You are on page 1of 4


Ted Bailliue Premier 25-3-2011
5 . Re: Working with children, etc
I was, last night, on the NSW Electoral Commission website when I noticed that candidates
for the NSW election were required to provide a Work With Children declaration. I therefore was
wondering if perhaps I had omitted to do so when I stood in the recent 27 November 2010 State
10 election for Ivanhoe, the 19 February 2011 Broadmeadows district by-election and the Olympia
Ward (Banyule City Council) by election held on 5 March 2011 and so went on the Victorian
government website to try to sort out things. Well after perhaps about 2 hours I am really no
wiser for it because there appears to be too much information but not enough of information
immediately at hand that is required.
15 Fancy having to download all kind of pdf documents and then discovering they do not contain
the information I was seeking to obtain.
Then there is this about $765 charge for an application which I view is also disturbing because I
view it is unfair for people wanting to do the right thing then to be slugged with a fee for it.
20 As I have been a INDEPENDENT candidate in numerous elections since 1996 (Federal, State
and municipal council elections) I held I better then make an application for working with
children so that if there is a sudden election called or by-election then I am ready for this and do
not have any complications for any need to make such an application then. Well, I have found a
host of codes being used but nothing simple that say covers all codes.
25 .
Lets for argument sake let’s have it that I stood for election and were placed in a position of
balance of power and were to be appointed as a Minister dealing with children then what is the
right code? Is there a general code that covers all?
You see, the host of codes to me may make it difficult for some people as is a person going to
30 apply for a certain code and then needing to apply for another code if this happen to become
While there might be different codes for different kinds of care/assistance surely it should be that
a person ought to be able to apply for a general code that applies to all codes and so that the once
35 off application will avoid having to make different applications?
My wife is 78 and not particularly going to become a carer for children but lest say she was to
apply for a Work With Children permit (or whatever you want to call it) and she then
commences to care for say a disabled child as a carer as an in house carer, meaning the disabled
40 child will reside in our house, then am I as the husband also required to have been accepted or
not where I reside full time with her or is it only applicable to the person who is the carer?
Where do the limits stand?
Is it just that it is up to whomever to make whatever decision as time goes by and so the rules are
made up by whomever makes a decision or there really are concrete rules that covers not just the
45 carer but also any spouse and/or any other person residing in the same residence? Are then those
who reside also in the house each having to fork out $76 application fee?
p1 25-3-2011
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail See also
I view that the application fee should be scrapped as it may deter some people to make
applications and that would essentially undermine the whole intention of the legislation.
Fancy having made an application for a particular code and then say a change in circumstances
5 may eventuate that there is a different code used? And so a new application might be needed?
Then we have had reports that sex offenders and others were nevertheless permitted by VCAT to
deal with children. Now one then has to ask who is running the State and the security for children
VCAT or the Government?
10 .
I have no criminal record and so have no issue to make an application Working with children so
that in case there is an election and it might then be needed to have it (as legislative provisions
can change any time) but surely it is a nonsense for me and other possible candidates having to
fork out $76.00 or more for something that may in fact never be needed to be used even if
15 elected.
More over, I have concerns as a CONSTITUTIONALIST that the practice may be
unconstitutional in that the Framers of the Constitution, by which the states were created out of
the former colonies within s106, that any elector is entitled to be a candidate. As such, the Work
20 With Children could never be used to prevent a eligible elector to be a candidate in a election! As
such the Work With Children should only be used to prevent any elected Member of
Parliament/Council to Work With Children but not prevent the person to become a Member of
Parliament or a councillor.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once a person had served his punishment then
25 she should be entitled to return to a full life like anyone else and so be permitted to sit in the
Parliament, if elected. For this it is of concern to me that the NSW Electoral Commission
permitted the downloading of the Work With Children application, as I happen to do of Pauline
Hanson, but didn’t read it, because to me this violates the candidates CIVIL RIGHTS &
POLITICAL LIBERTIES. It is one thing to protect children of possible sex offenders but
30 another thing to have it plastered over the Internet that someone may have been convicted of a
sex crime or other crime which may have occurred long ago and the person is not longer a danger
to society.
In my view the usage of a Work With Children statement should not interfere with the right of
35 any person to be a candidate in any election but only can be used to prevent a possible sex
offender to get involved in a formal position with children, albeit then this should be a
confidential issue between the governor (who after all appoints his advisors) and the person
concerned and no one else should be aware of this. We need to resolve the matter as to what is in
the best interest of children to avoid any danger to them while also recognising the CIVIL
40 RIGHTS and the POLITICAL LIBERTIES an elector may have.
Again, I have no criminal record and as such have no issues on a personal level but as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST I am concerned that we are overstepping the boundaries well beyond
what is or could be deemed necessary. The issue is that I have no personal issue with making a
45 declaration but those who may have despite not having any criminal record, may then be seen as
having something to hide and this is also to be considered that one forces doubt upon people who
do no more but exercise their CIVIL RIGHTS and yet then may be questioned as if they have
something to hide. Again, this will not assist for one of io0ta in the protection of any child!
I urge you to ensure that any application fee is abolished so that it will not be a draw back for
50 anyone to make an application for Working with Children being it voluntarily or otherwise.
Again, to me it is utter and sheer nonsense to place a an application fee on this as it rather may
result in people not bothering to make an application where perhaps they should have or where it
might be advisable to do so even if not strictly required.
p2 25-3-2011
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail See also
Do you really think that if a person was to become a carer of a say disabled child and then have
other family members visiting they all are going to fork out $76.00 each (and likely to increase as
all charges usually do!) just in case one of them happen to have to step in an emergency?
5 Let’s use an example.
A man is a full time carer for a disabled child and is personally attending to the disabled child.
The man happens to become ill due to unknown complications and a family member is then
faced having to temporary take over the care for the disabled child as the man is say unconscious
and unable to communicate with. Technically it may be argued that the man only is the carer and
10 no one else should touch the child but in the circumstances it must be clear that in the emergency
it is the only alternative because even if somehow someone can call the relevant authorities about
the child they will not be there instantly and so someone needs to care for the child in the
meantime. It might very well be that the man may recover after perhaps an hour or so and have
no further problems, still during that hour or so someone else had to care for the disabled child.
15 It is for this that I view that it would also be better to abolish any application fee because then
others who may reside or visit may be willing to make an application for Working With Children
and then when an emergency does eventuate then there be no issue in that regard.
Here I was spending considerable time on the website and quite frankly really never discovered
20 what I wanted to find out and that is if candidates were required to make an application, as like in
NSW, for Working With Children. If not why not if after all there have been ample of reports of
inappropriate conduct by councillors/Members of Parliament?
The balance, again, must be that the Working With Children statement of any candidate
25 must be left with the Governor of the state, not on the internet, as after all convictions can
be at times overturned and one wouldn’t want then that Internet records may still haunt an
innocent person.
Again, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once a person had served his punishment
he should be able to recommence his life in society, even to be a Member of Parliament and
30 having therefore A Working With Children statement published on the Internet isn’t going to
advance the protection of any child as the elector may never occupy any position in regard of
contact with children, and may not even become elected, and so we should never undermine the
legal principles embedded in the constitution!
35 People do at time get involved in criminal conduct, and become convicted even so this might be
a technical conviction. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, for example, a person may
become bankrupt because of the conduct of an employee and surely it then couldn’t be held
against him to ban him from life from being a Member of Parliament.
Let’s use another example; A man and a woman engage in a relationship and produce offspring
40 and later they discover that they are actually brother and sister but never knew of this. Now,
while technically this could be deemed a crime, as to incest but if both were unaware of it (say
one was adopted out) then a technical conviction would not advance the protection of any child
and certainly not having this plastered then all over the Internet.
45 I am personally horrified how absurd the NSW system has gone as I for one cannot envisage one
of iota protection for a single child to have a Working With Children statement plastered all over
the Internet for every candidate even so most will never get elected!
One has to consider what is the real purpose of such statement and what is it to be used for!
50 A word of caution is also in place in that the Framers of the Constitution also made clear that an
elector could be ineligible to be a Member of Parliament at the time of the election but could
become eligible after having been elected. Again to use the example of a bankrupt, they held that
as long as the person was cleared of bankruptcy by the time the seat was to be taken up then he
p3 25-3-2011
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail See also
still could validly take up the seat even so being disqualified to do so at the time of the election
being held. This is the most appropriate way to deal with this because after all, someone could
have a person caused to be declared bankrupt as to present the person to be a candidate in an
election and then the person so declared bankrupt could clear his name and have been wrongly
5 denied to participate in the election. The disqualification therefore is not as to at the time of the
poll being held but rather when the seat is to be taken up. After all, if a person was eligible to
stand as a candidate and becomes elected but then is declared a bankrupt before taking up the
seat or already having taken up the seat then the seat automatically becomes vacant.
10 There is another issue that is also misconceived. The Framers of the Constitution embedded the
legal principle in the constitution that a member of a State Parliament was eligible to stand as a
candidate in a Federal election and only when the person was elected then had to make the
decision to vacate the State position (such as being a Minister of State in the State government)
or to retain this and not take up the seat in the Federal Parliament. As such, any State legislation
15 that were to prohibit this or any Commonwealth legislation would be unconstitutional and so
without legal force.
I may add that “compulsory voting” is unconstitutional and while the Crown took me to court
(twice) they comprehensively lost both cases against me, on 19 July 2006, in the County Court of
20 Victoria because as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I knew that constitutionally no legislation can
override constitutional embedded legal principles.
Getting back to the Working With Children application, I urge you to provide me with an
appropriate response and indicate if candidates or potential candidates for State/council elections
25 are to make any Working With Children statement/application and if so if this will be
confidential to rest with the Governor only (for his eyes only) and without application fee, so that
perhaps if not all most candidates may voluntarily pursue such statement. I for one see no point
in having such a statement published as it wouldn’t serve the purpose of protecting a single child
as such and again would only interfere with the CIVIL RIGHTS and the POLITICAL
30 LIBERTIES an elector may have. We can use, and often this is done by governments, to go not
just to extremes but exceed this by far under any excuse they seek to justify certain legislation
where in real terms is it nothing less then gross abuse and misuse of legislative powers.
Those who designed the website should revamp it so it isn’t going to take so to say years to try to
35 struggle through mountains of details to try to find some answer but that it is so to say customer-


40 ( Our name is our motto!)

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

p4 25-3-2011
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail See also