You are on page 1of 11

1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM

5

8-1-2015

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

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
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Jessdica Marszalek Jessica.marszalek@news.com.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au

10

15

Ref; 20150108-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM-Re election issues

20

25

30

35

40

Tony,
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my first concern always is the true meaning and
application of the constitution.
As you may be aware I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia on the issue
of compulsory voting after a 5 year epic legal battle before the County Court of Victoria on 19
July 2006.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE

45

Constitutional interpretation
1.

50

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:

p1
8-1-2015
© 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

2
"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."

5
END QUOTE

10

15

20

25

30

The Framers of the Constitution did make known that the method of electing members of
parliament should be left to the Commonwealth of Australia regarding federal parliament.
Obviously when it comes to major political parties they desire to gain ultimate power when in
office. Not because it is in the interest of the “general community” but to pursue to stay in power
as like a dictatorship.
Members of Parliament are elected on a election system that may or may not be suitable to
certain political parties. When they are upcoming political parties they may desire the existing
system but as they broaden their numbers of Members of Parliament they may desire to have the
system changed so as to prevent other newcomers to get elected. As such, no matter which
electoral system one may have in place it always will suit some and not others.
It is wrong to argue that the Senate must be within the powers of large political parties as
Senators are elected to represent their respective States and never, I repeat never should be part
of any political movement that is in the House of Representatives. This as the House of
Representatives is a People’s House. That is why the Government must be held accountable to
the House of Representatives.
The Governor-General ultimately decides who he shall commission to form a government, albeit
by convention it generally is the political party or a coalition that will be in government, but the
Governor-General is not at all bound by this convention. Indeed, (within s64 of the constitution)
he could commission me to form a government, regardless that I am not a Member of Parliament.
When one consider the constitutional provisions of a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and a joint
sitting of both Houses of Parliament if a bill, including g taxation and Appropriation bills
(budget) fails to pass twice then clearly a budget should be handed down say at least 6 months
prior to the commencement of the new financial year.
.

35

40

45

50

This didn’t eventuate in 2013 and one can seed the problems that followed as even now certain
bills never were passed in 2014 and we are already in 2015.
While there can be a blame put against the Senators not passing certain Bills constitutionally
however they are doing their job not to do so if in their opinion it is inappropriate to pass a
certain number of bills.
Governments are not elected, as there is no such ballot, at least to my knowledge, to elect a
Prime Minister or for that any other Minister. No one in government can therefore claim to have
been elected on a particular mandate because all any candidate in an election does is to put
forwards a wish-list or a fraudulent wish-list to the electors in the hope to be elected to become a
Member of Parliament.
If any Minister (including a Prime Minister) was to claim to be elected with a particular mandate
(again they are not) then likewise the person(s) must then be held legally liable for failing to
adhere to what was promised during the election to the electors. As you are well aware off you
criticised Julia Gillard for her blatant deception but now you have joined her ranks of dishonesty.
Are you then going to say you were not validly elected for spruiking one agenda but acting in
contradiction to it?
You cannot have it both ways, to pursue you have some kind of a mandate but act contrary to
other issues you suddenly no longer desire to pursue or act in contradiction to it.
.
p2
8-1-2015
© 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

10

15

20

25

30

35

3
The very first Prime Minister Edmund Barton was never even elected to Parliament when he was
commissioned on 26 December 1900 to form a government when the federation commenced on
1 January 1901. Constitutionally (s64) a person can be commissioned without needing to be a
Member of Parliament, as was Edmund Barton at the time. For sure he was subsequently in the
first federal election elected as a Member of the House of Representatives, but it must be clear
that from onset he had no majority in the House of Representatives nor needed to have so.
The Government of the Day can only act within the legislative powers the (federal) Parliament
enacts within the true meaning and application of the constitution.
The Government of the Day is not governing just for its own supporters but must act in the
interest of all people of the “general community”. As such, even if party philosophy may be of a
certain requirement, ultimately the government of the Day must disregard this, as they are
commissioned as “advisors” to assist the Governor-General to govern (as Ministers) for all
Australians and not just for its political party membership.
The Government of the Day may pursue to have the Parliament passing certain bills (including
taxation and/or appropriation bills) but because of the separation of powers of the federal
executives, the Parliament and the Judiciary, the Government of the Day cannot then dictate the
House of parliament how it should vote. It is for the Government of the Day to present to the
Parliament Bills which may so to say be most attractive for Members of the Parliament of either
Houses to vote for. If the Government of the Day fails in obtaining a majority vote then it can
always pursue a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION. After all it failed miserably to present a Bill to the
Parliament both Houses of the Parliament could agree upon.
It is in my view utter and sheer nonsense to push that the election system should be altered as to
prevent independent candidates or those of minor parties to be elected. It makes absolutely no
difference to State Representation if a Senator is of one or another party or is an
INDEPENDENT Member of Parliament as long as the elected Senator represents the best
interest of the State they represent. For the electors however it does make a big difference that
they have and maintain their “political liberty” to be able to elect someone they view is most
trustworthy/competent of the various candidates. Hence, any electoral system must always be
and remain to be in the interest of the “general community” and not be set up to oust certain
kinds of candidates to secure a two party kind of election.
Having a diversion of Senators that will make it more difficult for a Government of the Day to be
able to get bills passed means we actually have a working Senate.
Why have this elaborate system of electing numerous candidates to become Members of
Parliament at huge cost if all that is desired is to have a battle between 2 major parties who shall
govern? We might then as well set up a system that electors can vote for a lair or another lair and
do without numerous Members of Parliament as after all when they belong to a party they
generally vote alike. We do not have the constitutional provisions of the USA to elect as
President and so no use to look at that system.
.

40

45

50

Ultimately the interest of the electors is and always must be above that of the personal interest of
politicians, but sadly this appears to have evaporated.
.
In my view the system of voting above the line in Senate elections is discriminatory to
INDEPENDENT candidates and as such I view unconstitutional.
.
Likewise so the Deposit, and the payment per primary vote (first preference).
Elections shouldn’t be fought between the major political parties who can outdo the other in lies
and deceit to gain office, because our political system in fact doesn’t provide for electing a
Government.
.
p3
8-1-2015
© 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

10

15

4
If the preference voting was abolished and electors merely place a cross for the candidate they
vote for in regard of House of Representatives elections then the candidate with the most votes
would then be deemed the elected candidate.
As for the Senate, if there are say 3 positions available then an elector numbers 3 of the
candidates in the order they desire. Then the 3 candidates with the most votes are declared
elected, without any preference system being used.
We have had ongoing falls and misleading advertisement as to who to elect as Prime Minister,
this even so as stated above electors do not elect a Prime Minister, and therefore it cannot be
states that the payment per primary vote is to assist electors to make an informed vote, rather it is
used to deceive electors.
Bu voluntarily voting, as I proved in court is the only constitutional valid election system, then
electors decide for themselves if they “desire” to vote or not. When you however force under
terrorism for people to vote then you can never claim to have a mandate in any event.
If the Australian Electoral Commission were to utilise the electronic system in the best interest of
electors, then a computer screen in a ballot booth could display an A4 page of what a particular
candidate stands for with a photo of the candidate no more than 2 years old. Not a candidate
having a photo that is 10 or 15 years old, as I discovered was being use while standing as an
INDEPENDENT candidate in elections for some 16 years.

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

No matter how much the electoral system might be altered there will always be those who will
want to have it changed to suit their own purposes. Hence let’s keep it in the best interest of the
electors.
Therefore, abolish the preference voting system to have the candidate with the most voted being
declared the successful candidate.
I was involved in elections where 2 or more candidates were belonging to the same political
party. As such if there were 3 of the same party then 2 were so to say dummy candidates, merely
seeking to attract voted for one of their political party and then assign their preference votes to
this person. Also I found that the Australian greens for example opposed a freeway but then
supported the Australian Labor Party candidate in favour of a freeway to get elected. Now this to
me is ultimate betrayal upon the electors who voted for the Greens.
Without any preference system then more than likely less candidates will exist of the same
political party as then standing against one of their own could hand the election over to an
opponent party. Also, without the preference system it would not eventuate that someone who
has nearly the least votes somehow can still end up being elected ahead of someone who may
have had 10 times the number of votes.
The Framers of the constitution held it essential to provide for “political liberty” and this
includes being able to hold the Government of the Day accountable, but we now have this system
of secrecy where the Government of the day will claim for national security it is necessary to
keep things hidden/secret.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
p4
8-1-2015
© 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

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- 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.
END QUOTE

There can therefore be no secrecy and any Government of the Day involved in dirty business will
claim it is for the best interest of the general community that matters remain secret, but it
undermines the very constitutional principles of being able to hold a Government of the Day
accountable. Indeed, how can an elector pursue the local Member of Parliament to pursue
something when the Government of the Day conceals relevant details?
As such, any notion of confidentiality of commercial dealing also is utter and sheer nonsense
because any contracts that involved the spending of public monies must be open for scrutiny. If a
business doesn’t like to deal with the Government of the Day because it seeks to avoid scrutiny
then so be it and it stays out of being awarded any contracts but if it desires to gain contracts then
there is no such as commercial confidentiality as that can never exist when it involved public
monies.
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Bassat, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Cunningham's Warehouse Sales Pty
Ltd, [2012] HCA 7, 8 March 2012, M128/2010, M129/2010, M130/2010, M131/2010 & M132/2010
QUOTE
1. More recently, in Yaxley v Gotts[182] the English Court of Appeal considered the requirement now made in
absolute terms by s 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (UK) that a contract for
sale of land can only be made in writing which incorporates all the terms the parties have expressly agreed.
It was held that an oral agreement nevertheless might give rise to a constructive trust because such trusts
were saved by s 2(5) of that Act. But the Court of Appeal saw no scope for the doctrine of proprietary
estoppel. Robert Walker LJ said[183]:
"Parliament's requirement that any contract for the disposition of an interest in land must be made in a
particular documentary form, and will otherwise be void, does not have such an obviously social aim as
statutory provisions relating to contracts by or with moneylenders, infants, or protected tenants.
Nevertheless it can be seen as embodying Parliament's conclusion, in the general public interest,
that the need for certainty as to the formation of contracts of this type must in general outweigh
the disappointment of those who make informal bargains in ignorance of the statutory
requirement. If an estoppel would have the effect of enforcing a void contract and subverting
Parliament's purpose it may have to yield to the statutory law which confronts it, except so far as the
statute's saving for a constructive trust provides a means of reconciliation of the apparent conflict."
END QUOTE

http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)
45

Ethics Orientation for State Officials

Misuse of Public Funds

50

55

Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that public
funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose when
its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.
Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses
only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.
The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be
expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are
they authorized.
The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit may
result from an expenditure of public funds.
p5
8-1-2015
© 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

6

5

For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it is
an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the employee for public
purposes.
The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure is not merely
incidental. The term “public funds” is not limited to money, but includes anything of value belonging to a
public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers, and
fax machines and other equipment and resources.
Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

10

1. In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to purchase items for himself
and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though those receiving the discount paid for the
items with personal funds.
2. In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle to transport a
political candidate, his staff and family.

15

3. In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work on his political
campaign for Lieutenant Governor.
4. In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in connection with official
business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great Falls, Montana and back.

20

Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil sanctions.
These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.

25

State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections
There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public funds.
This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following is a list of what
we’ll cover in this section.
 Stanson v. Mott
 Endorsements and Informational Materials
 Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines

30

35

40

45

50

Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns
The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of public
funds in election campaigns.
In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
challenging the director’s expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a
statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding that “in
the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a
partisan position in an election campaign.”
Stanson v. Mott
The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process is that
the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing
factions. A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental
authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....”
The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson “...The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course,
raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.”
Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government agency may
endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote its passage.
Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not
promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot measure
elections.
1. “The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to disseminate information
relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the public with a fair presentation of relevant
information.”

p6
8-1-2015
© 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

7
2. “The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable public agencies from
disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such disclosure is full and impartial and does not
amount to improper campaign activity.”

5

10

3. “To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal treatment to both sides of
the issue.”
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines from the
Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a
$10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several
ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a
neutral and fair presentation of the facts.
Let's Review
TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.
 Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.

15

Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone calls
before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governor’s campaign fundraising
dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of issues,
may she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.

20

Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal political purposes rather
than for a public purpose.

Let's Review
Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer questions about
the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.

25
b. The materials do not make false statements.
c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.

30

 Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of
the measure.
Remember These Points
 Expenditures must be for a public purpose
 Expenditures must be authorized
 Public funds may not be expended for personal use

35

 Information must be fairly presented
 Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions
END QUOTE

40

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20081015&filename=led&sec_id=3&sid=1
QUOTE
Travesty of public purpose
State governments offer incredulous incentives to lure Tata

45

50

IN THE last few days Maharashtra and West Bengal witnessed two diametrically opposite developments. In
Maharashtra, for the first time in the history of this country, affected farmers voted in a referendum on the
upcoming Reliance special economic zone (SEZ). Initial results suggest that the majority voted against the
SEZ. In Singur, Tata’s plans kept slipping into a deeper imbroglio by the day. Several state governments
lined up to lure the company as Tata seriously considered moving out—each one trying to outdo each other in
p7
8-1-2015
© 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
terms of offering incentives and freebies. Soon as West Bengal made some parts of the ‘secret’ deal between
the state and the company public, Tata Motors moved the High Court obtaining a restraining order.

5

Tata’s lawyers argued that basically the agreement between them and the state government was a trade secret.
This means that the Nano project is private commercial venture. Ironically the state government had acquired
land for the project invoking the “public purpose” law. The state government and company will have to come
clean about what exactly is the Nano project. If it is a commercial venture the company must directly need
deal with the farmers. And if it is indeed a project meant to serve the public purpose, details of the
agreement must be immediately made public.

10

15

20

What is clear from the deal between the West Bengal government and Tata motors is that state government
are trying to outdo each other to attract investments. This is a race right to the bottom. The moment Tata
Motors threatened to walk away from Singur, several state governments came forward. The lure of big-ticket
project is such that governments are willing to forgo taxes, forcibly acquire land, give subsidized water and
electricity, give capital subsidies and put thousands of security personnel to man the project. In all this,
industries are having free ride on public money. This is cheap industrialization. Where not only states are
giving fiscal subsidies, they are subsidizing the natural resources—land, water, and energy. In a single
economic entity that India is, competition between states, by the way of subsidizing industrialization, is
neither good for economy nor is it good for environment. And it surely is not for ‘public purpose’.
END QUOTE

I may add that I view toll roads that are for private gain but using public build roads must be
deemed unconstitutional
http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678
(1872) Olcott v. The Supervisors 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 678
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
QUOTE
What was considered was the uses for which taxation generally, taxation by any government, might
be authorized, and particularly whether the construction and maintenance of a railroad, owned by a
corporation, is a matter of public concern. It was asserted (what nobody doubts), that the taxing
power of a state extends no farther than to raise money for a public use, as distinguished from
private, or to accomplish some end public in its nature, and it was decided that building a railroad, if
it be constructed and owned by a corporation, though built by authority of the state, is not a matter
in which the public has any interest, of such a nature as to warrant taxation in its aid.
Page 83 U. S. 690
For this reason it was held that the state had no power to authorize the imposition of taxes to aid in the
construction of such a railroad, and therefore that the statute giving Fond du Lac County power to
extend such aid was invalid.
END QUOTE
http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
QUOTE
In 1870, that is to say, subsequent to the issue of these orders, though prior to the trial of this case in
the court below, the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin, in the
Page 83 U. S. 680
case of Whiting v. Fond du Lac County, [Footnote 1] held this act to be void, upon the ground that the
building of a railroad, to be owned and worked by a corporation in the usual way, was not an object
in which the public were interested, and therefore that the act in question was void, for the reason
that it authorized the levy of a tax for a private and not a public purpose. The court there said:
"The question is as to the power of the legislature to raise money or to authorize it to be raised, by
taxation, for the purpose of donating it to a private corporation. We held, in Curtis v. Whipple, [Footnote
2] that the legislature possessed no such power, and the conclusion in that case we think follows inevitably in
this, from the principles stated in the opinion.
END QUOTE

Seems to me the reported $50+ million dollars to stage the Albert Park Grand Prix racing at
Melbourne is a payment to a private corporation that cannot be deemed to be for “public
purposes”.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
p8
8-1-2015
© 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

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
QUOTE
Page 83 U. S. 693
"The legislature cannot create a public debt, or levy a tax, or authorize a municipal corporation to
do so, in order to raise funds for a mere private purpose. It cannot, in the form of a tax, take the
money of the citizen and give it to an individual, the public interest or welfare being in no way
connected with the transaction. The objects for which the money is raised by taxation must be public,
and such as subserve the common interest and wellbeing of the community required to contribute. . .
. To justify the court in arresting the proceedings and declaring the tax void, the absence of all
possible public interest in the purposes for which the funds are raised must be clear and palpable; so
clear and palpable as to be perceptible by every mind AT THE FIRST BLUSH."
All these expositions of the law of the state were made by its highest court before the county orders now in
suit were issued. They certainly did assert that building a railroad, whether built by the state or by a
corporation created by the state for the purpose, was a matter of public concern, and that because it was a
public use, the right of eminent domain might be exerted or delegated for it, and taxation might be
authorized for its aid. It was the declared law of the state, therefore, when the bonds now in suit were
issued, that the uses of railroads, though built by private corporations, were public uses, such as warranted
the exercise of the public right of eminent domain in their aid, and also the power of taxation.
We are not, then, concluded by a decision, made in 1870, that such public uses are not of a nature to
justify the imposition of taxes. We are at liberty to inquire what are public uses, and what
restrictions, if any, are imposed upon the state's taxing power.
It is not claimed that the Constitution of Wisconsin contains any express denial of power in the legislature
to authorize municipal corporations to aid in the construction of railroads, or to impose taxes for that
purpose. The entire legislative power of the state is confessedly vested in the General Assembly. An
implied inhibition only is asserted.
Page 83 U. S. 694
It is insisted that, as the state cannot itself impose taxes for any other than a public use, so the
legislature cannot empower a municipal division of the state to levy and collect taxes for any other than
such a use,
END QUOTE

Yet we have various governments creating toll ways in private company’s hands using public
roads which purportedly are transferred to the private corporation.
Because the public roads were created by the use of public monies I view the Government cannot
so to say give away public property to a private corporation regardless that this private
corporation may allegedly hand back the land after 30 odd years. Indeed, nor can I view the
enforcement of tolls be dealt with under the laws of the state concerned because that would
effectively mean a taxation by the State on a privately held road (toll way).
The reason people are dissolutioned with a government of the Day is that the persons in
government forgot they are “agents” of the People and cannot conceal dealings from those who
they represent.
Hence, to improve the fortunes of those in government can be achieved by being honest and open
to the “general community” so they can then seek their Senators to vote in a certain manner they
approve off. If however the system was to be corrupted as to give whichever party is in power to
gain government and disregard the interest and wellbeing of the “general community” then
dictatorship will not follow as it already is applied.
I now will quote an article:

50
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/electoral-reform-now-or-risk-usstyle-gridlock-labor-warns20150106-12iq3w.html
QUOTE

55

Electoral reform now or risk US-style gridlock, Labor warns
Date
January 6, 2015

Read later
p9
8-1-2015
© 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

Latika Bourke
National political reporter
View more articles from Latika Bourke

5
(PICTURE OMITTED)
Business leaders are calling for electoral reform, arguing micro-party candidates such as now Senator Ricky
Muir are winning influential positions in the Senate despite securing few votes. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

10

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's go-slow approach to overhauling the way the Senate is elected will see
Australia's political system "gridlocked" like the United States if it's not fixed, the opposition is warning.
But Family First senator Bob Day warned the government against proceeding with electoral reform, saying it
would be "very unwise" to try to wipe out the micro-party figures they have to deal with to get their
legislation through the Senate.

15

The alarm, sounded by Labor's shadow special minister for state Gary Gray, follows calls from a group of
chief executives for Senate reform because of the growth of micro-party senators winning influential balance
of power seats as a result of backroom preference deals.
(PICTURE OMITTED)

20

Labor's Gary Gray: "You will see more and more gaming of the electoral system in the Senate and the system
will get more and more unworkable." Photo: Sean Davey
A survey of business leaders from Australia's biggest companies conducted by the Australian Financial
Review found some also called for longer terms for the House of Representatives (currently three years) and
even voluntary voting to reduce what they said was the political impasses in Canberra that contribute to
economic uncertainty.

25

30

Wesfarmers' Richard Goyder said "I would reform Senate election rules so that preference gaming does not
allow the election to high office of people who in their own right attract very few votes, and move to a fouryear federal term."
Victorian Motoring Enthusiast party senator Ricky Muir, who is yet to give his maiden speech, won his sixyear term despite winning just half of 1 per cent of the primary vote in 2013. Senator Day was elected with
just 3.76 per cent of the primary vote.
But an angry Senator Day hit back at the business leaders and said if they had their way it would
"permanently entrench the Greens" as the "balance of power party". "If Labor and Liberal fall for that they've
got rocks in their head," he said.

35

He urged everyone to "lay off" the media-shy Senator Muir and said the Victorian newcomer would do "far,
far less damage to the budget than Wayne Swan, Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard had". He also said the
crossbenchers had passed government legislation Labor had opposed, including the carbon tax and mining tax
repeals.
Senator Day also expressed disbelief that business leaders would be advocating for majority parliaments.

40

"What these CEOs are arguing is that governments should have an absolute majority and the reason we're in
this mess is because Labor and the Greens had a majority and just trashed [the budget]," he said.
And he said the Coalition should be wary about going ahead with any moves that would make it impossible
for independents to be elected on the back of preferences.
p10
8-1-2015
© 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
"They want to be very careful about ganging up on little players, that's my first word of caution," he said.
Minor party Palmer United leader and businessman Clive Palmer also dismissed the chief executives' views
and told Fairfax Media "these are just Liberal Party hacks trying to rig the results of democracy".

5

Parliament's joint standing committee on electoral matters made the unanimous recommendation in May to
move to optional preferential voting for senators at the next federal election, meaning voters determine where
their preferences are directed and not the parties.
Mr Gray said electoral change "is a genuine economic issue" because without it Australia's political system
would grind to a halt, as seen in the US.

10

"You will see more and more gaming of the electoral system in the Senate and the system will get more and
more unworkable until eventually we get the kind of legislative gridlock that characterises the US," he said.
The committee's recommendation is supported by Labor, the Liberals, Nationals and the Greens, meaning it
would sail through Parliament as soon as it was introduced.
"I scratch my head and think I don't know why they didn't do this 10 months ago," Mr Gray told Fairfax
Media.

15

20

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon agreed with Mr Gray's warning and said a "breakthrough" was needed
to end the "preference whispering" that he believes dudded him of a running mate being elected due to a
"bizarre" deal between the Greens and Family First that saw Senator Day elected. Senator Day says he was
legitimately elected on the back of second and third preferences.
Senator Xenophon said that with the government's legislative agenda hostage to the assortment of
crossbenchers elected under such deals, reform had been shelved to keep them happy.
"I think the government didn't want to alienate the crossbenchers but I think there is a way through this," he
said and urged the Coalition to open new negotiations.
Liberal MP and committee chairman Tony Smith said it was important to proceed with the reforms
recommended but cautioned "it's not critical this month or next month".

25

"It will be a change that will, if implemented, restore the will of the voter by giving them full power of where
their preferences go and there'll need to be time for adequate explanation," he said.
"But it's not a particularly complicated change," he added.

30

A spokesman for the Special Minister of State Michael Ronaldson said the government "is currently
considering its response" and noted that the committee is still to report on three more issues, including the
electoral roll and voter identification.
END QUOTE

35

For the above I urge that common sense is used and not mere political party interest in defiance
of what is constitutionally appropriate and permissible and neither it is contrary to the “general
community’s” interest.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
Our name is our motto!)

40

(
Awaiting your response,

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

p11
8-1-2015
© 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