Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC 27-8-2010

Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia

5 Canberra
governor-general@gg.gov.au
.
Ref: various constitutional issues
Who are Members of Parliament, 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
.
25 While there are those who are elected to serve in the House of Representatives are so to say
fighting as to whom shall form the next government the irony is that none of them are actually
Members of Parliament. The will not unless and until the Governor-General has “chosen” them
to take a seat in the new Parliament upon the return of the writs. It may very well be that one or
more elected to the Parliament may be disqualified at the time of the writs being returned. It
30 might be because of a bankruptcy decision in the meantime before the elected candidate actually
seeks to take up the seat in the Parliament or it might be because of the Governor-General
exercising his/her prerogative right not to “choose” a particular person for a variety of reasons.
We also have that for example if the Liberal party were to succeed in gaining Hasluck then the
ALP could on constitutional grounds challenge the validity of this because since the 1967
35 referendum to approve the amendment of s.51(xxvi) constitutionally that is Aboriginals no
longer are entitled to have franchise (being an elector) or to sit in the Federal Parliament.
Oops, that is something nasty people failed to realise or were ever told as to the effect of the
1967 amendment of s.51(xxvi)!
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear Aboriginals were entitled like other Australians to
40 vote in federal elections and so they did in the 1901 federal election where they had State
franchise and as was made clear that s.41 protected them against any law of the Commonwealth
to deny them that right. However, with the approval of the referendum in 1967 to allow the
changing of s.51(xxvi) of the constitution to allow the Commonwealth to legislate for
Aboriginals as a “inferior coloured race” (as the Framers of the Constitution referred to in
45 regard of those races subjected to s.51(xxvi) then clearly Aboriginals no longer are
constitutionally deemed to be equals amongst Australians.

27-8-2010 Page 1 Who are Members of Parliament, 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 also means that what might appear to be a majority government may not be at all when one
considers the majority in the House of Representatives to be constituting a “majority
government” if the coalition were to be deemed to have the majority by one Member of the
5 House of Representatives.
.
In my view a Governor-General is bound to adhere to the true meaning and application of the
constitution irrespective of any personal views if discrimination against Aboriginals is
appropriate or not as to do otherwise would place in question the conduct of the Governor-
10 General. As such, the Governor-General cannot consider the “choosing” of any person of
Aboriginal race to any Parliamentarian seat as it would be in conflict with constitutional
prohibitions.
.
Over the years I raised this issue time and time again with various Governments but each seemed
15 to disregard this issue and now may find it to be a major issue in the circumstances now existing.
.
For sure no one bothered to tell the Aboriginals or for that the electors when voting for the 1967
referendum that they were not enhancing but in fact jeopardizing the rights of Aboriginals but
then that is the problem when people go on about wanting to amend the constitution without
20 having some kind of impartial OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN in place who without any
political bias can advise how the amendment actually will be working and could be applied.
It is my view that had at the time of the 1967 referendum of s.51(xxvi) it be made known that all
Aboriginals, not just some, subjected to a special race legislation then AUTOMATICALLY
would loose their citizenship rights (including franchise) then I doubt the referendum would ever
25 have succeeded.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am often ignored by those in power because it may not suit
their political agenda but now the time has come to realise that what they ignored to attend to
when there was time to do so now might be of severe legal consequences to them.
30 .
All members of the House of Representatives effectively are having their seats declared vacant
on the day of the election and they therefore do not hold any Parliamentarian position until the
parliament returns for the writs and they take up the seat they are elected for.
A parliamentarian may be elected but then dies before taking up the seat or may decide that
35 without the particular political party he/she is with not having gained the majority in the House
of Representatives is not worth to take up the seat and so declines doing so. As such Members of
the House of Representatives are not members of the House of Representatives unless and until
at the return of the writs they are “chosen” by the Governor-General and do so take up a seat.
Also parliamentarians are not “employed” by the Commonwealth of Australia and are not as
40 such “Public servants” and do not have any constitutional entitlement to be paid a “salary” but
can only be paid an “allowance” regarding the loss of income of their ordinary daily job and out
of pocket expenses. However parliamentarians are entitled to be commissioned by the governor-
General to be employed in the services of the Crown by becoming an advisor to the Governor-
General as a Minister and then this is a salaried position. However, the constitution doesn’t
45 permit so called “shadow” Ministers to exist or being paid and so when Tony Abbott became so
called the leader of her majesty’s Opposition he in fact still remained “unemployed” unless he
had a other day job or was self employed otherwise.
Neither does the Constitution permits the appointment of public servants as head of Department
because constitutionally the Minister is the head of the Department. The Minister and the
50 Minister alone is responsible to the Parliament.
As such while Senate estimates and other inquiries are co0nducted such as calling Dr Henry
(treasury) to give account of his actions in constitutional terms the Parliament has no such
powers because it can only call the relevant Minister to be accountable to the Parliament.
27-8-2010 Page 2 Who are Members of Parliament, 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
 .
The true meaning and application of the constitution has been eroded over the more then 100
years it is in place and this should stop! If ordinary citizens are held accountable to the RULE
OF LAW so then should politicians.
5 .
Having at taxpayers cost all those elected candidates travelling about to see Ms Julia Gillard and
Mr Tony Abbott as to who may form a government after the wasteful about $50 million on so to
say political kickbacks, albeit unconstitutionally, for first preferences votes, is an absurdity that
should stop.
10 .
Again, unless and until the return of the writs there is not a single Member of Parliament existing
in the House of Representatives and when the writs are returned then only those who are
constitutionally permitted to do so and chosen by the Governor-General to take up a particular
seat then when they have done so they become Members of Parliament and not before.
15 Therefore it is a total absurdity that ms Gillard currently commissioned as Prime Minister is
wasting taxpayers monies (as she is being paid by the monies paid to the queen out of
consolidated revenue funds, to hold political meeting to try to hold on to her job, where as the
same was duplicated in ordinary businesses then she would argue that businesses should suffer
the cost of what were union matters. Likewise political parties are “unions” to concentrate upon
20 its members and should therefore not dominate the landscape of the government and indeed it
would in my view be an error of judgment for any Governor-General to appoint anyone on basis
of political standing rather then upon the competence of that person being an advisor (as a
minister) to the Governor-General.
.
25 If therefore the Governor-General commissions, say myself, to form a government then the
Governor-General isn’t concerned about the political dynamics of others but is only concerned
that I could form a government regardless if those serving as federal executives are from all
different political background. As such, if I could arrange a government that was to consist of
just INDEPENDENTS then that is of no concern to the Governor-General as after all the
30 Government of the Day is not there to legislate but to govern according to or within the
legislative provisions that are constitutionally validly enacted. As such one must be careful not to
confuse the role of the government with that of the Parliament because there is a distinct
separation of powers. Admittedly, it might be handy for the party controlling one or both houses
with most Members in each House to be in government as to be able to force ahead with
35 legislation it desires to implement all kinds of powers but the danger is to this that the Senate
then is no more but to rubber stamp whatever the government desires and no longer is the State
House of Review and Senators lured into positions as to be Ministers then more then likely so to
say betray their constituency as to go along with the Government of the Day in conflict to their
duties to their electorate and so their particular State. Indeed, it is my view that a political party
40 that serves in the House of Representatives should never be in the Senate and visa versa. This as
the responsibilities of the members of the House of Representatives is considerably different then
that of the Senate. Legislation that may serve the people of the Commonwealth of Australia as a
whole may be tyranny upon a particular State. Hence a Senator must be vigilant to ensure that
his/her duties towards his/her state electors is not impinged upon by false loyalties to a political
45 party in the House of Representatives.
.
What I view is un-mistakenly needed is the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN to be a body
serving the Governor-General as to advise about constitutional and other legal matters governing
the meaning and application of constitutional powers and limitations. It must be and remain a
50 non-political entity that cannot afford to express views on basis of political views.
.
We have currently that a Attorney-General on his/her political views advise the Governor-
General that a Bill passed through the Houses of parliament is constitutionally valid to be given
27-8-2010 Page 3 Who are Members of Parliament, 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
 Royal Assent even so this Attorney-General may no more but express his/her political views and
wouldn’t have a clue what really is constitutionally permissible.
This must stop!
.
5 The OFFICE–OF-THE-GUARDIAN should not be some secret society but be an office
transparent to all. All and any advise it gives must be open to the public and be the same to all.
Any person who therefore was to seek clarification regardless of position would then be provided
with precisely the same explanation. No political colouring of what is stated.
.
10 If indeed this had already existed before the 1967 s.51(xxvi) referendum then I have absolutely
no doubt that the referendum would have been comprehensively defeated and Aboriginals not
wrongly robbed of their rights of being equal to every other Australian.
.
Current political debate regarding who shall or shall not govern pending with whom certain
15 INDEPENDENTS may select and their conditions/demands made in itself makes an utter
mockery of the entire constitutional process. We have a governor-General who at least by the
Constitution is empowered to determine who she shall commission to be her “advisor” (Minister)
and no one has the right to interfere with this. This is the provision of the constitution and unless
and until this is amendment to provide otherwise we all are bound to accept the RULE OF LAW
20 as it currently exist.
.
I for one as a CONSTITUTIONALIST am bound to accept whatever version the constitution
may take as a shape and so it is not relevant to me if the constitution is amended to strip the
Governor-General of certain powers and give it to the Prime Minister of the Day because that
25 might be a political view. However while we have the current constitutional format we all are
bound to stop this nonsense and surely Ms Julia Gillard being paid a salary to conduct matters as
a Prime minister should prove she is worthy to do so and not bother in wasting her days on
political issues that are outside her ministerial office duties. In my view, if anything she seems to
me to prove she is unfit to hold the office of Prime minister because instead of being in a care
30 taking government conduct she is more concerned about her job security and by this is
disregarding the duties and obligations she is in my view currently employed for. What the whole
debacle does prove is the lack of proper information available and to avoid any such repeat it
would be wise to finally ensure that the OFFICE–OF-THE-GUARDIAN is in place so we can
avoid simular debacles in the future.
35 .
For those who may have an issue with my “Crummy English” let’s make it very clear English is
not my native language and neither did I have any formal education in the English language but I
invite anyone with their superior English to prove they are better in understanding of the
constitution then I am!
40 .
A copy of this document will be published also for the electors to be aware of what I write about.
.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

.
45 (Our name is our motto!)
.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

27-8-2010 Page 4 Who are Members of Parliament, 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