You are on page 1of 7

ISSUE: 20180208- Re Recycling to riches, Royalties, etc, & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

This is a State/Territory and Federal Government issue.

'The demise of kerbside recycling'?: China ban

disrupts rubbish removal and fills warehouses
Posted 1.13pm 8-2-2018 by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
QUOTE (corrections added)
Some 25 years ago I (lawfully that is) collected broken white road markers. I now started to
use some. I cut them on a wood cut off machine in the size of a brick and well use them as
bricks. Benefit is that they do not soak up water, etc. the late Mr Jaroslav Hlavka MIE
Aust CP Eng actually had in the1960s invented ashfalt asphalt. Since then he was referred
to as Mr Ash. The Federal government with State involvement could start a project I in the
desert to create solar energy system with a recycling pant plant and use recycling material
to create roadways, etc. It also could then create building materials from this recycling
material. Such a project would create huge employment opportunities and with its
constitutional powers as to aliens could direct that those most suitable are located there and
where they say without criminal conviction succeed over a period of 5 year then they can
be granted nationality. As such, they work and earn their nationality with building up the
country. In the process road are created and/or upgraded to proper standards throughout the
Commonwealth of Australia. While no all recycling material might be suitable for
recycling, ample of small towns still use outdoor houses (toilets) as no sewerage system
exist as in cities. As such recycling material could be used for his this. Likewise structures
need to hold up water tanks can be fabricated from his. There are ample of ways recycling
material can be use without being a hazard to people. What however is first important is
that w we crate create a recycling plant on our own.
Any potential danger to recycle for example plastic would be nullified when for example using it
to fabricate septic tanks. Likewise for fence post, etc.
Because the Late Mr Jaroslav Hlavka MIE Aust CP Eng had invented asphalts for which he had
a certificate for this issued as a patent. The then Czechoslovakia government imprisoned him
assuming he had sold his invention to the West. He never had, but still endured about 9 months
of torture in prison. So after being released he set his aim to escape (with wife and child). His
Wife Olga Hlavka (now my wife Olga Hlavka-Schorel) had a degree in Russian language as a
linguistic and so at the border she spoke fluent Russian with the guards enabling them to escape.

p1 8-2-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
Well, Olga had behind her riches as did her husband. The Supreme Court of Victoria in 2001
granted me executive authority over the estate of the Late Mr Jaroslav Hlavka MIE Aust CP Eng.
And well my wife now indicates she suffered enough and it is time that all those countries that
used her late husband invention of asphalt now should be paying up as to royalties and
additionally penalties and interest. After all if the government via the ATO (Australian taxation
Office) applies penalties and interest then why should not the same be done against the
governments who used asphalts for roadworks without paying the royalties! As the AEC
(Australian Electoral Commission) the ATO and others use averment then the same applies for
me as the executor of the estate that the onus is upon the governments to prove they didn’t use
the asphalt or that they paid the correct royalties to the estate. For the record no monies were ever
received as such and so let us not fool around and deal with reality.

HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)

Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia).-Under clause 46 the seat of a member of either House of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth becomes vacant if any work is done or services rendered by him in
Parliament for or on behalf of any person or corporation. The Drafting Committee's amendment, however,
will make the clause read-

Services rendered in the Parliament to any person or state.

I want to know whether the singular word "person" includes the plural, and if the word would apply to
corporations? If it does not apply to corporations, the omission of that word is an alteration in substance
which cannot have been intended.

Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-I should like to ask another question. There is nothing in the Bill
empowering the Speaker or President to receive a salary for his work in either office. Yet, it is to be
presumed, as the offices are created under the Constitution, such salary will be paid under the Constitution.
Neither is there a reference to the position of the Chairman of Committees. I should like to know whether
sub-section (3) will prevent the Chairman of Committees from receiving a salary?

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of
Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary
offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that really the
Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates,
and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by the
Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown. I think that
that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere. As to the word "person,"
the British Interpretation Act of 1889, which will be largely applied to the construction of this statute by the
Imperial authorities, provides that where the word "person" is used, unless the Act otherwise provides, the
word "corporation" shall be included.


While the Interpretation Act 1889 (UK) actually refers to “body corporate” and not to
“corporation” nevertheless for the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution on the last day
that amendments to the draft constitution was to be made

HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)

Mr. HIGGINS.-According to your reading of the Commonwealth Bill ought not the President to sit and
declare the Bill adopted after each member has received his Bills?

p2 8-2-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
Mr. BARTON.-After the Convention has finally adopted the Bill, and has disposed of all incidental
business, copies certified by the President shall be supplied in duplicate. I take it to be the clear reading of a
statute, that where a thing is provided to be done by statute, the fact of its being done early is no bar to its

Mr. HIGGINS.-If the copies are sent by post, each member may not receive them.

Mr. BARTON.-I think the clear meaning of the statute is that posting the Bills will be supplying them;
otherwise, the [start page 2465] Convention might have to be kept in session a week or a fortnight until there
was a certainty that everybody, including the Governors, had received copies. I am sure that is not the
intention of the Act.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-There is to be a declaration at a meeting of the Convention.

Mr. BARTON.-Yes. The President has no administrative or executive power under the Act, and therefore
he cannot comply with the law by making a publication in the Gazette. Therefore, we must have a meeting of
the Convention tomorrow, and a declaration then.

The PRESIDENT.-I undoubtedly hold that the posting of the notices will be sufficient, all other incidental
matters having been disposed of; and I will then declare the meeting closed.

Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-I quite agree with the view Mr. Barton has presented. It seems to me,
following that view, that now we have gone through the Bill and dealt with the amendments, the
Enabling Act provides what is really a statutory adoption of the Constitution. It does not seem to me
more than a formal motion, because it distinctly provides that when the Constitution, as framed prior
to the adjournment, has been reconsidered, together with any suggested amendments by the
Legislatures, then the Constitution, so framed, shall be finally adopted with any amendments agreed
to. In fact, the whole trend of the Federal Enabling Act is that we must frame a Constitution. It is not a
matter of option with us whether we shall adopt the Constitution or not, but having gone through the
Bill as now presented, and the various clauses having been agreed to by majorities, it seems to me,
following the view brought forward by the leader, that it is now our statutory duty to finally adopt this

The motion was agreed to.

The Convention adjourned at two minutes to five o'clock p.m.


For all purposes and intend the convention relied upon that “corporation” was equal to a person
unless legislation specifically stated otherwise.

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
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
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
p3 8-2-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
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."

Therefore no government can avoid paying royalties to the patent holder merely because of some
contractual engagement with some private business. It as a creator of corporations actually itself
become liable as a corporation without the protection otherwise provided to a Government.
Travesty of public purpose

State governments offer incredulous incentives to lure Tata

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
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.

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.

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’.

I may add that I view toll roads that are for private gain but using public build roads must be deemed
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
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
p4 8-2-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
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.
U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
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.

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”. Likewise, other such projects around the Commonwealth of Australia, being a loan to
a mining company or for roadworks in the hands of a private company. Neither can any
government acquire land from private landholders against their desire where the land IS FOR
GIVING IT TO A PRIVATE CORPORATION. In my view likewise to allow a toll company to
extent its tolls on a roadway in regard of matters nothing to do with that toll way must be deemed
unconstitutional. Any such agreement must be deemed illegal and without legal force.

When it then comes to recycling it is essentially that this is done in a proper legal manner. No
taxation donation can be made that is not for strict public purposes. The Commonwealth however
within its legislative powers of aliens can regulate that certain persons can be put to locations that
would serve its purposes. Hence the creation (consider Las Vegas) of a township in the dessert
and then create a recycling factory may be feasible but only if the matters are appropriately
considered as to each element of the project. Road and railways for access to and from such
recycling plant could serve also to connect cities from opposite site of the country, as well as to
transport the products made from recycled materials around the country.
Paliflex Pty HCA 65; 219 CLR 325; 202 ALR 376; 78 ALJR 87 (12 November 2003) Ltd v Chief
Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2003]

The situation in 1956

1. We turn to consider proposition (i) listed in [16] above and thus to the situation in 1956 when the Tax Act
and the Management Act were enacted. At that stage the Land was "property of any kind belonging to the
Commonwealth" within the meaning of s 114 of the Constitution and so, without the consent of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth, New South Wales could not impose any tax upon it. Further, the Land
was one of the "places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes" within the meaning of s 52(i)
of the Constitution. The Land had been acquired in 1922, but the phrase "acquired by the Commonwealth"
carries within itself the notion of being the property of the Commonwealth as a consequence of that

p5 8-2-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
2. In Essendon Corporation v Criterion Theatres Ltd[12], decided in 1947, this Court had considered s 265(b)
of the Local Government Act 1928 (Vic). This provided for the levying of municipal rates "[u]pon every
person who occupies ... or if the occupier is the Crown ... then upon the owner" of the rateable property.
The Commonwealth was the occupier of the relevant land for defence purposes. But it was held that it was
not "the Crown" for the purposes of s 265(b). Nor was the Commonwealth a "person" who occupied the
property. The upshot was that liability for rates was not imposed by s 265(b) upon the owner of the land,
Criterion Theatres Ltd.
3. One of the grounds of decision taken by Latham CJ was that to construe the phrase "every person" so as to
include the Commonwealth would be to impose a tax upon it contrary to s 114 of the Constitution[13].
Further, both McTiernan J and Williams J[14] had stressed that the phrase "every person" ordinarily is not
construed as including a body politic. Dixon J had based his decision upon the ground that, independently
of what might be the operation of s 114, it was a necessary consequence of the system of government
established by the Constitution that the Constitution did not permit the taxing by a State law of the
occupation of land for the carrying on by the Commonwealth of measures of defence[15]. His Honour also
had emphasised that the presumption was that in a State statute references to the Crown did not cover the


See also R & R Fazzolari Pty Limited v Parramatta City Council

While the NSW Parliament amended legislation to circumvent this ruling one has to be careful
that this is not something that turn out to be unconstitutional and an abuse of legislative powers.
While it may be argued that municipal councils are exercising at times delegated State Powers
(such as in Sydney Council v Commonwealth 1904) this must be clear delegated powers and not
be pretended legislative powers.
Also, much has been argued that municipal councils should be recognised in the federal
constitution as a level of government, whereas clearly they rely in part upon delegated powers of
the State government by legislation. The question then also arises if this delegated powers can be
constitutionally valid where for example since 11 November 1910 the Commonwealth has
exclusive land taxation powers. It also may be a conflict of interest that municipal/shire councils
that were created for the residents are then against the very residents exercising State powers.
The Framers of the constitution held they were incorporated corporations apart of State
government which were referred to as Local Government, while the Central Government is the
Federal Government.
What we therefore require is that matters are first properly considered as to if municipal/shire
councils are constitutionally validly provided within the purported Local Government Act in the
first place as this defies the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) which
doesn’t provide for this level of Government. In NSW as I understand it the State constitution
was amended in 1902 but failed to be approved by a State referendum and hence I view is of no
legal force as to any amendment made.

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
p6 8-2-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)

Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.


Placing a recycling plant in the dessert may just avoid a lot of hassle as to private land ownership
issues and may enhance the building of roads, and further infra structure. It may also become an
attraction for recycling of items of other countries to create new line of employment. What
obviously is needed is to make sure that basic planning is done appropriately and in a diligent
manner. That however seems to be a major problem when it comes to politicians more out to
harness votes at all cost then to consider the long term benefits for society at large.
While by no means I am a greeny nevertheless as indicated I saw broken roadside white markers
being burned at Sea Lake tip and so obtained a scavengers permit and collected what I could. OK
I had no equipment then to cut them to bricks but eventually did so last year. Ok I had them
stored for about 25 years but they are not the worse of for it. When one then consider the old cars
dumped there also one could have them recycled and local tips in the country could become a
treasure trove of materials that could be recycled. Possibly some material that cannot be recycled
not being glass, metal, etc could be compacted and then pressed in square blocks to form
foundation blocks to build new highways.
Where there is a will there is a way but it all really depends upon the planning stage for it all.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)

p7 8-2-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://