130629-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Banyule City Council Funding Issues - Etc

7/28/2019 130629-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Banyule City Council Funding Issues - Etc

1/31

WITHOUT PREJUDICEBanyule City Council & councillors 29-6-2013C/o Gina Burden Manager Governance, Information and lawshttp://www.banyule.vic.gov.au [email protected] Fax 94991391.. AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Ref; 130629-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Banyule City Council funding issues - etc

Gina,my step daughter (a lawyer) used to work for Manningham council, and seemingly more

prepared to consider the content of ratepayers concern then what you appear to me to do. I findyour reply absolutely disgraceful and without any substance and blatantly ignoring the

issues I raised.

At the very least, I could have expected that you were not merely going to provide a list ofALGA (Australian Local Government Association) but would have had a personal input as towhy Banyule City Council pursue a yes vote, and by this answering in detail the question SenatorDean Smith posed to Perth council, upon which I relied upon to get responses from Banyule CityCouncil concerning its support for the referendum using also my monies as a ratepayer.Therefore, I request you to provide the response as was requested by Senator Dean Smith asfollows;QUOTE

I asked the City of Perth for information: a list of the moneys currently receiveddirectly from the federal government by the City of Perth; a list of the current and

future projects which depend on constitutional recognition of local government in orderto proceed; a list of previously planned projects which have not proceeded due to localgovernment not being currently recognised in the Constitution; a copy of the legaladvice referred to in their letter which claims that this reform proposal will not reducethe power of states over local communities; a copy of any economic modelling theyhad or had seen demonstrating the economic benefit of constitutional recognition oflocal government; a copy of the minutes of the meeting at which the City of Perth'sposition on the proposed referendum was agreed to and advice as to whether or not

that decision was unanimous; advice as to whether or not the City of Perth supportsthe creation of independent, publicly funded yes and no committees for the purpose of

preparing cases to be put before electors; and information about what quantum ofratepayers' funds, if any, they had already committed or expected to commit to thecampaign to recognise local government in the Constitution.

END QUOTE

I will look forwards to your detailed response..Let's be clear about it, that the High Court of Australia is on record that the Commonwealth canmake any condition regarding s96 funding as it deems fit and proper, irrespective if thisotherwise may be unconstitutional.

p1 29-6-2014INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax

0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5
http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


2/31

Let's therefore use an example many citizens are concerned with.QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing anyreligion, or for imposing any religious observance, or forprohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious testshall be required as a qualification for any office or public trustunder the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE

.Upon the basis that the High Court of Australia is on record that the Commonwealth in regard ofs96 can place conditions which otherwise may be unconstitutional then the Commonwealth could

place a condition upon councils that they must accept that Mosque are being build wheneversomeone makes an application for this, and failing this no funding will b e provided.Or, the Commonwealth may impose the condition that where Muslims are greater then Sharialaw shall prevail over any state laws/regulation and the same for any by-laws.http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_lawQUOTE

Sharia law (Arabic: ) is the body ofIslamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legalframework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal

system based on Islam.

Sharia deals with all aspects of day-to-day life, includingpolitics, economics,banking,business law, contractlaw,sexuality, and social issues.

There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws that can be called Sharia. It is more like a system of severallaws, based on the Qur'an,Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation andprecedent.

END QUOTE

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_lawQUOTE

The penalty for theft[change]

The Qur'an and several hadith set out two different punishments fortheft(stealing). They say that thepunishment should depend on how many times the person stole, and what he stole. One punishment isimprisonment. Another is amputating (cutting off) the hands or feet. However, before a person is punished,two eyewitnesses must swear, under oath, that they saw the person stealing. If this does not happen, then thepunishment cannot be carried out. Also, some other requirements have to be met. These requirements have todo with the theft, what was stolen, and how the theft happened. All of these requirements must be met, asdecided by a judge.[Qur'an5:38][1]

END QUOTE

Andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SalahQUOTE

Under theHanbali Schoolof thought, a person who doesn't pray 5 times a day is a disbeliever. The other 3schools of thoughtsay that the person who doesn't pray 5 times a day is just a sinner. Prayer is regarded as adividing line between a believer and a non-believer (according to Sahih Muslim).

END QUOTE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SalahQUOTE

Prayer is fard (obligatory) for all Muslims except those who are retarded, prepubescent, very sick, lactating,pregnant, menstruating, frail and elderly or travelling on a long journey. [1]

END QUOTE

Consider the cost blow out if the council had to allow 5 times a day prayers, and by this theinterferences to other council workers, who may also in the process be unable to perform their




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_languagehttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamichttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamichttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economicshttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economicshttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Businesshttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexualityhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexualityhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexualityhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'anhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'anhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadithhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadithhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedenthttp://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharia_law&action=edit&section=4http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'anhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thefthttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thefthttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisonhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisonhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amputationhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'anhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'anhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'anhttp://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.038http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.038http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law#cite_note-1%23cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbalihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbalihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbalihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh#Sunni_jurisprudencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh#Sunni_jurisprudencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh#Sunni_jurisprudencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_Muslimhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactatinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactatinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstruationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah#cite_note-1%23cite_note-1mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_languagehttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamichttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economicshttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Businesshttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexualityhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'anhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadithhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedenthttp://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharia_law&action=edit&section=4http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'anhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thefthttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisonhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amputationhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'anhttp://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.038http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law#cite_note-1%23cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbalihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh#Sunni_jurisprudencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh#Sunni_jurisprudencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_Muslimhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactatinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstruationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah#cite_note-1%23cite_note-1mailto:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


3/31

jobs. For example a traffic controller who were to stop 5 times during a work shift may preventworkers to continue to work during that time.It should be understood that while the commonwealth of Australia ordinary is prohibited to dealwith religious matters, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the States were entitled tolegislate as to religion and religious practices, including Sunday trading laws..Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-"religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious tests hath been the

greatest engine of tyranny in the world."

END QUOTE.Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-

With this liberal stand firmly taken by the ministers, the religious objection was speedily over-ruled.

And now, sir, it will be observed that in the Constitution of the United States of America there was not anysuch recognition in the preamble, and it is proposed that there shall be in our preamble. I am very sorry thatthose who first propounded this addition to the preamble did not tell the people with what object it was to be

put in. They, no doubt, were perfectly fair and honest in their object, but they had read more than most peopleas to what had happened in the state of America, and I think, in all frankness, the people ought to have beentold that there was a direct object and purpose in view. Now, in 1892 there was a decision in regard to theNew York difficulty which has put all the fat in the fire. It was this: There was a law passed by the state ofNew York, which was to the effect that there should be no labour imported from abroad for the

purpose of employers in the state of New York. There happened to be a clergyman imported from

England to fill the pulpit of a church in Broadway, in New York, and it was urged that this clergyman

was a labourer imported from abroad.

Mr. SYMON.-A labourer from the vine-yard.

Mr. HIGGINS.-The vineyard idea strikes the honorable member forcibly, no doubt, after his experience asa vigneron. The result was that the question as to whether this clergyman had not been imported against the

laws of the state of New York was brought up before several courts and gravely discussed. One court heldthat it was a breach of the Act to import the clergy-man from abroad, but the Supreme Court of the states,when the question was referred to it, held that it was not a breach of the law, and they also went on to say thatCongress never meant to interfere with the importation of clergy-men, because that was a Christian country.And for the purposes of establishing that it was a Christian country all through the states of America theywent into elaborate charters and documents to show that from the first it had been a Christian country, and ofcourse they were able to show that most of the states had been founded by denominations for the sake of theirown adherents. But what happened in consequence of that decision? There has been a recrudescence ofreligious strifes throughout the United States, which I could never have believed would have happened-alifting of banners of those who wish to impose, for instance, a compulsory sabbath all through, in, and uponevery state, and a lifting of the banner of those who oppose that movement.

Mr. FRASER.-Which side are you on?

Mr. HIGGINS.-I think the honorable member's interjection is beside the question, and wholly unfair. Thismatter may be put upon broad grounds, and not upon the matter of differences between us. I think that ourfeeling is that we ought not to do anything under this Constitution which will alienate from giving an earnest"Aye" to this Bill a large body of honest and good people, if we can avoid that without at the same timeinflicting irreparable harm on the Constitution. I should prefer to rest on the fact that the powers of theFederal Parliament are limited under the Constitution itself, and that the Federal Parliament has no powerto do anything except what is expressly given to it, or what is by implication necessary . But, althoughthat was the case when this clause was put in, if there is inserted in the preamble an express recognition of theAlmighty in [start page 656] the Constitution, the position which met the draftsmen of this clause will nolonger be applicable, inasmuch as there will be in the preamble of this Constitution a declaration of a religiouscharacter, from which, as experience shows, a number of corollaries will be deduced, and upon whichattempts will be made, from time to time, to pass legislation of a character which I do not think we intend to




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/mailto:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


4/31


5/31


6/31

this is a body of experts then no political pork barrelling would eventuate. Moreover, unlike theFederal Government being bound to "uniform" taxation and funding, the Inter-StateCommission can apply funding as it deems appropriate considering the needs of every part of theCommonwealth. This was specifically why the Inter-State Commission was created as a separateentity in the constitution, subject only to an appeal on errors of law to the High Court ofAustralia.While the ALGA provided a claim, such as its first and so likely it most important claim:QUOTE (Your attachment of ALGA)

It is an important referendum be3cause it will help maintain vital infrastructure and services to localcommunities

END QUOTE

It fails to set out in detail which services and infrastructure it refers to. As such, any primaryschool student could have argued the same with an unsubstantiated claim..QUOTE (Your attachment of ALGA)

It won't change the status of local government, or its powers, or its relationship with the state government. Itwill however, remove the legal uncertainty about the Federal Government's ability to fund communitiesdirectly through their councils; uncertainties created by two High Court cases - the Pape Case and theWilliams Case in the last couple of years.

END QUOTE

As I did set out above the Commonwealth not only could but should all along have channelledthe Road for Recovery program through the s101 Inter-State Commission. As such the muchhyped claim that this is in danger only underlines the extremely poor understanding thoselawyers (that is if they are lawyers) have of the true meaning and application of theconstitution..

The mere fact that the Commonwealth sidestepped the Inter-State Commission as to se aCommonwealth Grants Commission itself doesn't mean that it was constitutionally valid. Anyamendment to the constitution changes the position of those entities/authorities to which theamendment applies, and so ALGA clearly lacks to understand this. It doesn't however obligate

the Commonwealth to fund municipal/shire councils at all. The Commonwealth could refuse tofund where a municipal/shire council refuses to comply with certain conditions and then the Stategovernment may be reluctant to fund the municipal/shire council. meaning that municipal./shirecouncils be worse of by conditions that may be placed upon it. The State Government could infact (see quote below) replace the municipal/shire council with an administrator, where themunicipal/shire council were to go along with conditions of the Commonwealth that were inconflict with State laws. As such, municipal/shire councils could end up being the battle ground

between State and Commonwealth requirements and the States always can dispose of councils asto avoid the Commonwealth to overrule by using s109.

QUOTE (Your attachment of ALGA)

Councils will still remain the responsibility of the State government. the proposed change to the constitutionmakes this quite clear. The States will still be able to amalgamate councils, de-amalgamate councils, changecouncil boundaries and dismiss non-performing councils.

END QUOTE

I am not aware that the amendment to the constitution (s96) has any wording that provides "Councils will still remain the responsibility of the State government. the proposed change to theconstitution makes this quite clear.".As a matter of fact, if the Commonwealth is provided with certain constitutional powers thenwhen it exercises this then it takes responsibility for this. It would be totally absurd to argue thatthe States somehow would be responsible for the conduct of the Commonwealth. If theCommonwealth were to place conditions upon a municipal/shire council that resulted in say civil




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5


7/31

unrest within a particular community, then it is not the responsibility of the State that thiseventuated. As such, to use the example, if the Commonwealth were to dictate to themunicipal/shire councils that it must allow high density building in ordinary residential area's

because otherwise the municipal/shire council will not receive any s967 funding, then if themunicipal/shire council were to obliged and ratepayers decide they are not taking this nonsense,then only an idiot could hold the State government accountable for this, where it is non of itsdoing.The same with the building of mosques. If the Commonwealth were to override State legislation

by using s96 funding conditions then if the ratepayers decide they are not going to take this, thenagain one must be an utter fool to lay the responsibilities upon the State government for this..Let's be clear about it, the Commonwealth draws its Consolidated Revenue Fund monies fromtaxpayers as Commonwealth taxpayers. The States do the same for their taxes from its Statetaxpayers. As such, what we get is that in the end the ratepayer is paying for taxes either throughthe State and/or the Federal system and both are funding municipal/shire councils.in my view, it would be far better to leave the matter as was originally intended by the Framersof the Constitution and that is that the State Government looks after internal state matters. Why

pay taxes to 2 different entities? For them then to provide it each upon their own conditions to

municipal/shire councils? all we are doing is paying a lot more out to overhead cost becauseinstead of just the states dealing with Road for Recovery programs we now get the State and theFederal government having their overhead cost and interfering with matters. the Commonwealthisn't adding a single cent to its expenditure not drawn from taxpayers!.Why not leave it to the States, and the Commonwealth simply address interstate highways

as its concerns.

QUOTE (Your attachment of ALGA)

The referendum will formalise what has already been happening for more than ten years.To those who suggest there will be unforeseen consequences, well there have not been any

over the past ten years.END QUOTE

To me this statement is utter and sheer bulldust. that is like saying that if as person drives withouta valid driver licence and had no accident for 10 years then why not make it legal to do so. If thiswere to eventuate any person of any age then could be an unlicensed driver..If ALGA is claiming, as it appears to me, that it was needed to have an amendment to theconstitution to make legal what was unlawful for the past ten years, then where will thisargument stop? anyone then having done something unlawful for years can then pursue it to bemade lawful.

.We no longer would have the rule of law that prevails but the unlawful conduct of those whohold they can thump their nose upon the rule of law as to what they want and then have itafterwards made lawful.

We only have to look at how the Common wealth has been unable to manage Aboriginalmatters , after more than 40 years of gaining exclusive legislative powers, and surely only a foolwould accept that the Commonwealth will do better in other matters..




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5


8/31

No one at the time of the 1967 con-job referendum realised that by transferring legislativepowers regarding Aboriginals to the Commonwealth then it would create a BLACK HOLE inthe constitution, because the Commonwealth by s116 of the constitution cannot make laws as toAboriginal religious issues and the States no longer can do so either..Hansard 22-9-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEThe Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the

power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.END QUOTE.Hansard 30-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. REID:We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points

enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two

laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal

criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any

complication of the kind.

END QUOTE.Hansard 30-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEThe Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load thecommonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that thispower is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate

on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to

exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from

that field of legislation.

END QUOTE.Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will

be exercised.

END QUOTE.

This is the problem you end up with when people claiming to be "constitutionalist lawyers"really haven't got a clue what is applicable and then mouth themselves of and others will assumethey are knowing what they are talking about because after all they are "lawyers"!.Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National AustralasianConvention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.END QUOTE.

Hansard 19-4-1897Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTEMr. CARRUTHERS:

This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.


QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-

That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton hasdescribed, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. ThisConstitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5


9/31

this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or

rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and

it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to

understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole

time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is

commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be

appreciated by the people.

END QUOTE

The term "constitutionalist lawyer" clearly is an oxymoron, as is a "humanist killer" and "firebugfire fighter".

I will not attend to all items listed by ALGA as it should already b e clear it is sheer and utternonsense what they advised and nothing any municipal/shire council can do as to demand thatthe Commonwealth will provide funding, if the Commonwealth decides not to do so. As suchthere is absolutely, in that regard, no security in having s96 amended.

Why indeed waste about $50 million or more on a referendum when all that is needed is theparliament to legislate that the (s101) Inter-State Commission has powers to deal with certain

matters? By this avoid any potential political interference. We have seen how Andrew Wilkiedemanded $100 million for the Hobart Hospital in return for his political support for Julia Gillardto be Prime minister. Meaning that not only was this grossly unconstitutional (He was at the timemerely Member of Parliament elect) and had no political status to decide who shall or shall not

be Prime Minister, as constitutionally only the governor-General decides this, but also it meansthat other hospitals were denied the same level of funding and so Banyule City Councilratepayers were funding also for the extra extorted $100 million for Hobart Hospital.surely, we do not want to have this repeated time and time again? But reality is that this can andwill eventuate once you allow politics to get involved. This is also why the non-political expertsof the Inter-State Commission should be the once dealing with funding!

Every councillor may have to ponder why on earth did the ALGA not raise the s101 Inter-State Commission option? Likely because its own importance would be minimal if the

Inter-State Commission were to deal with matters as to the need of each municipal/shire

council for certain funding.

Therefore the ALGA in my view has a political self interest to deceive municipal/shire

councils to the real needs and benefits and also negatives of an amendment to s96 of the

constitution.

The ALGA seeks to make a case for a Yes vote without setting out any financial matters,including why the enormous cost of more than $50 million for a REFERENDUM is needed,when the alternative (without cost) is to involve the Inter-State Commission.In my view the ALGA made a deceptive case for a Yes vote, without any substantial and reliable

details to back it up.As we saw in recent times, the federal government was cutting back on funding supposedly toget the budged back in b lack, albeit it failed miserably in this. What then if municipal/shirecouncils seek to rely upon federal funding and then find there is no money coming? The Statesmay then be reluctant to fund the shortfall where after all taxpayers already paid theCommonwealth taxes for it.

I will quote below my previous 24 June 2013 correspondence and rely upon the content also.QUOTE 24-6-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5


10/31

Banyule City Council & councillors 24-6-2013http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au [email protected] Fax 94991391.Ref; Banyule local funding issue. AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERNSir/Madam,

as a ratepayer I object to the reported financial contribution by Banyule City Councilto support a "Yes" vote for the amendment of the constitution.I urge you to log into the speech of Senator Dean Smith, WA outlining issues regarding socalled constitutional recognition.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P53KCZDzSD4&feature=youtu.be

The Hansard record of this speech is reproduced below.

As aCONSTITUTIONALIST, I hold the view that s101 Inter-State Commission would bethe appropriate vehicle to deal with municipal/shire council funding, this as then any funding will

be broadly based upon the opinions of experts, and not subjected to any political demands from

Canberra, whomever may be in power.

I requestthat each councillor considers what I have set out below, so possibly each councillormay grasp that indeed Senator Dean Smith (WA) made clear that any government authoritycould be a local health centre, or whatever, and actually the Commonwealth may bypassmunicipal/shire council altogether, and then municipal/shire councils may be far worse off.

I will also quote below my 20 June 2013 correspondence to Ms Julia Gillard PM.

In my view, ratepayers are entitled to have councillors making informed decisions and set out tothe ratepayers on what basis it has supported and financed a YES campaign.

As Senator Dean Smith outlined what are the real financial benefits, if any, for any s96 funding.And, why at all risk federal government funding where and a huge expense for a referendumwhen all that is needed is for the Parliament to pass legislation to authorise the s101 Inter-StateCommission to deal with Road for Recovery and other programs. Then any politicalinterference is prevented.Also, any undue paperwork the Commonwealth may insist upon can then also avoided.

Not politicians handing out monies for their political benefits but non-political experts of

the Inter-State Commission is what we should promote to ensure sustainable funding.

What in effect may eventuate is that the commonwealth may seek to micromanage State

departments rather than to fund municipal/shire councils because councils are not strictly

State Authorities/Departments unless they are under the Crown (like NSW and Qld since2012) and as such Banyule City Council may be financial supporting a Yes campaign that

in the overall may be adverse to its own future funding, as a corporate entity.

QUOTE 20-6-2013 correspondence to Ms Julia Gillard PM

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Ms Julia Gillard PM 20-6-2013

C/o [email protected]

Re issue of amendment to s96 if justified, etc




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5
http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/mailto:[email protected]://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P53KCZDzSD4&feature=youtu.behttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P53KCZDzSD4&feature=youtu.bemailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/mailto:[email protected]://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P53KCZDzSD4&feature=youtu.behttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P53KCZDzSD4&feature=youtu.bemailto:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


11/31

Madam,

previously, I provided as an extensive submission to and followed this up with

QUOTE

Committee Secretary 4-2-2013Joint Standing Committee on ConstitutionalRecognition of Local GovernmentDepartment of House of RepresentativesPO Box 6021 Parliament HouseCanberra ACT. 2600 [email protected]

Re: WHERE IS MY COMPREHENSIVE SUBMISSION?

THE DETAILS IN THIS DOCUMENT ISNOTTO BE SUBJECTED TO CONFIDENTIALITY!

Re; Presentment to the House of Representatives joint select

Committee on the Constitutional recognition of Local Government

To the Committee Secretary

END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National AustralasianConvention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.END QUOTE.Hansard 19-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. CARRUTHERS:

This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.


QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-

That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton hasdescribed, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. ThisConstitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to

this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or

rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and

it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to

understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole

time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is

commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be

appreciated by the people.

END QUOTE

I will now address some issues and to some extend quote the Framers of the Constitution as towhy no referendum is needed nor justified.

.

I did note that Anne Twomey now stated (16-1-2013) there are 2 levels of government, where aslong ago, I recall, on Q&A she referred to 3 levels of government (including municipal councils).




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5
http://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=0113a1ca2dc1d261b6751e041631197cb134&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=0113a1ca2dc1d261b6751e041631197cb134&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


12/31


13/31

Mr. HIGGINS.-But the Inter-State Commission must be absolutely independent of Parliament.END QUOTE.HANSARD 26-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. HOLDER: We want something which shall have two parts, which shall be democratic in the fact that

it is based on the people's will, and that in it every personal unit of the population shall be recognised and hisindividuality preserved, and that, on the other hand, shall be a true Federation, in that each State unit shallalso have its individuality preserved and its independence assured. I do not think we can afford to

dispense with either of these two things. We cannot afford to dispense with the guarantee of the personalindividual rights of every citizen of the Commonwealth, nor, on the other hand, can we afford to dispensewith the individual or separate rights or interests of each of the separate States-if my hon. friend Mr.O'Connor prefers that term. We cannot neglect to provide for their due recognition. The next principle I shalllay down is this: That in dealing with this federal authority we should confer on it no powers which itcannot exercise more wisely and well and effectively than the States can exercise those powers. I wouldeven go a step further, and lay down as the principle which should govern our conduct: To the States all thatis local and relating to one State, to the Federal authority all that is national and inter-State.

END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR.-But that money could not be spent upon any object the Federal Parliament thoughtfit.

Mr. HOLDER.-I want an expression of opinion which shall be authoritative on the point. I see that,according to the provision I have quoted, there is power given to the Federal Parliament to borrow money onthe credit of the Commonwealth, and I say again that I do not know of any limitation of the expenditure ofthat money except the limitation which would be specified in the Loan Act authorizing the borrowing of themoney. Of course, these words cover the raising of the money for the building of railways for instance, and insuch a case the limitation would be the terms of the Loan Act. But is there anything anywhere to prevent aLoan Act being passed by the Federal Parliament authorizing the raising of a certain sum of money, theproceeds of which loan might be divided according to the terms of the Act among the states according to theirneeds, or upon some other principle?

Mr. GLYNN.-The first three lines of clause 52 affect that point.

Mr. ISAACS.-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order, and good governmentof the Commonwealth," not of the states.

Mr. HOLDER.-The passage to which Mr. Glynn refers me is as follows:-

The Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power and authority to makelaws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, with respect to all or any of thematters following.

Well, that includes the borrowing of money.

Mr. ISAACS.-It is the Commonwealth as distinguished from the state that is to borrow;the money is only

to be borrowed for the purposes of the Commonwealth.

Mr. REID.-Look at clause 81, where it is clearly set out that-

All revenues raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth, under the

authority of this Constitution, shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the

public service of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges provided by this

Constitution.

Mr. HOLDER.-With all due respect, I do not think that that clause applies.

Mr. REID.-Yes; it covers every appropriation issued from the Treasury.




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5


14/31

Mr. HOLDER.-I do not think so. I think clause 81 deals with revenue.

Mr. REID.-You receive revenue, and you appropriate money for expenditure.

Mr. HOLDER.-I do not suppose it is intended that the term "Consolidated Revenue Fund," used inclause 81, shall include both revenue and loan money. We are surely going to keep these two separate.

Mr. REID.-There is no provision of that sort.

Mr. HOLDER.-Then I would suggest that words should be inserted in order to provide that loan moneyand revenue shall be kept separate. I hope we shall have a Loan Account and a Consolidated RevenueAccount, and by no means mix up the two. I take it that clause 81 does not refer to any loan fund at all, butsimply to revenue. The term "Consolidated Revenue Fund" defines it clearly. Of course, I am not expressing alegal opinion in a chamber of lawyers such as this is. I should be unwilling to do that. I simply rose with theobject of putting forward these points with a view of obtaining a statement of authoritative opinion in regardto them. It appears to me that the clauses I have mentioned imply the possibility of some assistance beingrendered to a state in difficulties.It seems to me that, as no assistance could be rendered out of revenue,some assistance might be rendered out of loans, or there might be a guarantee of a loan, [start page1115] or some other way of rendering financial aid to a state that might be devised. But I hope Mr.Henry will withdraw his motion, because to state the matter so broadly as that the Commonwealth

shall come to the aid of a state might, I am afraid, lead to very serious reckless financing on the part of

some states under some possible conditions.

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-My honorable friend (Mr. Holder) has put the matter with his usualclearness, and has very convincingly shown that at any rate there is very considerable doubt as to the questionwhich has been exercising our minds, as to whether it would be an implied power in the Commonwealth tocome to the assistance of a state in financial straits. And, therefore, if the existence of the power is involved indoubt, it would be exceedingly desirable that some provision-I do not say the provision moved by myhonorable friend, who is not wedded to the particular words of his amendment, or any other-should beinserted, so as to make it clear that that power exists. Now, I was very glad to hear Mr. Isaacs express hisdesire to eliminate from this discussion, although we may use the word "insolvency," all idea of its beingsuggested that we contemplate the actual insolvency of any particular state. We cannot discuss a subject likethis without using the common words "bankruptcy" and "insolvency," and if we have to speak of state

bankruptcy, or state insolvency, we do not mean to impute that any state of the Commonwealth, under

any set of circumstances, is likely to repudiate its obligations.

Mr. ISAACS.-Such a thing is absolutely impossible.

Mr. SYMON.-Therefore, while we use the terms "bankruptcy" and "insolvency" as applying to apossible state of things which we wish to avert, it is not to be imagined for a moment that we

contemplate that such a state of things is going to exist, but we mean that a state may be in such a

condition of strait, or the Treasurer of that state maybe in such a condition of administrative

embarrassment, that it may be necessary to have re-course to the Commonwealth for assistance in

some shape or other.Now, I also desire to say that I do not think it is necessary to determine, and it willbe impossible for this Convention to determine, whether or not this implied power exists in the

Constitution. There might be, and no doubt would be, a strong difference of opinion upon the subject,

and even if we, assembled here, were unanimous on the subject, that fact would not assist the final

determination of the question when the exigency arose.But I agree with Mr. O'Connor thatundoubtedly in the distribution of the surplus, and in dealing with the financial condition of the states,

the Commonwealth would be animated by a desire to see that the states were placed in a position to

meet all their engagements. The difficulty which Mr. Henry sees, and to which he directs his amendment, isas to the condition of things during the five years' interval-during the bookkeeping period-when there is anexpress appropriation of the surplus moneys. During that time Mr. Henry fears it is possible, withoutmentioning any particular colony, that the Treasurer of one of the states might be unable to see his way tomeet his public engagements.

Mr. REID.-He could adopt Mr. Walker's proposal for capitalizing discrepancies.

Mr. SYMON.-That is one of those delightfully scientific proposals that appeal to the mind of thestatistician and the financier more than to the mind of a humble layman, and I am sure that if there is onemember of this Convention competent to solve the problem of capitalizing a financial discrepancy it is Mr.




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5


15/31

Walker. However, I have pointed out what seems to me to be the difficulty to which Mr. Henry has addressedhis amendment, and I feel that Mr. O'Connor's [start page 1116] argument, powerful as it is in reference to thecondition of things after the expiration of the five years, is absolutely without force as applied to the conditionof things to which Mr. Henry's amendment is directed. But I go further than that, and I take up the view whichwas dealt with by Mr. O'Connor on the broad ground-and that is the position to which I wish to direct theattention of members of the Convention-of whether it is politic or right to introduce this amendment into theConstitution. If this power is implied in the Constitution, then the amendment merely asserts and makesabsolutely clear a power which the Commonwealth might exercise if the necessity arose. On the other

hand, if it is not implied in the Constitution, it seems to me that it is a power that ought to be in the

Constitution, so as to enable the Commonwealth to do what I believe it would be the disposition of theFederal Parliament to do, namely, to come to the aid of any state which sought its interference to

protect that state from financial disaster or financial strait. I admit all the possibilities on the two

grounds put by Mr. Holder-that there is a possibility of this provision leading to reckless financing on

the part of the states, and also the other ground that it imposes an obligation on the Commonwealth,

and a difficulty with which the Federal Parliament and the Federal Executive may have to deal. But

those two things do not seem to me to outweigh the advantage of having this power clearly expressed in

the Constitution, to enable the Federal Parliament to give that assistance which might be absolutely

essential to the stability and even to the existence of a particular state. Now, I will suppose the case of a

state in which such a condition of things has arisen. But again, I say, I do not believe that such a

condition of things would ever occur in any of the states of this Commonwealth. Still, suppose a state

got into financial embarrassment, and there was a tendency towards, or a talk of, repudiation, why

should not the Federal Executive and the Federal Parliament, in the interests of the Commonwealth,

come to the assistance and relief of that state? Would it not be infinitely better that the Commonwealthshould exercise a power of that kind than that it should allow a blemish to be put on the honour and

good faith of the entire Commonwealth, which would result from any one state repudiating its

obligations?I admit that there are disadvantages and inconveniences on the one side, but on the otherthere is the great principle that it is the duty of the Commonwealth to maintain the existence, the

integrity, and the solvency of every state. And I do say that that is the function of the Commonwealth.

Mr. REID.-Then it had better be put in the Bill, and let the people know what they are doing. If theyare going to enter into a contract of that sort, the people had better know it.

END QUOTE

AndHansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEDr. COCKBURN.-The whole proposal is foreign to the spirit of the Constitution. The Constitution

lays it down that the Commonwealth is to deal equally with all the states whether it is in the matter oftaxation, of bounties, or of trade, and we may as well strike out the provision that all taxation shall beuniform throughout the Commonwealth if we are to contemplate that after the taxation has been raised theproceeds may be handed over to any one colony. The thing will not bear a moment's investigation, and I hopethe honorable member will not press his proposal to a division. It is a pity that the amendment has beenbrought forward. There is no possibility, nor does any one contemplate the possibility, of any of the statesbeing in a worse financial position than they are in at the present time. On the contrary, I believe that theirfinancial position, good as it is now, will be infinitely improved.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. ISAACS.-I am not prepared to answer that question, but when we look at clause 52 we find thesegoverning words on the very forefront of that clause-

That Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power and authority tomake laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth.

We see there that the Commonwealth is named as distinguished from the states . We have ourConstitution framed in this way with a Senate to guard what? The interests of the states, so that theCommonwealth shall not intrude one inch into what is retained as the executive rights and jurisdiction

of the states.

END QUOTE




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5


16/31

We have however that the Commonwealth basically is extorting from the State powers it is notgranted in the constitution by using s96 grants whereas the States should stand up and make clearnot to handover any powers and the Commonwealth then is bound to hand over the surplus ofmonies to the States anyhow.The Road of Recovery program, I view, is unconstitutional because it is not a constitutional valid

body. It purports to divide monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds to what it deemsappropriately under the watchful eyes of the political masters, where in fact the Federalgovernment is prohibited to distribute any monies other then "uniform" throughout thecommonwealth. Hence, the Julia Gillard deal with treacherous Andrew Wilkies to fund HobartHospital to keep her in power is precisely that.The Framers of the Constitution specifically provided for s101 Inter-State Commission and asthey made clear there always shall be an Inter-State Commission that will have the powers overthe distributing, etc, of funding regarding Trade and commerce. Hence, the Roads to Recovery

program should be dealt with by the Inter-State Commission. its experts then could allocate on anon political basis to the needs of each State, and so its communities.S96 is not the right vehicle for this, as it is misused and abused by the Federal government to flexits political powers. We need to keep s96 for pure real emergencies for a State and nothing else.

As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, Parliament could provide other and additionalpowers to the Inter-State Commission, to deal with other matters that it held could not beappropriately funded in a "uniform" manner..Therefore, there is no need to amend s96 , because all the Parliament needs to do is to providelegislation to empower the Inter-State commission to deal with certain issues and the problemsare resolved. Well, that is financially, but it also means (as I understand Anna implied to) that

political muscles cannot be used to interfere in municipal councils conduct.You would have a non-political body of experts that would be dealing with the funding of avariety of masters without political interferences and so no pork barreling. (Such as HobartHospital)

Lets consider what the Framers of the Constitution intended regarding the Inter -StateCommission, albeit these are quotes and best is to read the entire Hansard references to this issue.

HANSARD 25-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-If it is necessary to give the Parliament power at all, Parliament should have that power in an unrestrictedform, so as to enable the Inter-State Commission to execute and maintain the trade and commerce provisionsgenerally

END QUOTE


QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not mean to do so. I was merely about to refer to it in reply to the honorable member'sinterjection. My suggestion is this: It is now put to us that we must make the appointment of the InterState Commission obligatory. I agree that you must make it obligatory if you preserve the clause in itsentirety, retaining the words [start page 1523] I in the opinion of the Inter-State Commission," but I hope thatwe shall not retain those words. With regard to the Inter-State Commission, if they have merely to deal withmatters arising under the provision in regard to freedom of trade and intercourse and preferential rates, therewill not be enough work for them to do.

Mr. OCONNOR.-Their powers would be much larger than that.

END QUOTE




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5


17/31


QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-But the Inter-State Commission must be absolutely independent of Parliament.

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-I take it the Inter-State Commission would be appointed by Parliament.

Mr. OCONNOR.-By the Executive, you mean,

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Well, they would be appointed probably by the Executive, and it is

questionable whether they would be removable except under certain conditions. I think we are mixing upquestions which ought to be kept separate. When we come to discuss the tenure of their office, I shall beperfectly prepared to leave them fairly independent. At the same time, there is no necessity to pay highsalaries to men who will only work a portion of the year. I make these remarks in reply to Mr. Higgins, whoseems to think it is necessary to have a permanent body drawing high fees.

Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say there should be a large staff. What I said was that the Inter-StateCommission should be independent of Parliament, and have no fear in consequence of any action they

may take.

END QUOTE


QUOTE

Mr. MCMILLAN.-You would give certain status to the-members of the commission?

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If an Inter-State Commission is appointed, it should have a fairlyindependent tenure, something like that of the Railways Commissioners.I do not believe in having anInter-State Commission which is to be a mere farce, or a parliamentary puppet which could be turned

out of existence. That would not be a proper provision to put in the Constitution. I do not go the length thatMr. Kingston goes in saying we, in the Constitution, should appoint an Inter-State Commission. I am quitewilling to leave the matter optional. Having done that we still leave to Parliament powers to make lawsproviding for the execution of the Act in regard to trade and commerce, and to forbidding preferences. But Iwould leave it to the Inter-State Commission to carry out those laws from time to time. In the first or secondyear of the existence of the Federal Parliament, it would be impossible to draw a hard-and-fast line whichwould be applicable ten years afterwards. We are new country with new developments, and as years go on,

what might be just and proper now might in the future become improper and unjust. I, therefore, think weought to give power to the Federal Parliament to constitute the commission, and leave the carrying out of thelaws to a body with a proper tenure.

END QUOTE


QUOTE

The CHAIRMAN.-The amendment to strike out "may" will be withdrawn for the present, in view ofputting the proposal of Mr. Kingston to insert "There shall be" before "the."

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think there may be some difficulty about this. If it be stated in theConstitution that there shall be an Inter-State Commission, having certain powers, I am not sure that it

might not be interpreted to mean a direction to the Commonwealth to appoint a commission at once. Thatwould not do. It is intended that the powers of the commission shall be within the limits of the Constitution asdefined by law. That might raise a difficulty of interpretation, and I suggest to Mr. Kingston that be shouldleave it-"Parliament shall constitute an Inter-State Commission." I was not in the chamber when Sir GeorgeTurner spoke, and he will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand he seems to think that the Inter-StateCommission should merely have such powers as the Parliament may grant to it. I think the Inter-StateCommission should have some of the powers expressed in the Constitution in regard to water traffic.

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-What I said was, that I thought Parliament should declare. generally inregard to trade and commerce, and that the Inter-State Commission should be practically an

independent body to carry out the law of Parliament from time to time; that law being, of course, in the

Constitution.




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5


18/31

Mr. BARTON.-We are about to say that an Inter-State Commission shall be appointed to execute andmaintain the Commonwealth provisions relating to trade and commerce. I understand that the general sense ofthe Convention is that the restriction to railways and rivers should disappear; that the Inter-State Commissionshould deal with commerce throughout the states without any restriction. Then the clause would read:-

The Parliament shall make laws constituting an Inter-State Commission to execute and maintain within theCommonwealth the provisions of this Constitution relating to commerce.[start page 1526] That seems to meto be the charter of the Inter-State Commission.

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Would you add "and the laws for the time being passed by the Parliament"?

Mr. BARTON.-I think that is un-necessary. They will have to maintain the constitutional provisionswith regard to trade and commerce. It is obvious that we must give a certain amount of discretion to

Parliament, and Parliament having a commission already in existence will not pass any laws relating to

trade and commerce without leaving the determination of those laws to the Inter State Commission. It

may be only a difference of form, but I think there would be no advantage in adding the words

suggested. We are giving in the Constitution power to the Inter-State Commission to execute and

maintain within the Commonwealth the provisions relating to trade and commerce. Then we have in

Mr. Grant's amendment the determination of certain other matters confided to the Inter-State

Commission, and I understand that the Right Hon. Sir George Turner consented yesterday to have

similar words inserted in his clause. It is clear then that the provisions we are inserting in the

Constitution in relation to trade and commerce will be under the jurisdiction of the Inter-State

Commission, and that is really all we want. We might go further and make some provision as to thelaws, but that is unnecessary. It is inconceivable that Parliament would pass laws, and take away from

the Inter-State Commission the power of adjudicating on them. What I do want to impress on honorablemembers is that there is no necessity to say that there shall be an Inter-State Commission. If we say thatParliament shall constitute an Inter-State Commission, then we make it clear that it is the Parliament,

and not the Executive, that is deal with the commission in the first instance and to define its powers. That is necessary, as we might otherwise find the Executive Government taking this as a direction to appointan Inter-State Commission before a statute had been passed, and then there might be some trouble with theHigh Court.

END QUOTE


QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-All they can do is to maintain the provisions relating to trade and commerce. They willhave nothing to do with the question of telegraphic rates.

Mr. GLYNN.-It has been laid down in America that the Inter-State Commission could get from Parliamentpower to exercise control over the telegraphic rates.

[start page 1528]

Mr. BARTON.-Parliament could give them that power, but it is not likely that it will do so.

END QUOTE


QUOTEMr. BARTON (New South Wales).-Perhaps I might make a suggestion to the committee which will enable

us to pass on to other matters. If a vote were taken on the proposal that the word "shall" be substitutedfor the word "may," so as to make the clause read "Parliament shall," and if that be decided in the

affirmative, it might be taken as a direction to the Drafting Committee to redraft this and the followingclause, so as to provide for the desires that have been expressed by the committee during the debate, whichare very easy, on this occasion, to gather. It would not be a very difficult matter to redraft these clauses tomeet the views of the committee.

Mr. HIGGINS.-We want a test vote as to whether it shall be obligatory or not on the Parliament to appointan Inter-State Commission.




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5


19/31

Mr. BARTON.-Yes, and if such a vote is carried, as far as I can see at present, the DraftingCommittee would be likely to put the two clauses together in some such shape as this:-

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the

Parliament front time to there deems necessary, but so that the commission shall be charged with the

execution and maintenance within the Commonwealth of the provisions of this Constitution, and of any

laws made thereunder, relating to trade and commerce.

That is to be the charge of the commission, but the extent of the powers of adjudication and

determination necessary to enable them to carry out their charge must, from time to time, be left to theParliament, as any one must admit.

Mr. REID.-We do not object to that.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Is it quite clear as to railway rates coming under the trade and commerce clauses?

Mr. BARTON.-There is no question about that

END QUOTE


QUOTE

Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-The point which I wish to make is this: Should not the Inter-State

Commission be constituted under the Constitution instead of being the creation of the FederalParliament, as it is intended in some respects to control the judgment of the Federal Parliament?

Mr. BARTON.-I think the Federal Parliament would be obliged to appoint the Inter-State Commissionanyhow. Otherwise, Sir George Turner's clause and that of Mr. Grant could not be put into operation.

END QUOTE


QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-They need not be rail-way experts necessarily. Their powers would be defined by theParliament, and there would be an appeal to the High court.

Mr. ISAACS.-It seems to me to be superseding the powers of the Parliament. I am afraid of it.

The amendment striking out the words and upon rivers flowing through, in, or between two or more states"was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN.-The clause now reads-

There shall be an Inter-State Commission to execute and maintain within the Commonwealth the provisionsof this Constitution relating to trade and commerce.

Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-The clause as it stands seems somewhat restricted. It does not take intoconsideration Sir George Turner's clause. I understand that the object was to give the Inter-state

Commission jurisdiction to determine what are preferences and discriminations which are unjust to

any state.

END QUOTE


QUOTE

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-This ought to be considered a little more. The question is now whetheryou are setting up this Inter-State Commission in rivalry to the powers of the Federal Judiciary.

Mr. BARTON.-We are going to provide for appeals from the Inter-State Commission to the HighCourt.




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5


20/31

Mr. SYMON.-That may get over the difficulty, but you have to be very careful in a general clause like thisto keep it as narrow as possible.

Mr. BARTON.-I would not dream of giving these powers to the Inter-State Commission unless therewas an appeal to the High Court.

END QUOTE


QUOTE

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-That is the reason why I suggested a redrafting of the clauses. Itwill probably take this shape:-

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the

Parliament from time to time deems necessary, but so that the commission shall be charged with the

execution and maintenance within the Commonwealth of the provisions of this Constitution, and of any

laws made thereunder relating to trade and commerce.

That would meet my honorable friend's objection. There is no real conflict between the clauses.

Mr. DOBSON.-My point is, can the Parliament give away the powers to the Inter-State Commission whichwe, by Sir George Turner's amendment, have conferred on the Parliament.

Mr. BARTON.-You cannot give the execution and maintenance of these provisions, but the question ofadjudicative and administrative powers are to be vested by Parliament.

The clause was agreed to.

END QUOTE

While the Federal Government seemed to be bend on funding for religious issues, it may onlydemonstrate the contempt it shows to the constitution. And it somehow then demand others torespect the rule of law it denounces?

While those in the Parliament may be partisans to a political party, when appointed as a advisor

(Minister) to the Governor-General then the duty lies first and foremost to advise the Governor-General to what is in the best interest of the Commonwealth and its people, even if this iscontrary to the parties doctrine. Compliance with the legal principles embedded in theconstitution must always stand above party politics.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. 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

those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.END QUOTEAnd

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTEMr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for anExecutive 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.

END QUOTE.

In my view, an amendment of s96 may boost the ego's of councillors that somehow they nowhave a certain standing , but we must ask if this does not reverse certain principles embedded inthe constitution?





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5


21/31

QUOTEMr. ISAAC.-Yes. What I wish to point out is that we must be careful that we do not in this rough-and-

ready fashion bring about the reversals of principles already laid down in the Bill.

END QUOTE

The issue is not what the current Federal Government may in tend but what in time to come someother rough Government may seek to do to use the amendment.

As I have set out extensively in my published books (no need to do it now again) the amendmentof s51(xxvi) of the constitution was deceptively obtained and now twisted to a meaning never assuch set out to the aboriginal people nor the overall electors. Indeed, where was the admissionthat since federation aboriginals who had State franchise voted in federal elections, and thereforeany legislation contrary to s41 was ultra vires.I have no doubt that likewise s96 will be a tool to obtain results not at all put to the electors forthe referendum..All it needs is to have a political party appointed its own colour judges to the High Court ofAustralia and they will bow to their political masters and twist and infringe upon the constitutionas if there is no tomorrow.

This, even so the Framers of the constitution stated:

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-

We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just

interpretation of the Constitution:

END QUOTE

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention),QUOTE Mr. OCONNER(New South Wales).-

Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of

justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;END QUOTE


QUOTESir 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 QUOTEHANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter ofthe Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but underit; 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

Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution ofthis 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, thecourt you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal aswill 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 sphereof the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5


22/31

As I have so often stated, in Iran they have a constitutional body and we in Australia still haven'tmanaged to have this, hence the need for the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN, a constitutionalcouncil that advises the Parliament, the People, the Government and the judiciary as to the truemeaning and application of the constitution.

Wed never should accept that the Government of the day can play games with their powersignoring unconstitutional exercise of powers, because no appropriate body is in place to holdthem accountable..The High Court of Australia cannot be deemed to be the Guardian of the Constitution as it only

power is derived from when a person/body institute legal proceedings to challenge a issue onconstitutionality. otherwise the High Court of Australia is render powerless to protect anyinvasion into constitutional limitations. And, even when a person seeks to file an applicationregarding alleged unconstitutional conduct then it may bow to its political masters in Canberraand den the application for filing as I experienced, on 18 and 19 February 2003, and again on 18and 19 March 2003, as to the unconstitutional invasion into Iraq. (My books set the details outand so no need to repeat the same.)

As I commenced from the start of this writing, my submission was never published and one hasto question this! what on earth was in the submission that required it to be concealed from thegeneral public?I for one will encourage every elector to vote NO in regard of any amendment of theconstitution, in particular regarding s96, as unless and until we have a transparent system in placewhere every submission (other then confidential submissions) are published as to be available forall people to read, we cannot speak of a FAIR and PROPER presentation as to what the proposedamendment is really about.The Framers of the Constitution held that it was imperative that the media would be able toreport matters, other then closed committee meetings, so that thew people would be fully awareof what was intended to be achieved. I for one cannot state this is eventuating with the current

proposed amendment for a referendum. therefore, I would urge every person to vote NO in theproposed referendum to amend the constitution.

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)END QUOTE

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=customra

nk;page=0;query=DEAN%20SMITH%20Date%3A18%2F06%2F2013%20%3E%3E

%2019%2F06%2F2013%20Dataset

%3Ajournals,orderofbusiness,hansards,hansards80,notices,websds,senators,practces,order

ss,websenguide,procbull,broadcastSen;rec=3;resCount=Default

QUOTE Wednesday, 19 June 2013 Page: 26

Senator SMITH(Western Australia) (12:25): I rise this afternoon to speakon the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013. If the Senate will indulge me




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F241710%22;querytype=;rec=0http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=DEAN%20SMITH%20Date%3A18%2F06%2F2013%20%3E%3E%2019%2F06%2F2013%20Dataset%3Ajournals,orderofbusiness,hansards,hansards80,notices,websds,senators,practces,orderss,websenguide,procbull,broadcastSen;rec=3;resCount=Default#HIT2%23HIT2mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F241710%22;querytype=;rec=0http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=DEAN%20SMITH%20Date%3A18%2F06%2F2013%20%3E%3E%2019%2F06%2F2013%20Dataset%3Ajournals,orderofbusiness,hansards,hansards80,notices,websds,senators,practces,orderss,websenguide,procbull,broadcastSen;rec=3;resCount=Default#HIT2%23HIT2mailto:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


23/31

for a brief moment, I note that yesterday's date, 18 June, marked exactly one yearsince my first speech in this place.

Senator Joyce: Hear, hear!

Senator SMITH: Thank you very much, Senator Joyce. Given my longstandinginterest and commitment to maintaining the integrity of Australia's federated structure,I can think of no better way to mark that occasion than to outline some of the dangers

to that structure that are contained in this constitutional bill. I want to acknowledgethe heartfelt and genuine support of Senator Joyce and others for this important issue.However, I wil

Documents

130629-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Banyule City Council Funding Issues - Etc