20240106-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police MR Shane Patton - COMPLAINT-Supplement 4

Page 1
1
2
3 Mr Shane Patton, Chief Commissioner of Police (Australia, Victoria date) 6-01-2024
4 Email via HEIDELBERG.UNI@police.vic.gov.au
5
6 Cc: Cr Tom Melican Mayor tom.melican@banyule.vic.gov.au
7 Alison Champion alison.champion@banyule.vic.gov.au
8 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos fiona.mitsdinikos@banyule.vic.gov.au
9 Cr Elizabeth Nealy elizabeth.nealy@banyule.vic.gov.au
10 Cr Mark Di Pasquate mark.dipasquale@banyule.vic.gov.au
11 Cr Alida McKern alida.mckern@banyule.vic.gov.au
12 Cr Peter Dimarelos peter.demarelos@banyule.vic.gov.au
13 Cr Rick Garotti rick.garotti@banyule.vic.gov.au
14 Cr Peter Casteldo peter.castaldo@banyule.vic.gov.au
15 Jan Richardson enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
16 Janet Redgrave Team Leader Development Planning enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
17 Mr RomanWojtkowski enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
18 Banyule City Council enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
19
20 20240106-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police Mr Shane Patton –
21 COMPLAINT-Supplement 4
22 Sir,
23 I will now start with a considerable different issue albeit I view is without the police
24 jurisdiction to deal with.
25
26 The State of Victoria as I understand it has banned new residents to have gas connections, the
27 question is if this is constitutionally permissible, as if not then the Victorian Police should have
28 investigated matters and pursue criminal conduct against those who violate constitutional
29 provisions.
30 You may ask what logic is in this kind of reasoning?
31 Well, the State of Victoria is there as a “service provider”, meaning, it provides certain services.
32 The State of Victoria doesn’t really own any gas resources it merely can act as a service provider
33 to allow on behalf of Victorian the exploration of gas wells to obtain gas. Gas then is being
34 provided via intermedia’s to gas suppliers which enables the State of Victoria to have revenue in
35 various ways., for and on behalf of Victorians.
36 The State of Victoria as with other states are created within Section 106 of the Commonwealth
37 of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) “subject to this constitution” and therefore the State
38 is bound to act in such manner.
39 The State of Victoria via the gas companies allows gas to be sold to foreign nations (foreign
40 powers) who then can use the gas to their own desires. Regardless if such foreign power do or do
41 not consider CO2 and other issues.
42 Yet, the State of Victoria somehow seems to claim that it seeks to restrict new houses being
43 provided with gas supplies because of its purported concerns about CO2 levels for the world
44 often under the fake claim of climate change.
6-1-2024 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
1 Who can overlook how we had that the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” when actually it is a
2 “pandemic of the vaccinated”? Politicians will pretend any reasonable claim no matter how
3 unreasonable it might be to push their mantra. The “covid scam” is a clear example! The
4 traitorous police officers who were enforcing the unconstitutional mandates may have byt this
5 inflicted considerable harm to their own members of their families. It seems to me they were
6 more concerned about their job security then the security of their families.
7
8 https://www.wnd.com/2024/01/u-s-court-deals-knockout-punch-citys-biden-backed-effort-
9 ban-gas-stoves/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=wnd-
10 breaking&ff_campaign=breaking&ff_content=breaking
11 U.S. court deals knockout punch to city's Biden-backed effort to ban gas stoves
12 'Law expressly preempts state and local regulations concerning energy use of many
13 appliances'
14
15 https://www.wnd.com/2024/01/al-gore-follows-history-wrong-climate-predictions-dire-new-
16 warning/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=wnd-
17 breaking&ff_campaign=breaking&ff_content=breaking
18 Al Gore follows history of wrong climate predictions with dire new warning
19 QUOTE
20 He claimed allowing people to have access to information that is in conflict with
21 mainstream ideologies is a threat to democracy.
22 He said social media, which carries those very opposition messages, have "disrupted the
23 balances that used to exist that made representative democracy work much better."
24 Gore is demanding a "shared base of knowledge that serves as a basis for reasoning
25 together collectively."
26 He insists it's "an abuse" of the "public forum" for people to have that information, and it
27 causes people to be "sucked into echo chambers."
28 Then it's really bad, he charges. "If you spend too much time in the echo chamber, what's
29 weaponized is another form of AI, not artificial intelligence, artificial insanity," he
30 claimed. "I'm serious!"
31 END QUOTE
32
33 Well we know all to well how it turned out with the “covid scam” “safe and effective” purported
34 “covid vaccine” that really turned out to be a “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION bioweapon jab!
35 When politicians decide what is the truth then it is a lost cause.
36
37 With electricity being a considerable problem, politicians are nevertheless wanting to burden the
38 system with electric car charges while seeking to limit air conditioners, etc.
39 I recall former Premier of Victoria Jeff Kennett selling of the Gas & Fuel Corporation as he
40 claimed electricity prices would go down, etc. Well he in 2023 seemed to admit he made an
41 error. Well, it are Victorians who are suffering the consequences.
42
43 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
44 Convention)
45 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
46 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
47 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 Hansard 15-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
51 QUOTE
52 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I would like to point out to Mr. Gordon that if we wish to
53 understand this clause we must go back to the object of it. Its object is not to confer pensions, but to set

Page 3
1 right the gross injustice which must accrue to the servants of the several states who join the
2 Commonwealth, which will take over their services, and will thereby put an end to their services with
3 the states.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 Politicians who are drawing a pension from the Commonwealth or State are by Section 45
7 without a seat where they violate section 44 of the constitution.
8
9 We had former Premier of Victoria Daniel Andrews suddenly retiring (well not long after I wrote
10 he never was qualified to be Premier of Victoria due to his conduct, etc) allegedly now having a
11 retirement package for life of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Well, in my view this was an
12 UNCONSTITUTIONAL arrangement that violated Section 44 of the constitution and by Section
13 45 he was technically no longer a Member of Parliament.
14
15 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
16 Australasian Convention)
17 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
18 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a
19 judiciary, there shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as
20 a part of the Constitution-that I believe to be an improvement-and other courts which
21 the Parliament may from time to time create or invest with federal jurisdiction.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 Therefore the High Court of Australia lacks any powers to interfere with the true meaning and
25 application of the constitution as it is not above the constitution.
26
27
28 Getting back to the gas issue. You cannot claim to do something for the world to bring down the
29 CO2 or whatever if you at the same time supply the world with gas where it is used for purposes
30 denied to Victorians. That is not in the realm of “good government”.
31
32 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
33
34 Part V—Powers of the Parliament
35 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
36 The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to
37 make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
38 Commonwealth with respect to:
39
40 Moment this refers to “of the Commonwealth” and surely cannot then be used in regard of the
41 States, can it?
42
43 Well, upon federation the Commonwealth had no Parliament to legislate anything, as it had no
44 Members of Parliament. Elections were not held until March 1901. The Framers of the
45 Constitution provided however that until the Commonwealth was to legislate the States could
46 exercise a “concurrent” legislative powers regarding Section 51 listed items. Obviously, this
47 means that “of the Commonwealth” includes the States where they exercised “concurrent”
48 legislative powers. And obviously when the States legislated they are bound to also apply it to be
49 “laws for the peace, order”.
50 The constitution also mprovides for:
51
52 (xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by
Page 4
1 the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so

2 that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments
3 the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;
4
5 (xxxviii) the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with
6 the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly
7 concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of
8 this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the
9 United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia;
10
11 Merely provides the powers for the Commonwealth to accept a referral but it doesn’t provides
12 any powers for the States to refer its legislative powers as that must be found elsewhere (French
13 J WA – Later French CJ HCA).
14
15 Section (xxxviii) again doesn’t provide for the States to refer matters as it merely provides for
16 the “the exercise within the Commonwealth” and the States for this would require a State
17 referendum to be authorised to refer any powers or request the Commonwealth to exercise
18 certain powers because ultimately the electors are the “sovereign citizens” who can only amend
19 the State constitution. Each and every referral is an amendment to the State Constitution because
20 it reduces the “original” judicial powers of the State Supreme Court in the process
21
22 https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=61502
23 QUOTE H. L. D’EMDEN v F. PEDDER – High Court of Australia
24 The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the
25 Constitution are within the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority,
26 sovereign States, subject only to the restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and
27 the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or implied. Where, therefore, the
28 Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the Commonwealth, the
29 Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
30 interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
34 QUOTE
35 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
36 parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark
37 on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer
38 supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They
39 have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That
40 must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament
41 under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of
42 changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
43 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of
44 being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary
45 sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring
46 into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and
47 executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
48 END QUOTE
49
51 QUOTE
52 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.

Page 5
1 END QUOTE
2
3 Therefore, the State Parliament cannot make any request or referral which effectively were to
4 change the separation of powers or demesnes the Supreme Court of Victoria’s original
5 jurisdiction unless by referendum the electors have approved of this. As such no referral or
6 request can be deemed valid for constitutional purposes unless it was authorised by a state
7 referendum.
8
9 The Commonwealth has legislative powers for treaties, etc, but they are limited powers:
10
11 Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
12 QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
13 The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
14 would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
15 Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
16 citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
17 page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Therefore the Paris and/or Tokio agreements, GOP28, etc, cannot be enforced against
21 Australians. However, if the Commonwealth has certain legislative powers that cannot be
22 derived from engaging in a treaty but must be with Sections 51 & 52 of constitution then it may
23 by enactment apply certain issues of treaties but only that within its legislative powers.
24
25 For example the WHO (World Health Organisation) to dictate health, internet access rights,
26 medication, etc are not for the Commonwealth to interfere with and cannot be handed over to a
27 foreign corporation like the WHO, U.N., W.E.F., etc (foreign power) because it would violate
28 the “political liberty” and “religious liberty” of Australians.
29
31 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
32 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
33 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
34 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
35 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
36 embrace and unite.
37 END QUOTE
38
40 QUOTE
41 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
42 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
43 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
44 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
45 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
46 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
47 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 This then also place in question that we cannot have both the Commonwealth and the States
51 legislating as to environment. Because the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied the
52 Commonwealth legislative powers to the Commonwealth then the Commonwealth has to but
53 out. However, as the Commonwealth might claim it is a power it exercises in aid of certain other
54 legislative powers then this matter would have to be settled by the High Court of Australia as to
Page 6
1 which legislative power is within the realm of the Commonwealth and which within the realm of
2 the States. Just as I previously have set out that currently we have no constitutional valid court
3 system, and that is the first issue that needs to be sorted out.
4
5 In any event, “good government” is not to deny Victorians their ability to use gas on the
6 purported claim for climate change issues while selling it to foreign powers who can ignore the
7 climate change mantra.
8 Neither can it be “good government” to deny the use of gas and by this place more pressure upon
9 the often already burdened electricity supplies. Indeed, demanding say electric vehicles that in
10 themselves because of the batteries causes considerable population and other harms then even to
11 demand electric vehicles is going against “good government” as it unduly burdens the already
12 stressed electrical system. What the State of Victoria should have done (provided it is within
13 their legislative powers of “good government” to deny the usage of gas) to provide appropriate
14 electricity supplies, charging stations and whatever required in future before any possible gas
15 restrictions might be complicated. Also, it then should not sell gas to foreign powers (so their
16 corporations) unless those foreign powers operate in a similar manner as the State of Victoria
17 regarding the usage of gas.
18
19 While there are ample of people on the climate change bandwagon, they themselves are polluting
20 the world with their private aeroplanes usage and making a killing that is financially, by
21 investing in what they promote. Who can ignore Bill Gates promoting the jab (“gene therapy”
22 DEPOPULATION bioweapon jab) only having made a fortune from this now somehow seems to
23 me to claim it isn’t working. The same with Dr Anthony Fauci, and others.
24
25 https://www.westernjournal.com/doc-trumps-covid-task-force-says-fauci-birx-ignored-data-
26 disputed-preferred-theories/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=newsletter-
27 CT&ff_campaign=dailypm&ff_content=conservative-tribune
28 Doc on Trump's COVID Task Force Says Fauci, Birx Ignored Data That Disputed Their
29 Preferred Theories
30 QUOTE
31 In his book, “A Plague Upon Our House,” Atlas recounted an incident in which he
32 wrote that he presented compelling data indicating that schools should be reopened
33 and that children were not major factors in the spread of the virus.
34 Fauci and others acted as though he had never spoken, he wrote, according to
35 excerpts published Saturday by Fox News.
36 “As I finished, there was silence,” Atlas wrote. “No one offered any contrary data …
37 Zero comments from Dr. Birx. Nothing from Dr. Fauci.”
38 “And as always, not a single mention by Birx or Fauci about the serious harms of
39 school closures. In my mind, this was bizarre,” he wrote.
40 Atlas wrote that he appeared to be the only one on the team looking at facts before
41 forming theories.
42 “Why was I the only one in the room with detailed knowledge of the literature? Why
43 was I the only one considering the data on such an important topic with a critical eye?
44 Were the others simply accepting bottom lines and conclusions, without any
45 analytical evaluation? Weren’t they supposed to be expert medical scientists, too? I
46 waited,” he wrote.
47 When the reaction arrived, it was hostile.
48 END QUOTE
49 And
50 QUOTE
51 Atlas said he presented detailed data about the spread of the virus through children.
52 Children were unlikely to spread the disease to adults, he wrote, and were themselves
Page 7
1 in little danger of catching it. In Sweden, in particular, he wrote, there were no

2 children’s deaths from COVID-19, though schools remained open and there were no
3 mask mandates.
4 “The icing on the cake was the evidence that almost all coronavirus transmission to
5 children comes from adults, not the other way around,” Atlas wrote.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 I referred earlier to the treaties issue:
9
10 QUOTE Blackfellas been given control of vast areas of Australian
11 Blackfellas been given control of vast areas of Australian
12 Gil May
13 From:gilmay97@gmail.como:reader@gmail.com
14 Bcc:inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
15 Wed, 3 Jan at 9:50 am
16 https://cairnsnews.org/2024/01/03/blackfellas-been-given-control-of-vast-areas-of-
17 australian-land-and-sea-mass-but-cannot-do-a-thing-with-it/
18 Blackfellas been given control of vast areas of Australian land and sea mass but
19 cannot do a thing with it
20 By Alison Ryan
21 Indigenous SOVEREIGNTY generally relates to “inherent rights deriving from spiritual
22 and historical connections to land”.
23 The CLOSING THE GAP (for life outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
24 Australians) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT is a formal agreement between
25 Commonwealth, state and territory governments, the National Coalition of Aboriginal and
26 Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations, and the Australian Local Government
27 Association.
28 Map created by Lindsay Hackett with permission from NNTT & ALRC
29 https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/images/national-native-title-tribunal-map-australia
30 The objective of the NATIONAL AGREEMENT on Closing the Gap is to enable
31 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and governments to work together to
32 overcome the inequality experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and
33 achieve life outcomes equal to all Australians.
34 Scott Morrison of the Liberal Party of Australia was PM between 2018 and 2022. The
35 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to establish the Joint Council on
36 Closing the Gap in December 2018, committing to a Partnership Agreement, and then in
37 July 2020, the Joint Council agreed to the National Agreement. Scott Morrison created the
38 “new-federation” National Cabinet during the covid-contrivance which contravenes
39 Constitutional Commonwealth governance. Where are our protests?
40 The National Agreement took four Priority Reforms:
41 * Strengthen and establish formal partnerships and shared decision-making
42 * Build the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled sector
43 * Transform government organisations so they work better for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
44 Islander people
45 * Improve and share access to data and information to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait
46 Islander communities make informed decisions.
47 As year 2024 rolls in, the Indigenous First Peoples might well be enslaved by these four
48 Priority Reforms if the following were to continue – Treaty Agreements/ Community
49 Local Government & ALGA Governance/ Government transformation & new-federalism/
50 data & digital storage.
51 From closingthegap website, the Closing the Gap Target 15 is:
52 “People maintain a distinctive cultural, spiritual, physical and economic relationship with
Page 8
1 their land and waters”.

2 The Outcome:
3 “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people maintain a distinctive cultural, spiritual,
4 physical and economic relationship with their land and waters.”
5 The Target:
6 15a: By 2030, a 15 per cent increase in Australia’s landmass subject to Aboriginal and
7 Torres Strait Islander people’s legal rights or interests.
8 15b: By 2030, a 15 per cent increase in areas covered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait
9 Islander people’s legal rights or interests in the sea.
10 As at 30 June 2022, 4, 138, 356 square kilometres of the land mass of Australia and 91,
11 111 square kilometres of the sea country of Australia were subject to Aboriginal and
12 Torres Strait Islander people’s rights or interests.
13 The Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples’ owned land and water titles, and the
14 Proportion of all land which is Indigenous owned or controlled, stands “Nationally, as at
15 June 2022, 16.1 per cent of Australia’s land area was owned or controlled by Aboriginal
16 and Torres Strait Islander people. This is unchanged from the same time in the previous
17 two years (June 2020 and 2021)”.
18 The present Australian Government Corporation has control over the Indigenous First
19 Nations peoples through the Land Councils, its Acts and Agreements. UNDRIP’s
20 principles are self-determination, participation in decision-making, respect for and
21 protection of culture, equality and non-discrimination, but the Australian Government has
22 not taken steps to implement the UNDRIP into law.
23 The Australian Parliament must govern for all Australians, not just prefer the “inherent
24 rights deriving from spiritual and historical connections to land” for one particular people
25 group. Today’s non-indigenous Australians cannot atone for the sins committed against
26 aborigines in prior generations. But today we as Australians can fully commit to help solve
27 the troubles affecting First Nation peoples. How can we, if we enjoy goods and services
28 and house and land, not extend the same blessings to others? The aboriginal people may
29 well believe that the land is their mother.
30 To them the land is the giver of life who provides them with everything they need. The
31 land is a spiritual part of the Aboriginal people and you cannot separate one from the other.
32 However this belief of connection with land is what is going to cause a lot of trouble to
33 those who do not share the same belief. This is a religious issue. And, not wanting to be
34 provocative, but why if it is a spiritual truth, has the land so failed to deliver the aborigines
35 out of their troubles. I think the only wise answer lies in “Love God and love your
36 neighbour as yourself”. For all.
37 Editor: While governments fall over themselves to ‘hand back land’ to Aborigines, there is
38 a catch – Aboriginal people are unable to do anything productive with this land. Under the
39 terms of Aboriginal Freehold or any other title it is unable to be legally sold, subdivided,
40 mortgaged, farmed, run livestock, or enjoy a productive return.
41 It can be utilised for tourism of a vague nature and some of it can be lived on by
42 individuals or a community. In Queensland the hand over of massive areas of mineral-rich
43 Cape York Peninsula to Aboriginal groups is in the same boat.
44 Prior to Christmas the singer Peter Garrett the former federal Labor Minister was trying to
45 bribe Aboriginal elders on Cape York into allowing federal and state Labor create a vast
46 World Heritage area ultimately for the benefit of mining. Garrett is an awful singer let’s
47 hope his bribery skills are just as horrible.
48 This Aboriginal land can be mined in some circumstances by multinational mining
49 companies but generally it is locked up and sterilised for future mining activities. Former
50 Queensland Labor Premier Anna Bligh, now CEO of the Australian Banking Association,

Page 9
1 when in government mortgaged nearly all of Cape York to Rothschild Bank as collateral
2 for a $60 billion loan to the state.
3 This is reflected in the conditions of the titles which forbid just about every activity. Mrs
4 Bligh got her reward from the banks for accepting these loans. She now earns a high six
5 figure salary.
6 END QUOTE Blackfellas been given control of vast areas of Australian
7
8 Let us consider also:
9
11 QUOTE
12 Dr. COCKBURN: Local freedom and government by the people are inseparable.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 Again:
16
17 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and governments to work together to
18 overcome the inequality experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and
19 achieve life outcomes equal to all Australians.
20
21 As I understand it most Aboriginals (including Torres Strait Islanders) are living like most other
22 Australians and hold professions such as lawyers, doctors, etc. As such, any purported claims
23 that Aboriginals are disadvantages when notably Aboriginal Nicholson was Governor of South
24 Australia to me is utter and sheer nonsense.
25
26 Certain groups as in any society will be in a disadvantage position but you do not resolve such
27 issues with fraudulent unconstitutional schemes to enrich some people and let those who are
28 really disadvantaged left without the needed assistance. If Aboriginals were to be the best suited
29 for addressing the disadvantage of certain Aboriginals then why is it not resolved despite each
30 year tens of billions of funding? Is it that essentially is is giving certain people monies and they
31 so to say are playing the casino slot machines and well then there is no money left for the real
32 needy? No amount of monies will be able to resolve this issue in this manner.
33
35 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
36 The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the
37 parliaments of all the states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs
38 of the territory of the commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of the
39 establishment of this constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United
40 Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject to the provisions of
41 this constitution.
42 We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and
43 governments of the several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may
44 desire to see a law established; but we are obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the
45 Parliament of the United Kingdom, and ask them to be good enough to make the law for
46 us; and when it is made we will obey it. I contend, for myself, as I have had an opportunity
47 of saying before, that after the federal parliament is established anything which the
48 legislatures of Australia want done in the way of legislation should be done within
49 Australia, and then parliament of the commonwealth should have that power. It is not
50 proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of the commonwealth to interfere with
51 the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in requesting such
52 legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have recourse to a
Page 10
1 parliament beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been passed by the
2 Parliament of the United Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is not proposed to
3 give the parliament of the commonwealth exclusive jurisdiction; they will have paramount
4 jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they exercise those powers, the existing laws shall
5 remain [start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to make laws to the contrary,
6 the state legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. It is only when the federal
7 parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those matters that
8 the powers of the states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal
9 legislature chooses to exercise its functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in
10 that way, not interfering with the existing rights of states until the federal legislature thinks
11 it necessary to do so, it is proposed to give some exclusive powers to the legislature of the
12 commonwealth. One of them is to deal with the affairs of people of any race with respect
13 to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general
14 community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to
15 the aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand.
16 END QUOTE
17
19 QUOTE
20 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
21 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable
22 to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation
23 with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state.
24 Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general
25 community" I understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If
26 it means the general community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of
27 saying that the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do
28 that, because any single state would have the right to do it under any circumstances. If it
29 means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not see why it should
30 not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
31 particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known
32 instances. For instance, if Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get
33 hawkers' licences under certain conditions which are not [start page 228] applicable to
34 Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do not know how it
35 will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
36 confines of Victoria at all.
37 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
38 Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put
39 them in the same class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole
40 community of the Commonwealth. I do not think that this has any application. If it is to
41 have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to debar the state from passing
42 legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think that that
43 sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
44 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was
45 to deal with the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior
46 races, though I do not know with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the
47 Commonwealth at the time it is brought into existence, or who may under the laws of the
48 Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have made the dealing with aliens,
49 which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the Commonwealth,
50 and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so that all
51 those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the
52 Commonwealth will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration,
Page 11
1 but will remain subject to any laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for
2 them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth should not have power to devise such
3 laws.
4 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
5 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
6 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
7 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of
8 aliens and immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 In view that the con-job referendum of 1967 re Ss51(xxvi) resulted to Aboriginals to now being
12 regarded a “race” then no State legislation can be enacted or for that any treaty that would in
13 effect be valid as the States (Territories are quasi states) as they have no constitutional powers to
14 affect this at all, let alone against the “general community”.
15
16 The same is the nonsense by the Commonwealth to provide special medical services for
17 “Aboriginals & Torres Strait Islanders” in violation of the legal principles embedded in the
18 constitution!
19
20 Fancy a poor Australian requires medical service but cannot afford it and a rich Aboriginal being
21 of (claimed) Aboriginal heritage can get free medical services and perhaps given priority. It
22 violates the legal principles in the constitution.
23
24 And for get MABO HCA judgments as they like Palmer v WA were decided in violation of the
25 legal principles embedded in the constitution.
26
27 No land-rights claims by Aboriginals can be constitutionally validated! Therefore any purported
28 land-right judgment has no legal validity. We constantly are bombarded with “First nations”,
29 “indigenous Aboriginals”, “traditional custodians” then now had transformed to “traditional
30 owners” even so none of those terms are constitutionally applicable.
31
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
35 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
36 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
37 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
38 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
39 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
40 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
41 are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
42 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
43 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
44 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
45 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
46 END QUOTE
47
48 It is an insult to all Australians that somehow a small minority race which are not even the
49 original (first) inhabitants of what is now the Commonwealth of Australia, which is not even a
50 country but a “political union” can dictate in what is to be a “democracy” whatever anyone else
51 may be entitled upon, etc.
52
Page 12
1 We have a rich history of Italians, Greeks, Dutch, and numerous other ethnic groups which
2 contributed to what the Commonwealth of Australia now is and yet somehow we have
3 politicians promoting by deception that Aboriginals are somehow the first inhabitants of what is
4 now known as Australia when they never were, as I have extensively canvassed at my blog
5 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
6 The Dutch were part of the Australia landscape more than 100 years before Torres Strait
7 Islanders joined and in fact Dutch law then ruled Australia (New Holland). Yet, somehow the
8 Johnny-come-late Torres Strait Islanders have now the say over Australians? Come up wake up
9 this communist scheme is to use Aboriginals as the fall guys while they seek to have the U.N.
10 taking over Australia.
11 Every race has their own life longevity that depends upon many factors. You cannot just take
12 some of a particular group and then make claims that are not reflecting the overall ethnic group.
13 There are those who are fanatical religious zealots and yet far more of the same religion just
14 want to practice their religion in peace and tranquillity and not bother others about their religious
15 views.
16
18 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
19 "religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious
20 tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world."
21 END QUOTE
22
23 The legal principle embedded in the constitution of “religious liberty” is precisely what we
24 should accept for one and another. Everyone can have their views but cannot indoctrinate it upon
25 others.
26
27 https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/hidden-mind-control-audio-files-found-in-netflixs-leave-the-
28 world-behind/
29 QUOTE
30 MIND CONTROL & PSYOPS
31 HIDDEN MIND CONTROL AUDIO FILES FOUND IN NETFLIX’S ‘LEAVE THE
32 WORLD BEHIND’
33 When podcasters, Bonnie and John Mitchell of AwakenVideo uploaded the new, dystopian
34 Netflix disaster thriller, ‘Leave the World Behind’ into their editing program, they were
35 surprised to find four soundtracks, instead of one, something they had never seen before.
36 One of these four audio tracks is inaudible to humans, because it’s entirely in the infrasonic
37 range. Infrasonic frequencies are used in non-lethal weapons, where they can cause
38 incapacitation, disorientation, nausea, vomiting and uncontrollable defecation.
39 When tuned to high intensity VLF and ELF frequencies, they are used as “antipersonnel
40 weapons” (to kill people), to cause structural damage in buildings and even to cause
41 localized earthquakes.
42 Less publicly known, are capabilities in brainwave entrainment and the ability to attack the
43 specific areas of the prefrontal cortex that are stimulated during religious experience.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 The covid scam is a clear example how so many fell for the fear mongering, etc. And not to
47 ignore the certain fearmongering about “Monkey Pox” which turned out also nothing but fear
48 mongering so pharmaceutical companies sell their poisons. And likewise those who are watching
49 television or listening to radio are likely being subjected to fearmongering also. Than we have no
50 longer parliamentarian representation as most will be indoctrinated with whatever suit the puppet
51 masters. Meaning we no longer have proper representation in the parliament/government at all.

Page 13
1 A clear example also appears to me to be that the Victorian Police no longer is upholding the
2 rule of law but rather the rule of abuse of power to suit tits puppet master. It no longer can
3 differentiate between enforcement of the rule of law and the enforcement of the unlawful
4 conduct of politicians and their collaborators. A clear example was its criminal conduct to
5 enforce the unconstitutional mandates. Like putting in handcuffs a pregnant woman for having
6 exercised nothing more but her “political liberty” for her involvement to oppose the
7 unconstitutional mandates by protest.
8
9
10
11 I received the article from one of my readers and have enlarged a part of it.
12
13 I have disputed the constitutional validity of “State land tax” which includes the purported
14 delegated State Land Tax referred to as “council rates”.
15
16 It should be very clear that had the State Government bothered to consider my volumes of
17 writings regarding the covid scam, State land Tax scam, etc, then likely most cost may have
18 been avoided. Now former Premier Daniel Andrews seems to be in retirement of a Kings ransom
19 as if everything is rosy but he in my view should spend the rest of his life in imprisonment!
20
21 QUOTE frenchcj14mar12-case law 1904 Sydney Council v Commonwealth
22 In Permanent Trustee the Court referred not only to British constitutional history but also
23 to the Record of the Debates of the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s, which drafted
24 and settled the text of the Constitution.
25
26 It was not until 1988 that the High Court permitted resort to the Convention
27 Debates of the 1890s in order to understand the meaning of words in the Constitution.
28 The restriction dates back to a decision of the Court in 1904 in Municipal Council of
Page 14
1 Sydney v Commonwealth.1 That was another tax case. It was about the rateability of land
2 previously owned by the Government of New South Wales which had become vested in the
3 Commonwealth. Section 114 of the Constitution applies not only to prohibit the imposition
4 of taxes by the Commonwealth on State property, but also to prohibit the imposition of taxes
5 by the States on Commonwealth property. The Commonwealth claimed its protection. The
6 Attorney-General of New South Wales wanted to refer in argument before the High Court to a
7 statement of opinion which had been expressed by a delegate at the Convention Debates about
8 the operation of s 114. The Attorney himself had been a delegate. The members of the Court,
9 Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ, all of whom had also been delegates, would not allow
10 him to do so. Justice O'Connor treated the terms of the Constitution like those of a written
11 contract, and said:
12
13 We are only concerned here with what was agreed to, not with what was said by the parties in
14 the course of coming to an agreement.2
15
16 Over the years this court-imposed restriction led to a rather artificial approach to
17 interpretation of the Constitution. It also led to some absurdities and amusing moments. In
18 the course of argument in the Concrete Pipes Case,3 which concerned the scope of the
19 corporations power of the Commonwealth conferred by s 51(xx), counsel Mr Lyons,
20 responding to a question from the Bench, acknowledged that he was not permitted to refer to
21 the Convention Debates but went on to say what they showed. Mr Ellicott who was on the
22 other side, described Mr Lyons' reference as 'not permissible' and added:
23
24 But all I want to say is that if they were looked at, one would find the contrary.
25
26 Justice Menzies said, 'that too is impermissible'. Mr Ellicott answered: 'no doubt your
27 Honours will not look at them.' The restriction was lifted in 1988 in Cole v Whitfield.4 The
28 whole Court referred to the drafting history of s 92 of the Constitution and contributions to the
29 Debate upon the draft clause which had been made by Sir Samuel Griffith, Sir Edmund
30 Barton and O'Connor, among others. The reference to the history of s 92 was made:
31
32 ... for the purpose of identifying the contemporary meaning of language used, the subject to
33 which that language was directed and the nature and objectives of the movement towards
34 federation from which the compact of the Constitution finally emerged. 5
35
36 All of this adds up to the proposition that the Constitution did not emerge out of a
37 vacuum. Whether dealing with taxation or any other topic, it is embedded in the history and
38 understandings which informed both the British tradition of responsible government, which
39 we adopted, and provisions of the Constitution of the United States, which inspired its
40 provisions relating to the distribution of legislative powers in the Federation and limitations
41 upon the exercise of those powers.
42
43 That is not to say, of course, that the way in which taxing and spending powers are
44 exercised today would have been imagined or imaginable to the framers of our Constitution in
45 the 1890s. What was in their minds was formed by existing arrangements for raising revenue
46 in the colonies.
47 END QUOTE frenchcj14mar12-case law 1904 Sydney Council v Commonwealth
48 Again:
1 (1904) 1 CLR 208.

2 (1904) 1 CLR 208, 213.
3 Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1971) 124 CLR 468.
4 (1988) 165 CLR 360.
5 (1988) 165 CLR 360, 385.
Page 15
1 We are only concerned here with what was agreed to, not with what was said by the parties in
2 the course of coming to an agreement.6
3
4 This, even so the Framers of the Constitution stated:
5
7 QUOTE
8 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
9 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
10 END QUOTE
11
13 QUOTE
14 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
15 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
16 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
17 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing
18 laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the
19 necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
20 END QUOTE
21
23 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
24 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
25 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
26 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
27 the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
28 END QUOTE
29
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. DEAKIN: I think it is unkind, when struggling with one misfortune, to be reminded
33 of another. The difficulty of dealing with taxation cannot be mitigated by remembering that
34 we have an upper house. I rose simply to point out that if these debates are, as they will be,
35 criticised by the enemies of federation, it is desirable that our language should be as
36 accurate as possible, and we should hasten to explain even apparent misconceptions which
37 may arise from the language of hon. members. I rose to show that we are not taking
38 anything away from the colonies, not injuring their credit, and also that this alarm as to the
39 exercise of the power of taxation by the commonwealth is greatly dissipated by the
40 recollection that it is the people of the states who will compose the commonwealth, and
41 who will tax themselves. We may rely, therefore, in giving them these ample powers on
42 their not using them against themselves. Members have spoken of the commonwealth as if
43 it was outside Australasia; but the commonwealth will be the people of Australasia. The
44 power of taxation will only be exercised with the consent of the people of Australasia;
45 and we need not fear its exercise. It will only be enforced when such an imperative
46 need arises as will commend it to the people of the country, who will return
47 representatives to parliament for the purpose of imposing special taxation for the
48 special ends which they have in view. We have not to protect the people of the federated
49 states against themselves, and there is certainly no one else to protect them against in this
50 regard. The commonwealth consists of the people; and this power of taxation can only
51 be exercised by and with the consent of the people.
52 END QUOTE
6 (1904) 1 CLR 208, 213.

Page 16
1
2

Page 17
1
2

Page 18
1
2
3
4
5 Again, the law in question was one relating to the imposition of municipal taxation under the
6 authority of the State.
7
8
9
10 The following makes it beyond question very clear:
11
12 “There could be no doubt that the right for taxation was the right of
13 sovereignty. Municipal taxation is by delegation to the mu7nicipality. It
14 follows that if the authority which assumed to create such delegation did
Page 19
1 not itself possess the power, the delegation was void, since the spring
2 could not rise higher that its source. A municipal corporation, therefore,
3 could not have any greater power to impose taxation than the State by
4 which it was created, and by which its own powers were conferred. ”
5
7
8
9 It is for all purposes and intent a State delegated land taxation (also referred to as a property tax
10 on the land) as a municipal council being corporation that cannot apply any taxation in its own
11 right.
12
13 Again:
14
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
18 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
19 END QUOTE
20
22 QUOTE
23 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
24 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
25 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
26 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing
27 laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the
28 necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
29 END QUOTE
30
Page 20

2 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
3 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
4 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
5 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
6 the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
7 END QUOTE
8
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests,
12 but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
13 END QUOTE
14
15 http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/2003/20.html
16 federal limitations on the legislative power of the states and the ...
17 In Municipal Council of Sydney v Commonwealth, the High Court held that the
18 reference to 'a State' in s 114 extended to local councils established by a State. A ...
19
20 https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/2003/20.html
21 QUOTE
22 FEDERAL LIMITATIONS ON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATES
23 AND THE COMMONWEALTH TO BIND ONE ANOTHER
24 Anne Twomey[*]
25 INTRODUCTION
26 The principle that the legislature can enact laws which bind the executive is a familiar one.
27 The prerogative can be abrogated or abolished by legislation[1] and the decisions of the
28 executive made subject to administrative review. [2]
29 More interesting, however, is the relationship within the federation between the legislature
30 of one polity and the executive of another. To what extent can the laws of one polity bind
31 the executive of another, or abrogate or abolish its prerogatives?
32 The High Court, over the last century, has had a very difficult time in answering these
33 questions. Fundamental though they be to our governmental system, there has never been a
34 clear and consistent principle established to provide ready answers to them. After the
35 centenary of federation, one would think we would understand how the polities within that
36 federation are intended to interact, but we do not.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Obviously the reason the High Court had difficulties is that the judges themselves were more
40 interested in violating the constitution (By refusing until 1988 the usage of the Hansard records
41 of the Constitutional Convention Debates.) so they could make their own rules up as they went
42 along.
43
44 Remember:
45
47 Convention)
51 END QUOTE
52

Page 21
1 You cannot have that the so called “concurrent” legislative powers somehow remain to be in
2 place one the Commonwealth had commenced to legislate as it did on each and every Section 51
3 subject matter.
4
5 While the NSW government claims that legislative powers was returned to it to apply State land
6 taxation reality is that there is no constitutional mechanism to permit this.
7 Ordinary when a State abolish certain legislation the courts may hold that it was as if it never
8 existed, however as the Framers of the Constitution made very clear:
9
10 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
14 position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that
15 law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the
16 Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no
17 power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary
18 revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even
19 when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it
20 has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I
21 should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be
22 settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and
23 that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
27 bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50
28 QUOTE
29 Constitutional interpretation
30 The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
31 intention of its makers[51].
32 END QUOTE
33
34 It means that once the Commonwealth legislate as to a certain Section 51 subject matter then
35 forever the “concurrent” legislative power is no more for the States.
36
38 QUOTE
39 Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
40 Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
41 of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
42 Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
43 own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
44 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 As must be very clear that even if as matter is not within Sections 51 and/or 52 the
48 Commonwealth may still ac quire legislative powers where the matter is incidental to its
49 ordinary legislative powers.
50
51 Let me give an example:
52
53 The Commonwealth legislated that pensions are to be subject to CPI increases. This then in
54 effect means that the States cannot increase any rates, etc, more than the CPI as if it were to fail
55 to stick to the CPI it would in effect undermine what the Commonwealth seeks to do for

Page 22
1 pensioners. Yet, reality is that the States are blatantly disregarding this and the Commonwealth is
2 failing to ensure this undermining of its intentions is stopped.
3
4 As I made clear in past writings, I legally challenged the validity of the purported Australian
5 Citizenship Act 1948 and in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I representing myself succeed in both
6 appeals unchallenged.
7
8 http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/P
9 ublications_Archive/online/Milestones
10 Australia's Constitutional Milestones
11 QUOTE
1948 First Australian citizenship legislation passed. Nationality and
Citizenship Act
1948 (Cwth)
1953 The Royal Style and Title of the sovereign appropriate Royal Style and
to Australia specified. Titles Act 1953
(Cwth)
1953 Any power existing under a statute exercisable by the Royal Powers Act
Governor-General could be exercised by the sovereign 1953 (Cwth)
when personally in Australia.
1956-59 The Joint Committee on Constitutional Review was Report from the
appointed to review the Constitution and to make any Joint Committee
recommendations for constitutional amendment that it on Constitutional
thought necessary. Review, 1959
1957 Commonwealth monopoly over income taxation Victoria v

remained in place, despite a second State challenge. Commonwealth
(1957) 99 CLR
575 (Second
Uniform Tax
Case)
1967 Constitutional amendment carried giving the Constitution

(27 May) Commonwealth power to make special laws with Alteration
respect to Aborigines living in the states and to (Aboriginals) Act
include Indigenous peoples in the national census. 1967 (Cwth)
1968 Matters which could be appealed from the High Court Privy Council
to the Privy Council were limited, and appeals to the (Limitation of
Privy Council from other federal courts and territory Appeals) Act 1968
supreme courts were abolished.

Page 23
1971 As a consequence of a High Court decision, the Strickland v Rocla

Commonwealth gained power to control a substantial Concrete Pipes
part of Australian trade when conducted by Ltd (1971) 124
corporations. CLR 468
1973 The Queen was created Queen of Australia. Royal Styles and
Titles Act 1973
(Cwth)
1973 Victoria called upon other governments to join in a Proceedings of the

(3-7 September) constitutional convention to consider problems of Australian
Australian federalism. Constitutional
Convention 1973
Australian Constitutional Convention, Sydney session.
1975 The High Court confirmed that sovereign rights over New South Wales v
territorial seas and the continental shelf are vested in Commonwealth
the Commonwealth. (1975) 135 CLR
337
1975 Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act

1975 prevented appeals being taken from the High
Court to the Privy Council without a certificate from
the High Court. The High Court has said it will not
issue such a certificate.
1 END QUOTE
2
3
4
5
6 QUOTE 20230209-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus-COMPLAINT-
7 Supplement 4
8 Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus 9-2-2023
9 Email via portal: https://ministers.ag.gov.au/hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp/contact
10
11 Re COMPLAINT Supplement 4
12 Sir,
13 in my view you are guilty of derelict of your obligations and duties as Attorney-General,
14 grossly incompetent and I below intent to set out some further matters. I may add that this has
15 been also applicable to your predecessors and this includes treasurers, Prime Ministers, etc.
16 Obviously you would like me to show why I view this to be so and below I will provide some set
17 out albeit further and additional details also are posted at my blog
18 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
19
20 The issue THE WINDFALL TAX is it constitutionally valid?
21
Page 24
1 In my view the initial problem lies with the High Court of Australia when in 1904 it
2 unconstitutionally that is decided that the Hansard Constitution Convention Debates
3 (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), where not
4 permitted to be used, this despite that the Framers of the Constitution had stated:
5
10 END QUOTE
11
12 And also important:
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 And as I have already set out in my 7-2-2023 writings that the Framers of the Constitution
21 specifically provided for ordinary citizens to be able to challenge constitutional matters without
22 needing the approval of some political Attorney-General.
23
24 https://www.onenation.org.au/press-release-windfall-tax-a-free-license-for-labor-to-print-
25 money?utm_campaign=newsletter_03_02_2023_3&utm_medium=email&utm_source=onenation
26 QUOTE
27
28
29 PRESS RELEASE: Windfall tax a free license for Labor to print money
30 Rikkie - Lee Tyrrell February 01, 2023
31 Regional development and property investment will be strongly discouraged by the
32 Andrews government’s appalling windfall gains tax, which should be subject to a
33 parliamentary inquiry before it comes into effect.
34 One Nation’s Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell MLC said Labor had – quite shamelessly – given itself
35 a free licence to print money at a whim.
36 “No wonder this change was snuck through during the pandemic with very little scrutiny in
37 Parliament,” Mrs. Tyrrell said. “Whenever he decides he needs more funds, Dan Andrews
38 can just have some place re-zoned and skim the cream off the top so he can continue with
39 his reckless spending of other people’s money”.
40 This will impact on growth in regional Victoria by discouraging people from investing in
41 regional housing and property. In the middle of a state and national housing crisis created
42 largely by low supply and exacerbated by the Andrews government’s restrictive rules on
Page 25
1 landlords, the very last thing the government should be doing is further discouraging
2 property investors.
3 “I’ll be calling for this shameless Labor money grab to be referred to a parliamentary
4 inquiry before it comes into effect from 1 July this year.”
5 Mrs. Tyrrell said the solution to Victoria’s housing and rental crisis was to increase supply,
6 reduce demand, incentivise residential property investment and eliminating bureaucratic
7 red tape.
8 “Under Dan Andrews, Victoria is lagging the nation with social housing comprising less
9 than 3% of total housing stock,” she said. “More than 64,000 people, many of which are
10 families, are on the waiting list.
11 “Almost two years ago, the Andrews government also significantly increased restrictions
12 on landlords, reducing the incentive for them to remain in the long-term rental market.
13 This windfall tax is yet another disincentive.
14 “We can increase housing supply for Victorians by banning foreign ownership of
15 residential property, as New Zealand and Canada have recently done.
16 “Otherwise, government just needs to get out of the way. Local government red tape is
17 creating crippling delays in the release of new land, a huge factor in driving up land prices
18 and further crippling young Victorians and first home buyers from entering the
19 homeownership market”.
20 Landlords and property investors are being unfairly treated as the whipping boys in this
21 crisis. The vast majority of investors have only a single property for which they have
22 worked many years and sacrificed much to save for, just to have a little more income in
23 retirement. They are facing big increases in insurance costs and council rates.
24
25 They should not be treated as a no-limit ATM by Dan Andrews.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/windfall-gains-tax
29 Windfall Gains Tax | State Revenue Office
30 10 Oct 2022 ... From 1 July 2023, a windfall gains tax applies to land that is subject to a
31 government rezoning resulting in a value uplift to the land of ...
32
33 https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/windfall-gains-tax-exemptions-and-exclusions
34 Windfall gains tax — exemptions and exclusions
35 7 Oct 2022 ... From 1 July 2023, a windfall gains tax (WGT) applies to land that is subject to a
36 government rezoning resulting in a taxable value uplift to ...
37
38 https://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/windfall-gains-tax
39 Windfall gains tax | Department of Treasury and Finance Victoria
40 Windfall gains tax · Breadcrumb · Factsheet · Share this page · Main navigation · Footer Sub
41 Menu.
42
43 https://www.morrows.com.au/what-is-windfall-gains-tax-and-what-it-means-for-property-owners/
44 What is Windfall Gains Tax and what does it mean for property ...
45 Windfall Gains Tax (WGT) is a new tax that is placed on the extra value added to your property as
46 a result of rezoning. Read more on what's likely to come ...
47 QUOTE
48 What is Windfall Gains Tax and what does it mean for property owners?
49 MORROWS CORPORATE
50
51 BLOGS
52
53 WHAT IS WINDFALL GAINS TAX AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR
54 PROPERTY OWNERS?
Page 26
1
2 On 12 October 2021, a bill was introduced into the Victorian Parliament, which, if
3 passed, would introduce a Windfall Gains Tax (WGT) on the extra value added to
4 your property as a result of rezoning.
5 As the bill is not yet law, it is subject to change before being enacted. However, to
6 prepare you for what’s likely to come into effect, we have outlined what landowners
7 can expect and how this will likely impact them.
8 How much?
9 The rate is 62.5% of the difference in the capital improved value of the land before
10 and after the rezoning (uplift) that exceeds $100,000. Because of the tax-free
11 threshold that applies under this rate, the effective tax rate is less than 50%.
12 Where the taxable value uplift is $500,000 or more, the rate of WGT is a flat 50% of
13 the uplift.
14 Multiple landowners are jointly assessed for WGT without regard to the separate
15 interest of each owner.
16 Does this apply to me?
17 The WGT is intended to commence on 1 July 2023. Rezonings that were underway
18 prior to 15 May 2021 will escape the WGT.
19 There is a threshold of $100,000 (available once per owner or group of owners for
20 rezonings under the same planning scheme amendment).
21 Up to 2 hectares of residential land (including primary production land with a
22 residence) will also receive an exemption from WGT.
23 Affected landowners can defer payment of up to 100% of the tax for up to 30 years
24 or until a dutiable transaction, whichever occurs first; however, interest will accrue
25 on the deferred WGT. Very broadly, the interest rate is the average daily yield for the
26 10-year TCV Bond Rate for May of the preceding financial year.
27
28 An Example (based on the draft WGT bill, which is subject to change)
29 Frank and Estelle Constanza acquired a block of land in the western suburbs of
30 Melbourne in the early 80s. The land has a total area of 12 hectares. Frank and
31 Estelle use the holiday house and hobby farm on the land (comprising 2 hectares of
32 the total area of the land) primarily for residential purposes.

Page 27
1 As a result of a review commenced in the 2024 year, Melton City Council

2 determined that the available greenfield land supply was below requirements.
3 Accordingly, the council rezoned the land from Green Wedge Zone to Urban Growth
4 Zone. As a consequence, the land increased substantially in value. This is the only
5 land owned by Frank and Estelle that is affected by the rezoning.
6 The gross uplift in value of the land for WGT purposes was $12,000,000. The uplift
7 attributable to the residential land was $2,000,000. Accordingly, the taxable uplift for
8 WGT purposes is $10,000,000.
9 Frank and Estelle will be jointly assessed for WGT of $10,000,000 x 50% =
10 $5,000,000 as if a single person owned the land.
11 Frank and Estelle make an election in the approved form to the Commissioner of
12 State Revenue for Victoria to defer payment of 100% of the WGT.
13 On 1 July 2034, Frank and Estelle sell the land. Frank and Estelle must pay the
14 deferred WGT and interest within 30 days of the settlement of the land sale.
15 Final thoughts
16 With Victoria’s borrowing now the highest in the country, it’s clear that the
17 temptation to participate in Melbourne’s seemingly endless property boom has
18 clearly become overwhelming.
19 Some argue that this will create yet more upward pressure on property prices.
20 Others note that it is fair and economically efficient for Victorians as a whole to
21 benefit from rights to develop land, rather than concentrating these windfalls in the
22 hands of a few landowners and developers.
23 For questions on WGT and any other tax-related matters, please get in touch with our
24 Accredited Specialist in Taxation Law, Russell Krupp at Morrows Legal on (03)
25 9690 5700 or rkrupp@morrows.com.au.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 https://lplc.com.au/resources/practitioner/windfall-gains-tax-fact-sheet-act-now
29 Windfall gains tax fact sheet — act now
30 10 Nov 2022 ... The new Windfall Gains Tax (WGT) will potentially impact real estate transactions
31 that your clients enter into now, if those transactions ...
32
33 https://jws.com.au/en/insights/articles/2021-articles/victoria’s-newest-property-tax-windfall-gains-tax
34 Victoria's newest property tax - Windfall Gains Tax
35 In May this year, the Victorian government announced it would be introducing a Windfall Gains
36 Tax (WGT) in order to tax the value of gains made by ...
37
38 https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/as-made/acts/windfall-gains-tax-and-state-taxation-and-other-
39 acts-further-amendment-act-2021
40 Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and ... - Victorian legislation
41 Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Act 2021. Act as
42 made. Act number 52/2021. Authorised version.
43
44 https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/windfall-gains-tax-and-state-taxation-and-other-acts-
45 further-amendment-act-2021/001
46 Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and ... - Victorian legislation
47 Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Act 2021. Act in force.
48 Act number 52/2021 Version ...
49
50 https://www.hunthunt.com.au/services/property/winds-of-change-victorian-government-introduces-
51 new-windfall-gains-tax/
52 Victorian Government introduces new Windfall Gains Tax
53 10 Jan 2023 ... Windfall Gains Tax is a new Victorian State Government tax on land set to be
54 introduced from 1 July 2023. The tax will be triggered where ...

Page 28
1
2 https://www.maddocks.com.au/insights/windfall-gains-tax-10-problems-with-new-regime
3 Windfall Gains Tax - 10 problems with new regime - Maddocks
4 15 Sept 2022 ... The Windfall Gains Tax Act 2021 (WGT Act) will establish a new tax on the uplift
5 in land value resulting from a planning scheme amendment ...
6
7 It appears to me that essentially it is a state land tax, as much as that that municipal/shire
8 councils are on a yearly basis (in Victoria) revaluating properties as to increase the rate
9 payments, etc. So, you as an owner improve at your cost your property and well the council then
10 for ever charge for your own paid improvements.
11 BUT IS IT CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID? I do not think so!
12
13 https://libguides.usc.edu.au/c.php?g=508875&p=3479253
14 McCawley v The King [1920] AC 691, (1920) 28 CLR 106, [1920] UKPCHCA 1 - this case
15 concluded that the Parliament is legislatively sovereign. This essentially has been the basis for
16 all subsequent State constitutional law in Australia.
17
18 And
19
21 Powell v Apollo Candle (1885) 10 App Cas 282 - this case dealt with the powers of colonial
22 legislatures. It decided that colonial legislatures, though subordinate to the Imperial
23 Parliament, were not mere delegates and were empowered to delegate legislative power to the
24 executive.
25
26 It should be understood that what eventuated prior to federation may no longer have been
27 applicable upon federation on 1 January 1901. After all prior to federation the colonies were
28 “sovereign” colonies which could amend its own constitution and also the powers of its State
29 Supreme Court, etc. In that time the Parliament was sovereign and supreme. One however the
30 federation commenced this drastically changed, and hence the High Court of Australia
31 unconstitutional conduct to deny the usage of the Hansard debates this so they could now twist
32 and infringe upon the constitution.
33 The problem we have is that law students are taught at law education facilities this rot and then
34 read the constitution accordingly rather than to read the constitution as it was to be interpreted to
35 the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
36
37 How competent is this AG Mark Dreyfus MP when he appears to me to be asleep
38 behind the wheel grossly incompetent to even understand and comprehend what is
39 going on in violation of the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
40 You can download the document from:
41 https://www.scribd.com/document/617274266/20230101-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
42 B-to-AG-Mark-Dreyfus-MP
43
44 and
45 I consider it very serious that the Victorian Government as well as the VEC seems to
46 undermine the Governor’s prerogative powers. And by this causing invalid elections
47 to be held. Meaning both 2018 and 2022 purported Victorian elections are without
48 legal validity and so anyone purportedly elected.
49 You can download the document from:
50 https://www.scribd.com/document/618506986/20230108-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
51 B-to-Victorian-Electoral-Commissioner-Mr-Warwick-Gately-COMPLAINT-Supplement-
52 1
Page 29
1
2 Also consider:
3
8 END QUOTE
9
10 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
11
12 Chapter V—The States
13 106 Saving of Constitutions
14 The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution,
15 continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or
16 establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the
17 Constitution of the State.
18 END QUOTE 20230209-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus-COMPLAINT-
19 Supplement 4
20 And
21 QUOTE 20230209-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus-COMPLAINT-
22 Supplement 4
23 QUOTE 110308-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc
24 Premier Kristina Keneally 8-3-2011
25 <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>
26 .
27 Cc: * Mr Ted Baillieu Premier ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au
28 * Tony Newbury Chief Commissioner of State Revenue C/o peter.geffroy@osr.nsw.gov.au
29 * Mr Robert Pincevic <roblp@bigpond.com> PO Box 15 Luddenham NSW 2745
30 .
31 Re: State Land tax - etc
32 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
33 .
34 Kristina,
35 your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response (in regard of my
36 31 August 2010 correspondence to you regarding the unconstitutional State land taxes:
37 QUOTE
38 CMU10-16940
39 13 September 2010
40 Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
41 schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
42
43 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
44 I write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax.
45 As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the Hon
46 Eric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention.
47 You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration.
48 Yours sincerely
49 David Swain
50 for Director General
51 END QUOTE
52 .
53 I received on 8-3-2011 a response dated 2-3-2011 from Barry Collier MP Parliamentary
54 Secretary Assisting the Treasurer on behalf of the Treasurer he responded.
55 Section 107 he refers to is very clear that for example “Income Tax” albeit was a Colonial and
56 later State legislative power the moment the Commonwealth legislated upon “Income Tax” then
57 the power became an exclusive Commonwealth power and the States had to retire from this.
Page 30
1 Once it became an exclusive power then the constitution doesn’t permit it to return to become a
2 “concurrent” power, as I have set out in past correspondence. The legislative powers on the
3 particular field is forever an exclusive power of the Commonwealth!
4 In regard of the State Land Taxes the same applies. Once the Commonwealth commenced to
5 legislate as to “Land taxes” then it became by this an exclusive legislative power and as such the
6 State no longer had concurrent legislative powers on Land taxes matters.
7 The States were created out of the former colonies and as s.106 of the (federal) constitution
8 makes clear “subject to this constitution” and this clearly provides in s51 for concurrent
9 legislative powers to become exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers. It is not relevant if
10 the Commonwealth, as like with the 1952 abolition land taxes were to abolish “income tax”
11 because it would still remain an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power. As for s5 of the
12 Constitution Act 1992 (NSW) it cannot override any Commonwealth exclusive powers and as it
13 clearly is subject to the Commonwealth constitution it therefore cannot be perceived it somehow
14 gives legislative powers no longer permissible by the Commonwealth Constitution to be
15 exercisable by a state.
16
17 .
Page 31
1 Critical might be the claim:

2 QUOTE
3 Land taxes were imposed by the States prior to federation. They were introduced at the federal level in 1910.
4 In 1952, the Commonwealth Government abolished land tax. This did not have the effect of preventing the
5 States from imposing land tax, but rather returned taxation powers back to them. Accordingly, the NSW
6 Government introduced the land Management Act in 1956.
7 END QUOTE
8 Obviously, contrary to what was claimed by Barry Collier MP the Commonwealth Government
9 has no constitutional powers to abolish any legislation as it being the Executive it can refuse to
10 enforce legislative provisions but cannot abolish an act of Parliament. As such it is the
11 Commonwealth Parliament that can only abolish legislation.
12 What may be noted is the wording “but rather returned taxation powers back to them” as
13 such this is a concession that in fact since 1910 land taxes were an exclusive Commonwealth
14 legislative power. The question then is how does one “return” a legislative power to any State,
15 not just NSW, where the Constitution never provided for this? Clearly Barry Collier MP didn’t
16 clarifyy within what constitutional powers, if any, a reversal of legislative power could eventuate
17 and quite frankly the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once a legislative power was a
18 Commonwealth legislative power then this was the end of the States dealing with the subject.
19 .
22 QUOTE
23 Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
24 position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that
25 law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the
26 Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no
27 power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary
28 revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even
29 when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it
30 has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I
31 should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be
32 settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and
33 that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
34 END QUOTE
35 .
37 QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
38 The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
39 the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
40 END QUOTE
41 .
43 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
44 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
45 An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
46 Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
47 END QUOTE
48 .
50 QUOTE
51 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
52 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
53 END QUOTE
54 And
56 QUOTE

Page 32
1 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
2 Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
3 Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
4 Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
5 sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
6 END QUOTE
7 .
9 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
10 But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the
11 imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the
12 whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
13 END QUOTE
14 And
16 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
17 On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may
18 determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average
19 opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout
20 the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states
21 for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.
22 END QUOTE
23
26 2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniform
27 throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from one
28 state to another;
29 END QUOTE
30
32 QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-
33 Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty
34 shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.
35 END QUOTE
36 .
38 QUOTE
39 Mr. BARTON.-I am saying now that I do not think there is any necessity for clause 95 in its present form.
40 What I am saying however, is that it should be made certain that in the same way as you provide that the
41 Tariff or any taxation imposed shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, so it should be
42 provided with reference to trade and commerce that it shall be uniform and equal, so that the
43 Commonwealth shall not give preference to any state or part of a state. Inasmuch as we provide that
44 all taxation, whether it be customs or excise duties, or direct taxation, must be uniform, and inasmuch
45 as we follow the United States Constitution in that particular-in the very same way I argue that we should
46 protect the trade and commerce sub-section by not doing anything which will limit its effect. That is the real
47 logical position.
48 END QUOTE
49 .
52 QUOTE
53 Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the
54 Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a
55 considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided
56 that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect
57 taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an
58 income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting
59 Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of any
60 kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property, wherever it is
61 found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very careful, we shall get

Page 33
1 into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposed
2 might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform.
3 END QUOTE
4 .
5 It should be clear that a “UNIFORM” law under the Commonwealth cannot somehow revert
6 back to a non-uniform law merely because of the States desiring to pursue their own kind of land
7 taxation. As such, on this basis also the State land taxes are floored (and so also any Territorial
8 land taxes).
9 .
11 QUOTE
12 Mr. ISAACS.-The court would not consider whether it was an oversight or not. They would take the
13 law and ask whether it complied with the Constitution. If it did not, they would say that it was invalid.
14 They would not go into the question of what was in the minds of the Members of Parliament when the law
15 was passed. That would be a political question which it would be impossible for the court to determine.
16 END QUOTE
17 .
18 As I previously indicated the Commonwealth could have allowed the States to collect under its
19 authority land taxes but it still would have to be uniform through the Commonwealth and as such
20 all States and Territories (quasi States) would be bound to have the same land taxes application
21 and not different rates. This then would clearly be a waste of exercise as why allow different
22 States/Territories to collect taxes when one federal office can do the same?
23 The issue then is of the Commonwealth somehow could enact legislation to retrospective provide
24 for legislation for the States/Territories to have collected land taxes on its behalf. Again, the first
25 hurdle is that retrospective legislation would be invalid where so to say it makes the conduct of a
26 honest man to be a criminal conduct. Further, where the States raised different levels of land
27 taxes then it cannot be uniform. One couldn’t accept that a person of one State having paid less
28 then in another State now suddenly was to pay more by some kind of retrospective legislation
29 and neither that some who paid more now were going to receive a refund of any land taxes paid
30 above that of other States. After all commercial entities are based upon overhead cost, including
31 land taxes, etc, and as such a business enterprise might be determined where the lowest taxation
32 is available. Changing the system after the contracts are already in operation would make a
33 mockery of the reliability of State provisions.
34 I have indicated for years that what is needed is an OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN which
35 would advise the government, the parliament, the people and the Courts as to constitutional
36 meanings and application as a constitutional council. This is what is missing in Australia and as
37 result we have sport stars and singers and whatever elected to the parliament and basically no
38 one understands let alone comprehend the meaning and application of the constitutions.
39 .
40 It is obviously of concern to me that it took a massive 6 month period (from 31 August 2010 till
41 2 March 2011) to present this kind of response that doesn’t appear to me to indicate to be any
42 well researched response.
43 .
44 Obviously I will pass on the 2-3-2011 response and my reply to those concerned with the issue.
45 .
46 EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!
47 .
48
49
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
.
50 Our name is our motto!

51 .
52
Page 34
1 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)

2 END QUOTE 110308-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc
3
4 I may add that in regard of my country property the shire council besides the shire council rates
5 also charge me for garbage collection this even so no one resided on the property. In fact, when
6 the Framers of the Constitution debates municipal/shire council rates it held it was for the
7 corporation (council) for its cost of collecting garbage, etc. Clearly councils separating council
8 rates and adding garbage collection cost themselves proved that the very purpose of council rates
9 was defeated by the garbage charges. And this is without seeking to imply that council rates are
10 constitutionally valid.
11
12 There is also more to this and let us go back to the image:
13
14
15
16 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Re s51
17
18 (xiii) banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits
19 of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money;
20
21 It must be clear that unless a “State bank” operates within the confines of a State it falls under
22 Commonwealth banking legislation.
23
24 Not uncommon State governments apply interest rates and so municipal/shire councils regarding
25 overdue rates, etc. Actually when you go through it all numerous companies apply interest
26 charges but where is their authority to do so one should ask?
27
28 The State of Victoria regarding its intended “ THE WINDFALL TAX ” will be
29 applying interest rates, but upon what legal basis, as the State of Victoria has no “State Bank”
30 operating within the confines of the States jurisdiction, in fact it has no State Bank at all, as it
31 sold/handed it over to the CBA (Commonwealth Bank of Australia)
32
33 Alex Graham (alexgraham04@gmail.com) is a person who well deals with the deception by the
34 banks and so one might be better to contact him as he as I understand it already published 2
35 books about it. My personal interest is constitutional matters and therefore I leave any kind of
36 discussion a person may wish to pursue to a person like Alex Graham regardless if one may or
37 may not agree with each other’s views.
38
39 While there are all kind of organisations like Credit Unions, etc, they obviously are not “banks”
40 as the Framers of the Constitution referred to and may therefore fall within the Commonwealth’s
41 jurisdiction regarding corporations, etc.
42
43 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Section 51:
Page 35
1
2 (xx) foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of
3 the Commonwealth;
4
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. MUNRO: We have agreed to sub-clause 13, dealing with the incorporation of
8 banks, and I do not see why a similar provision should not be made in regard to the
9 incorporation of companies. Why should they not be under the control of federal officers?
10 At the present time the law as to incorporation is different in the different colonies, and
11 the result is [start page 686] extremely unsatisfactory in many cases. I do not see why
12 we should not make the same provision in regard to the incorporation of companies as we
13 have made in regard to the incorporation of banks. We might introduce at the
14 commencement of the sub-clause words to this effect: "The registration or incorporation of
15 companies."
16 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I do not think we should. There are a great number of
17 different corporations. For instance, there are municipal, trading, and charitable
18 corporations, and these are all incorporated in different ways according to the law
19 obtaining in the different states.
20 Mr. MUNRO: But as to trading corporations!
21 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It is sometimes difficult to say what is a trading corporation.
22 What is important, however, is that there should be a uniform law for the recognition of
23 corporations. Some states might require an elaborate form, the payment of heavy fees,
24 and certain guarantees as to the stability of members, while another state might not
25 think it worth its while to take so much trouble, having regard to its different
26 circumstances. I think the states may be trusted to stipulate how they will incorporate
27 companies, although we ought to have some general law in regard to their
28 recognition.
29 Sir JOHN BRAY: I think the point raised by the hon. member, Mr. Munro, is worth a
30 little more consideration than hon. members seem disposed to bestow upon it. We know
31 what some of these corporations are; and I think joint-stock companies might be
32 incorporated upon some uniform method. In South Australia, a banking company is not
33 allowed to be incorporated under the Companies Act; still, there is nothing in Victoria of
34 which I am aware to prevent a banking company from being registered there as a limited
35 company and opening a branch in South Australia a few days afterwards. I think it is
36 necessary, therefore, to have some uniform law. There is nothing in which the public
37 should have more confidence than in banks which are in any way recognised by the state;
38 and I think we should have some uniform system of incorporating banks. Many
39 companies, although doing business under different names, are, in reality, banks.
40 Mr. MUNRO: The banks are incorporated under the Companies Act in Victoria!
41 Sir JOHN BRAY: You can establish financial companies, which you do not call banks,
42 but which answer all the purposes of banks. We have provided that the federal
43 parliament shall legislate as to the incorporation of banks; but there is nothing to
44 prevent the incorporation by the states themselves, quite apart from the federal
45 parliament, of trading companies which will do all the ordinary business of banks. If it is
46 desirable to intrust legislation as to the incorporation of banks to the federal government,
47 there is no reason why we should not say that the registration of financial companies doing
48 all the business of banks should be dealt with in the same manner.
49 Sub-clause agreed to.
50 END QUOTE
51

Page 36
1 Obviously the issue we are faced with is that some company that is not a bank and neither a
2 “financial corporation” but merely is selling goods/service to a customer cannot be deemed to be
3 a “financial corporation” as such as it is not a lending corporation. If then a customer were to fail
4 to pay on time then I view the company may pursue a court to award charges for loss of interest,
5 etc, had the company borrowed monies from a bank to cover the unpaid monies owing to it but it
6 cannot in my view charge a customer interest itself. Yet, I understand corporations, not being
7 financial institutions nevertheless do so. They also use the trickery to charge a certain amount
8 and then reduce it by say 10% or whatever if the customer pays the bill within a certain period.
9 This to me is a violation of banking powers, this as it is adding the charge it purportedly later
10 deduct. In fact I have a dispute for a number of yours where GWMW is allegedly charging me
11 for water connection to a vacant property and charging interest on what they claim I am owing,
12 this even so they previously admitted that they cannot charge me for a vacant land as they do not
13 for other vacant land. They are not a “financial institution” and neither have by their own
14 admission any legal right to charge any connection fee but nevertheless seems to hold this power
15 over me so that if the property was to be sold they would demand their unlawful claim to be
16 paid. Yet to another property that is deemed a residential property but has no water connection
17 and has been vacant for more than a decades GWMW refuses to provide connection for
18 safe drinking water despite the Safe Drink Water Act 2003 (Vic). As such they violate to only
19 provide “UNTREATED WATER” to the vacant property but refuse to provide safe drinking
20 water to the residential property.
21 For the record, some years ago the Victorian Ombudsman made clear that it was a legal dispute
22 for the courts, however GWMW since then never pursued it before the courts. At one stage it did
23 cause a Debt collector to attend to me at which time I explained the legal issues and I understand
24 the Debt Collector withdrew from the case. This may indicate that the Debt collector realized
25 that GWMW had no legal standing in the matter and as such no debt could exist either. Still,
26 GWMW purports to still charge interest rates despite to my knowledge no legal basis to do so.
27
29 Powell v Apollo Candle (1885) 10 App Cas 282 - this case dealt with the powers of colonial legislatures. It
30 decided that colonial legislatures, though subordinate to the Imperial Parliament, were not mere delegates and
31 were empowered to delegate legislative power to the executive.
32
33 While the Colonial Parliaments had “sovereign” legislative powers and could amend its own
34 constitutions and so delegate its powers to the executives this however seized to remain a
35 “sovereign” powers upon federation, albeit the now states wrongly continued to do so. See
36 above set out. For the above all and any State land Taxation being it a State Land Tax as named,
37 a municipal/shire council rates and/or the purported “THE WINDFALL TAX” in the end they
38 are all unconstitutional. All monies collected as land taxation should have been deposited in the
39 Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund. Essentially it is now that the cashier in putting her
40 hands in the till and pay herself monies regardless this to be legally permissible. Here we have
41 the States presiding over an elaborate tax rip off and the Attorney-General, the Treasure, the
42 Prime Minister and all their predecessors are all blatantly disregarding what is constitutionally
43 permissible. But wait, if you didn’t comply with the unconstitutional mandate to wear a mask the
44 police would grab your throat and throw you onto the ground, as after all terrorism is now part of
45 the governments conduct to violate a person’s constitutional rights. My publications at
46 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati sets it all out in considerable details, as such no need to
47 repeat it now. Let’s not ignore that in my view Premier Daniel Andrews violated S92 of the
48 constitution when colleting about $9 billion regarding the leasing of the port which was
49 unconstitutional in so far it included monies nothing to do with harbor improvements and as such
50 was an unconstitutional tax as I have previously in details published also at
51 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati

Page 37
1 What we need is to revise the teaching of law students so that they do not interpret the
2 constitution pending what they were taught in law studies but interpret the constitution as the
3 Framers of the Constitution made clear:
4
6 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
7 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
8 understand.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 It is important to realise that this document doesn’t set out all relevant details as many have been
12 canvassed to a great extent in documents published at https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati,
13 for this do not make any hasty conclusion about what is so far set out above.
14
15 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal
16 constitution!
17
18 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
19 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
20 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

21 (Our name is our motto!)
22 END QUOTE 20230209-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus-COMPLAINT-
23 Supplement 4
24
25 Considering the above it is my view that the charging of State Land Taxes since 11 November
26 1910 was unconstitutional and all and any person having been involved in unconstitutionally
27 charging such alleged State land Taxation (alslo any purported “council rates” should be charged
28 for defrauding the Commonwealth as well as having to repay/refund any unconstitutional
29 charged monies!
30
31 Also that any person who was/is a Member of a State/Federal Parliament and under a purported
32 contract for superannuation while being on an allowance violated Section 44 of the
33 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and by this had automatically lost
34 his/her seat in the Parliament and is required to repay/refund to Consolidated Revenue Funds of
35 the State/Commonwealth any such ill obtained monies and anyone allegedly still on such
36 purported superannuation payment is immediately stripped of this and charged also with
37 defrauding the State./Commonwealth.
38 It should be understood that the High Court of Australia has absolutely no judicial powers to
39 override the constitution and/or twist the meaning of the constitution. Anyone who were to be on
40 an “allowance” is not employed by the State/Commonwealth and therefore cannot engage in any
41 form of superannuation contract with the State/Commonwealth. This unconstitutional gold
42 digging must be stopped. The same with anyone claiming free travel, etc because of past services
43 as a Member of parliament likewise cannot be constitutionally validated as the Framers of the
44 constitution made it very clear that once another person takes up the seat that was vacated then
45 only this person can be provided with an allowance relating to that seat and where this person
46 were to be a Minister then he/she cannot also receive any allowance. This alleged 10 year service
47 provision that a person who was for at least 10 years a Member of parliament then has for the
48 rest of his/her natural life a pension is in my view theft from the State/’;Commonwealth
49 Consolidated Revenue Funds and should be charge as such.
50
52 Convention)
Page 38
1 QUOTE
2 Mr. HIGGINS.-Ought you not to have the same phrase in sub-section (2) as you have in
3 sub-section (3) of clause 45?
4 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. That would get over the difficulty. If in sub-section (2) of clause 46
5 you put an express reference to a certain class of insolvency, that must exclude by
6 inference any other class of insolvency. There is another point, and this is also a very
7 serious one, to which the Premier of Victoria drew my attention before lunch. Sub-section
8 (3) of clause 46 provides that the seat of a senator or member of the House of
9 Representatives is to become vacant if he-
10 directly or indirectly accepts or receives any fee or honorarium for work done or service
11 rendered by him for and on behalf of the Commonwealth while sitting as such member.
12 No exception is made to meet the case of a Minister of the Crown. There is provision
13 made elsewhere in the Constitution for the payment of salary to Ministers for services
14 rendered to the Commonwealth, which might include his services as a senator. Clause
15 48A provides that-
16 Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator, and each member of the House of
17 Representatives, shall receive for his services an allowance of £400 a year, to be reckoned
18 from the day on which he takes his seat.
19 The allowance spoken of there might be regarded as an honorarium, or as a fee, but it is
20 an allowance for "services," which is the word used in sub-section (3) of clause 46.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 It is claimed that Bob Katter in about 49 years never was sworn in, this even so the legal
24 principle embedded in the constitution includes “HON. MEMBERS: On the day when he is
25 sworn in!” which in my view means that constitutionally Bob Katter never was a legitimate
26 Member of parliament and neither could ever have been provided with any “allowance” for
27 services. Also consider:
28
29 “Mr. WRIXON: The matter will want a little thinking over, because I apprehend a
30 man is not a senator until he presents himself and takes the oath.”
31 And
32 “Mr. WRIXON: He might refuse to take the oath, and so would be disqualified from
33 the beginning. It is not until be presents himself and takes the oath that he is really a
34 senator. He is in potentiality a senator; but he is not completely clad in that position until
35 he [start page 602] appears at the table and takes the oath, and I apprehend he is not
36 entitled to payment until that takes place.”
37
38 In my view when a person takes an Affirmation then this is deemed the same as taking an oath.
39
41 Convention)
42 QUOTE
43 Sir JOHN BRAY: What the hon. gentleman has said is quite right so far as the purposes
44 of this section are concerned as regards reckoning the time of retirement. But in another
45 part of the bill it is provided that the senators are to be paid for their services, and the
46 question arises, does the term of service of a senator for the purposes of payment begin
47 from the date of his election, from the date when he is sworn in, or from the first day of
48 January?
49 HON. MEMBERS: On the day when he is sworn in!
50 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Surely when his
51 service begins!

Page 39
1 Sir: I think we ought to have that fixed. It seems to me very undesirable to provide, as
2 suggested by Colonel Smith, that although a senator is elected in June, his term of
3 service and payment for service shall not begin until the following January.
4 Mr. CLARK: He will not do anything until the following January!
5 Sir JOHN BRAY: For the purposes of retirement, a date should be fixed from which the
6 time should be reckoned; but for all other purposes a senator ought to be a senator from the
7 day he is chosen.
8 Mr. BAKER: How can he be when there is another man in his place?
9 Sir JOHN BRAY: I can quite see that for the purposes of this section the provision as
10 contained in the clause is right; but, as regards other portions of the bill, it seems to me that
11 it is not right, and the question ought to be clearly understood.
12 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: So far as the objection with regard to payment is concerned,
13 there is a good deal in it, and the matter should be dealt with now. The clause only deals
14 with the first senators. Afterwards the term of service begins on the 1st of January. I
15 suppose a senator can hardly be called a senator until the 1st of January arrives. He
16 will be a senator elect, but he will not be a senator really until that day. If parliament
17 is in session on the 1st of January, he will walk in and take his seat, and the other man
18 will walk out, and his pay, I apprehend, will begin on the same day. But the hon.
19 member has pointed out a blot with respect to the first senators. A man might be elected in
20 December and claim twelve months' pay, dating from the previous January. This, I think,
21 would be remedied by inserting in the second paragraph the words "for the purposes of his
22 retirement."
23 Mr. WRIXON: The matter will want a little thinking over, because I apprehend a
24 man is not a senator until he presents himself and takes the oath.
25 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Why not?
26 Mr. WRIXON: He might refuse to take the oath, and so would be disqualified from
27 the beginning. It is not until be presents himself and takes the oath that he is really a
28 senator. He is in potentiality a senator; but he is not completely clad in that position until
29 he [start page 602] appears at the table and takes the oath, and I apprehend he is not
30 entitled to payment until that takes place. I would suggest that it is somewhat hazardous
31 to make an amendment at the table in a bill of this kind, which has been carefully
32 considered; and if these matters are home in mind, they can be afterwards dealt with by the
33 draftsman. I would deprecate any hurried amendment on the spot, where it may not be
34 required.
35 Sir HARRY ATKINSON: The clause states that the term of service of a senator
36 shall not begin until the 1st January following the day of his election. If a vacancy
37 occurs, and a senator is elected in June, he then becomes a senator; but, according to
38 this part of the clause, he cannot become an actual senator until the following
39 January. Though parliament might be in session, he would be unable to take his seat. I
40 would suggest to the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, that he should take a note of this
41 point, and consider it. I do not think we could make any amendment here that would meet
42 the case. For the purposes of this particular clause the provision is right enough; but I think
43 there will be a difficulty in regard to payment, and also as to vacancies occurring.
44 Sir JOHN BRAY: I quite agree with Sir Samuel Griffith, that if we are not to overlook
45 this question entirely it ought to be settled somewhere in this clause, and if the hon.
46 gentleman sees no strong objection to such a course I shall move the insertion at the
47 beginning of the second paragraph of the words "for the purposes of this section." It would
48 be manifestly absurd in regard to the first election of senators to say that if a man is elected
49 in September or October the term of his service shall begin from the preceding January,
50 and that he shall be entitled to all the privileges of a senator from that date. It is quite
51 possible that this may not be the best amendment that can ultimately be made, but it seems
Page 40
1 to me clear that the second paragraph was drawn with the idea, that it applied to this
2 section only and not to other portions of the bill. I beg, therefore, to move as an
3 amendment:
4 That before the words "The term of service" line 11, the words "For the purposes of this
5 section" be inserted.
6 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is quite correct: those are the right words!
7 Amendment agreed to.
8 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: In reference to the point raised by the hon. member, Sir
9 Harry Atkinson, in regard to vacancies occurring by death, the difficulty would be met by
10 substituting for the words "retiring senators" the words "senators retiring by rotation."
11 Amendment (by Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH) proposed:
12 That the words retiring senators," line 17, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof
13 the words "senators retiring by rotation."
14 Mr. MARMION: Is this intended to refer to senators retiring by rotation throughout, or
15 only in the first instance?
16 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Always!
17 Mr. MARMION: It seems to me that there are two portions of the bill which may be
18 affected by the proposed amendment. In the first place, unless it is distinctly laid down in
19 the bill that a senator, though elected, does not become a senator until the 1st of January,
20 there will be during that interval twelve senators instead of eight; because there will be
21 four who will not retire for some considerable period after the election. There is another
22 view of the case. A senator may be prevented for a period from holding his seat in the
23 local house of representatives. When he is elected to the senate, he cannot sit any
24 longer in the state house of representatives, and if his election to the senate takes
25 place some time prior to the end of the year, unless it is distinctly laid down that the
26 mere fact of his election [start page 603] does not make him a senator, he will be
27 obliged to retire from the local house of representatives.
28 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: There is no doubt a little difficulty. In the cases of which we
29 have experience, members of parliament are elected by a constituency that may be said to
30 be in permanent session. Here we have to deal with the case of a constituency which is in
31 session only sometimes. We must, therefore, deal specially with it. There cannot be more
32 than eight senators at a time. There will be eight senators and four senators elect; for
33 a senator elect is not a senator until his term begins. There is no reason why a
34 member of the house of representatives should not be elected to be a senator in June;
35 next January he becomes a senator and ceases to be a member of the house of
36 representatives.
37 Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, agreed to.
38 END QUOTE
39
43 There are, of course, many formal matters relating to both houses, such as the election of
44 president and speaker, disqualifications, the issue of writs, elections, and so on, with which
45 I shall not on this occasion trouble the Convention. It is provided, then, that each member
46 of either house shall have an annual allowance for his services, which is proposed to be
47 fixed in the meantime at £500 a year. The ordinary disqualifications are inserted as to
48 members holding offices of profit, with the exception of ministers of the Crown, or
49 becoming public contractors and other similar provisions.
50 END QUOTE
51

Page 41
1 While the quotation below refers to “salary”, being paid for “work” the legal principle is that an
2 “allowance” is not a salary.
3
6 QUOTE
7 Clause 43.-Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the States
8 Assembly or of the House of Representatives, shall receive an allowance for his services of
9 four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
10 Mr. GORDON: I move:
11 To strike out the word "four," in the third line, with the view of inserting " five."
12 The ground for the motion is that £400 a year is insufficient. While some local
13 Parliaments are paying their resident mem- [start page 1032] bers £300 a year, £400 is not
14 enough for a member who has to leave-as most members of the Federal Parliament would
15 have to do-his colony and practically abandon his business or his profession. He would
16 have to rely either upon his private means or his parliamentary salary, which, in this case,
17 would be inadequate. I think, if £400 a year is fixed, the choice for members of the House
18 of Representatives will be limited to those who can afford to leave their business or
19 profession, and to those who are prepared to depend entirely on the small parliamentary
20 salary. While members of both of these classes are exceedingly desirable members of any
21 Parliament, I think it would be a mistake to have the whole Parliament consisting of them,
22 which the payment of the salary proposed would probably lead to. I think £500 is little
23 enough; the £100 makes all the difference to the ordinary professional or business man.
24 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: £400 is quite enough.
25 Sir EDWARD BRADDON: £100 too much.
26 Mr. GORDON: I think it is a question on which the sense of the Committee should be
27 taken, and, without further remark, I move the amendment.
28 Mr. HIGGINS: I think that, having regard to the fact that the Federal Parliament will
29 have much less to do than the ordinary local Parliaments after the first Parliament, £400 is
30 sufficient. I am as strongly in favor of payment of members, on the grounds alluded to by
31 Mr. Gordon, as any man, but I say that the work done in the States Parliaments takes far
32 more time than will the work in the Federal Parliament, after its first meeting. It is not
33 likely, indeed, that the Federal Parliament will sit more than two months in the year. I
34 should like to strike out "four," with a view to the insertion of "three." At the same time, as
35 £400 has been fixed as a compromise, I hope it will remain at that amount as the
36 maximum.
37 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: I consider that £400 is ample payment for the services of
38 members. In addition to that they possess the privilege of a free railway pass. The amount
39 proposed to be paid-£400-is twice as much as the Dominion Parliament of Canada pays its
40 members. I trust hon. members will not support the amendment to increase the amount to
41 £500.
42 Mr. TRENWITH: I hope that Mr. Gordon's amendment will be carried. We have no right
43 to assume that the Federal Parliament will not have a good deal to do. All our experience
44 teaches us that, as civilisation advances, the requirements of the people increase, and the
45 tendency to ask Parliament to do things, that in the past have been done by private
46 enterprise, is increasing very rapidly. I feel confident that the Federal Parliament, instead
47 of having less to do as time goes on, will have a great deal more to do. I think that it will be
48 found to the advantage of the States to hand over work to the central Government. Of
49 course, I can understand the objection that any sum is too much, by those who disapprove
50 of the principle of payment of members. But the principle of payment of members has been
51 adopted throughout all the colonies. It was adopted after a good deal of resistance on the
52 part of those who disapprove of it, which showed the strong growing public feeling in
Page 42
1 favor of paying members for the work they do, and of looking upon the position of a
2 member of Parliament not merely as a position of honor, but rather regarding them as State
3 servants who are paid for their work. We are paid not merely to reimburse us for expenses
4 incurred, and to pay members of the Federal Parliament £500 a year would be little
5 enough, considering that during a portion of the year they will have to be great distances
6 from their established homes.
7 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It will cost them nothing to travel.
8 Mr. TRENWITH: That is a very popular delusion.
9 [start page 1033]
10 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Let them keep out of Parliament.
11 Mr. TRENWITH: That is exactly the idea. I say let the people have the widest possible
12 area of selection for Parliament in order that all sections may be represented.
13 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: To keep a lot of idle fellows doing nothing.
14 HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
15 Mr. TRENWITH: I am anxious that members of Parliament should not be idle fellows.
16 In the non-payment days a great many members were idle fellows who looked upon a seat
17 in Parliament as an addition to their social position, who cared very little for its worth, and
18 in some instances who paid themselves very handsomely by the opportunities they had.
19 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: You cannot say that with truth. That is a most scandalous
20 assertion!
21 Mr. TRENWITH: It is the truth.
22 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Quite scandalous. You have no right to make such a statement.
23 Mr. TRENWITH: I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort, but when Sir William
24 Zeal talks about idle fellows, he brings upon himself, naturally and properly, the rejoinder I
25 have made.
26 Sir EDWARD BRADDON: A most unjust rejoinder.
27 Mr. TRENWITH: In some of the colonies the best lands and water-frontages-the very
28 eyes of the colonies, in fact-were mopped up by members of Parliament during the regime
29 of non-payment of members.
30 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: How many of them?
31 Mr. TRENWITH: As I said before I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort.
32 Mr. WALKER: What you say may be the case in Victoria, you know.
33 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It is a gross exaggeration.
34 Mr. TRENWITH: I am not speaking merely of Victoria. I lived during the early part of
35 my life in a nice little colony which suffered in the same way.
36 Mr. WALKER: Do you mean Van Diemen's Land?
37 Mr. TRENWITH: I mean Tasmania. I was pointing out that the instincts of our people
38 tend towards payment of members of Parliament for their work. My hon. friend, Sir
39 William Zeal, interjected that we have free railway passes. I would remark that any person
40 who knows anything about travel must recognise that it carries with it a large amount of
41 expense. Those who are here, away from their homes, know that if they were getting £400
42 a year for this work, they would be losing money, and they would not even be reimbursed
43 for the expenditure incurred. Those who urge that the amount should be left as proposed in
44 the Bill, are not in favor of payment of members, but are simply favorable to reimbursing
45 members for the disbursements they make in connection with the performance of their
46 duties.
47 Mr. HIGGINS: I was always in favor of payment of members.
48 Mr. TRENWITH: I feel confident that my hon. friend Mr. Higgins could not have looked
49 thoroughly at the question or he would not have spoken as he did.
50 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: He is losing now ten times as much as he will ever get for being
51 here, but he is bearing it cheerfully.
Page 43
1 Mr. TRENWITH: There are some who could not afford to lose anything at all.
2 Parliament is to be composed, as it ought to be, of representatives of all sections of the
3 community. There must be in Parliament some who cannot afford to lose anything at all,
4 and who must be paid for their services, and if those services are worth having, there ought
5 to be adequate remuneration for them. I sincerely hope that the higher figure will be [start
6 page 1034] adopted, not because I believe in extravagance, but because I believe that any
7 lesser sum will not pay members of Parliament for their work.
8 Question-That the word "four," proposed to be struck out, stand part of the question-put.
9 The Committee divided.
10 Ayes, 26; Noes, 9. Majority, 17.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Do take notice of the following:
14
15 Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting
16 here, except to suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I
17 think, the best that could be adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in
18 the clause as an allowance for services is a misdescription. It is really an allowance for
19 the reimbursement of expenses.
20 Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
21 Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the
22 statutes of those colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it
23 should be put as the reimbursement of expenses, because otherwise you get into the
24 public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a salary for their
25 work, which they are not.
26
27 It must be clear that the “allowance” is merely a “reimbursement of expenses” and cannot be
28 regarded as a “salary” as t6o hold it is a “salary” means that it is a contract with the
29 Commonwealth or State and invalidate the holding of a seat under contract.
30
32 Convention)
33 QUOTE
34 Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an
35 annual allowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the
36 parliament from time to time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the
37 parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
49 Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at
50 all. Why not say that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall
51 receive an annual allowance? I move as an amendment:
52 That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
Page 44
1 Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

2 That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
3 If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies,
4 with reference to the payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought
5 to be inserted in the bill which are not inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act,
6 they will find provisions which take into consideration the salaries that are paid to
7 ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
8 officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the
9 [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament
10 lapses. There is no provision of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present
11 contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than the bald provision already made.
12 Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was
13 being paid £500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the
14 Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions
15 in a rational manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely
16 to commend it to our own judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public.
17 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are
18 likely to do well to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give
19 proper attention to further work to-night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to
20 what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in regard to the absence of provision on
21 matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting committee was
22 concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution
23 with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the
24 commonwealth in its first session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great
25 number of other matters of that kind. We have, therefore, given them power to deal with
26 this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a payment of members
27 bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual
28 allowance for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at
29 £500.
30 Motion agreed to; progress reported.
31 END QUOTE
32
34 Convention)
35 QUOTE
36 CHAPTER I.-THE LEGISLATURE.
37 Part IV.-Provisions relating to both houses.
39 annual allowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament
40 from time to time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the
41 amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
42 Upon which Mr. Marmion had moved by way of amendment:
43 That the words "for his services" be omitted.
44 Amendment negatived.
45 Mr. A. FORREST: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the amount of the
46 allowance to be paid to the members of both houses of the federal parliament. The
47 allowance will amount to at least £100,000 for the different states, and I think it would be
48 better if it were left to each colony to fix the amount of the payment to members.
49 Mr. MUNRO: Oh, nonsense!
50 Mr. A. FORREST: I am sure that the colony which I have the honor to represent
51 will object most strongly to pay its members anything like £500 a year. At the present
52 time we have no payment of members, nor are we likely to have it in Western
Page 45
1 Australia, and if we allow this amount to stand in the clause we shall find that the
2 local parliament will move in that direction. The colony is not in a position to pay any
3 large sum as an allowance to its members, and I protest most strongly against this
4 Convention in any way pledging the local parliaments to the payment-of £500 per annum
5 to members [start page 655] to attend the senate sitting in Sydney or Melbourne. I am
6 certain that in our colony we can get men to come for a far less sum than that; in fact,
7 I believe we can get men to come without payment at all. It has been a principle of
8 our Parliament for many years, and will be, I hope, for years to come, that members
9 shall have that amount of good feeling towards their country that they will not ask the
10 country to pay their expenses. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will leave it to the
11 different state, legislatures to arrange for the payment of their members.
12 Clause, as read, agreed to.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 The following quotations underlines that Phil Cleary was legitimately elected to the
16 Commonwealth parliament regardless he was still in a contract with the State of Victoria, albeit
17 not being paid, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear it was only when taking up the seat
18 for which elected to the Commonwealth the conflict may exist but not before hand. Meaning, the
19 person so elected cannot be sworn in for a federal seat, after being elected, unless having
20 disposed of any state contract. My understanding from the Hansard records is that the framers of
21 the Constitution desired to avoid a conflict of interest that a person could not be under contract
22 with the Parliament he was to be elected for taking a seat. In this case Mr Phil Cleary had no
23 contract with the Commonwealth but the State and as such Section 44 didn’t affect his election.
24 It may be stated that prior to the existence of S44 as it is now there were various clauses (which
25 were then combined to become Section 44) and Barton made clear to the Constitutional
26 Convention that it did not alter what had been decided already by the Convention.
27
28 Mr. MARMION:
29 “A senator may be prevented for a period from holding his seat in the local house of
30 representatives. When he is elected to the senate, he cannot sit any longer in the state
31 house of representatives, and if his election to the senate takes place some time prior
32 to the end of the year, unless it is distinctly laid down that the mere fact of his election
33 [start page 603] does not make him a senator, he will be obliged to retire from the local
34 house of representatives.”
35

Page 46
1 Section 15 says the qualifications of a senator are to be those of a member of the house of
2 representatives. Section 31 says "until the parliament otherwise provides the qualification of a member of
3 the house of representatives shall be as follows":-I take it that under these words it would be
4 competent for the federal parliament to make provision for the qualification of a member of the house
5 of repre- [start page 1002] sentatives to be that he is not a member of one of the state houses. That is a
6 matter for the Drafting Committee. As we have passed section 31, I do not propose an amendment. I
7 simply intimate that, in my opinion it is worth consideration whether, under section 31, it is not
8 competent for the federal parliament to enact that one of the qualifications of a member of either house shall
9 be that he does not hold office in any other colonial parliament. There must be a serious dislocation with
10 regard to the time of the leading men of the state parliament being spent in the parliament of the
11 commonwealth; there must be inconvenience; but that can be got over if it be found that the duties of a
12 member of a state parliament and of the commonwealth parliament are inconsistent, and that both
13 cannot be carried on. I hope that the federal parliament will be empowered to enact that no man who is a
14 member of a state parliament shall hold a seat as member of the commonwealth parliament. I do not want any
15 absolute prohibition. I want to give the electors as free a hand as possible, and experience will tell us which
16 is the best course.
17 END QUOTE
18
20 Convention)
21 QUOTE
23 annual allowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the
24 parliament from time to time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the
25 parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
37 Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at
38 all. Why not say that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall
39 receive an annual allowance? I move as an amendment:
40 That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
41 Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
42 That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
43 If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies,
44 with reference to the payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought
45 to be inserted in the bill which are not inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act,
46 they will find provisions which take into consideration the salaries that are paid to
47 ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
48 officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the
49 [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament
50 lapses. There is no provision of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present
51 contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than the bald provision already made.
52 Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was
53 being paid £500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the
54 Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions

Page 47
1 in a rational manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely
2 to commend it to our own judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public.
3 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are
4 likely to do well to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give
5 proper attention to further work to-night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to
6 what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in regard to the absence of provision on
7 matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting committee was
8 concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution
9 with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the
10 commonwealth in its first session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great
11 number of other matters of that kind. We have, therefore, given them power to deal with
12 this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a payment of members
13 bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual
14 allowance for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at
15 £500.
16 Motion agreed to; progress reported.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 Again:
20
21 “When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654] Crown, the
22 amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision
23 of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make
24 any other provision than the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated
25 that in the event of a member of parliament who was being paid £500 a year
26 accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus his salary
27 as a member of parliament.”
28
29 Meaning, no Minister can claim both “allowance” and a “salary” this because As a Minister he is
30 a Member of Parliament (unless s64 applies being a Minister but not a Member of Parliament)
31
32 Any arrangement that a Member of Parliament will be paid a superannuation in relation to any
33 10 year or so service after retirement from being a Member of Parliament in my view still
34 constitute a “contract” with the State/Commonwealth and violate Section 44 of the constitution
35 from the moment such person is engaged in such future superannuation entitlement..
36
37 The following makes it very clear that Senator Heather Hill was wrongly ousted by the High
38 Court of Australia in Sue v Hill! This as even those who were coming from the UK could still be
39 elected to Federal Parliament being “Subjects of the British Crown”.
40
42 QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST:
43 We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born
44 in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the
45 commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old
46 country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of
47 the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies
48 should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired
49 his appointment.
50 END QUOTE
51
Page 48
1 Section 15 says the qualifications of a senator are to be those of a member of the house of
2 representatives. Section 31 says "until the parliament otherwise provides the qualification of a member of
3 the house of representatives shall be as follows":-I take it that under these words it would be
4 competent for the federal parliament to make provision for the qualification of a member of the house
5 of repre- [start page 1002] sentatives to be that he is not a member of one of the state houses. That is a
6 matter for the Drafting Committee. As we have passed section 31, I do not propose an amendment. I
7 simply intimate that, in my opinion it is worth consideration whether, under section 31, it is not
8 competent for the federal parliament to enact that one of the qualifications of a member of either house shall
9 be that he does not hold office in any other colonial parliament. There must be a serious dislocation with
10 regard to the time of the leading men of the state parliament being spent in the parliament of the
11 commonwealth; there must be inconvenience; but that can be got over if it be found that the duties of a
12 member of a state parliament and of the commonwealth parliament are inconsistent, and that both
13 cannot be carried on. I hope that the federal parliament will be empowered to enact that no man who is a
14 member of a state parliament shall hold a seat as member of the commonwealth parliament. I do not want any
15 absolute prohibition. I want to give the electors as free a hand as possible, and experience will tell us which
16 is the best course.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 As I (representing myself) pursued in my NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER
20 (served upon all 9 Attorney-Generals) and so on 2-12-2002 ordered by the court to be heard by
21 the High Court of Australia in the AEC v Schorel-Hlavka litigation unchallenged, is that the
22 Commonwealth of Australia is not a country but a “political union” and one cannot have the
23 “nationality” of a political union. Australians are “subjects of the British Crown” and King
24 Charles is not King of the Commonwealth of Australia but King over the Commonwealth of
25 Australia, this also because the Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional authority to
26 interfere with who of the Monarchy, if any, shall be a Monarch over the Commonwealth of
27 Australia. How on earth could judges of the High Court of Australia claim that Senator
28 Heather Hill was not entitled to be a Senator for being a “Subject of the British Crown”
29 while the judges themselves were likewise? They invalidated their own commissions as a
30 judge by this!
31
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
35 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
36 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
37 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
38 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
39 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
40 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
41 are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
42 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
43 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
44 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
45 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
46 END QUOTE
47
51 There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to
52 amendments of the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be
53 passed by an absolute majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if
54 that is done, the proposed amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of
55 the states to be expressed in conventions elected for the purpose, and that then if the
56 amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions in the states it shall become law,
Page 49
1 subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the constitution might
2 be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
3 no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 Neither can any purported “republic” referendum have any constitutional validity! This as
7 Section 128 referendum powers can only apply to clause 9 of the Act and not the first 8 Clauses
8 of the Act [Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)].
9
10 It should be clear we have so to say a lame duck Victorian Police force where it totally fails to
11 uphold the rule of law. It so to say simply rolls over as appears to me so they can perhaps benefit
12 from special deals with politicians and ignore their constitutional obligations to uphold the rule
13 of law.
14
15 It must be clear by the following that despite that the Chief Commissioner of Police was
16 provided with details of yet another trespassing event nothing was done to prevent this.
17
18 On 3 January 2024 Banyule City Council employee clearly trespassed upon both the properties
19 of 105 & 109 and by this trespassed upon the property of 107 Graham Road, Viewbank and
20 invaded also our privacy. Being at least the 12th time of trespassing upon out property as well as
21 invasion of our privacy, and despite this the Victoria Police continues to fail to enforce the rule
22 of law against Banyule City Council and by this I view became an accessory to the harm
23 inflicted to both my wife and myself.
24
25 The following is a text message of one of my neighbours, showing that prior to that she had any
26 communication with the Banyule City Council he already had walked across her front law to our
27 joint fence and was making photos of our property, which is trespassing as well as invading our
28 privacy. He then appears to me to have falsely claimed that there was an “appointment” even so
29 no such appointment was made by my wife and/or myself. There appears to me an error in the
30 text message as it states “and will know contact the council and the police regarding this matter”
31 which I understand the word “know” ought to be “now”.
32
33 QUOTE text message
34
Page 50
1 END QUOTE text message

2 The following images are of a video where the Banyule City council staff member was
3 trespassing on the property of 109 Graham Road, Viewbank, this as the tenant gave me the
4 understanding they had not been aware that this person had been on their property, let alone
5 walked across their property as to take photos/video of my property (107) over the fence that is
6 about 1.8 metres high.
7 QUOTE clips from a video
8
9
10
11 END QUOTE clips of a video
12
Page 51
1 Red arrow shows camera in his hand, leaving after trespassing.

2 QUOTE clips of a video
3
4
5 END QUOTE clips of a video
6
7 The motor vehicle is not parked before 109 but before 108 property.
8
9 Obviously the question I ask is what qualifications, if any, at all does he has to be deemed
10 competent to trespass upon properties and to violate our privacy?
11
12 Obviously also as to who is he? Does anyone recognise him?
13
14 QUOTE 20240103-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council, Cr Mayor Tom Melican and
15 Ors-TRESPASS, etc-Supplement 20
16 Banyule City Council & Mayor Cr Melican & Ors (Australia, Victoria date) 3-1-2024
17 enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
18
19 Cc: Cr Tom Melican Mayor tom.melican@banyule.vic.gov.au
20 Alison Champion alison.champion@banyule.vic.gov.au
21 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos fiona.mitsdinikos@banyule.vic.gov.au
22 Cr Elizabeth Nealy elizabeth.nealy@banyule.vic.gov.au
23 Cr Mark Di Pasquate mark.dipasquale@banyule.vic.gov.au
24 Cr Alida McKern alida.mckern@banyule.vic.gov.au
25 Cr Peter Dimarelos peter.demarelos@banyule.vic.gov.au
26 Cr Rick Garotti rick.garotti@banyule.vic.gov.au
27 Cr Peter Casteldo peter.castaldo@banyule.vic.gov.au
28 Jan Richardson enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
29 Janet Redgrave Team Leader Development Planning enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
30 Mr RomanWojtkowski enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
31

Page 52
1 Re: 20240103-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Tom Melican and Ors-
2 TRESPASS, etc-Supplement 20
3 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
4 COMPLAINT
5 Sir & Ors,
6 further to my already provided COMPLAINT and supplements, I add the following.
7
8 Hereby I request you to provide me within 2 working days with the identity of each Banyule City
9 Council person’s identity who trespassed in some manner or another on to our property situated
10 at 107 Graham Road Viewbank, Victoria, including their job position, etc. regarding the
11 following dates as well as any other dates of trespassing:
12
13 23 August 2018
15 7 September 2020
16 2 September 2021
19 6 September 2023
20 7 September 2023
21 29 November 2023
22 1 December 2023
23 8 December 2023
24 3 January 2024
25
26 I require you to provide me with relevant details as to each occurrence as to what, if any legal
27 claimed justification Banyule City Council (BCC) claims to have had in regard of each occasion.
28
29 I also require in regard of each occurrence the number of images that were taken relating to our
30 property and how were those images secured preventing any person to access them?
31
32 I also require you to advice as to what, if any, attempts were made to seek my and/or my wife’s
33 consent/authority to take those images of our property.
34
35 I understand that on 3 January 2024 a person allegedly representing Banyule City Council
36 trespassed on to neighbouring properties being 105 & 107 Graham Road, Viewbank to
37 unlawfully invade our privacy by making photos of our property. I require you to inform me
38 upon what legal basis, if any, those images were taken and for what legal, if any, purpose.
39
40 I understand that the person allegedly claimed to have an appointment with me, I therefore
41 require you to provide me with relevant details as to this alleged appointment how it was made,
42 etc. As I do not communicate orally via telephone/mobile (due to a hearing disability) but
43 communicate via text (including email), then clearly any such arrangements that is alleged to
44 have been made should be easily traceable by documentation.
45
46 I understand that as your employee appears to have claimed there was an appointment then you
47 provide me with relevant details for which purpose such an appointment was allegedly made,
48 also why would a person claiming to have made an appointment need to trespass upon other
49 properties, etc?
50
51 I request what, if any attempt was made by BCC employee to draw the attention to my wife
52 and/or myself of his presence for the alleged appointment?
53

Page 53
1 It is critical that you respond in a clear and precise manner as your BCC employee may have
2 been aware he was being video recorded.
3
4 Do understand there are little girls living at a next door property and they could have been
5 traumatised seeing a stranger trespassing onto their property. A failure of any appropriate
6 response, as deemed by me, will be taken that Banyule City Council never had any legitimate
7 legal grounds regarding each and every trespassing occurrences, etc.
8
9
10
11 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
12

17 END QUOTE 20240103-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council, Cr Mayor Tom Melican
18 and Ors-TRESPASS, etc-Supplement 20
19
20 I had provided for 2 working days to respond and this means that by midnight Friday 6 January
21 2024 the 2 days are over! Hence publishing the images of the Banyule City Council staff
22 member I view is appropriate so that perhaps my readers may identify the person where Banyule
23 City Council failed to provide his identity, etc. After all, this trespassing upon neighbouring
24 properties may by this continue to endanger the safety & rights of my neighbours and with the
25 Victorian Police failing/refusing to act against criminal conduct by and/or on behalf of Banyule
26 City Council than I have an obligation seeking to prevent the continuation of any criminal
27 conduct, etc.
28
29 Let us now consider the following:
30
31 http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/2003/20.html
32 federal limitations on the legislative power of the states and the ...
33 In Municipal Council of Sydney v Commonwealth, the High Court held that the
34 reference to 'a State' in s 114 extended to local councils established by a State. A ...
35
36 https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/2003/20.html
37 FEDERAL LIMITATIONS ON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATES AND THE
38 COMMONWEALTH TO BIND ONE ANOTHER
39 Anne Twomey[*]
40 QUOTE
41 In a series of subsequent cases, the Melbourne Corporation principle was refined[20] so that
42 the implied limitation was expressed as having two distinct elements:
Page 54
1 (1) the prohibition against discrimination which involves the placing on the States of
2 special burdens or disabilities ['the limitation against discrimination'] and
3 (2) the prohibition against laws of general application which operate to destroy or curtail
4 the continued existence of the States or their capacity to function as governments ... [21]
5 This split into two elements, which has since been overturned, [22] was used not only to
6 describe the different types of laws which would breach the implied limitation, but also to
7 set different tests for determining whether a breach had occurred. It was a means of
8 drawing together the various descriptions, rationales and tests set out in the Melbourne
9 Corporation judgments.
10 The first element dealt with 'discrimination'. In the Queensland Electricity
11 Commission case, it was noted that this first element applied to discrimination against a
12 particular State, as well as against States generally. [23] In order to determine if a law is
13 'discriminatory' it is necessary to look to its purpose, which is to be ascertained 'by
14 reference to the substance and actual operation of the law in the circumstances to which it
15 applies'.[24] The discrimination may operate so as to isolate the State from the application
16 of the general law. However, a law which discriminates against a State by depriving it of a
17 right, privilege or benefit not enjoyed by others, so as to place it on an equal footing with
18 others, will not breach the Melbourne Corporation principle.[25]
19 The test for determining whether there was a breach of the Melbourne
20 Corporation implication under this first element appeared merely to be whether there was
21 an impermissible form of discrimination. In relation to this first element, there was no need
22 to establish that the effect was to threaten the continued existence of the State or its
23 structural integrity. It appeared to be sufficient to establish that a discriminatory disability
24 or restriction was imposed upon the exercise of the functions of the State executive or
25 legislature.[26]
26 END QUOTE
27
28 Anne Twomay obviously does no more but refers to the conduct of the High Court of Australia
29 and as such cannot be deemed a culprit of the utter and sheer mesh the High Court of Australia
30 has been making about what the constitution stands for. Reality is that the judges of the High
31 Court of Australia appear to me to be TRAITORS to the constitution. For sure judicial offers
32 can make errors and that in itself doesn’t make tsuch a judicial officer to be a TRAITOR,
33 however when interpreting the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution then they MUST do
34 so with all available information/details and not exclude certain information/details so they can
35 pervert the administration of justice.
36
37 The Framers of the Constitution specifically implemented a system of discrimination in the
38 constitution but one to be non-political.
39
40 QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
41 101 Inter-State Commission
42 There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the
43 Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions
44 of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.
45 END QUOTE (Bold and red colour added by writer)
46
47 The wording “There shall be” makes it mandatory, and yet on only 2 short occasions since
48 federation there was an Inter-State Commission! When the second time eventuated the
49 Commonwealth Parliament sought to invest the Inter-State Commission with judicial powers
50 which the High Court of Australia correctly denied, this as the Framers of the Constitution at
51 length debated that this Inter-State Commission was not a judicial body and couldn’t be a

Page 55
1 judicial body but to be a body of experts and that any appeal against an decision of the Inter-
2 State Commission could only be made to the High Court of Australia upon an “error of law”.
3 The Framers of the Constitution did recognise that at times the Inter-State Commission may be
4 required based upon its expert knowledge to make a decision which may discriminate against
5 one or more states. The issue of rail tariff could be an example.
6 It should be kept in mind that the Inter-State commission was limited to Trade and Commerce”
7 but that the Commonwealth Parliament would have legislative powers to provide additional
8 matters for it to deal with.
9 For example: If the Commonwealth parliament had provided the Inter-State Commission with
10 powers regarding Aboriginals then it could base it decisions upon its experts conclusion and then
11 make decisions to balance the needs and rights of relevant persons. It would avoid thousands of
12 money grabbing corporations allegedly to benefit Aboriginals when in reality little to nothing
13 was eventuating. Such Inter-State commission decisions then may be deemed to violate State
14 legislative powers but then the High Court of Australia would have to decide if the exercise by
15 the Inter-State Commission was a genuine and justified decision based upon its expert
16 knowledge (which was not to be questioned by the High Court of Australia if this was a
17 competent expert decision) and by this the Inter-State decision made the right decision or not. It
18 was however the Commonwealth that violated Section 101 Inter-State Commission requirements
19 and instead decided UNCONSTITUTIONALLY that on political basis it would make decisions,
20 to which clearly it had no legislative or executive powers to do so. It in my view therefore was
21 the High Court of Australia that should have made it clear that “Trade and Commerce” lay in the
22 sole administrative powers of the Inter-State Commission and the Federal Government should
23 but out of it. With the Inter-State commission in action it would prevent political parties in power
24 to pork barrel their selective areas and surely that is not what they desire!
25 It is not for the High Court of Australia to change what the constitution stands for depending
26 what possible alliances judges may have to political parties and/or foreign powers, etc. We have
27 a rich Hansard record and as much as I can research this and expose what the true meaning and
28 intention of the Framers of the Constitution was about, then likewise so should each and every
29 judge of the High Court of Australia, without changing its tune depending who dictates what
30 they can play.
31 While in general State Parliaments have their sovereignty to legislate as they please within their
32 own sovereign powers, the truth is that they are legislating beyond this. A clear example is the
33 unconstitutional purported Victorian constitution Act 1975! Another issue is the purported
34 agreements with Aboriginals that they somehow can dictate property owners what they can or
35 cannot do and need to pay for Aboriginals to be on their land, etc, nothing to do with the
36 property owners own legal rights. It is simply that the wolf is in sheep’s clothing, where the
37 political parties are now pursuing the New World Order of Communism and terrorism against
38 Australians.
39 The Federal Parliament is well entitled to legislate against all and any state/Territory not to have
40 any special provisions regarding Aboriginals as they are exclusively within the realm of
41 Commonwealth legislative powers and only for so far any such legislation does not act against
42 the “general community”.
43
44 It should be obvious that being the Commonwealth of Australia, the State of Victoria or any
45 council such as Banyule City Council that they are pursuing for many years a “political
46 persecution” against me but their problems is that I have this enormous knowledge about
47 constitutional embedded legal principles and so also my constitutional rights.
48
49 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AILRev/2010/3.pdf
50 "Local Government Rates Exemptions for Indigenous Organisations ...

Page 56
1 ... Australian imposing rates on the ownership or occupation of land law. In

2 ... liability to legal services for disadvantaged persons; drug or alcohol local ...
3
4 https://www.ombudsman.qld.gov.au/how-to-complain/complaints-process/common-
5 complaints/council-liability-for-injury-or-damage-to-property
6 Council liability for injury or damage to property
7 4 Oct 2023 ... Only a court can do this. Depending on the circumstances of the matter, we
8 may consider: the adequacy of council's investigation and ...
9
10 https://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/-/media/project/cpa/corporate/documents/tools-and-
11 resources/not-for-profit-and-public-sector/public-sector/understanding-financial-reports-
12 local-governments.pdf?rev=82ff988c5b96496c85d2dee589725f49
13 understanding-financial-reports-local-governments.pdf - CPA Australia
14 Where any law prohibits the exclusion of such liability, CPA Australia limits
15 its liability to the resupply of the information. Page 3. 3. Contributors. CPA ...
16
17 https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/our-impact/investigation-reports/investigation-into-how-local-
18 councils-respond-to-ratepayers-in-financial-hardship/
19 Investigation into how local councils respond to ratepayers in ...
20 5 May 2021 ... Image showing the average council rates range between $1,227 and
21 $2,000, 48% of councils don't include rate waivers and 97% of councils use debt ...
22
23 https://alga.com.au/facts-and-figures/
24 Facts and Figures - Australian Local Government Association
25 Local government revenue from rates in 2020-21 was about $20 billion [ABS ... More than nine
26 out of every 10 councils in Australia are facing jobs and ...
27 QUOTE
28 Local Government Key Facts and Figures
29 See latest infrographic
30 There are 537 councils Australia-wide. Around 55 per cent are located in regional, rural, or
31 remote councils, about 25 per cent urban and urban fringe and 20 per cent urban region.
32 Local government employs 190,800 people, across more than 400 occupations, which is
33 nearly 10 per cent of the total public sector as 30 June 2021. [Local Government Workforce
34 Skills and Capability Survey 2022].
35 There are around 5670 elected councillors in Australia, according to state and territory
36 electoral commission and industry data.
37 The gender breakdown of the Australian local government workforce is 50.9 per cent male
38 and 49.1 per cent female.
39 Local government revenue from rates in 2020-21 was about $20 billion [ABS Government
40 Finance Statistics, Australia, 2020-21]. In 2018-19, local government collected $19 billion in
41 rates.
42 Local government’s total annual expenditure in 2020-21 was approximately $43.1 billion,
43 representing a 10.72 per cent increase since 2018-19. [Local Government Workforce Skills
44 and Capability Survey 2022].
45 Local government non-financial assets including roads, community infrastructure such as
46 buildings, facilities, airports, water, and sewerage (in some states) including land, are valued
47 at $500.8 billion [ABS Government Finance Statistics, Australia, 2020-21].
48 Federal Financial Assistance Grants to councils have slipped from one percent of
49 Commonwealth taxation revenue in 1996 to just 0.52 percent today.
50 States and territory net tax revenues rose an average of 8.8 percent to $92 billion [ABS
51 Taxation Revenue 2020-21]. However, by contrast, local government increased tax revenue
52 by only 2.6 per cent to $20 billion.
Page 57
1 General facts about local government

2 The first local government established in Australia was in Adelaide in 1840.
3 Australia’s largest council by population is Brisbane City Council, servicing a population of
4 1.25 million.
5 Australia’s largest council by area is East Pilbara in Western Australia. It covers an area of
6 379,571 square km (larger than Victoria), has a population of 11,005 and 3,237km of roads.
7 At 1.4 square kilometres, and with 1524 residents, the smallest local government area is the
8 Shire of Peppermint Grove Council, Western Australia.
9 Australia has had four Prime Ministers who served on local councils.
10 John Gorton (Kerang Shire Council)
11 Ben Chifley (Abercrombie Shire Council)
12 Earle Page (South Grafton Council)
13 Arthur Fadden (Townsville City Council)
14 Infrastructure and assets
15 Local roads make up around 75 percent of the national road network (by length) and service
16 every Australian and business on a daily basis. About 657,000km of the nation’s roads are
17 managed by local governments.
18 In 2020-21, local government non-financial assets including roads, community infrastructure
19 such as buildings, facilities, airports, water, and sewerage (in some states) including land, was
20 valued at $500.8 billion [ABS Government Finance Statistics, Australia, 2020-21].
21 ALGA’s 2021 State of the Assets report showed two-thirds of all local government assets are
22 in good condition while around one-third are not. Specifically, nearly 1 in 10 of all local
23 government assets need significant attention, and 3 in every 100 assets may need to be
24 replaced.
25 The Australian Bureau of Statistics [Government Finance Statistics released 26 April 2022]
26 says the three highest levels of local government expenditure in 2020-21 were:
27 $9.58 billion on General Public Services
28 $10.30 billion on Transport and Communications
29 $6.85 billion on Recreation, Culture and Religion. (This figure includes expenditure of
30 Roads to Recovery funding of $591.6 million in 2020-21 Budget).
31 Jobs and skills
32 More than nine out of every 10 councils in Australia are facing jobs and skills shortages
33 which are acting as a handbrake on local productivity. [Local Government Workforce Skills
34 and Capability Survey 2022].
35 The professions most in demand include engineers, town planners, building surveyors,
36 environmental health officers, accountants and HR professionals.
37 The main issues councils are experiencing are a shortage of skilled candidates, and often
38 an inability to compete with the private sector and other levels of government on
39 remuneration.
40 Natural disasters and recovery
41 2022 was a challenging year for Australian councils and our communities, with more than
42 500 disaster support declarations across 316 local government areas.
43 Roles and responsibilities
44 Constitutional responsibility for local government lies with state and territory
45 governments. Consequently, the roles and responsibilities of local government differ from
46 state to state.
47 Local government services cover all areas and can include:
48 Infrastructure and property services, including local roads, bridges, footpaths, drainage,
49 waste collection and management;
50 Provision of recreation facilities, such as parks, sports fields and stadiums, golf courses,
51 swimming pools, sport centres, halls, camping grounds and caravan parks;
Page 58
1 Health services such as water and food inspection, immunisation services, toilet
2 facilities, noise control and meat inspection and animal control;
3 Community services, such as childcare, aged care and accommodation, community care
4 and welfare services;
5 Building services, including inspections, licensing, certification, and enforcement;
6 Planning and development approval;
7 Provision of and management of facilities, such as airports and aerodromes, ports and
8 marinas, cemeteries, parking stations and on-street parking;
9 Cultural facilities and services, such as libraries, art galleries and museums, and
10 community events;
11 Water and sewerage services; and
12 Other services, such as abattoirs, saleyards and group purchasing schemes.
13 Download Facts and Figures infographic.
14 (Last updated March 2023)
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Reality is that the state government is delegating more and more to municipalities, so that instead
18 of the State Government paying for certain works now municipalities will add charges to
19 property owners. Also the Minister will not be a “responsible Minister” because he just pass the
20 blame onto municipalities. The Minister will only be there for photo opportunities. The problem
21 is that when you divide the works then it is cost more because some municipalities may not have
22 enough work for certain workers, etc. More equipment needs whereas if you have less
23 municipalities then likely less equipment needed. Councillors like to get more power and so will
24 unlikely reject an increase of power even so this may escalate rates.
25 Ordinary governments can only draw monies from Consolidates Revenue Funds via
26 Appropriation Acts passed by the parliament and provided royal ascent. However, with
27 municipal councils there is essentially no separation of powers and neither any proper financial
28 accountability and monies are pilfered by alleged donations to groups, etc. This should never be
29 accepted to reflect the legal principles embedded in the constitution!
30 Let me now present what the Victorian Government appears to claim:
31
32 https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/184012/Legitimacy-of-Councils-and-Rating-
33 Powers.pdf
34 Legitimacy of Councils and Rating Powers
35 QUOTE
36 Local government is legally valid, having been constituted by an Act of the Victorian.
37 Parliament. There is no obstacle in the Commonwealth. Constitution to ...
38 Legitimacy of Councils and Rating Powers
39 Local Government Victoria - Factsheet
40 Key Messages
41 • Victorian Councils are lawfully constituted by State legislation, namely the Local
42 Government Act 2020.
43 • Councils are recognised in the Victorian Constitution.
44 • Neither the Victorian nor Commonwealth Constitution conflict with the lawful status and
45 powers of Victorian Councils. • Councils derive the power to impose rates and charges from
46 the Local Government Act 1989.
47 • It is unlawful to refuse or fail to pay rates or charges except in accordance with the
48 provisions in the Act, or the determination of a Court. Significant penalties apply for non
49 payment.
50

Page 59
1 MYTH 1 Local Government has no legal validity because it is not mentioned in the
2 Commonwealth Constitution. A referendum in 1988 to recognise local government in the
3 Constitution did not succeed. Therefore, local government has no legal existence. FACT
4
5 Local government is legally valid, having been constituted by an Act of the Victorian
6 Parliament.
7 There is no obstacle in the Commonwealth Constitution to prevent State Parliaments from
8 legislating to create, empower and regulate local government. All States have done so.
9 The Victorian Constitution includes explicit recognition of local government. Section 74 B
10 gives Parliament the right to make laws for and in relation to local government.
11
12 MYTH 2 The Victorian Constitution is not valid; therefore, its recognition of local
13 government is invalid; therefore, local government itself has no lawful basis.
14
15 The Constitution Act 1975 was not properly enacted as it did not receive the assent of the
16 Queen.
17
18 FACT
19
20 The Victorian Constitution is a valid Act of the Victorian Parliament.
21 The first Constitution was enacted in 1855 and provided for its replacement with subsequent
22 Constitution Acts.
23 The current Victorian Constitution Act 1975 received Royal Assent in October 1975. The
24 Constitution’s provisions, including those relating to local government, are valid and have the
25 force of law. Legitimacy of Councils and Rating Powers 2 of 2 UNOFFICIAL UNOFFICIAL
26
27 MYTH 3 Council has no right to impose rates because the Commonwealth Constitution only
28 gives the power to tax to the Federal and State Governments.
29 The High Court recently confirmed this in the ‘Pape’ case.
30
31 FACT
32
33 The Commonwealth Constitution does not contain any obstacle to the levy of taxes by the
34 States, including on property.
35 State Parliaments have the power to confer this function on other bodies through legislation.
36 Through the Local Government Act 1989, Part 8, the Victorian Parliament has conferred upon
37 local government the power to levy and collect property tax in the form of rates.
38 The High Court case of Pape v Commissioner of Taxation (2009) did not refer to either the
39 States’ power to tax, or local government’s power to levy rates and charges.
40
41 MYTH 4
42 Councils are created as bodies corporate, not governments. Therefore, they cannot levy taxes.
43
44 FACT
45
46 Councils are certainly created as statutory bodies corporate under an Act of Parliament. Such
47 bodies can perform any function and exercise any power conferred on them by the Act which
48 creates them.
49 The Local Government Act 1989 provides Councils with a range of powers, including to levy
50 rates (see 3 above).

Page 60
1 The Victorian Constitution provides that Councils are a distinct and essential tier of
2 government.
3 The Local Government Act 2020 provides that Councils are constituted by Councillors
4 democratically elected by their community for the purpose of providing ‘good governance in
5 its municipal district for the benefit and wellbeing of the municipal community’.
6
7 MYTH 5
8
9 There is no lawful penalty for failing or refusing to pay rates because there is no power to
10 impose rates.
11
12 FACT
13
14 Councils have the lawful power to impose and enforce rates.
15 People who fail to pay their rates may be liable for penalties, including:
16
17 • Penalty interest for late payment;
18
19 • Recovery of unpaid rates and charges as debts, which may include selling the relevant land
20 without the consent of the owner; • Court proceedings which may result in award of costs
21 against a defaulting owner, which means requirement to pay the Council’s legal costs on top
22 of the outstanding rates and charges. Appealing Rates and Charges
23
24 While the rule is that rates must be paid as charged, there are processes for appeal, including
25 in circumstances of financial hardship.
26
27 The Local Government Act 1989 and Local Government Act 2020 sets out the legal
28 requirements, and information on a Council’s specific procedures will be available from the
29 Council.
30
31 Any person seeking to challenge their rate notice is recommended to speak to their Council
32 first. If proceeding to court, they are recommended to seek legal advice.
33
34 DISCLAIMER: This Fact Sheet provides general guidance. It is not intended as legal advice
35 but may be used as a reference guide to the views of Local Government Victoria.
36
37 Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions 1 Spring Street Melbourne Victoria 3000
38 Telephone (03) 9651 9999 © Copyright State of Victoria, Department of Jobs, Precincts and
39 Regions 2019
40
41 Except for any logos, emblems, trademarks, artwork and photography this document is made
42 available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia license. This
43 document is also available in an accessible format at
44 END QUOTE
45
46 As to:
47 QUOTE
48 The High Court case of Pape v Commissioner of Taxation (2009) did not refer to either the
49 States’ power to tax, or local government’s power to levy rates and charges.
50 END QUOTE
51

Page 61
1
2 I actually download the decision and a brief scanning didn’t show any reference to municipal
3 council rates. Neither did I come across of many thing about nudity at the beach, and is this
4 meaning that then nudity is permissible at the beach? I neither came across anything in the
5 judgment that one can STALK a councillor, does this then mean one can STALK a councillor?
6 What a nonsense of an argument to claim that because a judgment doesn’t refer to municipal
7 council rates then it must imply that municipal council rates are constitutional valid.
8
9 The real criteria should be does the State have State Land Taxation powers in view that on
10 11 November 1910 it became exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers? And as the Framers
11 of the Constitution made clear that even if States (that is legitimately) referred State legislative
12 powers to the Commonwealth and later sought to withdraw this reference of legislative powers
13 nevertheless once Commonwealth exclusive legislative powers then always Commonwealth
14 exclusive legislative powers.
15 Meaning, that the Commonwealth alleged abolition of Commonwealth Land Taxation does not
16 for one of iota alter it to be and remain to be an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power.
17
18 Also idiotic is that the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once the Commonwealth
19 legislated in a particular subject matter then the States had to retire from this, while it appears the
20 judges of the High Court of Australia are dreaming up their alternative constitutional meaning
21 and allow States still to legislate in numerous issues to which constitutionally they have no
22 constitutional powers. The Palmer v WA in my view is a clear example!
23
24 While it may be argued that in regard of taxation this is different, but that is only because the
25 Framers of the Constitution debated this that the states could apply State land taxation if the
26 Commonwealth didn’t do so. As such, taxation subject was clearly having exemptions. It is the
27 Framers of the Constitution who implemented legal principles in the constitution and the courts
28 have to butt out as they have no judicial power to amend the true meaning and application of the
29 constitution!
30
32 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
33 When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should
34 be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great
35 amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we
36 have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of
37 lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the people of United Australia and
38 create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care has not been
39 exercised.
40 END QUOTE
41 .
43 QUOTE
44 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs)
45 is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672]
46 one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the
47 provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting
48 together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material
49 they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be
50 incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least
51 degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these
52 provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable;
Page 62
1 and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be
2 very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no
3 word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in
4 time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed
5 and an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words
6 which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of
7 us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for
8 every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
9 END QUOTE
10 .
12 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
13 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with
14 regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the
15 Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted
16 elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is
17 not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
18 END QUOTE
19
21 QUOTE
22 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that
23 we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 Meaning that the High Court of Australia in my view committed TREASON when in Sue v Hill
27 claiming that “Australian Citizenship” was a nationality and Australians who had “Subject of the
28 British Crown” as a nationality were ineligible to be a Member of Parliament.
29
30 While some judges may desire to fabricate some excuse that when a Parliament abolish a certain
31 legislation then it is as if it never existed, well you better tell that to those who were convicted
32 for violating at the time Commonwealth land taxation as their convictions still stand.
33
34 Anyone who claims the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK is not a Bill of
35 Rights simply hasn’t got a clue what this constitution stands for.
36
37 Anyone espousing that there is a (purported) Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901
38 (UK) simply fails to understand that the Commonwealth Parliament never had and still doesn’t
39 have any constitutional powers to legislate as to a constitution. After all, if it did have such
40 powers, as the State of Victoria pretends, then at the Commonwealth level the Commonwealth
41 could do without Section 128 referendum and merely amend the constitution by legislation. As
42 has been shown the judges of the High Court of Australia at times become creative and stray in
43 violation of the constitution into the field of the legislators and/or executive powers to which it
44 has no judicial powers to do so. The Sue v Hill, MABO, Sykes v Cleary and numerous other
45 decision in my view are clear examples.
46
47 With so much wrong and judicial officers, politicians, police, etc, all betraying us and joining the
48 foreign enemy powers then one may have to ask what can be done about appropriately acting
49 against this?
50
51 Firstly, we must return police forces back to the fold of public servants and not being self-
52 employed contractors. As such they regain the security of their employment and avoid the risk to
Page 63
1 be personally sued for doing their job, and be free from any discrimination if they pursue to
2 genuinely enforce the rule of law rather the rule of the political terrorist.
3
4 We need to ensure that judges whom aspire to become judges of the High Court of Australia
5 must be shown to have competent in the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of
6 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), and not where a party lost an appeal on 3 for and 3
7 against upholding the appeal because 1 judge declined from handing down his decision on the
8 reported ground as I understand it, that he didn’t know the constitution relating to the matter.
9 Well judges getting paid to do a job should be competent in this and failing this should resign!
10
11 Also, we must hold each and every politician legally accountable:
12
14 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
15 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
16 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
17 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
18 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
19 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
20 END QUOTE
21 .
22 Alec Kruger & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia; George Ernest Bray & Ors v The
23 Commonwealth of Australia [1997] HCA 27 (31 July 1997)
24 Matter No M21 of 1995
25 QUOTE
26 "Q.2. Does the Constitution contain any right, guarantee, immunity, freedom or provision
27 as referred to in paragraph 29 of the Amended Statement of Claim, a breach of which by -
28 (a) an officer of the Commonwealth; or
29 (b) a person acting for and on behalf of the Commonwealth;
30 gives rise to a right of action (distinct from a right of action in tort or for breach of
31 contract) against the Commonwealth sounding in damages?"
32 A. No.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 Here we have this gigantic abuse of power with Robodebt and other schemes and yet no one
36 seems to have been held legally accountable. When is the “Responsible Minister” being held
37 legally accountable for unlawful conduct?
38 The same with the pilfering of all kinds of extras when a person no longer is a Member of
39 Parliament and then nevertheless is getting financial benefits and other treats, etc, not
40 constitutionally entitled upon.
41
42 We need a police force that will not hesitate to investigate and charge politicians in power and
43 their collaborators, including councillors, who are extorting monies from property owners by
44 unconstitutional legislation.
45
46 We need to hold politicians criminally accountable where they are involved in financial schemes
47 where they are undermining the security of the State by engaging in financial deals that are
48 inappropriate, unlawful, etc.
49
50 We can see for example that when the alleged “missing link” of the Freeway from
51 Greensborough to Bulleen was put to residents I understand the rout now being implemented
52 was allegedly going to cost about $6.7 Billion whereas now it may end up perhaps with $30 or
Page 64
1 $40 billion dollars or more. This gross financial mismanagement cannot be accepted to be
2 merely an issue for an election but rather being gross and sheer incompetence in financial
3 management and should result in formal charges against those involved. After all ordinary small
4 businesses need to work out a yearly or even long plan of financial management to survive the
5 ever changing commercial liability , etc, and if failing to plan appropriately then risk to lose the
6 entire business, whereas we now end up with politicians who seem to me to be grossly
7 incompetent in financial management and yet go off laughing to the bank as they may have
8 enriched themselves by kickbacks, etc, from the mates which obtained contracts that were utterly
9 ridiculous to engage in.
10 The mere absurd outstanding debt by the State of Victoria must be considered a criminal conduct
11 and charges should be laid. It is utter and sheer nonsense to blame “covid” for this, as most of the
12 debt had nothing to do with the “covid scam” pursued by the politicians and their collaborators.
13 Why should a former Premier be entitled for the rest of his life for hundreds of thousands of
14 dollars on an alleged superannuation payment when destroying so many small businesses, etc, by
15 gross mismanagement? Why was he never charged for making false & misleading police reports,
16 possible involvement of hit and run removal of motor vehicle from the scene of the accident and
17 a lot more. How on earth could the police have accepted that he allegedly claimed a veranda hit
18 him on the shoulder? How often has anyone witnesses a veranda hitting someone on the
19 shoulders, unless some tornado lifted the veranda up?
20
21 We need to have formal education in education facilities that provide each child with a free copy
22 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and also provide electronic
23 access to the Hansard records of the Constitutional convention Debates leading up to the creation
24 of the constitution.
25
26 We need to abolish the unconstitutional Infringement Court!
27
28 We need to establish a state as well as a federal constitutional advisory committee which as to
29 the federal level requires at least 2 persons of each State/Territory to be ordinary citizens and 1
30 person being a person who may have some form of legal education and they will be the body to
31 advise the Federal Parliament as to any proposed legislation if it is deemed constitutionally valid
32 or not and their advice must be provided alongside any proposed Bill to the Parliament. The
33 States/Territories can do so likewise as to representation from different areas of their territories.
34
36 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
37 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
38 understand.
39 END QUOTE
40 .
42 QUOTE
43 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee
44 will not fail to exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not
45 understand, and that they will put in words which can be understood by persons commonly
46 acquainted with the English language.
47 END QUOTE
48
50 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
51 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
52 END QUOTE
53

Page 65
1 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/florida-surgeon-general-confirms-dark-secret-
2 about-mrna/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=the-gateway-
3 pundit&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=2024-01-05
4 Florida Surgeon General Confirms Dark Secret About the mRNA COVID-19 “Vaccines”
5 QUOTE
6 This wasn’t disclosed to the public when the COVID-19 shots rolled out.
7 “These vaccines are not appropriate for use in human beings,” Florida Surgeon
8 General Dr. Joseph Ladapo declared in a statement calling for a complete halt of the
9 mRNA COVID-19
10 vaccines.
11
12 Dr. Joseph Ladapo issues this warning based on overwhelming evidence that the COVID-
13 19 shots that Pfizer and Moderna assured us were “safe” are contaminated with plasmid
14 DNA.
15 This wasn’t disclosed to the public when the COVID-19 shots rolled out. In fact, the Pfizer
16 COVID-19 “vaccine” injected into billions of arms was not the same one used in Pfizer’s
17 clinical trials. There was a “bait-and-switch.” The human population received COVID-19
18 injections produced by “Process 2,” while Pfizer’s initial clinical trials tested vaccines
19 manufactured by “Process 1.” The so-called vaccines rolled out to the human public,
20 unlike the ones in the clinical trials, were contaminated with excess amounts of DNA
21 plasmids.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 So, we have all those politicians falling over themselves claiming “safe and effective” with their
25 collaborators being scientist, medical doctors, media and enforced for their unconstitutional
26 mandates by the police and even the army just to actually mass murder Australians so they as it
27 appears to me can secure their own employments/positions and cannot bother to ensure that
28 needles harm is avoided.
29 Often we are told that “many lives have been saved” while the FACTS are to the opposite.
30 If we had a competent Chief Commissioner of Police then he should have arrested every
31 Australian soldier who in violation of the constitution was in the State of Victoria enforcing the
32 unconstitutional mandates.
33
34 And this is really what we are lacking is a Chief Commissioner of Police with balls! One who
35 isn’t rolling over for the TRAITORS/TERORIST and collude with foreign enemy powers but
36 who hold his oath as very important.
37
38 I have extensively written over the years how the vails by scientist proved to have foreign items
39 in it. Well a Chief Commissioner may not have any qualms about perhaps being an accessory to
40 the crippling if not murder of members of his own family but surely should have demanded
41 accountability from onset.
42
Page 66
1 Clearly, the John Skerritt of TGA appears never to have properly tested the vails that were used
2 for injecting Australians as otherwise he should have known that they were different then what
3 Pfizer was originally claiming to contain. And yet I understand that John Skerritt during Senate
4 estimates was claiming to test from each baths the vails. In my view he and other collaborators
5 ought to be charged regarding crimes against humanity, mass murder, etc.
6
7 We often hear about how police forces around Australia are cooperating to seek to deter criminal
8 activities and hold criminals legally accountable and yet, I provided to the Australian Federal
9 Police a 6-8-2021 COMPLAINT that with numerous supplements is already 7,045 pages and
10 yet the very criminals involved have not been held accountable to the contrary the police forces
11 joined up to ensure this mass murder would succeed to the best of their ability.
12 More than likely had we had just one Chief Commissioner of Police with balls and considered
13 what I kept publishing (and all available FREE OF CHARGE) from my blog as such I am not
14 making monies from my elaborate research, then likely most injuries and likely all deaths as
15 result of the “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION bioweapon jab could have been avoided.
16
17 Clearly not a single victim gave “informed consent” this as the vails used never contained what
18 was claimed to be the content.
19 What kind of Chief Commissioner of Police can sit on his backside allowing mass murder to go
20 on during his watch?
21 Let us not ignore those in nursing homes and care centres whom are all subjected to alleged flu
22 vaccinations which I understand is not at all for their wellbeing but rather to weaken their
23 immune system as I extensively canvassed in the past.
24
25 As Fauci now amidst (after making millions in royalties, etc) that really those jabs didn’t do the
26 job then why is he and his collaborators not sitting in a prison cell?
27
28 https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/the-unvaccinated-were-unfairly-
29 scapegoated?utm_source=post-email-
30 title&publication_id=441185&post_id=139657569&utm_campaign=email-post-
31 title&isFreemail=true&r=1a0316&utm_medium=email
32 The Unvaccinated Were Scapegoated for Failure of COVID Vaccines, Study Finds
33 Scapegoating and hate messaging was intentional and BROKE UP FAMILIES
34
35 I u7nderstand that the medical profession still demand unvaccinated persons to be jabbed with
36 the “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION bioweapon jab or simply refuse any transplants, and one
37 had to question why the Chief Commissioner of Police in such jurisdiction doesn’t charge those
38 medical doctors where clearly the jabs do not benefit a patient but rather harm a patient and
39 contains content that turns out to be unapproved.
40 Here we had chemist injecting Australians without any proper security. One in I understand
41 Caulfield violated the rules applicable to injecting something into a person and yet what was the
42 legal accountability?
43 Then we had even a doctor injecting multi times the same and then it is claimed it didn’t harm
44 the patient. Well, why not inject the same in this doctor to see if it doesn’t cause any harm?
45 In my view a Chief Commissioner of police who0 let this happen on his/her watch is a so called
46 godless wonder, a coward grossly incompetent to be a Chief Commissioner of Police! If I had
47 my way each and every Chief commissioner of Police who failed to take appropriate action
48 should be charge with crimes against humanity, mass murder, etc, and conspiracy of the same!
49
50 No more legalistic language that is twisted by judges that might depend on their political
51 associations, the possible kickbacks, future job assignments after retirement, etc.
Page 67
1 This SARS-CoV-2 alleged virus was a “covid scam” and well if someone desires to prove me
2 wrong then well the person try this. How on earth could anyone accept that a newly named
3 alleged covid-19 in January 2020 was already part of PCR sales in 2017?
4 What is needed is to reclaim our constitutional, legal, human, natural and common law rights and
5 the start would be to hold politicians and their collaborators legally accountable.
6 Also, there has to be a freezing of all and any so called vaccination including “childhood”
7 vaccinations unless a medical doctor certifies personally that such alleged vaccination is
8 appropriate for a particular child. No more the medical profession pushing this “safe and
9 effective” mantra as they have their own kind of financial kickback for this!
10 No more anyone paying directly the TGA as any monies must be paid via the treasurer.
11 The media must be held legally accountable for spreading the covid scam fear mongering and
12 concealing the truth from citizens!
13 And the above is just a bit of a start to try to get back to a real democracy!
14
15 The above is not stated in any priority of issues and neither sets out all relevant details but will
16 give some indication we need to get more competent Chief Commissioners of Police who have
17 some balls to make clear they will not be some puppet-on-a-string for politicians but will ensure
18 that those who violate the rule of law will be pursued and be held legally accountable. However,
19 with the current crop I view this is unlikely where the Victorian Police itself is undermining the
20 administration of justice by using unlawfully “legal practitioners” as police informers” and so
21 prove they are not the least concerned about operating lawfully themselves.
22 The videos I now obtained from a friend who specifically sat across my property to video record
23 Banyule City Council staff to invade my privacy and trespassed upon properties are undisputed
24 evidence that Banyule City Council could care less about itself acting within the rule of law
25 knowing too well that so far the Chief Commissioner of Police and other police officer seems to
26 hold Banyule City Council to be entitled to violate the rule of law. Well, in the end this matter
27 one way or another will be ending up in the courts and then we may get out the truth.
28
29 When I was in factory management I used to explain to the workers that regardless of whatever
30 position one had in the company we are all a link in a chain, and who desires to be the weakest
31 link? Meaning, we all may have certain skills to contribute and so we all each in his/her own way
32 is important to succeed in the goals we have set to achieve.
33
34
35
36 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
37


20240106-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police MR Shane Patton - COMPLAINT-Supplement 4

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

20240106-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police MR Shane Patton - COMPLAINT-Supplement 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

6-1-2024 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so

6-1-2024 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 in little danger of catching it. In Sweden, in particular, he wrote, there were no

1 their land and waters”.

6-1-2024 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 (1904) 1 CLR 208.

6 (1904) 1 CLR 208, 213.

6-1-2024 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

6-1-2024 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 21 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1957 Commonwealth monopoly over income taxation Victoria v

1967 Constitutional amendment carried giving the Constitution

6-1-2024 Page 22 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1971 As a consequence of a High Court decision, the Strickland v Rocla

1973 Victoria called upon other governments to join in a Proceedings of the

1975 Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act

6-1-2024 Page 26 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 As a result of a review commenced in the 2024 year, Melton City Council

6-1-2024 Page 27 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Critical might be the claim:

6-1-2024 Page 31 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 32 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

50 Our name is our motto!

1 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)

6-1-2024 Page 35 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 36 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

6-1-2024 Page 38 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 40 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

6-1-2024 Page 45 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 46 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 END QUOTE text message

1 Red arrow shows camera in his hand, leaving after trespassing.

6-1-2024 Page 51 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 52 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

15 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

6-1-2024 Page 54 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 55 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 ... Australian imposing rates on the ownership or occupation of land law. In

1 General facts about local government

6-1-2024 Page 58 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 59 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 60 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6-1-2024 Page 64 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

40 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like