20230302-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission Into The Robodebt Scheme

Page 1
1
2
3 Royal commission into the Robodebt Scheme 2-3-2023
4 Email enquiries@royalcommission.gov.au
5
6 Re 20230302-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme
7
8 This submission is for unrestricted publication!
9
10 Sir/Madam,
11 I today at about 17:00 hrs happen to hear that a former Minister Stuart Roberts
12 claimed that as a cabinet Minister he is obligated to follow what is put to him. As a
13 constitutionalist I reject this totally and will set out what the Framers of the Constitution stated to
14 show I am correct. I below also will set out how I (representing myself) defeated the
15 Commonwealth in two cases on constitutional grounds as to show I know what I am talking
16 about.
17 The Framers of the Constitution made clear:
18
19 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
20 Convention)
21 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
22 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
23 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 While the High Court of Australia originally banned the usage of the Hansard records, some 7
27 decades later it then decided it could be used and well we had many judgments on record by then
28 which violated constitutional limitations, etc. This makes it very dangerous to rely upon past
29 precedents not knowing if they are in fact within constitutional context.
30
31 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
32 QUOTE
33 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
38 We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
39 Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case
40 the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 Meaning that there is absolutely nothing the Parliament and for this the Government of the day
44 can do to somehow amend the application of the constitution.
45
2-3-2023 Page 1 © 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 making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2

2 QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
3 The resolutions conclude:
4 An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to
5 time be appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of
6 office shall depend upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives
7 expressed by the support of the majority.
8 What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of
9 the new nation as similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional
10 advisers who shall stand as nearly as possible in the same relation to the representative of
11 the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial advisers stand is relation to the
12 Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to lay down as a
13 foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite
14 other gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in
15 view.
16 END QUOTE
17
18 While Minister often rely upon legal advice this however is in real terms irrelevant this as they
19 are themselves to be “constitutional advisers” to the Governor-General. While the habit is to get
20 anyone appointed as Minister regardless any inability to understand the true meaning and
21 application of the constitution this however should never be deemed a valid excuse. They get
22 appointed to do a job as a “constitutional adviser” and therefore must accept the legal
23 consequences with the job.
24
25 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
26 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
27 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
28 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
29 any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
30 which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
31 Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
32 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
33 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
34 securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
35 that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
36 the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
37 Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
38 daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
39 freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
40 one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
41 liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
42 work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
43 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
44 therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
45 determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
46 with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
47 choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
48 next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
49 that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
50 court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
51 provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
52 Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
53 it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
54 Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
55 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
56 this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
57 degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the

Page 3
1 guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
2 the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
3 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
4 constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
5 sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
6 well.
7 END QUOTE
8
10 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
11 When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
12 that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time,
13 trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions
14 clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will
15 harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that
16 too much care has not been exercised.
17 END QUOTE
18 .
20 QUOTE
21 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
22 in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
23 make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
24 Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
25 the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
26 great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
27 for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
28 States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
29 Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
30 have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
31 come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given
32 to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
33 direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
34 there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
35 END QUOTE
36 .
38 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
39 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
40 Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
41 legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
42 to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
43 Parliament."
44 END QUOTE
45
46 The citizenship issue I did challenge on constitutional grounds in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka
47 (representing myself) having filed a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER served
48 upon all Attorney-Generals and none of them challenged my submission which resulted that I
49 defeated both charges on 19 July 2006.
50
51 QUOTE
52 Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible
53 government
54 END QUOTE
55 And

Page 4

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
4 responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
5 END QUOTE
6 And
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
10 Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
11 provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
12 those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
13 END QUOTE
14 And
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
18 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
19 therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
20 END QUOTE
21 .
23 QUOTE
24 Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Do note “it can only act as the agents of the people” and not agents of public servants or other
28 Ministers in the Cabinet.
29
30 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
31 Australasian Convention)
32 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
33 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
34 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
35 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
36 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
37 embrace and unite.
38 END QUOTE
39
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
43 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
44 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
45 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
46 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
47 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
48 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
49 END QUOTE
50 And
52 QUOTE
53 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
54 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
55 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
56 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
57 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Page 5
1 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
2 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
3 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
4 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
5 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
6 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
7 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
8 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
9 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
14 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
15 Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which
16 it is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present,
17 holds that prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare
18 war or peace without the advice of a responsible Minister.
19 END QUOTE
20
22 QUOTE
23 Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no
24 desire to interfere with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
28 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
29 That is a strong statement, and the judgment of the majority of our Supreme Court justifies me in asserting
30 that this Convention cannot too soon face the issue involved in it. I take it that the people of Australasia
31 will not be satisfied with any "instalment" or any "measure" of responsible government, or any
32 limitations, except such as are necessary to the unity of the empire. We claim, without shadow of doubt or
33 vestige of qualification, all the powers and privileges possessed by Englishmen. The governor-general, as
34 representative of the Queen in these federated colonies, should be clothed by statute with all the powers
35 which should belong to the representative of her Majesty; he should be above all risk of attack, because he
36 should act only on the advice of responsible ministers, who should be prepared either to obtain the
37 sanction of Parliament for their acts or vacate office. Parliament, in its turn, should be brought into
38 intimate relation with the electorates. This is true, popular government.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 It must be clear that when something goes wrong not the Governor-General but the Minister
42 advising the Governor-General regarding his/her particular portfolio must face the legal
43 consequences.
44
45 Let’s see what the Framers of the Constitution stated about the telephone, postal and other
46 services:
47
48 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
50 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
51 It is just as important that the Federal Government shall have the care and management of the vehicles which
52 carry human beings and their goods as that it should have the care and [start page 769] management of
53 the vehicles or ways which carry letters and telegrams.
54 END QUOTE
55

Page 6
1 Notice they even refer to “management of the vehicles” not just photo opportunities for a
2 Minister!
3
4 And:
5 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
7 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
8 If you give over the telegraph and postal business you thereby hand to the custody of the Federal Government
9 all the local appointments-the appointing of the postmasters, clerks, and other officers, who do not do
10 national, but the purest local business; and you at once raise up a large army of civil servants, the
11 influence of which we want to dissociate from our national life
12 END QUOTE
13
14 Notice they refer to appointments of officers etc and “large army of civil servants” clearly this
15 relates to Commonwealth Management, not some private company.
16
17 Therefore the Minister responsible for the particular portfolio must accept responsibility for
18 whatever goes wrong.
19
20 When we go back to the armed invasion into Iraq, only the Minister for Defence could have
21 advised the Governor-General to publish in the Gazette a DECALARTION OF WAR naming
22 Iraq against the country to be at war. This as Iraq was not at the time in any way invading the
23 Commonwealth of Australia. Had Iraq done so then it would have been itself an Act of War that
24 didn’t need then the Governor-General to publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR
25 naming Iraq.
26
28 Convention)
29 QUOTE
30 Clause 112-The Commonwealth shall protect every state against invasion, and, on the
31 application of the Executive Government of a state, against domestic violence.
32 Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-I beg to move-
33 That the word "invasion" (line 2) be struck out, and the word "attack" substituted.
34 Why should the protection of the Commonwealth be confined only to invasion? We are
35 not likely ever to be invaded, but we are exceedingly likely to be attacked.
36 Mr. BARTON.-Any attack is an invasion in the sense in which the word is used in this
37 clause.
38 Mr. GORDON.-The gunning by a cruiser standing off a city is not an invasion, but it is
39 an attack.
40 Mr. BARTON.-It is an attack which is part of an invasion; if the attack succeeds invasion
41 follows.
42 Mr. GORDON.-I think "attack" is very much better. Of course, if the word "invasion"
43 covers the ground, well and good; but while "attack" covers "invasion," does "invasion"
44 cover "attack"? Originally, the amendment I intended to move used both the words
45 "attack" and "invasion."
46 Mr. REID.-You can repel an invasion 100 miles from the coast.
47 Mr. GORDON.-But how does the honorable member know that an invasion is intended?
48 [start page 692]
49 Mr. REID.-If there was a war between two countries, and a cruiser from the one country
50 was approaching the other, you would know that it was not on a visit of brotherly love.
51 Mr. GORDON.-They may not intend to invade the chances are that they do not intend to
52 invade, but to attack.

Page 7
1 Mr. BARTON.-Do you think that the Commonwealth, if a hostile fleet appeared for the
2 purpose of attacking, and not invading, would keep the batteries silent and the Australian
3 fleet at anchor?
4 Mr. GORDON.-Something may turn upon this. By this clause the Common-wealth is
5 only bound to protect every state against invasion. If the Commonwealth neglected its
6 duty, and South Australia was invaded, South Australia would have a claim against the
7 Commonwealth. But, it appears to me, that it should have an equal claim against the
8 Commonwealth if it was simply attacked, and not invaded. However, if the leader of the
9 Convention thinks that "invasion" covers "attack," I am willing to leave the matter to the
10 Drafting Committee, but I have some doubt on the point.
11 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am perfectly satisfied that when the guns are
12 booming there will be no discussion about the meaning of the two words.
13 Mr. GORDON.-Ought the construction of this Act to be left until the guns are booming?
14 I thought the object was to prevent the guns booming at all.
15 Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-I think there is something in the point raised by my
16 honorable friend (Mr. Gordon). We have previously used separately the terms "naval" and
17 "military." Now, an attack would be naval, while an invasion would be military.
18 The CHAIRMAN.-Does the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) press his amendment?
19 Mr. GORDON.-No. If the leader of the Convention relies on his booming guns I am
20 content.
21 The amendment was withdrawn.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 Former PM Scott Morrison had his purported “National Cabinet” which since the last election
25 has continued this even so a purported “national Cabinet” has no0 constitutional validity because
26 it refers to first Ministers as if they now dictate like dictators what each jurisdiction can or cannot
27 do. Indeed the unconstitutional COVID scam is a clear example where States/Territories violated
28 the Commonwealth exclusive legislative powers.
29
31 Convention)
32 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
33 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the
34 52nd clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
35 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-
36 kind.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 What Stuart Roberts in my view has indicated is that if some unelected public servant may
40 dictate something then he as Minister is bound to comply. Also, when Ministers have a Federal
41 cabinet meeting and offer their opinions then somehow as a cabinet Minister he must follow
42 whatever they dictate. This kind of nonsense would mean there is no such thing as a “responsible
43 Minister”.
44
45 While Members of the Federal Executive should be able to freely give their opinions during a
46 cabinet meeting so the “responsible Minister” purportedly sitting in a meeting with other
47 “constitutional advisers” then may have some benefits to consider their expressed opinions, in
48 the end however the “responsible Minister” holding the portfolio must make the final decision
49 even if this means to go against each and every other cabinet Minister’s opinion. After all the
50 “responsible Minister” may be more aware of relevant details which other cabinet members may
51 not be as they have their own portfolio’s to attend to.
52
Page 8
1 Basically a cabinet meeting is like saying: Hey guys I have this issue at hand and perhaps you
2 guys may have something to put to me that I can consider before I make a final decision on
3 the matter.
4
5 This is also why cabinet meetings are confidential, this is because some Minister may make
6 some suggestion, not knowing all relevant details and should not be ridiculed for seeking to
7 make a suggestion that may not be proper on constitutional or other legal grounds.
8
9 Where I understood from the radio news article that Stuart Roberts admitted he knew it was
10 wrong then he must accept the final responsibility!
11 The question then is was he acting within his capacity as Minister and/or acting as a private
12 person?
13
14 Merely because a Minister may be a Minister doesn’t mean he can do whatever he desires and let
15 taxpayers end up with the bill for compensation. This kind of conduct would result we have no
16 “responsible Minister” and neither a “responsible Government”.
17 If Stuart Roberts knew what he was doing was unlawful, etc, then I view he should be banned for
18 life to ever hold any kind of public position! There has to be personal accountability for
19 deliberate wrongdoing.
20
21 It must not be ignored that numerous citizens were harmed and this because as I understand it
22 Stuart Roberts knew he was in the wrong but nevertheless persisted and this must be deemed
23 totally unacceptable. To let taxpayers end up with the compensation bill would mean that for
24 ever in the day Ministers will simply do the same ignorance to act lawfully.
25
26 We have seen how former PM Scott Morrison assigned himself with numerous other positions as
27 being allegedly also Minister of different portfolios and I understand that Virginia Bell J was to
28 accept that those appointments were constitutionally valid. Here we had Scott Morrison
29 overriding the “responsible Minister” regarding the P11 project in N.S.W. Constitutionally only
30 one person can be the “responsible Minister” this as otherwise you might have 2 Ministers
31 providing opposing “constitutional advice” to the governor-General and then what is the
32 Governor-General to do?
33 This is where the danger lies that with Virginia Bell J she went along with being limited and as
34 result we have no legal accountability.
35 I(f the same were now to eventuate with Stuart Roberts then we will have other Minister (now or
36 in the future) disregarding the true meaning and application of the constitution and relevant laws
37 and then there be no legal accountability at all. It means that those who lack the financial
38 resources to fight for JUSTICE will only have injustice.
39
40 This we saw with the COVID scam already. Here we had a specialist recommending Olga my 90
41 year old wife (who suffers from heart failure and other comorbidity) to have the jab but when I
42 asked if he could explain the dangers to her he simply didn’t know. Because I on my blog
43 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati expose the rot and how unconstitutional all mandates
44 were/are I avoided my wife to be a victim.
45
46 As for the AEC v Schorel-Hlavka litigation. I as a constitutionalist made clear that the
47 “compulsory” part of voting is unconstitutional as it defies the “political liberty” enshrined in the
48 constitution. I was charged with FAILING TO VOTE regarding 2001 and later 2004 federal
49 election and as noted above comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth.
50
51 Getting back to the Robodebt the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
Page 9
1
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there
5 is a decision on the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law
6 by which the parties accused must be heard.
7 Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
8 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page
9 689] anything the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some
10 form by which a person accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being
11 deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand
12 any one objecting to this proposal.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 While they were debating State legislative powers as to judicial matters, etc, the principle is clear
16 that the judiciary is there to determine the legal positions and their rights between the
17 Government and the citizen. Meaning that if any Government of the Day claims a citizen is
18 overpaid, etc, then well it can only seek redress through the courts. There is no such thing that
19 the Government of the Day can somehow enforce its own dictatorship. As such, if say Jan was
20 allegedly overpaid or allegedly made an incorrect claim then the Commonwealth can do no more
21 but to place the matter before a competent court of jurisdiction. The court can nullify the claim
22 or issue orders adverse to a citizen or whatever.
23
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences
27 committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to
28 which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was in
29 conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity to
30 change the venue, and select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in
31 modern or in ancient times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by
32 an Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I do
33 not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the honorable member a state of affairs
34 in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive.
35 It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular
36 state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to
37 exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences
38 against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its
39 condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was
40 originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which
41 should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the
42 citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by
43 this Constitution.
44 END QUOTE
45
46
47 Let me throw another spanner in the works.
48
49 On 4 August 20005 The Commonwealth in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka pursued to apply
50 AVERMENT as provided for in the CEA1918 to avoid having to file and serve “evidence”. I
51 countered this as being unconstitutional as the Commonwealth cannot interfere with the State’s
52 judicial powers. (Kable - NSW) and in the end the Court ruled that the Commonwealth had to
53 “file and serve” all evidence it sought to rely upon.
54

Page 10
1 Bring this back to the Robodebt. Where then the Commonwealth (being it the ATO or
2 whomever) were to pursue litigation then it cannot pursue AVERT because of the 4 August 2005
3 ruling in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka.
4 The ATO in Commonwealth vs George Williams nevertheless did use AVERT despite being
5 warned by me this was unlawful. And this is why I view there has to be an end to this kind of
6 irresponsible conduct against citizens.
7
8 Public servants, perhaps for job security may be willing to inflict any harm but the victims then
9 are plentiful and that needs to change. People who are innocent of any wrongdoing then are
10 faced they need to engage some lawyer who may not even grasp what is constitutionally
11 appropriate, and may fail to present the case in a competent manner and this surely cannot be
12 sustained.
13
15 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
16 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
17 important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Well, this is what need to be applied, that where a person upon constitutional grounds challenge
21 a government claim then the citizen must be given prior advice that all and any cost of litigation
22 will rest with the Government of the Day.
23
24
25 When Barnaby Joyce was held by the High Court of Australia not to be entitled to be a Member
26 of Parliament somehow he n ever had to pay back the millions of dollars he had wrongly
27 collected as a MP.
28 On 16 August 2022 I wrote again to “Melinda Smith Deputy Commissioner of taxation”
29 extensively and this because I know my rights, as well as can defend myself, however most
30 citizens do not have that ability and engaging some lawyer who may not even grasp what is
31 really constitutionally applicable is hardly the way to go.
32 It is for this that it should be pursued by this ROYAL COMMISSION that the ATO has no
33 constitutional powers to fine a citizen and then withdraw monies from a citizens account or
34 otherwise deduct it from a payment. When the ATO tried this with me I made clear their only
35 option was to take me to court. Well, they decided not willing to do so and that was the end of
36 the matter. Still, many citizen may not be aware of this and simply lose out. This is why it needs
37 to be stopped and let in the end the courts decide what is legally appropriate in the
38 circumstances. After all this is why we have a separation of power where ultimately the courts
39 are the impartial arbitrators.
40
41 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal
42 constitution!
43
44 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
45 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
46 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

47 (Our name is our motto!)


20230302-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission Into The Robodebt Scheme

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20230302-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission Into The Robodebt Scheme

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

1 HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

2-3-2023 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-3-2023 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

2-3-2023 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-3-2023 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-3-2023 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

46 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

2-3-2023 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like