20140425-g. h. schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to mr joe hockey treasurer

p1 25-4-2014

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, See also

Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Mr Joe Hockey, Treasurer 25-4-2014 [email protected]

5

Joe,

As I understand it from media report (see quotation below) you stated “‘nothing is

free’”, and boy do I agree with you.

QUOTE

As demand outstripped taxpayers’ capacity to pay, “policies must be changed, either now 10

or more dramatically in the future,” Mr Hockey said.

“I ask Australians not to judge this Budget on what they get or lose today,” he said.

“This Budget is about our quality of life for the years ahead.”

He said Greek and Spanish youth had been victims of recession and unemployment after

those countries lived “far beyond their means”. 15

“We cannot allow our nation to fall into this trap,” he said.

END QUOTE

Boy, do I agree with you!

In particular: 20 QUOTE

“It will do for people what they cannot do for themselves, but no more,” he said.

“Nothing is free. Someone always pays.”

END QUOTE

25

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am glad that amongst the scoundrels in the parliament we

finally have a Member of Parliament who “It will do for people what they cannot do for

themselves, but no more,”

I have for many years pursued precisely this and often quoted the Framers of the Constitution: 30

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the

National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power? 35

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/

http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

p2 25-4-2014





Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a

state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.

As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole

constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.

END QUOTE 5

So I welcome that you will adhere to your oath of office and will abide by the constitution and

will do what people cannot themselves achieve.

But, I do recognise that there is no objection to provide you with relevant information so you as

treasurer can act responsible. 10

As you may be aware many a person overpaid by Centrelink, even so beyond their fault,

nevertheless had to repay such overpayments and many ended up before the Courts. After all if a

person reasonably should have known they were receiving monies they are not entitled upon then

they must repay this.

As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that Ministers shall be constitutional advisors to 15

the Governor-General: HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:

The resolutions conclude:

An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be 20 appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend

upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the

majority.

What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as

similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as 25 possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial

advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to

lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other

gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.

END QUOTE 30

HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-

We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our

own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above 35 Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE 40 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.

END QUOTE

.

So, let us look at the constitution. Keep in mind that English is not my native language and

neither did I have any formal education and hence my self-professed Crummy English is used. 45

Firstly, the constitution was created under the British Crown, and while the High Court of

Australia in Sue v Hill pretended that the Commonwealth of Australia somehow mysteriously

became an independent nation, we still remain to be under the Commonwealth of Australia

Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and so bound by it. I for one have not detected any provision in the 50

constitution that the High Court of Australia was given legislative or judicial powers to amend

unilaterally the true meaning and application of the constitution, but invite you to point out where

it is stated if you hold a different perception/view.



p3 25-4-2014





Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people

through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of

any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act 5 which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free

Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the

freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their

representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of

securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than 10 that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect

the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.

Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the

daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of

freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every 15 one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular

liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their

work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an

Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,

therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will 20 determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt

with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that

choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:

next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,

that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a 25 court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its

provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the

Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but

it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the

Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the 30 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of

this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow

degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the

guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,

the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a 35 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of

constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the

sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done

well. END QUOTE 40

So, we should be clear about it that the constitution is as is unless by a successful section 128

referendum there was an amendment.

And, did you notice that the constitution provides for:

45 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE

3 Salary of Governor-General

There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated

Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the 50 Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament

otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds.

The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his

continuance in office.

END QUOTE 55 What this means that payments for the Governor-General must come from the Queen and not

directly from Consolidated Revenue Funds. Actually the same with Ministers, and we must

understand that a “Minister” must be the person who is the “Responsible Minister” for a

Department. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) 60



p4 25-4-2014





QUOTE

66 Salaries of Ministers

There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated

Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the

Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament 5 otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a

year.

END QUOTE

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) 10 QUOTE

64 Ministers of State

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such

departments of State of the Commonwealth as the

Governor-General in Council may establish. 15 Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the

Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal

Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for

the Commonwealth.

Ministers to sit in Parliament 20 After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office

for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a

senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

END QUOTE

Clearly a Minister is defined by the constitution as “They shall be members of the Federal 25

Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.” and there

is no such provision in the constitution for a “shadow Minister” There is nothing wrong with

having a shadow as we all have this when the sun or a light might shine upon us from one

direction. However, no such thing as a “shadow Minister” or for a “leader of the Opposition” to

be paid (see below) as if he/she is a Minister. And again any Minister can only be paid by the 30

Queen and not directly from the Consolidated Revenue Funds. Compare it with a teller paying

himself/.herself out of the till! That would in my view constitute fraud!

And while we are on it, the Framers of the Constitution held that when people are away from

their daily job to serve in the parliament than while they would likely have a loss of income the 35

“allowance” should at least cover some of the loss of income and expenditure. But the

“allowance” cannot be deemed to be a “salary”.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE 40 48 Allowance to members

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each

member of the House of Representatives shall receive an

allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the

day on which he takes his seat. 45 END QUOTE

As you as treasurer may understand an employer is bound by law to provide towards a

superannuation scheme, but as not a single Member of Parliament, not even ministers of State are

employed by the Commonwealth of Australia then obviously no Member of Parliament can 50

claim any kind of superannuation. Any Member of Parliament who were to somehow claim a

superannuation entitlement would in my view violate the provisions of s44 of the constitution

and automatically be disqualified from holding a seat in the Parliament. As such as treasurer you

better check out if any Member of Parliament is somehow claiming superannuation entitlements

while serving in the Parliament as you better have them kicked out and we tax payers (that 55

includes you too) are better off.

.



p5 25-4-2014





After all, it would be sheer and utter nonsense for any person not employed to demand that the

non-employer somehow provides for superannuation!

Fancy this, I go to do voluntarily work for some organisation and for this they provide a certain

allowance to compensate me like for travelling expenditure, etc, and then somehow I demand

some huge windfall of superannuation while not even employed by this organisation. I view this 5

cannot be tolerated.

Now, the budget surely is already shaping up because we have already established:

No Governor-General can be employed by the Commonwealth of Australia as he/she is

employed by the monarch to which the constitution requires the queen to be paid. 10

Any former Governor-General cannot be paid from Consolidated Revenue Funds having

left the services of the monarch (in regard of past services as a Governor-General) as the

constitution doesn’t provide for this. Nothing stops the Monarch to pay the former

Governor-General out of her/his own pocket but cannot claim this from Consolidated

Revenue Funds. 15

No Minister of State can be employed by the Commonwealth of Australia as he/she is

employed by the monarch to which the constitution requires the queen to be paid.

Any former Minister of State cannot be paid from Consolidated Revenue Funds having

left the services of the monarch (in regard of past services as a Minister of State) as the

constitution doesn’t provide for this. Nothing stops the Monarch to pay the former 20

Minister of State out of her/his own pocket but cannot claim this from Consolidated

Revenue Funds.

No Member of Parliament (Minister of State or otherwise) can claim any salary from the

Commonwealth of Australia, neither any superannuation from the Commonwealth of

Australia. 25

Any former Member of Parliament cannot be paid from Consolidated Revenue Funds

having left the services of the monarch (in regard of past services as a Member of

Parliament) as the constitution doesn’t provide for this. Nothing stops the Monarch to pay

the former Member of Parliament out of her/his own pocket but cannot claim this from

Consolidated Revenue Funds. 30

No former Governor-General/former Minister of State/former Member of Parliament can

obtain any funding after having left his/her position for any office or other perks like free

flying around, office, chauffeur driven vehicles, etc. As the Framers of the constitution

made clear payment was limited to a member of parliament (and this doesn’t include

others) for the time the Member of Parliament held a seat and the moment the seat is 35

vacated then all and any payments must stop. In fact this is why for example a Senator

elect has to wait until the sitting Senator vacated his/her seat before he/she can take over

and can receive an “allowance”. (See below quotation in that regard also.)

No Minister or Prime Minister can receive monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds to

spruce up a private residence as the constitution doesn’t provide for this. The official 40

residence of the Prime Minister is property of the Commonwealth and therefore the cost

that was incurred as to bollards, etc, on the property at the time owned by the then Prime

Minister Julia Gillard was in my view fraudulently obtained from Consolidated Revenue

Funds.

Likewise the Offices for former Prime Ministers and former Governor-Generals in my 45

view are fraudulently obtained from Consolidated Revenue Funds as the constitution

doesn’t provide for this.

What the above means is that as much as pensioners and others are pursued for overpayments

regardless if they were not at fault then so must the commonwealth of Australia pursue those 50

who were fraudulently or otherwise unconstitutionally obtaining financial or other benefits.



p6 25-4-2014





It means every former Governor-General, former Prime Minister, and former Minister of

State as well as former Member of Parliament who had any unconstitutional financial or

other benefits must be required to repay all monies and failing to do so they must be pursued

through the courts for this. In my view as with criminals their conduct was the profits of

criminal conduct and hence their properties should be confiscated. 5

.

Again, “It will do for people what they cannot do for themselves, but no more,”!

Clearly you are in the position to pursue monies to be repaid, and do not forget the interest on it

all.

Nothing in the constitution provides for any former member of parliament let alone his/her 10

family to travel or otherwise enjoy benefits at cost of Consolidated Revenue Funds such as I

understand the widow of a former parliamentarian was doing for about 40 years I understand

being the mother of Mr Alexander Downer the former Minister of Foreign affairs.

So, claim all monies back.

And, while we are on the fraudulent conduct, as I wrote to Mr Malcolm Turnbull after the 2013 15

election but prior to that he was sworn in as the writs had not been returned, I held it was

fraudulent of him and others to use the Member of Parliament for the House of Representatives

email address and refer to himself as a Member of Parliament (MP) where in fact he was not so

from the moment the House of Representatives was dissolved until he was sworn in as Member

of Parliament after the return of the writs. 20

As such any Member of Parliament elect for the House of Representatives, as that was the real

status after the election was held and the candidates were declared to have been successful had

no entitlement to use mobiles, travel or whatever as if they were members of parliament! As the

Framers of the Constitution made clear, a person may be elected but may decline to take up the

seat or may be held to be ineligible to take up the seat by the time the writs are returned. 25

So can you understand that all those Member of Parliament elect for the House of

Representatives had no constitutional entitlement of any funding as a Member of Parliament

when not as yet having taken up the seat for which he/she was elected?

For sure any Member of Parliament for the House of Representatives elect who became chosen

by the Governor-General to be a minister of State could then legitimately while in office claim 30

for relevant expenditure but still couldn’t use the email address as if being a Member of

Parliament or claim to be a Member of Parliament. With Senators (except with a Double

dissolution) they remain to be Members of Parliament until their seat is vacated and so

legitimately can use their email addresses. However, I view that where there is an election then

no Member of Parliament of either houses should be allowed to use their parliamentarian email 35

addresses or staff for benefit of elections. http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php

QUOTE

Ethics Orientation for State Officials

Misuse of Public Funds 40

Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes

The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that public

funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose when

its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.

Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses 45 only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.

The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be

expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are

they authorized.

The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit may 50 result from an expenditure of public funds.



http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php

p7 25-4-2014





For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it is

an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the employee for public

purposes.

The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure is not merely

incidental. The term “public funds” is not limited to money, but includes anything of value belonging to a 5 public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers, and

fax machines and other equipment and resources.

Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

1. In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to purchase items for himself 10 and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though those receiving the discount paid for the

items with personal funds.

2. In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle to transport a

political candidate, his staff and family.

3. In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work on his political 15 campaign for Lieutenant Governor.

4. In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in connection with official

business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great Falls, Montana and back.

Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil sanctions.

These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office. 20

State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections

There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public funds.

This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following is a list of what 25 we’ll cover in this section.

Stanson v. Mott

Endorsements and Informational Materials

Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines

Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns 30 The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of public

funds in election campaigns.

In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,

challenging the director’s expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a

statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding that “in 35 the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a

partisan position in an election campaign.”

Stanson v. Mott

The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process is that

the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing 40 factions. A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental

authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....”

The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson “...The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course,

raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.”

Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government agency may 45 endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote its passage.

Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not

promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.

Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot measure

elections. 50

1. “The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to disseminate information

relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the public with a fair presentation of relevant

information.”



p8 25-4-2014





2. “The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable public agencies from

disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such disclosure is full and impartial and does not

amount to improper campaign activity.”

3. “To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal treatment to both sides of

the issue.” 5

Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines from the

Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a

$10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several

ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a

neutral and fair presentation of the facts. 10 Let's Review

TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.

Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.

Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone calls

before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governor’s campaign fundraising 15 dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of issues,

may she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.

Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal political purposes rather

than for a public purpose.

Let's Review 20 Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer questions about

the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.

a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.

b. The materials do not make false statements.

c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure. 25

Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of

the measure.

Remember These Points

Expenditures must be for a public purpose

Expenditures must be authorized 30 Public funds may not be expended for personal use

Information must be fairly presented

Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions

END QUOTE

35

Any Member of Parliament or Member of Parliament elect who has a financial gain by using the

office for political purposes must be deemed to engage in an OFFICE OF PROFIT and so

automatically disqualified from holding a seat in Parliament.

As such, when members of a political party are phoning around at taxpayers cost as to who shall

be the alternative Prime Minister (such as that eventuated with John Howard, Kevin Rudd and 40

Julia Gillard) then by s44 they are disqualified from holding as seat in the Parliament. Likewise

if a Minister attends to a political function because of being a Minister of State and then charges

those attending for it, regardless if this is paid to others, then this becomes in my view effectively

an Office of Profit in violation of s44 of the constitution.

It should be understood that albeit the Governor-General may choose people of a political party 45

which may have the most seat in the Parliament or is anticipated to do so after the writs are



p9 25-4-2014





returned, the Governor-General is not bound to appoint such person but can in fact, for argument

sake commission me to form a government and do so for up to 3 months unless I am elected to

the Parliament.

In my view when it was rumoured that Philip Ruddock was letting people naturalize provided

they paid $10,000 to the Liberal Party, then this constituted an OFFICE OF PROFIT, regardless 5

if the monies was paid to the Liberal Party.

The same with when a political party accepts donations it becomes to me an fraudulent conduct

as often or in general those providing such donations expect to be rewarded. It was alleged that

for example the ethanol industry provided a huge donation to the Liberal party and after the

election was awarded with a grand by far exceeding the donation. As such, effectively the 10

monies was from consolidate Revenue Funds and so may be deemed to have constituted as an

OFFICE FOR PRIOFIT.

. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE 15 44 Disqualification

Any person who:

(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or

a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or

(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any 20 offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer;

or

(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or

(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out

of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or 25 (v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the

Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated

company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for the 30 Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension,

by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or

member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly

employed by the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE 35 Well we do have certain positions which are special: HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of 40 Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary

offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that really the

Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates, and

those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by the

Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown. I think that 45 that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere. As to the word "person,"

the British Interpretation Act of 1889, which will be largely applied to the construction of this statute by the

Imperial authorities, provides that where the word "person" is used, unless the Act otherwise provides, the

word "corporation" shall be included.

Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-If a man agrees to get paid for services done in Parliament, or for the 50 Commonwealth, and if he does the work, and, having done the work, he resigns, is there no penalty? Is there

no punishment in such a case for a man who guarantees that he will use his position in Parliament in order to

make money, and, having made it, resigns!

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No; and there is a reason for that. If I recollect correctly there was

some provision in the Bill in Adelaide in that respect, but that provision was omitted in the sitting of the 55



p10 25-4-2014





Convention at Sydney as a matter [start page 2449] of policy. Mr. O'Connor suggests that it is quite probable

that in such a case an action would lie at common law. However that may be, the policy of inserting such a

provision was reversed in Sydney, and therefore the Drafting Committee could not frame any proposal to that

effect.

END QUOTE 5

Again: “Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown.”, therefore, there can be

no such thing as a superannuation payment after they are no longer a speaker/president. To give

them payment or even the entitlement upon this would cause them to hold an: “office of profit”,

and disqualify them from holding a seat in the Parliament. 10

Bus as a Minister and so a “constitutional advisor” to the Governor-General obviously you are or

ought to be aware of this and so why are you then not stopping the rot?

As for the issue “Nothing is free. Someone always pays.” Did you realise that people generally

(other than Politicians perhaps) do not retire at age 30 or so but after age 65 after having paid

taxes, including the levy towards the pension which was introduced many decades ago. So, I can 15

assure you that when my wife became aware you seemed to have the notion that she at 81 years

young seems to portray as if she is getting a handout she was wondering, so to say, if you had all

your marbles in the correct order. After all you ought to have been aware she was paying decade

after decade for old age pension just that the lot of you in the parliament squandered it all!

And then consider that we all pay taxes in whatever we purchase and so if you want to make an 20

issue that nothing is for free tell that at the plane loads and boat loads of people who enter into

Australia and are getting all kinds of benefits to which they never paid a single cent! They are

getting it free. Free accommodation and even getting paid and this while Australians who have

worked and paid taxes can end up on the street.

Don’t tell me I am getting anything for free because I am a taxpayer who had his taxes used by 25

you lot. If it wasn’t for the taxpayers you as a treasurer wouldn’t have the monies, so to say, to

live it up, and neither so your mates.

I below will quote some material I received in emails and I urge you to consider it all.

Shame on you for daring to claim that Australians are somehow getting it all for free.

When you look at the monies handed out by the Federal Government to numerous nations, 30

including Indonesia to establish schools, etc, this even so the Commonwealth of Australia has no

constitutional powers as to education, other than to fund students, then it are the Indonesians and

others who are getting it for free, and unconstitutionally that is. As such, so to say, you are

barking up to the wrong tree, and how come that I find this not strange considering the level of

intelligence, or the lack thereof shown by what was stated by you? 35

Now consider for example that the Federal Government (ALP) in 2009 tried pension payments

and other welfare payments to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) yet why are you so silent to the

states (including municipal/shire councils) to abide by this not to raise charges/rates/etc above

the CPI?

Your silence is deafening! 40

In case you fail to understand it the Commonwealth of Australia bases the pensions and other

payments to the CPI and as such not to undermine the intentions of the Commonwealth the States



p11 25-4-2014





are bound to ensure not to increase its charges above the CPOI as not to act in violation of the

Commonwealth’s intentions. By 1904 High Court of Australia decision in Sydney Council v

Commonwealth the Court held that councils are exercising delegated powers of the State and as

such therefore councils should neither increase any charges (including rates) above the CPI.

Actually since the Commonwealth commenced to have the Land Tax Office on 11-11-1910 the 5

states and so the councils no longer could raise land taxes. As the Framers of the Constitution

made clear once the commonwealth exercised its legislative powers within the constitution then

the States had to retire from this!

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian

Convention) 10 QUOTE

Sir JOHN BRAY: What the hon. gentleman has said is quite right so far as the purposes of this section are

concerned as regards reckoning the time of retirement. But in another part of the bill it is provided that the

senators are to be paid for their services, and the question arises, does the term of service of a senator for the

purposes of payment begin from the date of his election, from the date when he is sworn in, or from the first 15 day of January?

HON. MEMBERS: On the day when he is sworn in!

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Surely when his

service begins!

Sir: I think we ought to have that fixed. It seems to me very undesirable to provide, as suggested by Colonel 20 Smith, that although a senator is elected in June, his term of service and payment for service shall not begin

until the following January.

Mr. CLARK: He will not do anything until the following January!

Sir JOHN BRAY: For the purposes of retirement, a date should be fixed from which the time should be

reckoned; but for all other purposes a senator ought to be a senator from the day he is chosen. 25

Mr. BAKER: How can he be when there is another man in his place?

Sir JOHN BRAY: I can quite see that for the purposes of this section the provision as contained in the

clause is right; but, as regards other portions of the bill, it seems to me that it is not right, and the question

ought to be clearly understood.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: So far as the objection with regard to payment is concerned, there is a good 30 deal in it, and the matter should be dealt with now. The clause only deals with the first senators. Afterwards

the term of service begins on the 1st of January. I suppose a senator can hardly be called a senator until the

1st of January arrives. He will be a senator elect, but he will not be a senator really until that day. If

parliament is in session on the 1st of January, he will walk in and take his seat, and the other man will walk

out, and his pay, I apprehend, will begin on the same day. But the hon. member has pointed out a blot with 35 respect to the first senators. A man might be elected in December and claim twelve months' pay, dating from

the previous January. This, I think, would be remedied by inserting in the second paragraph the words "for

the purposes of his retirement."

Mr. WRIXON: The matter will want a little thinking over, because I apprehend a man is not a senator until

he presents himself and takes the oath. 40

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Why not?

Mr. WRIXON: He might refuse to take the oath, and so would be disqualified from the beginning. It is not

until be presents himself and takes the oath that he is really a senator. He is in potentiality a senator; but he is



p12 25-4-2014





not completely clad in that position until he [start page 602] appears at the table and takes the oath, and I

apprehend he is not entitled to payment until that takes place. I would suggest that it is somewhat hazardous

to make an amendment at the table in a bill of this kind, which has been carefully considered; and if these

matters are home in mind, they can be afterwards dealt with by the draftsman. I would deprecate any hurried

amendment on the spot, where it may not be required. 5

Sir HARRY ATKINSON: The clause states that the term of service of a senator shall not begin until the

1st January following the day of his election. If a vacancy occurs, and a senator is elected in June, he then

becomes a senator; but, according to this part of the clause, he cannot become an actual senator until the

following January. Though parliament might be in session, he would be unable to take his seat. I would

suggest to the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, that he should take a note of this point, and consider it. I do 10 not think we could make any amendment here that would meet the case. For the purposes of this particular

clause the provision is right enough; but I think there will be a difficulty in regard to payment, and also as to

vacancies occurring.

Sir JOHN BRAY: I quite agree with Sir Samuel Griffith, that if we are not to overlook this question

entirely it ought to be settled somewhere in this clause, and if the hon. gentleman sees no strong objection to 15 such a course I shall move the insertion at the beginning of the second paragraph of the words "for the

purposes of this section." It would be manifestly absurd in regard to the first election of senators to say that if

a man is elected in September or October the term of his service shall begin from the preceding January, and

that he shall be entitled to all the privileges of a senator from that date. It is quite possible that this may not be

the best amendment that can ultimately be made, but it seems to me clear that the second paragraph was 20 drawn with the idea, that it applied to this section only and not to other portions of the bill. I beg, therefore, to

move as an amendment:

That before the words "The term of service" line 11, the words "For the purposes of this section" be

inserted.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is quite correct: those are the right words! 25

Amendment agreed to.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: In reference to the point raised by the hon. member, Sir Harry Atkinson, in

regard to vacancies occurring by death, the difficulty would be met by substituting for the words "retiring

senators" the words "senators retiring by rotation."

Amendment (by Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH) proposed: 30

That the words retiring senators," line 17, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "senators

retiring by rotation."

Mr. MARMION: Is this intended to refer to senators retiring by rotation throughout, or only in the first

instance?

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Always! 35

Mr. MARMION: It seems to me that there are two portions of the bill which may be affected by the

proposed amendment. In the first place, unless it is distinctly laid down in the bill that a senator, though

elected, does not become a senator until the 1st of January, there will be during that interval twelve senators

instead of eight; because there will be four who will not retire for some considerable period after the election.

There is another view of the case. A senator may be prevented for a period from holding his seat in the local 40 house of representatives. When he is elected to the senate, he cannot sit any longer in the state house of

representatives, and if his election to the senate takes place some time prior to the end of the year, unless it is

distinctly laid down that the mere fact of his election [start page 603] does not make him a senator, he will be

obliged to retire from the local house of representatives.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: There is no doubt a little difficulty. In the cases of which we have experience, 45 members of parliament are elected by a constituency that may be said to be in permanent session. Here we

have to deal with the case of a constituency which is in session only sometimes. We must, therefore, deal



p13 25-4-2014





specially with it. There cannot be more than eight senators at a time. There will be eight senators and four

senators elect; for a senator elect is not a senator until his term begins. There is no reason why a member of

the house of representatives should not be elected to be a senator in June; next January he becomes a senator

and ceases to be a member of the house of representatives.

Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, agreed to. 5

END QUOTE

Again, your silence is deafening!

Instead of going on and on about people cannot get things for free, or something of that nature, I

view a competent treasurer would have made clear to the States (so councils) stop freeloading

and fraudulently claiming monies from citizens and make sure you do not exceed any increases 10

above the CPI regarding pensioners and other welfare recipients. You see, when pensioners and

others receive a CPI increase but are slugged twice as much just by the unconstitutional rates

from councils then this clearly violates the Commonwealth intentions to provide a reasonable

amount of pension for the pensioners and others. Where then the State increases its charges well

beyond the CPI then this drives the following CPI up and we are so to say in a revolving door 15

situation. And the more everything increases in cost the more wages will need to go up to keep

pace and then this in turn causes increase of prices and we price ourselves out of the world

market. Therefore proper and competent financial management would be for the Commonwealth

to make sure the States do not increase charges beyond the CPI.

The Framers of the Constitution made clear that people had certain rights to be protected by the 20

Commonwealth. The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended

to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National


QUOTE Mr. CLARK.- 25 for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to

claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 30 Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,

END QUOTE

. 35 Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HOWE:

They show that the thrift practised by the people of Australia is unparalleled in the history of the world. But

there is another side to this question, and a very gloomy and sorrowful side indeed. There are records of

bankruptcy, of reckless, and in some instances corrupt, management, when the hard earnings of the 40 people and the savings of a lifetime have been swept away-have melted away like snow before the

noonday sun. Through this reckless and corrupt management men who thought they had provided for

their old and declining age found themselves stranded on the cheerless shores of charity, and many of

them have had to accept even amongst ourselves the pauper's lot. The pauper's lot in Australia or in

any other country is to the deserving poor one of the saddest and darkest blots on our civilization. 45 END QUOTE

Well, people during their working lives are still paying a pension levy in their taxes and so they

are not getting some freebie that is coming from others. They paid their taxes for retirements and

if politicians had not squandered it would be still in abundance be there.



p14 25-4-2014





And as you made clear that everyone should contribute to getting the budget back in order, then

let we first concentrate of the fraudulent unconstitutional conduct of politicians! Or is it that you

and your mates are excluded from showing restraint and repaying every cent unconstitutionally

received?

I also wonder how could Bob Carr be a Senator when he was receiving or entitled to receive a 5

N.S.W. pension purportedly from his Office of Profit under the crown?

Hansard 3-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National


QUOTE

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It applies only to pensions during pleasure. The object is to prevent 10 persons who are dependent for their livelihood upon the government, and who are amenable to its

influence, from being members of the legislature. There is no reason that I can see why a man who has

served his country, and to whom a permanent pension has been allowed, should not be permitted to sit

in the legislature. But a "pension during pleasure" might be given; and the holder of such a pension

should certainly not be allowed to become a member of parliament. 15 END QUOTE

https://au-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=bcaul03hi4k6d

QUOTE 24—4-2014 EMAIL

Treasurer Joe Hockey warns 'nothing is free'

Jim The federal and state governments could solve all their financial and budget problems if they took back from the 20 parasitical Federal Reserve banking cartel their constitutional money and credit creati

To Andrew K.Bruce & Gail H.Daniel Bodkin and 26 More...

Today at 4:06 PM

The federal and state governments could solve all their financial and budget problems if they took back from the

parasitical Federal Reserve banking cartel their constitutional money and credit creation power, to enable them to 25 efficiently fund Australia's economy, infrastructure and social services without any debt and minimal taxation.

Instead these incompetent, useless political morons continue perpetuating the worsening debt problem with more

taxes, more privatisation of public assets and spending cuts to essential social services and infrastructure.

Jim 30

Treasurer Joe Hockey warns ‘nothing is free’ QUOTE

news.com.au Jessica Marszalek 35 April 24, 2014 9:31AM

Joe Hockey warns Australia: Nothing is for free

What our spending problem means for your tax

Look out: Annual gas bills to shoot up

AUSTRALIANS will pay more for government services and face harsher means testing on welfare as Joe 40 Hockey warned “nothing is free”.

And the Treasurer said last night that people would lose some benefits they had “come to take for granted’’ in May’s

Budget, and beyond.

He said such reforms were an “inescapable truth”.

Mr Hockey said the Commission of Audit, due for release next Thursday, found a “serious spending problem”. 45

The age pension would cost a whopping $72 billion in a decade, casting a shadow over all other spending, and the

bill for Medicare would nearly double to $38 billion.

Government spending had tripled in 40 years, to $15,000 per Australian.




http://www.news.com.au/national/commission-of-audit-warns-cut-spending-or-endure-tax-hike-hockey/story-fncynjr2-1226893667170

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/annual-gas-bills-to-shoot-up-225/story-fnii5s3x-1226893922631

p15 25-4-2014





Mr Hockey has been warning for weeks the pension age, eligibility and indexation rules may have to change —

though Prime Minister Tony Abbott has indicated that changes won’t happen until after the next election.

Mr Hockey said means testing must become “even more important”.

The Government would still support the vulnerable, Mr Hockey said.

“It will do for people what they cannot do for themselves, but no more,” he said. 5

“Nothing is free. Someone always pays.”

More co-payments would encourage “moderation in demand” for government-provided goods and services.

The comments suggested further changes beyond a $6 co-payment expected to be introduced for GP visits.

Mr Hockey said unemployment assistance should help the jobless move into work rather than trap them.

And Australia needed to consider how to help people “restart” careers, acknowledging some could not do the same 10 work all their lives.

“We can’t allow people over the age of 50 not to have an opportunity to go into another career,” Mr Hockey said.

The audit highlighted ballooning spending in welfare, health, education and defence.

As demand outstripped taxpayers’ capacity to pay, “policies must be changed, either now or more dramatically in

the future,” Mr Hockey said. 15

“I ask Australians not to judge this Budget on what they get or lose today,” he said.

“This Budget is about our quality of life for the years ahead.”

He said Greek and Spanish youth had been victims of recession and unemployment after those countries lived “far

beyond their means”.

“We cannot allow our nation to fall into this trap,” he said. 20

[email protected]

http://www.news.com.au/national/treasurer-joe-hockey-warns-nothing-is-free/story-fncynjr2-1226893760263

END QUOTE

QUOTE 24—4-2014 EMAIL 25 https://au-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=bcaul03hi4k6d

QUOTE

Napthine Government announces $25 base increase for car registration.

Jim Annual vehicle registration is a scam and an infringement on our constitutional right of passage and travel, and

our human right to freedom of movement upon the roads that we already pay many taxes fo 30 To Andrew K.Bruce & Gail H.Daniel Bodkin and 26 More...

Today at 3:54 PM

Annual vehicle registration is a scam and an infringement on our constitutional right of passage and travel, and our

human right to freedom of movement upon the roads that we already pay many taxes for roads infrastructure and

maintenance. Exercise your constitutional and civil rights to dissent and protest against paying unfair and excessive 35 vehicle registration tax that conditionally limits your right of passage and travel.



mailto:[email protected]

http://www.news.com.au/national/treasurer-joe-hockey-warns-nothing-is-free/story-fncynjr2-1226893760263


p16 25-4-2014





Also wasn't the state government supposed to save hundreds of millions of dollars annually by abolishing the

printing and mailing of vehicle registration labels? This fee increase is unjustifiable greed and the government will

get away with it as usual because most people just grudgingly accept it.

Meanwhile the politicians are exempt from paying vehicle registration taxes because they receive publicly funded 5 vehicle and fuel allowances, on top of their generous salaries and other benefits.

Jim

Napthine Government announces $25 base increase for car registration 10

Herald Sun Matt Johnston

April 24, 2014 2:20PM

15

VICTORIAN motorists will be slugged almost $800 in car registration payments next year after the Napthine

Government revealed a $25 base increase.

The fee hike will see the base registration for a car hit $270.

When inflation increases, insurance and stamp duty components are added in, Victorian drivers face a $791.91

registration renewal charge next year. 20

The hike was announced as a revenue measure ahead of the Victorian Budget.

It will raise $137 million next year.

Is the rego hike justified? Have your say below

Stamp duty on the purchase of new or used cars will also increase, by about $40 for a $20,000 car.

Treasurer Michael O’Brien said he understood the measure would not be welcomed by motorists, but it was 25 important the government presented a responsible budget that enabled it to pay for infrastructure upgrades.

“The $25 fee increase for motor vehicle registration amounts to less than 50 cents a week,” he said.

“We appreciate that any increase in car rego is not likely to be welcomed, but we do note that we will be delivering

major transport infrastructure in this budget that will be of direct benefit to Victorians.”

The stamp duty increase will raise $37.5 million in 2014/15, while the light vehicle registration fee increase will 30 raise $99.3 million.

Mr O’Brien said Victoria’s share of GST revenue was to blame for the registration and stamp duty increases.

Victoria’s GST share is down from 90 cents in the dollar to 88 cents, creating a $286 million shortfall, he said.

The additional charges would fund major transport infrastructure projects to be announced in the May 6 budget, and

support opportunities for workers in Victoria’s ailing car industry, he said. 35

The registration fee for a light vehicle will be $270 in 2014/15.

The stamp duty increase will raise $37.5 million in 2014/15, while the light vehicle registration fee increase will

raise $99.3 million.

Mr O’Brien said Victoria’s share of GST revenue was to blame for the registration and stamp duty increases.



p17 25-4-2014





— with AAP

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/napthine-government-announces-25-base-increase-for-car-

registration/story-fni0fit3-

END QUOTE

Don’t forget my correspondence “130922-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Joe 5

Hockey - treasurer Re -taxation issues-etc”

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/joe-hockey-defends-mps-perks/story-e6frea8c-1225933370946

QUOTE

Joe Hockey defends MPs' perks, Coalition election costings

Simon Kearney with AAP 10 From: Sunday Herald Sun

October 03, 2010 11:42AM

"You have got to pay for democracy," says Joe Hockey (here with Andrew Robb and Tony Abbott).

Picture: Kym Smith Source: News Limited

MPs' perks aren't generous, says Hockey 15 $1.65m expenses per parliamentarian

Finance Department wants reforms

OPPOSITION treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has defended MPs' entitlements, saying they are not overly

generous. The Sunday Herald Sun today reported Federal MP entitlements could be slashed as the cost to the taxpayer for 20 expenses has blown out to $1.65 million for each of the nation's 226 parliamentarians.

Mr Hockey defended the system, saying it covers the costs of the job.

"And when you represent more than 100,000 people .... as a member of parliament, the costs of doing business is

expensive," he told Network Ten.

"Ultimately you have got to pay for democracy." 25 The Department of Finance has warned the Gillard Government of an expectation to reform MPs' entitlements and

told them the generous scheme would cost $373 million this financial year - $1.65 million for each of Australia's 226

federal politicians.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

Related Coverage 30

Oakeshott: I'm not a Nationals man

MPs may get pay increase Herald Sun, 4 days ago

Swan says deficit forecasts pessimistic Adelaide Now, 10 days ago

Hockey 'in the dark on costings' The Australian, 12 Sep 2010

Mood shifts in Coalition as gamble goes wrong The Australian, 3 Sep 2010 35 It's potholes, not black holes The Australian, 2 Sep 2010

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Finance Department secretary David Tune raised the issue with incoming Special Minister of State Gary Gray in

September in his first briefing, which raised widespread expectation the Government would introduce further

reforms, particularly to post-retirement travel and overseas study entitlements. 40 The brief reminded the Government it promised to release a review of entitlements, chaired by senior public servant

Barbara Belcher.

It also stated the Government had promised, with the Greens and independents, to establish a Parliamentary Integrity

Commissioner within 12 months.



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/napthine-government-announces-25-base-increase-for-car-registration/story-fni0fit3-1226894962847

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/napthine-government-announces-25-base-increase-for-car-registration/story-fni0fit3-1226894962847

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/joe-hockey-defends-mps-perks/story-e6frea8c-1225933370946

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/joe-hockey-defends-mps-perks/#sidebar-end

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/i-should-never-have-joined-the-national-party-rob-oakeshott/story-e6frea8c-1225933306142

http://news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,27829901-661,00.html

http://news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,27787570-913,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,27696083-2702,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,27656523-5013592,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,27650984-30538,00.html

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/joe-hockey-defends-mps-perks/#sidebar-start

p18 25-4-2014





The Department of Finance also warned Mr Gray that he would have to deal with allegations of misuse of

entitlements and that he should expect heavy lobbying from his parliamentary colleagues about their entitlements.

MPs get a range of entitlements, including domestic and overseas travel, chauffeur-driven and self-drive vehicles,

electorate allowances and staff.

The Belcher Review was ordered by former Special Minister of State Joe Ludwig, who promised to make the final 5 report public.

Hockey defends election costings Joe Hockey again defended the Coalition's election costings, saying Treasury does not always get it right.

The Coalition's numbers are "exactly right", he told Channel 10, despite Treasury estimating a deficit of between $7

billion and $11 billion. 10 "Treasury isn't always right," he said, noting "spectacular misjudgments" previously made on mining revenues and

unemployment figures.

Mr Hockey wants an independent agency to undertake all future costings and says the Opposition will introduce

legislation to allow for it.

"There are a vast array of people who have an input into budget debate ... you've just got to rely on the best advice 15 available."

Costings 'laughable' Trade Minister Craig Emerson says it's "laughable" that the Coalition continues to rely on private accounting instead

of Treasury analysis. And he insists the budget will be back to surplus by 2013, despite fluctuating commodity

prices tied to the mining tax. 20 "We're heading towards a surplus and we rely, unlike the Coalition, on Treasury forecasts on commodity prices," he

told Sky News.

Dr Emerson compared estimates from the mining tax with the long standing petroleum resource rent tax.

"The task of predicting oil prices over the forward estimates has never been an easy task but it hasn't meant that the

budget has lacked integrity." 25 "In fact the Coalition got $16 billion out of the petroleum resource rent tax and it didn't bugger up their budgets."

There are "no grounds for pessimism" regarding China's growth, he added.

"What's happening in China is a phenomenon, just about every time that we feel we've got a fix on what's going on

in China, it's bigger than that."

END QUOTE 30

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/joe-hockey-blowing-hundreds-of-millions-to-make-himself-look-

good-20131029-2wcy3.html

QUOTE

Joe Hockey blowing hundreds of millions to make himself look good 35

October 29, 2013

Comments 200

Michael Pascoe

Funny thing though about that $8.8 billion cheque – the RBA didn’t particularly want it..as Michael Pascoe 40 commented last week.

RBA governor Glenn Stevens sees lower Aussie dollar, plays down housing bubble

Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens has effectively confirmed that Joe Hockey is blowing several hundred million

dollars in an attempt to make his performance as Treasurer look good. Never underestimate the vanity of politicians. 45

Forget a few thousand here and there on the cost of weddings and Cairns “meetings”, Hockey’s petty budget politics

will cost tax payers about $300 million over the next 12 months and another couple of hundred million the next year.

What budget crisis? ... Joe Hockey. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

In a speech at a Sydney investment conference this morning, Stevens backed up comments by the RBA deputy 50 governor last week that the bank was happy to rebuild its capital reserves over time. The RBA certainly didn’t ask

for Hockey’s $8.8 billion capital injection and didn’t think it was necessary.

Advertisement

That’s the extra $8.8 billion the government is having to borrow and pay interest on while blowing out “Labor’s”

2013-14 budget deficit by the same amount. 55



http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/joe-hockey-blowing-hundreds-of-millions-to-make-himself-look-good-20131029-2wcy3.html

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/joe-hockey-blowing-hundreds-of-millions-to-make-himself-look-good-20131029-2wcy3.html

http://www.smh.com.au/business/by/Michael-Pascoe

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/rba-governor-glenn-stevens-sees-lower-aussie-dollar-plays-down-housing-bubble-20131029-2wcq3.html?rand=1383011776529





http://www.smh.com.au/business/trader-joe-playing-the-forex-tables-20131025-2w5v6.html

http://www.smh.com.au/business/trader-joe-playing-the-forex-tables-20131025-2w5v6.html

p19 25-4-2014





In the careful phrasing that characterises the Reserve Bank, Stevens today went further than his deputy. Reduce the

three concluding paragraphs of his speech to bullet points, this is what you get:

The Australian dollar is going to fall.

The Aussie’s rise shrank the value of the RBA’s foreign reserves and, therefore, the bank’s capital by more

than the bank thought prudent. (By implication, a falling Aussie will boost the RBA’s foreign reserves.) 5

The RBA wanted to rebuild its capital over several years by retaining its profits and not paying the

government dividends.

Hockey’s $8.8 billion injection this year means dividends will be paid to the government over the next few

years.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s how Stevens explains Hockey’s borrowing binge: 10

“The high exchange rate has also had a significant impact on the Reserve Bank's own balance sheet. It led to a

decline in the value of the Bank's foreign assets and hence a diminution in the Bank's capital, to a level well below

that judged by the Reserve Bank Board to be prudent. This has been a topic of some interest of late. Our annual

reports have made quite clear over several years now that, while this rundown in capital in the face of a very large

valuation loss was exactly what such reserves were designed for, we considered it prudent to rebuild the capital at 15 the earliest opportunity. It has been clear that the Bank saw a strong case not to pay a dividend to the

Commonwealth during this period, preferring instead to retain earnings, so far as possible, to increase the Bank's

capital. That rebuilding could in fact have taken quite a few years, given the low level of earnings.

“That is the background to the recent decision by the Treasurer to act to strengthen the Bank's balance sheet, in

accordance with a commitment he made prior to the election. The effect of this is that instead of it taking many years 20 to rebuild the capital, it will occur in the current year. This results in a stronger balance sheet on average, and makes

it likely that a regular flow of dividends to the Commonwealth can be resumed at a much earlier date than would

otherwise have been the case.”

So “Labor’s” deficit blows out to about $40 billion this year, but Hockey’s heroic efforts to reduce the debt in the

years ahead will be enhanced by a rich stream of dividends from the RBA. The last time the Aussie had a sharp fall, 25 the RBA paid the government a dividend of more than $5 billion. Trader Joe is playing the forex market with

borrowed money.

Last week the RBA deputy governor, Philip Lowe, said the level of the bank’s capital reserves had not been keeping

him awake at night. The board had wanted to rebuild the capital level over time but the government wanted to do it

immediately. 30

The official line from the Treasurer is that he found the world to be a dangerous place on his trip to Washington.

Today Glenn Stevens said:

”There was a distinctly more relaxed tone to the discussions in and around the IMF and G20 meetings in

Washington in October than there had been at like meetings earlier in the year.”

At the current five-year commonwealth bond yield of nearly 3.4 per cent, the borrowed $8.8 billion will cost 35 taxpayers about $300 million a year. In opposition, Hockey used to make a big deal about the interest bill being

racked up by government debt.

If Trader Joe’s forex bet pays off, it will all work out in the longer term, but forex is a notoriously dangerous game.

As far as can be told from the “you don’t need to know” government, Hockey’s bet has not been on the advice of

Treasury or the RBA. 40

Michael Pascoe is a BusinessDay contributing editor

END QUOTE



http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2013/sp-gov-291013.html

http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2013/sp-gov-291013.html

p20 25-4-2014





Again, where is the constitutional validity for this all?

5

And now some examples of the UK Parliament, etc.



p21 25-4-2014







p22 25-4-2014





And as to payments of Members of parliament let’s consider the following:

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian

Convention)

QUOTE 5

Sir JOHN BRAY: What the hon. gentleman has said is quite right so far as the purposes of this section are

concerned as regards reckoning the time of retirement. But in another part of the bill it is provided that the

senators are to be paid for their services, and the question arises, does the term of service of a senator for the

purposes of payment begin from the date of his election, from the date when he is sworn in, or from the first

day of January? 10

HON. MEMBERS: On the day when he is sworn in!

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Surely when his

service begins!

Sir: I think we ought to have that fixed. It seems to me very undesirable to provide, as suggested by Colonel

Smith, that although a senator is elected in June, his term of service and payment for service shall not begin 15 until the following January.

Mr. CLARK: He will not do anything until the following January!

Sir JOHN BRAY: For the purposes of retirement, a date should be fixed from which the time should be

reckoned; but for all other purposes a senator ought to be a senator from the day he is chosen.

Mr. BAKER: How can he be when there is another man in his place? 20

Sir JOHN BRAY: I can quite see that for the purposes of this section the provision as contained in the

clause is right; but, as regards other portions of the bill, it seems to me that it is not right, and the question

ought to be clearly understood.



p23 25-4-2014





Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: So far as the objection with regard to payment is concerned, there is a good

deal in it, and the matter should be dealt with now. The clause only deals with the first senators. Afterwards

the term of service begins on the 1st of January. I suppose a senator can hardly be called a senator until the

1st of January arrives. He will be a senator elect, but he will not be a senator really until that day. If

parliament is in session on the 1st of January, he will walk in and take his seat, and the other man will walk 5 out, and his pay, I apprehend, will begin on the same day. But the hon. member has pointed out a blot with

respect to the first senators. A man might be elected in December and claim twelve months' pay, dating from

the previous January. This, I think, would be remedied by inserting in the second paragraph the words "for

the purposes of his retirement."

Mr. WRIXON: The matter will want a little thinking over, because I apprehend a man is not a senator until 10 he presents himself and takes the oath.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Why not?

Mr. WRIXON: He might refuse to take the oath, and so would be disqualified from the beginning. It is not

until be presents himself and takes the oath that he is really a senator. He is in potentiality a senator; but he is

not completely clad in that position until he [start page 602] appears at the table and takes the oath, and I 15 apprehend he is not entitled to payment until that takes place. I would suggest that it is somewhat hazardous

to make an amendment at the table in a bill of this kind, which has been carefully considered; and if these

matters are home in mind, they can be afterwards dealt with by the draftsman. I would deprecate any hurried

amendment on the spot, where it may not be required.

Sir HARRY ATKINSON: The clause states that the term of service of a senator shall not begin until the 20 1st January following the day of his election. If a vacancy occurs, and a senator is elected in June, he then

becomes a senator; but, according to this part of the clause, he cannot become an actual senator until the

following January. Though parliament might be in session, he would be unable to take his seat. I would

suggest to the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, that he should take a note of this point, and consider it. I do

not think we could make any amendment here that would meet the case. For the purposes of this particular 25 clause the provision is right enough; but I think there will be a difficulty in regard to payment, and also as to

vacancies occurring.

Sir JOHN BRAY: I quite agree with Sir Samuel Griffith, that if we are not to overlook this question

entirely it ought to be settled somewhere in this clause, and if the hon. gentleman sees no strong objection to

such a course I shall move the insertion at the beginning of the second paragraph of the words "for the 30 purposes of this section." It would be manifestly absurd in regard to the first election of senators to say that if

a man is elected in September or October the term of his service shall begin from the preceding January, and

that he shall be entitled to all the privileges of a senator from that date. It is quite possible that this may not be

the best amendment that can ultimately be made, but it seems to me clear that the second paragraph was

drawn with the idea, that it applied to this section only and not to other portions of the bill. I beg, therefore, to 35 move as an amendment:

That before the words "The term of service" line 11, the words "For the purposes of this section" be

inserted.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is quite correct: those are the right words!

Amendment agreed to. 40

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: In reference to the point raised by the hon. member, Sir Harry Atkinson, in

regard to vacancies occurring by death, the difficulty would be met by substituting for the words "retiring

senators" the words "senators retiring by rotation."

Amendment (by Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH) proposed:

That the words retiring senators," line 17, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "senators 45 retiring by rotation."



p24 25-4-2014





Mr. MARMION: Is this intended to refer to senators retiring by rotation throughout, or only in the first

instance?

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Always!

Mr. MARMION: It seems to me that there are two portions of the bill which may be affected by the

proposed amendment. In the first place, unless it is distinctly laid down in the bill that a senator, though 5 elected, does not become a senator until the 1st of January, there will be during that interval twelve senators

instead of eight; because there will be four who will not retire for some considerable period after the election.

There is another view of the case. A senator may be prevented for a period from holding his seat in the local

house of representatives. When he is elected to the senate, he cannot sit any longer in the state house of

representatives, and if his election to the senate takes place some time prior to the end of the year, unless it is 10 distinctly laid down that the mere fact of his election [start page 603] does not make him a senator, he will be

obliged to retire from the local house of representatives.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: There is no doubt a little difficulty. In the cases of which we have experience,

members of parliament are elected by a constituency that may be said to be in permanent session. Here we

have to deal with the case of a constituency which is in session only sometimes. We must, therefore, deal 15 specially with it. There cannot be more than eight senators at a time. There will be eight senators and four

senators elect; for a senator elect is not a senator until his term begins. There is no reason why a member of

the house of representatives should not be elected to be a senator in June; next January he becomes a senator

and ceases to be a member of the house of representatives.

Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, agreed to. 20

END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National


QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to 25 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.

END QUOTE



p25 25-4-2014







p26 25-4-2014





Now, let’s have a proper consideration of this. While politicians are using Consolidated Revenue

Funds to provide for equipment so people (not taxpayers to the Commonwealth of Australia) can 5

access drink water, while in the Mallee more than a 100,000 people are caused to do without.

They are provided with “untreated water’ as I view it sewerage water” and yet slugged more to

pay for this then so to say is the cost of a year’s registration.

Where is the Federal government about the basic human rights of Australians, I may ask?

. 10

And, when we consider the fact that the Commonwealth has the constitutional powers as to

weight and measurements, yet allows (albeit unconstitutionally) for States to use alleged speed

reading cameras without compliance to Commonwealth provisions then surely we need to have

Members of Parliament who are less interested in their own personal greed and more concerned

about the plight inflicted upon Australians. 15

So much more issues to raise but for now you may get the message? If you really are serious

about matters then stop the rot in the Parliament and so the rorting!

I look forwards to your details response, if any courtesy will eventuate as such.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit) 20

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)



20140425-g. h. schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to mr joe hockey treasurer

Documents