20140618-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Bruce Atkinson MLC - COMPLAINT - Re Geoff Shaw Saga-Etc

1
p1 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga

Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Wagga Wagga Email: kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE
Hon. Bruce Atkinson, MLC 18-6-2014
President of the Legislative Council
President's Office 5
Parliament House, Spring Street, Melbourne 3002 Victoria, Australia
Phone: +61 3 9651 8675 Fax: +61 3 9651 8996
E-mail: bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au

Cc: Christine Fyffe, Speaker christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au 10
Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
Treasurer Michael OBrien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Geoff Shaw geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
Robert Clark Attorney General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au 15
Louise Asher louise.asher@parliament.vic.gov.au
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
Mr Ken Smith ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au 20

Ref; 20140618-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Bruce Atkinson MLC COMPLAINT Geoff Shaw saga-etc
Sir,
I am dismayed at the very least that you provided a negative comment (Upon my 15-6-2014
correspondence to you) to Mr Peter Olney which I view is without even bothering to respond to 25
me to clarify matters for so far needed. I have highlighted your comments in bold and in red
colour.
QUOTE EMAIL 17-6-2014 CORRESPONDENCES
Fw: Parliament, and the Geoff Shaw matter. (2)
Peter Olney Hi Gerrit, Reply from The Hon Bruce Atkinson MLC ... FYI Regards, Peter. -- 30
--- Original Message ----- From: <bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au> To: "Peter
Olney" <peterjil@iinet.net.au> Sent: Tuesd
Today at 1:39 PM
Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
Me Peter, much appreciated you alerting me to this I intend to write to Bruce Atkinson 35
about the matter. He just didn't have the courtesy to respond to me personally about his
views. . Gerrit Constitutio
To Peter Olney
Today at 1:58 PM
Peter, 40
much appreciated you alerting me to this I intend to write to
Bruce Atkinson about the matter. He just didn't have the
courtesy to respond to me personally about his views.
.

2
A 1
st
Gerrit

5
Constitutionalist & Consultant

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN) 10
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209
.
Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
15
The content of this email and any attachments are provided
WITHOUT PREJ UDICE, unless specifically otherwise stated.

If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you
read it, all you now need to do is to consider the content 20
appropriately!

A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE
QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED TO BE
LABELLED A FOOL. 25

Hide message history
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 1:39 PM, Peter Olney <peterjil@iinet.net.au> wrote:
30
Hi Gerrit,
Reply from The Hon Bruce Atkinson MLC ... FYI
Regards, Peter.

3
A 1
st
----- Original Message -----
From: <bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au>
To: "Peter Olney" < peterjil@iinet.net.au>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Parliament, and the Geoff Shaw matter. 5

Good afternoon

I have looked at the information. He is wrong to the extent that either 10
House of Parliament can determine a sanction on one of its Members.
However, in my view, the separation of powers means the police should not
be involved and they and the courts would not be expected to have any
prosecution powers in a matter pertaining to conduct and entitlements
associated with the Parliament as distinct from a criminal conviction. 15

Yours sincerely,

Hon Bruce Atkinson MLC
President of the Legislative Council 20
Member for Eastern Metropolitan Region

Office of the President | Parliament House
p (61 3) 9651 8676 | f (61 3) 9651 8996
Spring St | EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 25

Electorate Office
p (61 3) 9877 7188 | f (61 3) 9877 7199
153-155 Springvale Road | NUNAWADING VIC 3131
30
e bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au

35
From: "Peter Olney" <peterjil@iinet.net.au>
To: "Bruce Atkinson" <bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au>
Date: 17/06/2014 10:15 AM
Subject: Parliament, and the Geoff Shaw matter.
40

Hi Bruce,
The document sent to you on Sunday last by Gerrit Schoel-Hlavka canvases a
lot of areas, the one for the moment being the 'Geoff Shaw' matter. 45
There are serious issues raised by Gerrit about the proper performance of
Parliament in the way it has handled Mr Shaw MP.
There are other matters raised as the consequence of Gerrit providing
volumes from his (digital) book which can be useful to consider and apply.

4
A 1
st
I look forward to you providing careful consideration (from a
constitutional point of view) to the points raised about Mr Shaw.
And, I look foward to your being able to make a difference in this issue.
Regards, Peter Olney. 1/21 Cobham Road, Mitcham, 3132.
5
From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
To: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel- Hlavka O. W. B.
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 11:59 PM
Subject: Fw: See attachment 20140615-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to Bruce 10
Atkinson MLC re. Geoff Shaw saga-etc.

One thing, once the ball is rolling one better keep it going!

A more extensive presentation of some matters wrong with the purported 15
constitution, standing orders and a lot more.

The document can be downloaded from:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/229743898/20140615-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Bruce-
Atkinson-MLC-Re-Geoff-Shaw-Saga-etc 20

Constitutionalist & Consultant

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL 25
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 613945772
30
END QUOTE 2014-6-17 CORRESPONDENCES
.
I now narrow the email series to the critical part of your comments:

QUOTE 2014-6-17 CORRESPONDENCES 35
From: <bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au>
To: "Peter Olney" < peterjil@iinet.net.au>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Parliament, and the Geoff Shaw matter. 40

Good afternoon

I have looked at the information. He is wrong to the extent that either 45
House of Parliament can determine a sanction on one of its Members.
However, in my view, the separation of powers means the police should not
be involved and they and the courts would not be expected to have any
prosecution powers in a matter pertaining to conduct and entitlements
associated with the Parliament as distinct from a criminal conviction. 50

5
A 1
st

Yours sincerely,

Hon Bruce Atkinson MLC
President of the Legislative Council 5
Member for Eastern Metropolitan Region

Office of the President | Parliament House
p (61 3) 9651 8676 | f (61 3) 9651 8996
Spring St | EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 10
END QUOTE 2014-6-17 CORRESPONDENCES

HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of 15
England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
cannot get behind it.
END QUOTE

And if we consider how the States are created then we need to consider s106 20

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK)
QUOTE
Chapter VThe States
106 Saving of Constitutions 25
The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue
as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State,
as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.
END QUOTE
30
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which 35
those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE

Therefore, the States are bound by the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
40
As quoted below
Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
Mr. BARTON: The necessity for it does not arise out of the powers of the Standing Orders, which are
merely regulations for the conduct of the business within the House, but out of the power of 45
punishment in cases where contempt is exercised by persons within the walls of Parliament. If, for
instance, a person throws a stone and the Sergeant-at-Arms can catch him he can be brought before
the Parliament and can be imprisoned or dealt with otherwise for contempt. Under the operation of the
clause similar action can be taken by the Federal Parliament, and that goes far enough. It does not require
Standing Orders to deal with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament. They exist, and if 50
you made Standing Orders you would really only limit them. Under the Bill we have taken the powers,
privileges, and immunities possessed by the House of Commons.
END QUOTE

6
A 1
st
And if we consider the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 (even so I hold it is not a valid con
situation and so successfully challenged in the County Court of Victoria on 19-6-2006
when I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia);
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/about/the-parliamentary-system/the-constitution
QUOTE 5
THE CONSTI TUTI ON
Purpose of the Constitution
The Constitution and the Parliament of Victoria
History of the Constitution
Changing the Constitution 10
Further reading

Purpose of the Constitution
Victoria's Constitution is set out in the Constitution Act 1975. A copy of the Constitution Act 1975 is
available on the Legislation website at www.legislation.vic.gov.au (go to 'Victorian Law Today', select 15
'Acts' , 'C' and scroll down to Constitution Act 1975. This will take you to the Constitution as it is today).
The Constitution provides the framework within which parliamentary democracy and responsible
government operate in Victoria. It sets out the basic rules relating to the Crown (the Queen and the
Governor), the Legislative Council, the Legislative Assembly, local government, the Supreme Court and
the Executive (ministers and the public service). 20
The Constitution does not set out everything about democracy and government in Victoria. It does not,
for example, cover Cabinet, the Opposition or political parties. Instead such concepts have been based
on the Parliament of the United Kingdom or have developed over time.
The Constitution and the Parliament of Victoria
The Constitution defines the powers and responsibilities of the Parliament of Victoria. In particular, it 25
specifies that the Parliament of Victoria comprises the Crown, a Legislative Council and a Legislative
Assembly. It gives the power to the Parliament to makes laws for Victoria.
The Constitution specifies:
The number of members in the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly
When general elections must be held 30
The qualifications required to be a member of the Council or the Assembly
The eligibility of electors.
The History of the Constitution
The Constitution was drafted in Melbourne by Victoria's first Legislative Council in 1853-54. It was sent
to England and approved by the British Parliament in 1855, and was proclaimed in Victoria on 23 35
November 1855.
The details of the Constitution are not irrevocably fixed. As Victoria's social and political circumstances
have altered, the Constitution has been adapted to meet new challenges.
Parliamentary membership numbers, voter eligibility, payment of members, voting methods, size of the
ministry, electorate numbers and the powers and responsibilities of the Legislative Council and the 40
Legislative Assembly are some of the constitutional provisions that have been modified or altered since
1855.

7
A 1
st
One of the most important changes took place in 1975. From 1855 until 1975, Victoria's Constitution
existed solely as an Act of the British Parliament. On 22 October 1975 the Constitution was proclaimed
as an Act of the Parliament of Victoria.
In 2003 the Constitution was further amended by the Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Act 2003 so
that changes to some of its provisions, such as the representation of Victorian voters in Parliament, will 5
now have to be determined by a referendum. See Changing the Constitution below.
The 2003 amendments also provided for fixed-four year terms for both Houses, election of the
Legislative Council by proportional representation, removal of the Council's power to block a supply bill
(the budget) and a dispute resolution process for bills for which cannot be reached. These are regarded
as some of the most significant changes to the Victorian Constitution in its 150-year history. 10
Far from being an historical artefact, the Constitution is therefore central to the way in which democracy
operates in Victoria. By defining what is possible it protects the interests of all Victorians.
Changing the Constitution
The Constitution is changed by the Parliament agreeing to a bill that makes amendments to the
Constitution Act 1975. 15
Some parts of the Constitution can only be changed if certain requirements are met. Those special
requirements and the sections to which they apply are listed in the Constitution; these are known as
entrenched provisions. Not all sections are affected.
Three possible requirements exist:
1. A bill passed by Parliament must also be agreed to by a majority of electors voting at a referendum; 20
or
2. 3/5 of members of Parliament in both the Assembly and the Council must agree to the third reading of
the bill (a special majority); or
3. An absolute majority (half plus one) of members of Parliament in both the Assembly and the Council
must agree to the third reading of a bill. 25
For more information see Legislative Assembly Fact Sheet D3: Altering Victoria's Constitution.
Further reading
Victoria's Constitution, 3
rd
ed, 1997, Law Press, Richard McGarvie, John Waugh and Department of
Premier and Cabinet. [return to top]
Last Updated on Friday, 09 August 2013 30

END QUOTE

Constitution Act 1975 No. 8750 of 1975
QUOTE 35
Division 2Privileges of Parliament
19 Privileges powers etc. of Council and Assembly
(1) The Council and the Assembly respectively and the committees and members thereof
respectively shall hold enjoy and exercise such and the like privileges immunities and powers
as at the 21st day of July, 1855 were held enjoyed and exercised by the House of Commons of 40
Great Britain and Ireland and by the committees and members thereof, so far as the same are
not inconsistent with any Act of the Parliament of Victoria, whether such privileges immunities
or powers were so held possessed or enjoyed by custom statute or otherwise.
(2) The Parliament may by Act legislate for or with respect to the privileges immunities and
powers to be held enjoyed and exercised by the Council and the Assembly and by the 45
committees and the members thereof respectively.
(3) Any copy of the Journals of the House of Commons printed or purporting to be printed by
the order or printer of the House of Commons shall be received as prima facie evidence

8
A 1
st
without proof of its being such copy, upon any inquiry touching the privileges immunities and
powers of the Council or the Assembly or of any committee or member thereof respectively.
END QUOTE

In my view the above quoted part making it subject to so far as the same are not inconsistent 5
with any Act of the Parliament of Victoria in my view should be so far as the same are not
inconsistent with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia 1900(UK) any Act of the
Parliament of Victoria. This, as then the legal principles embedded in the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Australia 1900(UK) will not be in question to judges, politicians, etc.
10
As seems to me to be very clear, you seem to lack the understanding/competence to deal with
matters as permitted within constitutional framework and that to med is of concern.
Indeed, where you merely so to say sideswipe my writings and didnt even bother to alert me of
your different view then surely this is a major problem ass it underlines that you are not basing
your views upon FACTS but upon whatever misconceptions you have formed over the years and 15
not willing to even consider the true FACTS.

As I indicated in my past writings, some were having the website address included, as to
previous publications I held that Standing order 125 of the Legislative assembly was not one
which the Speaker could invoke as the alleged b reach related to what was provided as an 20
allowance as Mr Geoff Shaw Member for Frankston had not persistently disregarded any
ruling from the Chair (the Speaker) as for the speaker to invoke Standing order 125. Neither had
the speaker Standing Order 126 complied with.
.
It never can be any excuse for a Speaker not to comply with Standing orders unless they were 25
suspended, which the Hansard transcript of 11-6-2014 do not indicate eventuated. Two errors do
not make a right!
As such, any attempt to punish me Geoff Shaw had to be done following the book! Meaning
following precisely the Standing Orders.
. 30
As I analyzed, there was no provision within Standing Order 125 to deal with the allegations
against Mr Geoff Shaw. Hence, in my view any matter to pursue against Mr Geoff Shaw was one
under CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT provisions that is if the conduct alleged against Mr
Geoff Shaw was one in violation to Parliament and not a matter that fell within criminal law.
Where allowances are within the legal provisions of legislation and not being within the 35
provisions of privileges by the Parliament itself then I view the matter is one outside the
precinct of the Parliament and out of bounds for the Parliament to deal with.

Australasian Convention) 40
QUOTE
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I am not particular about that, but I think at all events the Federal Parliament
ought to have power to make its own standing orders for the purpose of preventing disorder. When I say this I
do not suppose the Commonwealth Parliament would attempt to exercise control with regard to people out of
its own doors. But within our own dominion we ought to be absolute. If we summon a witness in any of our 45
local Parliaments to the bar of the House, he can decline to give evidence, laugh at us, and walk away. The
case I have just mentioned shows the necessity of Parliament having control over any disorder.
Mr. TRENWITH: Anything to stop them throwing stones at labor members.

9
A 1
st
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In Victoria they took the matter in a wholesale manner, and passed an Act of
Parliament declaring that the Victorian Legislature had all the powers, privileges, and immunities of the
House of Commons. There was no mincing of matters there, and it was in consequence of the
Parliament of Victoria having arrested a man, and it having been decided that they had no power to do
so, that they +*immediately declared they had all of the powers of the House of Commons. 5
QUOTE

As such, even if the Parliament were so to say issue a summons for me to appear before the
Parliament I can ignore it because it has no powers outside the precinct of the perimeter of the
Parliament. (Perimeter I consider includes the staircase to the Parliament and grounds belonging 10
to the Parliament.

Where the Parliament deals with a contempt matter then it has an obligation to inform the
accused it the accused face ds a CIVIL or CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, this as the accused face a
considerable different conduct of defense pending the type of contempt the accused faces. 15
As such if the Parliament was dealing with Mr Geoff Shaw as being a contempt or then his legal
rights should have been explained.
However, as the privilege committee did not hold him in contempt by the legislative assembly
voted he would be in contempt if he failed to comply with what the Legislative assembly voted
upon then Mr Geoff Shaw would be in contempt, then I view we have this idiotic conduct that 20
Mr Geoff Shaw while not held in contempt can be in contempt but not stated as to if the
CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT would be a CIVIL or CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. The
failure to provide for this is another legal issue.

But, if the Parliament were to have deemed to be ab le to invoke contempt powers, not being 25
Standing Orders, and authorized the Victorian Police to so to say takeover the matter to pursue
criminal charges, then this would have been the end of the matter for the Parliament and only if
there was a conviction could the Parliament use the conviction as a possible ground to deal with
Mr Geoff Shaw as to have so to say be guilty of conduct unbecoming to a Member of Parliament,
etc, if this was within the Standing orders to deal with (I do not perceive that the standing orders 30
provide for this)

The issue therefore needs to be settled why did the Victorian Police pursue criminal charges
against Mr Geoff Shaw?
. 35
In my (2013) correspondence to Chief Commissioner of Police Ken Lay I did set out my views
about constitutional issues and a copy was send at the same time to Mr Geoff Shaw and
subsequently the Police (prosecutor) withdraw the criminal charges.
As I explicitly wrote in past correspondence the Victorian Police would have had no jurisdiction
to charge Mr Geoff Shaw if it related to an internal Parliament matters, such as CONTEMPT OF 40
PARLIAMENT issue unless the Parliament had expletively handed over the matter to the
Victorian Police.
Irrespective if the Victorian Policed acted on delegated powers of the Parliament (considering the
contempt of Parliament powers) or acted in right of ordinary prosecution of breaches of Victorian
legislation where the Victorian Police withdrew its criminal charges then that should have 45
concluded matters.
.
As to the powers of the Parliament to punish a Member of Parliament without invoking any
CONTEMPT powers, this cannot be questioned provided the alleged offence(s) fall within the

10
A 1
st
provisions of Standing Orders 125. In my view in regard of Mr Geoff Shaw this never
eventuated as such.
.
Therefore, what should have been established first was if Mr Geoff Shaw could be deemed to
have been in violation of: 5
Standing orders
Parliamentarian safety/security to protects its internal business processes
Violation of legislative provisions (criminal law)
Departmental Regulations
Any other kind of violation 10

R v Kidman [1915] HCA 58; (1915) 20 CLR 425 (16 September 1915)
QUOTE
The first question is as to the competence of the Australian Parliament to make the provisions of the Crimes
Act 1915 (No. 6 of 1915) retrospective. By sec. 2 it is enacted (by way of amendment of the Crimes Act 1914) 15
that any person who conspires with any other person "to defraud the Commonwealth" shall be guilty of an
indictable offence; the penalty attached being imprisonment for three years or less. By sec. 3 it is enacted "This
Act shall be deemed to have been in force from the date of the commencement of the Crimes Act 1914" (29th
October 1914). There is, therefore, no doubt as to the intention of the Parliament to make a conspiracy to
defraud the Commonwealth between 29th October 1914 and 7th May 1915 (the date of the commencement of 20
the Crimes Act 1915) an indictable offence. There is no doubt that the Act of 1915 was meant to be
retrospective; and therefore the numerous cases which lay down the principle of construction against
retrospective or retroactive operation are inapplicable. If the Act were an Act of the British Parliament with its
plenary powers, the principle of construction must yield to the clearly expressed intention of the Legislature.
But the question as to the power of the Federal Parliamenta Parliament which has no power to legislate 25
except as to specified subjectsto legislate retrospectively, remains. For the purpose of the question I may
assumewithout in any way deciding the pointthat, apart from the Act No. 6, a conspiracy to defraud the
Commonwealth does not constitute a criminal offence within the State law or otherwise.
END QUOTE
30
If Mr Geoff Shaw had committed a fraud then the criminal process would have been in my view
the appropriate manner to deal with him before the Courts, however, it is my view that to the
details/information that is known to me that in the circumstances prevailing any action against
him was inappropriate.
Having downloaded the most updated Victorian Constitution Act 1975 I am indeed very troubled 35
about the size of this purported constitution and to the amount of what I would describe utter
rubbish contained within it.
.
I found it extremely difficult to follow as on the one hand it provides for disqualification, then it
provides for the House to rule otherwise and allow a Member to remain holding the seat 40
regardless if in an Office of Profit. Then the Court of Disputed Returns can rule the person is
ineligible to be in the House. Then further down the holding of the Office of Profit can prevent a
person to be held eligible. Then a person may not be entitled to be a Member of Parliament if
convicted. Then a person can be fined $100 a day voting in the Parliament but not qualified. And
also that any other Act may affect matters. 45
Victorian Constitution Act 1975
QUOTE
58 With certain exceptions members of Parliament not to accept offices of profit under the Crown
Except where express provision is made to the contrary by any Act or enactment other than this
section, if any person while he is a member of the Council or the Assembly accepts any office or place 50
of profit under the Crown other than an office as a responsible Minister of the Crown, he shall be
guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable to a penalty of $100 for every week that he holds
such office.

11
A 1
st
END QUOTE

I view it is totally disjointed and it simply too difficult to have a clear understanding what is or
isnt applicable:
. 5
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE 10
.
A constitution must contain a minimum of words in its provisions as to reduce the ability by
lawyers to dispute the meaning of it.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 15
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble,
and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear,
we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass 20
the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too
much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used 30
the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should 35
have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to
it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution. 40
END QUOTE

Matters such as Family Law Act 1975 related matters as to a judge wife and children in my view
have no place in the constitution. They might be included in a Judicial Act but do not belong in a
Constitution Act. Having more than 120 times referring to superannuation is not something 45
that is appropriate for a constitution.

The Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is merely an act of the Victorian Parliament but not a
constitution, this even so referred to it as such.
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
55

12
A 1
st

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE 5

Australasian Convention) (Re Section 96 of the Constitution)
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.- 10
In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
END QUOTE

QUOTE 15
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary 20
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary 25
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE

Because the colonies agreed to form a federation the colonial acts therefore became subject to the 30
federal constitution, as referred to above. It means that the sovereign power of the Parliament to
amend its own constitution was no more.
It means that the Victorian Constitution Act 1855 since federation could no longer be amended
by the State Parliament but had to be by way of referendum approved or vetoed by the state
electors. 35

The rubbish now purported to be a Victorian Constitution Act 1975 has in my view no validity
for so far it purportedly was amended without approval of State electors by State referendum.

Version No. 204 Constitution Act 1975 No. 8750 of 1975 40
QUOTE
16 Legislative power of Parliament
The Parliament shall have power to make laws in and for Victoria in all cases whatsoever.
END QUOTE
45
PROPOSED
16 Legislative power of Parliament
The Parliament shall subject to the provisions and embedded legal principles of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) have power to make laws in and
for Victoria in all cases whatsoever. 50
END PROPOSED

Because this part is missing the legislation is as such invalid.
.

13
A 1
st

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive. 5
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will 10
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth. 15
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and 20
immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which 30
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 35
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the 40
Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE
45

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for 50
his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other
provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred
pounds.

14
A 1
st
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.
Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee! 5
Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those
colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement
of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are
actually paid a salary for their work, which they are not.
Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say 10
that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
move as an amendment:
That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow. 15
If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654] 20
Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that
kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than
the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of
parliament who was being paid 500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of
the Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational 25
manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own
judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are likely to do well
to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give proper attention to further work to-
night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in 30
regard to the absence of provision on matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting
committee was concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution
with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the commonwealth in its first
session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great number of other matters of that kind. We have,
therefore, given them power to deal with this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a 35
payment of members bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual
allowance for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at 500.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.
END QUOTE
40
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for
his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other 45
provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred
pounds.
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be

15
A 1
st
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.
Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those
colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement 5
of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are
actually paid a salary for their work, which they are not.
Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say
that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
move as an amendment: 10
That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not 15
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654]
Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that
kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than 20
the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of
parliament who was being paid 500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of
the Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational
manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own
judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public. 25
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are likely to do well
to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give proper attention to further work to-
night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in
regard to the absence of provision on matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting
committee was concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution 30
with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the commonwealth in its first
session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great number of other matters of that kind. We have,
therefore, given them power to deal with this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a
payment of members bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual
allowance for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at 500. 35
Motion agreed to; progress reported.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Clause 43.-Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the States Assembly or of the
House of Representatives, shall receive an allowance for his services of four hundred pounds a year, to be
reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
Mr. GORDON: I move: 45
To strike out the word "four," in the third line, with the view of inserting " five."
The ground for the motion is that 400 a year is insufficient. While some local Parliaments are paying their
resident mem- [start page 1032] bers 300 a year, 400 is not enough for a member who has to leave-as

16
A 1
st
most members of the Federal Parliament would have to do-his colony and practically abandon his
business or his profession.
END QUOTE

QUOTE

Mr. TRENWITH: I mean Tasmania. I was pointing out that the instincts of our people tend towards
payment of members of Parliament for their work. My hon. friend, Sir William Zeal, interjected that we have 10
free railway passes. I would remark that any person who knows anything about travel must recognise
that it carries with it a large amount of expense. Those who are here, away from their homes, know
that if they were getting 400 a year for this work, they would be losing money, and they would not
even be reimbursed for the expenditure incurred. Those who urge that the amount should be left as
proposed in the Bill, are not in favor of payment of members, but are simply favorable to reimbursing 15
members for the disbursements they make in connection with the performance of their duties.
Mr. HIGGINS: I was always in favor of payment of members.
Mr. TRENWITH: I feel confident that my hon. friend Mr. Higgins could not have looked thoroughly at
the question or he would not have spoken as he did.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: He is losing now ten times as much as he will ever get for being here, but he is 20
bearing it cheerfully.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I am not particular about that, but I think at all events the Federal Parliament
ought to have power to make its own standing orders for the purpose of preventing disorder. When I say this I
do not suppose the Commonwealth Parliament would attempt to exercise control with regard to people out of 30
its own doors. But within our own dominion we ought to be absolute. If we summon a witness in any of our
local Parliaments to the bar of the House, he can decline to give evidence, laugh at us, and walk away. The
case I have just mentioned shows the necessity of Parliament having control over any disorder.
Mr. TRENWITH: Anything to stop them throwing stones at labor members.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In Victoria they took the matter in a wholesale manner, and passed an Act of 35
Parliament declaring that the Victorian Legislature had all the powers, privileges, and immunities of the
House of Commons. There was no mincing of matters there, and it was in consequence of the
Parliament of Victoria having arrested a man, and it having been decided that they had no power to do
so, that they +*immediately declared they had all of the powers of the House of Commons. The man, I
think, was connected with Goldsbrough's Company, and named Glass. He did something, and the Parliament 40
arrested him, brought him to the bar of the House, and it was declared that they had no power to do so. In all
the decisions of the Privy Council in reference to the powers of Parliament, the Privy Council has invariably
declared that Parliament has no power outside the very words of the Constitution Act. In the own of Hampton
and Fenton, I think, in Tasmania they had the audacity to tell a great colony like Tasmania that so far as it
was concerned it had no greater powers than a municipality. 45
Mr. BARTON: The Speaker only had the power of a chairman of a public meeting.
Mr. DOUGLAS: Regarding the case alluded to by the hon. member, I happened to be present when
the decision was given. The Privy Council did not declare that the colony had no power, but that any
colonial Government, being under a Statute, would have no power beyond that Statute. The result was

17
A 1
st
that the Tasmanian Parliament passed a law giving the powers to which the hon. member has made
reference.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON: I think that the amendment which the hon. member has proposed must be
considered in connection with clause 8, page 4 of the Bill, which provides:
The privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives 5
respectively, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from
time to time declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of
Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, at
the establishment of the Commonwealth.
If the hon. member's amendment is to include the power of punishment it will scarcely be necessary. The 10
effect of the decision of the Privy Council to which my hon. friend has alluded must be read in connection
with the Constitutions of the several colonies, which were affected at the time of the pronouncement of these
decisions. In New South Wales, and I think in Tasmania, what exists at the present time is a Legislature as
distinct from a Parliament. A Sovereign Parliament has punishing power. A Legislature which is created
by Act of Parliament, and with the equivalent powers conferred upon it, as they are conferred by section 8, 15
has, in the case of New South Wales and Tasmania, no power except such as can be gathered from the
necessary implication of the words of the Constitution. In the present instance we have passed a clause which
states that the [start page 758] privileges, immunities, and powers of the Federal Parliament shall be those
declared by the Parliament, and until a declaratory Act is passed the privileges, immunities, and powers of the
House of Commons will be accepted. The power of punishment exists in the House of Commons, and the 20
same power would exist in the Parliament of the Commonwealth under clause 8. An outrage
committed within the walls of the Federal Parliament could be punished in the same way as in the
Ho+use of Commons. If a man ventured to throw a stone into the Imperial Parliament, though
unfortunately the thrower is not always caught, it would be contempt of Parliament, and that would be
a matter to be dealt with by the Commons according to the powers, privileges, and immunities it 25
possesses.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Has not the House of Commons power to make Standing Orders?
Mr. BARTON: Yes.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Then where is the necessity for this clause?
Mr. BARTON: The necessity for it does not arise out of the powers of the Standing Orders, which are 30
merely regulations for the conduct of the business within the House, but out of the power of
punishment in cases where contempt is exercised by persons within the walls of Parliament. If, for
instance, a person throws a stone and the Sergeant-at-Arms can catch him he can be brought before
the Parliament and can be imprisoned or dealt with otherwise for contempt. Under the operation of the
clause similar action can be taken by the Federal Parliament, and that goes far enough. It does not require 35
Standing Orders to deal with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament. They exist, and if
you made Standing Orders you would really only limit them. Under the Bill we have taken the powers,
privileges, and immunities possessed by the House of Commons.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOT: Then why do you want clause 49?
Mr. BARTON: I have already explained that, but I will return to it if my hon. friend wishes. I say in the 40
meantime you have already taken the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons, and
there is no necessity to pass Standing Orders with reference to them. They do not need definition in the
Standing Orders; they are not the subject of definition in the Standing Orders; they are totally different in
their whole circuit to the Standing Orders which relate to the conduct of the business of each House and its
transactions with the other House. That is not a question of the powers, privileges, and immunities of the 45
House of Commons, which exist independently of the Standing Orders. They have a historical application in
the House of Commons, and they can be applied to the Federal Parliament.
Mr. TRENWITH: Could they not make Standing Orders?
Mr. BARTON: The Federal Parliament, of course, will have power to make Standing Orders for the
regulation of its internal business. 50

18
A 1
st
Mr. TRENWITH: If we adopt clause 49 do we not restrict the power of the Federal Parliament with
regard to any Standing Orders they may make?
Mr. BARTON: No. You do not restrict them because you have the clause in the most general terms. My
hon. friend wishes the clause to read:
The Senate and the House of Representatives may each of them from time to time adopt Standing Orders as 5
they or each may deem to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have he force of law.
That is altogether too wide, as the Standing Orders would then have the effect of law outside the House.
Mr. PEACOCK: Hear, hear. That is the point.
Mr. BARTON: It is the point to which I think the hon. member was anxious to come. What we have done
is to adopt a clause giving the Federal Parliament power to pass Standing Orders for the con- [start page 759] 10
duct of their business, and so that there should be no doubt the power has been taken in the widest possible
words. The House of Commons does not make its Standing Orders by reason of its powers, privileges, and
immunities, but by virtue of its inherent powers as a sovereign Parliament. The Standing Orders are for the
internal regulation of the House of Commons, but my friend would like to say that the Federal Houses may
make Standing Orders for any matter it may deem necessary. This would have the effect of passing laws 15
without the royal assent. I ask my friend if the clause as it stands is not sufficient.
END QUOTE

While I will quote below some other statements it should be understood that it is merely limited
details/information but it should be obvious that there is a lot wrong with it all. 20
.
While the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 purports to provide powers of the House of Commons
to the Victorian Parliament, where this act is not a constitution act at all then unless the 1855
Constitution Act provided for this, it simply cannot apply.
25
It is beyond me that you as President of the Legislative Council seems to have next to no
understanding about what is applicable. Likewise so the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

If you lack to understand the above then do not hesitate to contact me for clarifications of what
might still be beyond your comprehension. What may be underlined is that where you cannot 30
understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of constitutional and other legal
powers relevant to the Parliament then how can you be a Presiding Officer?
.
How can you stand by to have this gross injustice inflicted upon Mr Geoff Shaw a Member of
Parliament? As allowances are to be paid on a yearly basis how then can the Legislative 35
Assembly deny payment for sitting days you may ask? So much more to it all but for now you
may already have ample of problems to digest what I have set out.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details. 40

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
.
(Our name is our motto!)
45
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

20140618-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Bruce Atkinson MLC - COMPLAINT - Re Geoff Shaw Saga-Etc

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

20140618-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Bruce Atkinson MLC - COMPLAINT - Re Geoff Shaw Saga-Etc

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1

p1 18-6-2014 Bruce Atkinson COMPLAINT Ref: Geoff Shaw saga

Você também pode gostar