view the AEC (Australian electoral commission) fails to provide for fair and proper elections,. In my view it should have taken each and every former Member of Parliament on for failing to declare the monies they were paid and the benefits they had from the time the seats were declared vacant until the election were held. This, as this in my view was a political income for election purposes, albeit unconstitutional. p8 5-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

45

50

55

. We should pursue a reform the AEC and pursue that its primary task is to act within the confines of the constitution and refuse to apply any legislative provision that conflicts with the constitution. any Member of parliament or former member of parliament (since their seats were declared vacant) must be considered to be ineligible for the election by s44 as they are not receiving an "allowance" but a "salary" set by the Remuneration Tribunal instead of by the Parliament itself, as is constitutionally required. hence, I view that the AEC should challenge the validity of any Member of Parliament standing as a candidate because of s44 of the constitution! Again, while Ministers of the Crown are ordinary excluded from s44 they are not where they are in fact paid directly from Consolidated Revenue funds as their salary is payable to the British Crown and the Monarch then determines where, payment shall be made in what format to the relevant Minister of the Crown. As such, they are not and never were entitled to any payments directly from consolidated Revenuer Funds! It is like a cashier putting her/his hands in the till to pay her/him selves. For this, there is no such thing as a "sitting Member of Parliament' standing for re-election because the moment the writs are issued the seats are vacant and the Member of Parliament is no more and neither entitled to any further "allowances" or other payments. . I doubt the AEC would have the guts to hold those politicians accountable, who are running around at taxpayers expenses on an election that should not b e at taxpayers cost at all. 20 it is an unfair advantage to people like myself, when I was an INDEPENDENT candidate, because they are as I view it defrauding the taxpayers of monies not entitled upon. . As such, forget about any purported (former) Member of Parliament validly standing for election because not a single one of them are entitled to be a candidate due to s44 of the constitution. 25 As I proved on 19 July 2006 to comprehensively defeat the Australian Electoral Commission in the County Court of Victoria on FAILING TO VOTE, it simply seems to lack the competence and ability to conduct fair and proper elections. Also question the fact how can we have an shadow minister where there is not such provision in the constitution? Again, a gigantic rip off upon the taxpayers and the AEC should have held that anyone claiming and to be paid an allowance or salary pertaining a shadow ministry is falling within s44 of the constitution. This as any Minister (advisor to the Governor-General) must be a member of the Federal Executive, which a "shadow Minister'; (meaning the opposition) is not! This is why I have for so long promoted the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don't forget the hyphens!) as a constitutional council to advise the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts, on constitutional issues (see my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues. the AEC to me seems to have neither the intelligence or competence or simply so to say hasn't got the balls for it. As usual there is more to this all! . Gerrit 40 END QUOTE

5

10

15

30

35

As I stated in my previous correspondence:
QUOTE It is to me incomprehensible how the AEC specifically appointed as to conduct elections seems to be so incompetent to supervise matters appropriately, and allowed this gross deception to be ongoing continue 45 upon the Australian electors. END QUOTE

Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
50 (

Our name is our motto!)

p9 5-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful