20140606-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Speaker Christine Fyffe-Members of Parliament - Etc

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

A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE
Christine Fyffe, Speaker 6-6-2014
christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
5
Cc: Mr Geoff Shaw MP geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria, ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
10
20140606-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-Members of Parliament -etc
Christine,
did you during the last state election defraud Consolidated Revenue Funds but
never realised doing so? Let me explain.
It was reported that Mr Geoff Shaw recently travelled overseas as a Member of Parliament 15
at taxpayers expenses because of being a Member of Parliament. In my view as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST the Parliament has no such powers to authorise this kind of
expenditure and hence such an expenditure could be deemed as an Office of Profit.
However the same applies to every other Member of Parliament having done the same!
As I understand it Mr Geoff Shaw was not a Member of Parliament during the last state 20
elect ion but neither so was you or anyone else.
.
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: 25
The practice in England has been that when the House of Commons is dissolved, the Gazette which
contains the proclamation, or one issued concurrently, also contains a proclamation summoning a
parliament to meet on a given day, and all the writs are appointed to be returned on that day.
END QUOTE
. 30
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
According to the English practice there is always a parliament either summoned or prorogued.
Coincident with the dissolution of the old parliament is the proclamation calling the new parliament.
END QUOTE 35
.
QUOTE
Sir JOHN BRAY: I am very glad to hear that the committee considered the point, although I think
they arrived at a very unwise decision. The hon. gentleman who last spoke is mistaken in what I take to 40
be the drift of all parliaments. No parliament lives out the full term of its existence. It is always
dissolved before it actually expires, and so it would be in this [start page 645] case. The practice almost
invariably is for the house to be dissolved, and a new house elected, before the expiration of the three
years, the object being that there shall always be a parliament in existence. The intention is not that the
members shall be elected for three years, but that they shall absolutely serve for three years, and the 45
three years ought for the sake of convenience to date from the first meeting of parliament.
END QUOTE
.

p2 6-6-2014
A 1
st
QUOTE Mr. MACROSSAN:
As to the ministry being responsible to both houses, I think that is an utter impossibility. I do not see
how a ministry can be held in any way to be responsible to both houses of parliament, especially as one
of those houses is to have a continuity of existence. If the senate was to be placed on the same footing as 5
the house of representatives, and was to be dissolved on the same occasions, there might be something
in the proposal. But as it will have a continuous life, and as whatever definite responsibility it may have
will be through the nominations of the legislatures of the different states, I do not see how a federal
ministry can be responsible to any house but the house of representatives.
END QUOTE 10
What we therefore have is that while in the Federal Parliament Senators remain to be sitting
members regardless if their seats are up for election until the completion of the period they are
elected for, other than with a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION, in the State level all Members of
Parliament seize to be Members of Parliament when the governor issue writs for the seats.
However, the Speaker and the President remain to be Officers of the Parliament, albeit they are 15
not Members of Parliament. Therefore if it is Mr Daniel Andrews, Mr Dennis Napthine, yourself
or anyone else who had been Members of Parliament prior to the election in 2010 none of them
were Members of Parliament during the 2010 State election. One then has to check their conduct
if they nevertheless used their former email address of the Parliament as if they were still
Members of Parliament. If they used their (former) staff for political issues even so the staff were 20
employed by the parliament and during elections no longer can provide any services to the now
former Members of Parliament. Did for example Mr Daniel Andrews and other former Members
of Parliament run up travel and other expenditure charging it to the Consolidated Revenue Funds
(tax payers) during this 2010 State election? In my view this was a fraud.
It doesnt matter if Parliament provided rules for itself to allow for this kind of 25
shenanigans or theft because it is beyond the powers of the Parliament to provide for this.
The Parliament can only provide for in-house rules and has nothing to do with what I
understand to be plain theft of the Consolidated Revenue Funds.
Therefore if Mr Ken Smith, Mr Daniel Andrews, Mr Dennis Napthine are so to say trying
to make an issue of the moral high grounds about misuse of taxpayers monies then let them 30
expose their own abuses, if any, in the process.
.
I may state I view the same about judicial officers going on trips nothing to do with their position
as a judicial officer. We simply have such a corrupt society that we haunt so to say to death a
person who may have accidentally incurred an infringement of exceeding parking while the real 35
criminals in the judiciary and the Parliament are generally let get off.
We have that Members of Parliament have undermined not just their own integrity but that of the
Parliament. We have that the judiciary have not only undermined their own credibility but also
that of the judiciary. So, when it comes to my self-professed crummy English versus those
giving themselves a path on the back for being superior in the English language then see who 40
really understands and comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution!
Lets now consider what the High Court of Australia stated in;
Transcript of High Court Appeal
Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 J une 2000)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA 45
QUOTE McHUGH J:
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said,
some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.
END QUOTE
. 50
In my view McHUGH J should have been by joint sitting of the (Federal) Houses of Parliament
removed as a judge.

p3 6-6-2014
A 1
st
When one refers to the killing of every blue-eyed baby then one is not referring to a convicted
criminal who was sentenced to death by a court, but we are referring to babies who in law
cannot commit a crime. As such what the High Court of Australia claimed was that Parliament
can unilaterally order the mass murder of every blue-eyed baby!
Let us have a proper look at this: 5
The High Court of Australia by this refers not to one single person but every baby that has blue
eyes. And as such this is a racist statement as it only relates to blue-eyed babies.
The High Court of Australia is not referring to and neither intended to refer to convicted
criminals because babies are not of an age that they can be held legally accountable. So, what on
earth could any baby let alone every blued-eyed baby be guilty of to be unilaterally be ordered to 10
be killed one has to ask?
What if he had stated for example;

Example 1
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it 15
likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every Aboriginal killed if it
wanted to.

Example 2
likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every police officer killed if it
wanted to.

Example 3
likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every woman raped if it
wanted to.

Example 4
likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every Muslim killed if it
wanted to.

Example 5
likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every government opponent
politician killed if it wanted to.

What ought to be clear is that to describe parliaments power to be contrary to the legal
principles embedded in the constitution in my view is not so to say the conduct of an imbicil 40
but cannot be tolerated. Yet, I am not aware any of the fellow judged denounced this
statement by McHUGH J., why not?
Neither did the Parliament seek to address this kind of utter and sheer nonsense even so this kind
of comment could spark a revolution!
45
HANSARD 8-02-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
50
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
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.- 55

p4 6-6-2014
A 1
st
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

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 5
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?

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. 10
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

I can see no legal justification for the High Court of Australia to declare that a Federal 15
Parliament can unilaterally order the racist mass murder of every blue-eyed baby.
But it is not the only High Court of Australia who seems to have a lack of understanding what
the true meaning an application of the constitution is.

Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20
QUOTE
Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
Thank you for your letter.
There is no bias, any more than there would be for a woman judge sitting in a case involving women or
a male judge in a rape case. 25
Your views on the Constitution appear to have overlooked s 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. If that
power were not enough, and none of the other heads of power sufficed, it is true that an amendment of
the Constitution might be required. Alternatively, there are cooperative schemes for parallel
legislation. Ours is a cooperative federation, as the Constitution itself envisaged.
Sincerely, Michael Kirby 30
END QUOTE

This was at the time Michael Kirby J. of the High Court of Australia!
So let us now consult what the Framers of the Constitution stated;
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE
. 40
QUOTE
The 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 45
.
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 50
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
. 55
QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the
commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this
power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate 60
on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to

p5 6-6-2014
A 1
st
exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from
that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will
be exercised.
END QUOTE
10
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws? 15
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
20
Clearly Michael Kirby J (then of ) the High court of Australia proved he didnt understand/
comprehend that once the Commonwealth legislate ion a certain subject then the state Parliament
is ousted from any jurisdiction!

There was some time ago this article within the Herald Sun Koori kids get help indicating that 25
Mr Andrew Jackomos director of Koori Justice Unit was appointed commissioner for Aboriginal
children and young people.
Which part of the above quoted statements didnt the Parliament and/or the government
(including Ministers of the Crown) who are Members of Parliament) understand about now new
laws and exclusive powers where the Commonwealth since 1967 by amendment of ss51(xxvi) 30
has now the exclusive legislative powers as to Aboriginals (races)? The same can be held ab out
excluding animals from grazing from Crown land but then allow Aboriginals to have animals
there. Again it is unconstitutional. And yet all the Members of Parliament are gearing up to is
about Mr Geoff Shaw while far more critical issues are ignored. Considering a state election is
due later this year you may then wonder what is the mentality of people like Mr Daniel Andrews 35
to argue about something that I view is far less important than all the unconstitutional issues such
as I have raised in this correspondence? And he proposed to present himself as an alternative e
government and an alternative Premier? Is he merely attacking Mr Geoff Shaw because he is too
incompetent to address the real issues and so to say seek to hoodwink electors as to cover up his
own in competence? 40

In my view Mr Geoff Shaw is entitled that the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly take
action against Mr Daniel Andrews for unduly attacking Mr Geoff Shaw and in the process
as to perhaps defeat him as a coming candidate in the due to be held state election and by
this undermining the integrity of the Parliament. 45

And here I come now also to the position of the Speaker and the President of the State Houses of
Parliament. Why is it that proposed laws offending this legal principle nevertheless are allowed o
be placed before the Houses and even passed? Does the Speaker and the President have any
appropriate training in constitutional issues to make sure that they understand the limits of their 50
powers and cannot allow unconstitutional proposed laws to pass?
And we neither must overlook that the state Parliament because of the separation of powers
cannot willy nilly refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia without a State

p6 6-6-2014
A 1
st
referendum to endorse this. After all, the moment legislative powers are referred to the Federal
Parliament then the matter becomes one for the Federal Courts. It means that if the State
Parliament pursues to refer a matter of legislative e powers to the Commonwealth it is
undermining the spate powers of the State courts such as the Supreme Court of Victoria. The
State parliament has no legislative powers to remove any jurisdiction from the Supreme Court of 5
Victoria without a State Referendum to approve this.
We all were made aware how we had this nonsense about a Member of Parliament breast feeding
a baby, as if this was the principle issue before the Parliament.
Constitutionally only one person can occupy the seat in the Parliament and that is the person
elected for that seat and having been sworn in to represent the constituents as such. As the 10
Framers of the Constitution made clear (such as with senators) that only one person could have
the benefits of a seat And, that is the person who occupied that seat. As such any Senator-elect
has no privileges until the date this Senato.r-elect accepts the seat and he/she may never do so for
various reasons, such as being declared bankrupt, or died, taken an Office of Profit, etc, before
being able to be sworn in and by this to take up the seat confirmed elected for. 15
A baby of whatever age is and remains to be a person in his/her own right with all legal
implications, rights and duties, and as such cannot be on a seat of Parliament with the
mother/father because then it is in violation of the legal principle only one person can occupy the
seat. Parliament has no constitutional powers to allow more than one person occupy a seat in the
Parliament that is allocated for an elected member of Parliament who has been sworn in. 20
Just consider this: If during a voting an electronic vote is required and the baby accidentally
causes a vote contrary to the intentions of the mother/father who then can accept such a vote?
Are we then having a re-vote? Then anyone else may argue that he/she accidentally voted
contrary to intentions and so where does it stop? Parliament is an very serious matter and as I
view it most if not all Members of Parliament are totally incompetent to understand/comprehend 25
the true meaning and application of the constitution and by this the legislative powers of the
Parliament, and as such the last thing we need is a breast flashing so Member likely causing the
side tracking the attention of other Members of Parliament.
Are we accepting for a female police officer to breast feed a baby in the middle of an
intersection while directing traffic? 30
Surely those in the Parliament who voted for this unconstitutional; conduct must so to say have
their head reads. It got absolutely nothing to do with womens rights or a babies need because the
Member of Parliament could request to be excused and if needed a vote be delayed until after the
woman/man has returned to the house to participate in the voting. After all it is well within the
powers of a House to suspend voting if this is provided for in the rules of the House. 35
A child, no matter what age, doesnt belong on a seat of the Parliament assigned for elected
Members of Parliament!
If Parliament fails to appropriately attend to Bills before the Parliament then the community
suffers, and often can end up in devastating litigation in the courts to try to address any errors in
legislation, and all this because some Member of Parliament desired unconstitutionally to have a 40
child on the seat (breast feeding or not).
For the record I was once a single parent and as such understand and comprehend what is
associated with caring for a baby, but lets be clear about it if a mother desires to breast feed a
baby then shed cannot demand that the Parliament make unconstitutional exemptions for her.
Legislating is a very serious business and we cannot have breast feeding mothers or clowns or 45
whatever disturbing the Parliamentarian activities.

QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN (New South Wales).-I think there is a very simple way of looking at this question. 50
Surely the Senate would not reject a Bill, unless there was an important reason for doing so. I can

p7 6-6-2014
A 1
st
scarcely imagine the Senate rejecting a Bill which would put the finances into any difficulty-say, the usual
Bill for the expenses of the country. But, if the Senate did reject a Bill in calm judgment, is it not a
farce to think that under three months that judgment would be reversed? Surely it is only common
sense that there should be a reasonable interval for consideration? After the large amount of rhetoric on this
subject about delay, caution, and prudence, it seems ridiculous to talk about a delay of three months to give 5
consideration to a great question.
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-With great respect, I submit to those who are objecting to this provision that they are
fighting a shadow. If they meant anything when they said there must be two sessions they meant that the House of
Representatives should have some interval to reconsider its position. It is no use to say that the Senate can delay it.
Delay is not what is required as the ultimate end of a dissolution, but agreement, if possible. It would be just as well to 10
say that a measure should be twice considered in the same session, as that there should be two sessions without an
interval. I think that one session should be sufficient, but if there is to be a second consideration it ought not to be
possible for Parliament to be prorogued for a day, to meet again in a state of heat and temper, and to pass the
Bill without discussion. That is not the object of providing two sessions, and I would submit to my honorable
friends, who in the main agree with me, that this is not a point worth fighting about. It is admitted generally that 15
the Executive will allow some reasonable time, probably not less than three months, but it is urged that there
may be occasions when, if a Bill is not carried, the whole of the finances of the Commonwealth will be thrown
into confusion. That could only happen on the rejection of an Appropriation Bill.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Which would mean revolution?
Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, and that is inconceivable. Delay in passing an important Taxation Bill might embarrass the 20
Executive very materially, but it could not cause such embarrassment as would throw the whole of the finances of the
country into confusion. If a Treasurer with a heavy deficit introduced a scheme of taxation, with a view to meeting that
deficit, it might be extremely important to him that he should get the Bill passed, but if he did not he could go on for
three months increasing the deficit. If the question of a second session were before us I should argue against it, but as
provision has been made for it, it [start page 2166] should be a second session such as we are accustomed to, with some 25
reasonable interval. I would strongly urge on my honorable friends the desirability of conceding where we can concede.
That is what I have always been urging on those who have been opposed to me, and I now make the appeal to those
who agree with me. This is a point we can concede without any serious danger. There may sometimes be considerable
inconvenience, but that will be all. I hope that the discussion of this matter will not occupy much more time, but that we
shall say that we are prepared to make concessions wherever we can, in order that we may obtain reasonable 30
concessions when we come to ask for them ourselves.
The CHAIRMAN.-Do I understand that Mr. Symon wishes to amend his amendment by making the period
specified three months instead of six?
Mr. SYMON.-Yes, sir.
END QUOTE 35

One will find that both in the Federal as well as in the State Parliaments this is often
disregarded. The Federal CoCo-pop tax is a clear example that remains unconstitutional as
it was rejected and then overnight was passed one the independent senator got certain
privileges for South Australia, etc. 40
What we have is that those in government couldnt care less about what is constitutionally
permissible because as long if they can bribe a Member of Parliament to get its way then no one
seems to care less. And clearly in this instance the president of the Senate, I view was
incompetent to allow for the Bill to be re-introduced ignoring constitutional requirements.
How on earth can Members of Parliament expect members of the public to respect laws 45
when Members of Parliament themselves ignore the principal law, being the constitution?
From The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
QUOTE
The corporatising of our courts 50

p8 6-6-2014
A 1
st
Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
March 24, 2005
In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of the
court's independence.
For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and 5
rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had to
bite my tongue.
I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench, and
especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the perception of this
court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of that now because I have 10
been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes effective, I fear that nobody
will listen.
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system, particularly
the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what they can and
cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but while I have 15
been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's independence.
One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on
remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing both
Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial salaries and
so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking. 20
Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive officer
be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be ultimately
answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.
That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming
absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a 25
movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.
This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court of
plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is the third
arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is to control
and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms and the 30
citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.
Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe - as
"Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which indiscriminately includes
all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.
This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are prescribed 35
by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the department at its
discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in this court, apparently in
disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of court.
And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the
department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily avail 40
themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But access is
possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is the major
litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.
Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly, otherwise
than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is evolving is a 45

p9 6-6-2014
A 1
st
perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice, a perception
which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.
Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure and
its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no different
from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is simply not 5
the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over the years, and it
must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not 2to be subverted.
The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be,
impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all, and
ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of government. 10
Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a tribunal, properly
so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things flow from that. Such a
tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed terms, with the possibility
of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see that their remuneration is
fixed independently of the executive. 15
You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members
appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm when,
in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for the latter is
altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure. 20
There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising judicial
power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to this court for
a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary appointments at the
discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of tenure or, in a relatively
small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts have been remarkably free 25
from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be, and be seen to be, impartial and
so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to conflict or the appearance of bias.
In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals pass
like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness but in
one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is demanded 30
of the appointee.
John D. Phillips is retiring as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is part of his farewell address to
the court.
END QUOTE
Constitutionally there is a division between the Judiciary and the legislators and executives. No 35
Attorney-General has the constitutional powers to interfere with the judiciary but nevertheless
the former Attorney-General Robert Hulls and the Police Minister at the time signed a charge
with TENIX SOLUTIONS MIE Pty Ltd that it now can actually access court computers and use
them to issue Magistrate Court of Victoria court orders as well as warrants, all without any open
court hearing. As such the corruption into the judicial system is rife, because the government 40
bodies allow a private corporation to not just access court files but to even issue (albeit
unconstitutionally) court orders and warrants.

Again
From The Age 45
QUOTE

p10 6-6-2014
A 1
st
In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals pass
like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness but in
one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is demanded
of the appointee.
END QUOTE 5
In my view the Speaker and the President likewise must be considered to be and be seen to
be impartial irrespective of their political, if any, association.
From The Age
QUOTE 10
Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe - as
"Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which indiscriminately includes
all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.
This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are prescribed
by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the department at its 15
discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in this court, apparently in
disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of court.
And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the
department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily avail
themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But access is 20
possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is the major
litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.
END QUOTE

In my view the Courts and the Parliament should have its own independent computer 25
system and neither can be subjected to any taxation matter nor be registered for purpose of
taxation, this as it would undermine the functions of the courts/parliaments.
As long as a government department can interfere with the computer system of the Parliament
and/or the Court then it is left open that any would be rough Government could misuse this for its
own unconstitutional purposes. It may be to vote rigging within the Parliament as to pass a bill 30
that otherwise might have been defeated, etc.

As a Speaker you are employed by the Parliament to be responsible and accountable to the
Parliament to perform relevant duties and obligations and I view you disregard this if you
allow the opportunity of undue conduct upon the security and/or computer systems. 35

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he
pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxation 40
including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill going outside the
ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be
imperatively required, in the discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage
of its existence. 45

p11 6-6-2014
A 1
st
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both. 5
Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is required
at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and,
without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very
life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would 10
give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most important part
of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters that have been
much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 15
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of
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 20
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
that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere.
QUOTE 25

QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
When we have done this it follows that as there is an element of policy, the existence of which no one 30
can deny, it will be even more necessary than in the case of the Federal High Court-which is not to deal
with matters of policy, or matters tainted with policy, to use the expression of another speaker-that the
tribunal which we are creating should be above the breath of political intrigue. To secure this, I think,
some provision should be inserted similar to the provisions which we have inserted in regard to the Judges of
the High Court. Whatever may have been the case as the Bill left us after the Adelaide session, it seems to be 35
imperative now, to give effect to what has already been done, that we should introduce into the Constitution
provisions binding the Federal Parliament to create an Inter-State Commission, and placing the Inter-State
Commission, when created, on a level which will raise it above the possibility of the suspicion that its
judgments or actions have been in any way influenced by political considerations.
END QUOTE 40

It makes no difference if the Framers of the constitution refers to the House of
Representatives because ultimately the legal principle embedded in the constitution is the
same where it relates to the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a state.
45
Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE

p12 6-6-2014
A 1
st
Mr. O'CONNOR: You cannot ask a judge to serve two masters.
END QUOTE
The same applies to a Speaker/President of a House of the Parliament.
Australasian Convention) 5
QUOTE
Mr. WISE: I can see no other course. It has taken 100 years for the United States to pass a Civil Service
Act, and now it is not of very much value. If we get a party system, and follow it out in the appointment of
civil servants, we will be initiating a system of corruption which would gain strength every day.
END QUOTE 10
In Federal Parliament we have witnessed that the Speaker of the House of Representatives
Bronwyn Bishop ousted more than 100 Members of Parliament but they were all of non-
government political parties. This is an implied bias. Again a speaker is employed by the
Parliament and should be impartial to manage the conduct of the House.
No one in his right mind can accept that the Speaker is without bias doing so. What this portrays 15
is that the government controlling political parties has taken control of the running of the House
and not the Speaker. While I am unaware how many you ousted from the various political parties
or independent, I urge you to realise that your states as a Speaker must never be controlled by
any political party and so neither your conduct in managing the Legislative Assembly.
And that also brings me to the staff provided to political parties. Every Member of Parliament, 20
regardless of any political association, is elected equally, and as such providing staff for leaders
of political parties in the parliament but not likewise for independent in my view is
unconstitutional. It doesnt matter if the political parties managed to get rules of the House as o
ensure they are provided with staff because the House has no powers to do so.
With the Federal Parliament we had this nonsense where a change of Prime Minister (even from 25
the same politic al party) then there was also a huge turnover of public servants. The truth is that
any public servant employed being it in State and/or Federal positions must be employed
irrespective of any political association.
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. 35
END QUOTE
Executive Members of a government are commissioned to manage the state for all Victorians and
not just for their own politic al party members! Therefore their policies must be for the benefit of
Victorians in general and not be subject to their political philosophies that might be in violation
with constitutional principles. Public servants therefore should be engaged upon their ability to 40
perform irrespective as to whom may be in government.

p13 6-6-2014
A 1
st
Hence, they should continue to be employed even if there is a change of government.
And, when it comes to facilities and staff within a House of the Parliament those public servants
are employed by the Parliament and not by the political party and must therefore be protected
from being terminated merely because a certain Member of Parliament is associated with a
political party was not re-elected. And it also means that every member has the same entitlements 5
and if therefore for example Mr Daniel Andrews has staff whereas Mr Geoff Shaw has not the
same available to him by the Parliament then I consider this shows a gross abused of power
within the Parliament. Now who is talking about the integrity of the parliament, I won der?
QUOTE Mr. O'CONNOR:
The very principle of the Federal Constitution is this: that the Constitution is above both Houses of
Parliament. That is the difference between it and our Houses of Parliament now. The Federal Parliament
must be above both Houses of Parliament, and they must conform to it, because it is in the charter
under which union takes place, and the guarantee of rights under which union takes place; and, unless 15
you have some authority for them to interpret [start page 592] that, what guarantee have you for
preserving their rights at all. It is very necessary to insert this provision in the Constitution, because if you
do not do that then these questions are questions of procedure between the two Houses in which undue
pressure may be brought to bear at any time on one House or other for the purpose of vetoing a law and doing
injustice to the States represented in that House in the different ways in which the States are represented. 20
END QUOTE

As an office holder of the Parliament the Speaker duties and obligations lies first of all to
his/her position above that to membership of a political party. It is not the political party
that pays the speakers salary! 25

There is a lot more to this all but safe to say that for the moment you have ample to
consider. I may have my self-professed crummy English but you would do better not to
concentrate on this but rather attend to the issues raised by me.
We do not so to say a traveling circus where Members of Parliament are running up huge cost to 30
taxpayers travelling around the world nothing to do with representing their constituents, and so
stop this rot.
When Mr Clive Palmer had his advertising for people to vote for him to b e Prime minister
I lodged a formal complaint that this was deceptive and misleading as we do not elect a
Prime Minister. Likewise candidates in State elections should not be permitted to deceive 35
electors as to vote for a Premier, because constitutionally we do not elect a Premier. It is the
prerogative power of the Governor to decide who shall be commissioned to be a Premier,
and the Governor is not bound to commission the leader of a political party, regardless if
this leader had the majority of the Members of Parliament to his party in the Legislative
Assembly! 40
Just consider that despite all those legal advisors calling themselves constitutional
lawyers (an oxymoron) etc, why then is so much going wrong? Why did none of them
realise so much was unconstitutional where I with my self-professed crummy English can
expose it?
Why have they not pursued that all Bills placed before the Parliament should be in so to 45
say plain English, that an unlettered person can understand?
.
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS: 50

p14 6-6-2014
A 1
st
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.
Yet even this simply requirement to provide laws in plain English seems to be beyond the
competence of the Parliament. 5

QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both. 10
Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is required
at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and,
without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very
life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would 15
give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most important part
of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters that have been
much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.
END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 20
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, from 25
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this
provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers 30
of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to
occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE

Those who claim a right to exercise a power such as a Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 35
because of the constitution then only can do so provided this person abides by the legal
principles embedded in the constitution. If a person cannot manage this due to
incompetence or otherwise then this person should be replaced with a person who can
accomplice this.
It seems to me that Mr Daniel Andrews would do better to drop his antics and so to say 40
clowning about and conduct himself as a responsible person as a Member of Parliament,
that is if he can still be deemed to be validly a member of parliament and is not deemed
ousted for having accepted payments that may constitute an Office of Profit and by this
made him ineligible to be a Member of Parliament.
How can Mr Daniel Andrews have a caucus meeting when the purported caucus meeting is 45
between Members of Parliament that have no constitutional recognition as a so called
shadow cabinet? Why indeed are they provided with special facilities in the Parliament,.
not likewise provided to independent Members of Parliament?

Below I have quoted a 5 June 2014 Herald Sun article and make some comments about it. 50

p15 6-6-2014
A 1
st

http://click.e.heraldsun.com.au/?qs=9f815d25a885d7116b7a3e76c22a3602db71e94926a1a36
7fef9506235de4ac039ac2e38c985e5a4
QUOTE
Premier Denis Napthine seeks legal advice in bid to dump rogue MP Geoff Shaw from 5
Parliament, and punish his crimes
by: Matt Johnston, Michelle Ainsworth, Annika Smethurst, Andrea Hamblin
From: Herald Sun
June 05, 2014 12:30PM
Vic govt getting legal advice on Shaw 5:39 10
Play video

Denis Napthine says the coalition is getting constitutional advice about rogue independent Geoff
Shaw.
Sky News 15
04 Jun 2014
News

Vic govt getting legal advice on Shaw
Denis Napthine says the coalition is getting constitutional advice about rogue independent Geoff 20
Shaw.
Sky News

p16 6-6-2014
A 1
st
04 Jun 2014
Close
PREMIER Denis Napthine has not denied the fate of maverick MP Geoff Shaw was raised
in breakfast conversations with the Governor of Victoria.
Dr Napthine said it was inappropriate to reveal the contents of their conversations, and refused to 5
be drawn on exactly what, if any, plans or issues were discussed.
However, he has spent the day reassuring the electorate that Mr Shaws crimes will be met
with the appropriate punishment.
Dr Napthine also used a press conference to tell media about one of the topics raised - the
Governors plans for a bio-technology trade mission, which the Premier said could be good news 10
for the Victorian economy.
As the fate of Mr Shaw remains in limbo, former premier Jeff Kennett has been among those
questioning whether there are sufficient grounds for Mr Shaw to be expelled.
But Dr Napthine said that, despite Mr Kennetts experience, he preferred to seek advice from
legal and constitutional experts. 15
His belief that legal advice must be sought before a decision about the balance-of-power MPs
punishment has drawn fire from opposition leader Daniel Andrews.
But Dr Napthine dismissed suggestions he was taking a weak approach and urged the opposition
not to play politics.
He referred to the constitutional crisis of 1975 to warn the Labor Party against blocking the 20
Budget in order to bring on an early election.
I dont think that blocking supply should be on the agenda of a political party, Dr Napthine
said.
Yesterday, a text message ultimatum delivered personally by Mr Shaw to Dr Napthine about the
Frankston MPs demands helped harden the Governments stance against Mr Shaw. 25
It emerged that both major parties had united to look at ways to suspend or expel him from
Parliament, ending the political sideshow.
But the timing and mechanism around dumping the rogue MP is uncertain, given it would be an
almost unprecedented manoeuvre.
A senior Liberal source said there were fears any bid to oust Mr Shaw could collapse if not done 30
carefully, pointing to when criminal charges against Mr Shaw were spectacularly withdrawn by
prosecutors last year.
While the State Governments headaches continue, Dr Napthine and Governor, Alex Chernov,
met for breakfast this morning but Dr Napthine said it was nothing out of the ordinary.

p17 6-6-2014
A 1
st
It remains unknown whether the Governor is supportive of proposals to expel or suspend Mr
Shaw and whether state leaders are confident whichever punishment is handed down will end the
Governments woes.
In line with long-standing tradition its not appropriate for the Premier to disclose his
discussions with the Governor, Dr Napthine said. 5
We did have discussions about a broad range of issues.

FURTHER COVERAGE
JUDICIAL DEMAND FOLLOWED COURT APPEARANCE
SHAUN CARNEY: VICTORIA DESCENDS INTO THEATRE OF THE ABSURD 10
FRANKSTON THE HOTTEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE

The State Opposition has vowed to push ahead on Tuesday with a bid to expel Mr Shaw
regardless.
This could see Frankston residents facing two polls in quick succession: a costly by-election if 15
Labors move to expel him is successful, followed by the general election that is due in
November.
Senior ministers told the Herald Sun the stance against Mr Shaw within Cabinet had hardened.
One minister said there was a willingness to lance the boil once and for all.
But a senior government source said expulsion may not be the end result, because it was not clear 20
whether this would be challenged in court.

Premier Denis Napthine and Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews agree its time for MP Geoff
Shaw to go. Source: News Corp Australia
Premier Napthine strengthened his language against Mr Shaw saying he needed to be held to 25
account for his actions.

p18 6-6-2014
A 1
st
We are getting appropriate constitutional and legal advice to make sure that Geoff Shaw is held
fully accountable for his actions and (that) any decision of the Parliament actually sticks and is
implemented, and is not challenged in the High Court, Dr Napthine said.
We need to make sure that Geoff Shaw is held fully accountable for his wrongful actions. He
must be made to pay the price, and we will ensure he pays the price. 5
Dr Napthine would not say whether a suspension or expulsion from Parliament was appropriate,
saying that was a decision for the Parliament.
Mr Shaw did not face the media yesterday, instead sending out an adviser who told a waiting
press pack the rogue independent MP would not be making a comment.
10
Denis Napthine says Geoff Shaw needs to be held accountable. Source: News Corp Australia
Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews declared: I will not allow Geoff Shaw to run this state, and
said he wanted him gone on Tuesday.
If I have my way, if theres a majority on the floor of the House. then Geoff Shaw will not be in
the Parliament any longer, Mr Andrews said. 15
Therefore, discussions about confidence arising from Mr Shaws lack of confidence in the
Premier are no longer relevant, he said.
Im not going to be doing deals with Geoff Shaw.
I want Geoff Shaw out of the Victorian Parliament and I will move that way next Tuesday, Mr
Andrews said. 20

p19 6-6-2014
A 1
st

Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews wants Geoff Shaw gone from Parliament. Picture: Alex
Coppel Source: News Corp Australia
The Opposition Leader said that if Mr Shaw were expelled, a by-election in the seat of Frankston
was very important, as the electorates voters were entitled to a voice in the State Parliament. 5
He said the parliamentary clerks had advised him that a Frankston by-election could be held on
July 12 or 19, at the earliest.
For the Opposition to attempt to force the vote on whether Mr Shaw was in contempt of the
Parliament, it would need to have the Government bring forward a debate on the Legislative
Assemblys Privileges Committee report on Mr Shaws conduct. 10
It is unclear if that would occur on Tuesday, given that the Government wants to concentrate on
passing its Budget first.
>>>
LABOR MPs MEET ON CRISIS
VICTORIAN Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews has called an urgent caucus meeting for this 15
morning to explain to his Labor backbenchers his dramatic approach to the Geoff Shaw crisis.
It follows an attempt by the Labor Party to gag its MPs and candidates on social media on the
night Mr Andrews called for Governor Alex Chernov to intervene in the dispute over the
Frankston independent.

p20 6-6-2014
A 1
st
Some Labor MPs have questioned the Labor leaders tactics, including his trying to embroil the
Governor.
Others are annoyed that Mr Andrews has not focused more on the Liberal Partys original
endorsement of Mr Shaw to stand as an MP, thereby leaving the responsibility for the rogue
MPs future to his former political masters. 5
It is understood shadow Cabinet has endorsed Mr Andrews broad strategy, which will be
outlined to the Labor backbenchers today.
A senior Labor source said the meeting had been called early to provide an explanation to MPs.
It was necessary that it be held this week because of a public holiday next Monday.
The source said that it was natural for there to be a mixture of views about a controversial issue. 10
On Tuesday night, Labor tried to gag MPs and candidates from commenting on the states
political drama on social media.
Premier Denis Napthine had said he would not be held to ransom by Mr Shaw, after which Mr
Andrews declared he said he would seek a meeting with the Premier.
A directive from Mr Andrewss office urged Labor MPs to refrain from any further comment on 15
tonights events until further notice - particularly on social media.
Another directive from Labor headquarters urged candidates to hold their tongues.
Candidates should make no public comment about this issue, including on social media, without
prior authorisation from Head Office, the directive said.
>>> 20
WHAT COULD HAPPEN WHEN STATE PARLIAMENT
RESUMES

p21 6-6-2014
A 1
st
A look at what could happen next. Source: HeraldSun
END QUOTE

While it now is about the government seeking legal advice to deal with Mr Geoff Shaw, as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST I view it has absolutely nothing to do with the government as the 5
Executives of the State are about governing and not about internal parliamentarian
matters as that is for the speaker in the Legislative Assembly to deal with.

http://click.e.heraldsun.com.au/?qs=9f815d25a885d7116b7a3e76c22a3602db71e94926a1a367fef9506235de4ac
039ac2e38c985e5a4 10
QUOTE
Premier Denis Napthine seeks legal advice in bid to dump rogue MP Geoff Shaw from Parliament, and
punish his crimes
END QUOTE
15
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/premier-denis-napthine-seeks-legal-advice-in-bid-to-dump-rogue-mp-
geoff-shaw-from-parliament-and-punish-his-crimes/story-fni0fit3-
1226943529873?sv=119162a70f2e421121e31b3c50c2dd5
QUOTE
However, he has spent the day reassuring the electorate that Mr Shaws crimes will be met with the 20
appropriate punishment.
END QUOTE

Moment, since when is a person deemed to have committed crimes when not convicted
by a court of law? 25
.
.
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-It is as follows:- 30
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
END QUOTE
35
QUOTE
Mr. KINGSTON.-What does the honorable and learned member mean by the term "due process of law"?
Mr. OCONNOR.-The amendment will insure proper administration of the laws, and afford their protection
to every citizen. 40
Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already.
Mr. OCONNOR.-In what way?
Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the alteration of these
Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent the alteration of these Constitutions 45
in the direction of depriving any citizen of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

p22 6-6-2014
A 1
st
Because if this provision in the Constitution is carried it will not be in the power of any state to pass a
law to amend its Constitution to do that. It is a declaration of liberty and freedom in our dealing with
citizens of the Commonwealth. Not only can there be no harm in placing it in the Constitution, but it is
also necessary for the protection of the liberty of everybody who lives within the limits of any State.
END QUOTE 5

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be 10
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a 15
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
It seems to me that Parliament may hold a person in breach of its rules but this I view
cannot be considered to be a crime or crimes as seems to be purported by Premier
Napthine. It would be in my view deceptive and misleading to submit to members of the 20
legislative Assembly to vote upon crimes Mr Geoff Shaw allegedly committed. Clearly
the bias against Mr Geoff Shaw has been shown and already appears to me to have caused
constituents to so to say turn against Mr Geoff Shaw, this even to my knowledge Mr Geoff
Shaw since entering Parliament has not at all been convicted by a court of competent
jurisdiction of any crime or crimes that would justify him to be expelled from the 25
Parliament. If therefore both Mr Dennis Naptine as Premier and Mr Daniel Andrews as
self appointed Opposition leader are deceiving other members of Parliament about the
alleged crime or crimes by Mr Geoff Shaw then we got a major problem in the
parliament. I view that you as Speaker have the duty to call in those Members such as Mr
Dennis Naptine and Mr Daniel Andrews and so to say read them the riot act that they 30
should not deceive other members of parliament or the public and that their conduct
already must be perceived as a CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT and ought to be
themselves first be subject to perhaps a suspension for their undue allegations against Mr
Geoff Shaw allegedly having committed crimes for which he is to be punished.
You cannot have the Premier Dennis Napthine and Mr Daniel Andrews attacking the 35
credibility of a fellow Member of the Legislative assembly and accused him of having
committed crimes to which they are to deal when no such crimes at least to my
knowledge were held to have eventuated by a court of law as to cause a conviction!
Mr Dennis Napthine and Mr Daniel Andrews may perhaps, as I understand it have done a
deal to oust Mr Geoff Shaw for his alleged crimes, but I for one would view that a Speaker 40
of the Legislative Assembly cannot tolerate such conduct by either of them and in the
process also undermine the authority of the Speaker.
Let Mr Denis Napthine prove to the Legislative Assembly that Mr Geoff Shaw committed
crimes and was convicted by Court of competent jurisdiction that justify the Legislative
assembly to oust Mr Geoff Shaw or to punish him otherwise? 45

p23 6-6-2014
A 1
st
If Mr Denis Napthine as Premier and supposing to be a constitutional advisor to the
Premier himself is unable to understand and comprehend what is constitutionally
appropriate and/or the rules of the Legislative assembly then it place in question in my
view his competence to be a Premier.
. 5
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
The resolutions conclude:
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend 10
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
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial 15
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
20
While the premier may not disclose his discussions with the Governor, nevertheless I for
one have concerns that the Premier may have misled/deceived the Governor as to Mr Geoff
Shaws legal position. We also should understand that the Framers of the Constitution held
that even a person convicted of crimes may having served his punishment then be elected to
the Parliament. What really was perceived by the Framers to Constitute a crime; 25

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: At first I thought it would be necessary to have some provision of this sort, but now I think
it is unnecessary. In the clause it is prescribed that [start page 1183] an elector "shall have only one vote"; as 30
to the Senate and as to the House of Representatives I intend to move, on the recommittal of the clause, that
the matter shall be turned into a direct prohibition; that is, that "no elector shall vote more than once." A
breach will be a Statutory misdemeanor, and the offender can be punished, this being an Imperial Statute, in
the same way as he would be for a breach of any other Imperial Statute applying to the colonies, such as the
merchant shipping laws. Lest there should be any doubt in connection with the giving of a vote, when there is 35
a distinct law against it, there is a passage in Russell on "Crimes," which the legal members of the
Convention will be satisfied with. It is in the fifth edition, page 192:
Where an offence is not so at common law, but made an offence by Act of Parliament, an indictment
will lie where there is a substantive prohibitory clause in such Statute, though there be afterward a
particular provision and a particular remedy given. Thus, an unqualified person may be indicted for 40
acting as an attorney contrary to the 6 and 7 Vict., c. 73, a. 2, although sec. 35 and sec. 36 enact that in
case any person shall so act he shall be incapable of recovering his fees, and such offence shall be
deemed a contempt of court, and punishable accordingly.
That is to say, although the Statute provides a distinct means of punishment, yet if by the disregard of the
prohibition a misdemeanor is committed, a court can convict the offender of that misdemeanor and may fine 45
or imprison him. The passage continues:
And it is stated as an established principle that when a new offence is created by an Act of Parliament
and a penalty is annexed to it by a separate and substantive clause, it is not necessary for the
prosecutor to sue for the penalty, but he may proceed on the prior clause on the ground of its being a
misdemeanor; and wherever a Statute forbids the doing of a thing, the doing of it wilfully, although 50
without any corrupt motive, is indictable.

p24 6-6-2014
A 1
st
Wherever the Statute, as I intend to ask the House to make it in this case, says that no elector shall vote
more than once, there is a distinct prohibition, and voting more than once wilfully will be a crime and
misdemeanor, and the courts will be able to punish by fine or imprisonment. They will have the distinct
power. There is in all of these colonies an electoral law, and power to alter it, until Parliament otherwise
provides, and if there are not distinct provisions for punishment for such offences, it is still in the power of 5
the State law to subject the offenders to such punishment as it prescribes. But even if that were not done, the
case is distinctly met by the Statutory prohibition, which will be imposed by the form in which we propose to
put it, and, I think, my hon. friend will agree that his new clause will not be necessary.
Mr. ISAACS: I suppose you propose to put in words to make it a misdemeanor.
Mr. BARTON: If necessary; but where the statute expressly forbids it is a misdemeanor without further 10
words.
Dr. QUICK: Without any corrupt motive is it indictable?
Mr. BARTON: Although there may be no corruption in the doing of the act, if it is done intentionally it is
indictable.
Mr. HIGGINS: What words do you propose to put in? 15
Mr. BARTON: I propose to alter the words "each elector shall have only one vote" to "no elector
shall vote more than once," and that being a distinct statutory prohibition will meet the case.
END QUOTE
QUOTE 20
it is unnecessary. In the clause it is prescribed that [start page 1183] an elector "shall have only one vote"; as
breach will be a Statutory misdemeanor, and the offender can be punished, this being an Imperial Statute, in 25
merchant shipping laws. Lest there should be any doubt in connection with the giving of a vote, when there is
Where an offence is not so at common law, but made an offence by Act of Parliament, an indictment 30
particular provision and a particular remedy given. Thus, an unqualified person may be indicted for
deemed a contempt of court, and punishable accordingly. 35
prohibition a misdemeanor is committed, a court can convict the offender of that misdemeanor and may fine
and a penalty is annexed to it by a separate and substantive clause, it is not necessary for the 40
misdemeanor; and wherever a Statute forbids the doing of a thing, the doing of it wilfully, although
more than once, there is a distinct prohibition, and voting more than once wilfully will be a crime and 45

p25 6-6-2014
A 1
st
provides, and if there are not distinct provisions for punishment for such offences, it is still in the power of
case is distinctly met by the Statutory prohibition, which will be imposed by the form in which we propose to 5
Mr. BARTON: If necessary; but where the statute expressly forbids it is a misdemeanor without further
words.
Dr. QUICK: Without any corrupt motive is it indictable? 10
indictable.
Mr. HIGGINS: What words do you propose to put in?
shall vote more than once," and that being a distinct statutory prohibition will meet the case. 15
END QUOTE
QUOTE
it is unnecessary. In the clause it is prescribed that [start page 1183] an elector "shall have only one vote"; as 20
merchant shipping laws. Lest there should be any doubt in connection with the giving of a vote, when there is 25
particular provision and a particular remedy given. Thus, an unqualified person may be indicted for 30
prohibition a misdemeanor is committed, a court can convict the offender of that misdemeanor and may fine 35
misdemeanor; and wherever a Statute forbids the doing of a thing, the doing of it wilfully, although 40
power. There is in all of these colonies an electoral law, and power to alter it, until Parliament otherwise 45

p26 6-6-2014
A 1
st
Mr. ISAACS: I suppose you propose to put in words to make it a misdemeanor. 5
words.
indictable. 10
END QUOTE
QUOTE
it is unnecessary. In the clause it is prescribed that [start page 1183] an elector "shall have only one vote"; as
the matter shall be turned into a direct prohibition; that is, that "no elector shall vote more than once." A 20
merchant shipping laws. Lest there should be any doubt in connection with the giving of a vote, when there is
Convention will be satisfied with. It is in the fifth edition, page 192: 25
particular provision and a particular remedy given. Thus, an unqualified person may be indicted for
case any person shall so act he shall be incapable of recovering his fees, and such offence shall be 30
prohibition a misdemeanor is committed, a court can convict the offender of that misdemeanor and may fine
And it is stated as an established principle that when a new offence is created by an Act of Parliament 35
misdemeanor; and wherever a Statute forbids the doing of a thing, the doing of it wilfully, although
Wherever the Statute, as I intend to ask the House to make it in this case, says that no elector shall vote 40
the State law to subject the offenders to such punishment as it prescribes. But even if that were not done, the 45

p27 6-6-2014
A 1
st
words. 5
indictable.
Mr. BARTON: I propose to alter the words "each elector shall have only one vote" to "no elector 10
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences 15
committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to
which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was in
conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity to
change the venue, and select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in
modern or in ancient times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by 20
an Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I do
not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the honorable member a state of affairs
in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive.
It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular
state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to 25
exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences
against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its
condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was
originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which
should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the 30
citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by
this Constitution.
END QUOTE

Now that we know what the Framers of the Constitution held about conviction, etc, we 35
may also now understand that the Parliament itself cannot punish a person for any alleged
crime. A breach of Rules of the Parliament cannot be deemed a crime unless it was
resulting to a conviction before a court of law.
.
HANSARD 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates 40
QUOTE
There is only one other point which I will mention-it is perhaps more a matter of verbiage than anything else-
that is, the clause which provides that a convicted criminal shall not be entitled to sit in the new parliament
until he is discharged or pardoned. That is rather an unhappy clause. It is not a cardinal principle of the bill;
but it is an unhappy provision, and I should be glad to see it omitted altogether. 45
END QUOTE


p28 6-6-2014
A 1
st
QUOTE
Clause 37. The place of a member of the house of representatives shall become vacant if for one whole
session of the parliament he, without permission of the house of representatives entered on its journals,
fails to give his attendance in the house.
Mr. GORDON: I move as an amendment: 5
That the words "one whole," line 3, be omitted with a view to the insertion of the words "four
consecutive weeks during a."
It appears to me that as members are to be paid 500 a year it is not right to allow a member the
opportunity of nursing his seat during a whole session without the leave of the house, and in defiance,
perhaps, of the wishes of his constituents. 10
Mr. DEAKIN: Surely four weeks is a little too short. A member who neglects his duties will certainly
be brought to book by his constituents. I am in sympathy with the hon. member, but I would suggest
that he should increase the period to eight or ten weeks.
Sir JOHN DOWNER: I entirely agree with the amendment. It appears to [start page 641] me that
when a man is paid 500 a year he should not be absent from his duty for four weeks without giving 15
some reason for it. Any reasonable explanation which he can give will always be accepted. That system
has existed in the South Australian legislature for a long time.
Mr. FITZGERALD: This is really a very small matter. I hope the feeling which will actuate members
of this highly responsible body will be such as to induce them not to be absent, and that consideration
of pay will have no influence with them. I think the clause may be safely allowed to pass. We might 20
very well trust that no member would be absent without good and sufficient reason. To tie a member
down to two, three, or five weeks, appears to me to be a reflection upon the character of this future
parliament which is unworthy of the Convention.
Mr. MUNRO: It appears to me that hon. members wish to make an exception in regard to members
of one chamber, and not of another. Surely, if the representatives who have not to go to the trouble and 25
expense of an election, are to be allowed to remain away a whole session, without being interfered with,
it is not fair play to those who have to go to the trouble and expense of an election, to declare their seats
vacant, if they are absent for a month.
Mr. GILLIES: It is state rights!
Mr. MUNRO: Well, it is personal wrongs. 30
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I should like to know whether this provision is in force in any parliament
in the world?
Mr. PLAYFORD: Yes, in South Australia!
Mr. GILLIES: That is the most exceptional country in the world!
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I remember that a session of parliament was once called in Queensland. 35
Two members were absent the whole of the session, and of course they lost their seats. They never
heard of the session until after parliament had been prorogued, although they were in the country.
That may happen in this instance. Who knows but that a session may be held, and a member may be
away at the other end of the world, and who is to say that parliament will give him leave of absence?
Let his constituents deal with him. 40
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: I shall vote for the limited time, but with the view of recommitting clause
19, and putting the same restriction in that.

p29 6-6-2014
A 1
st
Dr. COCKBURN: I shall vote for the excision of these words, for I think that a whole session is far
too long a period for a member to be absent. On the other hand, in voting for the excision of these
words, I do not bind myself to vote for four weeks, which I think is rather too short. I think that we
might very well say two months. I hope that my hon. friend, Mr. Gordon, will accept this suggestion.
Mr. BAKER: Either eight or four weeks might be longer than a session. Parliament might be 5
suddenly called together, and the session might not last a week, and as the hon. and learned member,
Sir Samuel Griffith, pointed out, some members might never have heard of it.
Amendment negatived; clause, as read, agreed to.
Clause 38. Upon the happening of a vacancy in the house of representatives, the speaker shall, upon a
resolution of the house, issue his writ for the election of a new member. 10
In the case of a vacancy by death or resignation happening when the parliament is not in session, or
during an adjournment of the house for a period of which a part longer than seven days is unexpired,
the speaker, or if there is no speaker, or he is absent from the commonwealth, the governor-general
shall issue, or cause to be issued, a writ without such resolution.
Dr. COCKBURN: I would ask the hon. and learned member, Sir Samuel Griffith, what is the 15
meaning of the words "upon a resolution of the house"? It seems to me that that is unnecessary. I think
the fact of a vacancy occurring [start page 642] should, without any intervention of a distinct
resolution, cause the speaker or the president, as the case might be, to issue a writ for a fresh election. I
think that any delay in this matter might be very serious to the smaller states, who have only a small
number of representatives, and, without liking to suggest that party considerations or state rights 20
considerations might interfere so as to delay a resolution, I would suggest that it would be better to
strike out those words, and, as I know is the case in South Australia, and, I believe elsewhere, let the
speaker, directly a vacancy occurs, proclaim it, and issue a writ for a fresh election. I do not think it is
well that any unnecessary delay should occur even in regard to our state legislatures; and it is all the
more necessary that no delay should occur in the case of members of the house of representatives, who 25
would have a double duty to perform-to look after not only the people of Australia as a whole, but also
to a certain extent the special privileges and rights of the states they represent. I move:
That the clause be amended by the omission of the words "upon a resolution of the house," line 3.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I would point out to my hon. friend that he has omitted to consider that
vacancies in the house might occur by a great many means, and that there must be some judge as to 30
whether the vacancies have occurred. It is provided, for instance, in clause 44:
If any question arises respecting the qualification of a member, or a vacancy in the house of
representatives, the same shall be heard and determined by the house of representatives.
If those words were left out the speaker would be the judge. Some one might come and tell him, "So-
and-so has become insolvent"; that might or might not be true. Some one might tell him, " So-and-so 35
has become a government contractor." How is the speaker to know whether that in-true or not?
Mr. FYSH: That would be a very awkward question for the house to decide!
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If a member had either taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power or
had been convicted of a crime, how would the speaker know that?
Mr. GILLIES: What is the meaning of the words, "upon the happening of a vacancy"? 40
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Whenever the seat of a member becomes vacant.
Mr. GILLIES: Who is to determine it?
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The house.

p30 6-6-2014
A 1
st
Mr. MUNRO: That would not do!
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Is the hon. member aware that every constitution provides for it? The
stereotyped words are, "Upon a resolution of the house declaring such vacancy." When a member of
the house becomes either a government contractor or a bankrupt, does the speaker exercise the power
of declaring that member's seat vacant? I have known instances where serious questions have arisen as 5
to whether the writ should or should not be issued-in cases of bankruptcy, for instance. Suppose a man
is adjudged a bankrupt, and lodges an appeal against the adjudication, would not the house, under
those circumstances, decline to issue the writ until it knew the result of the appeal? Of course it would.
Some one must exercise that discretion, and it cannot be left to the speaker. In every parliament of
which I know this is the practice. 10
Dr. COCKBURN: The exceptional cases that the hon. and learned member mentions-such as
members becoming government contractors-are already provided for in clause 48, where it is laid
down that in those cases either the senate or the house of representatives are to be the judges. I take it
that this clause applies more to vacancies such as those caused by death.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: No! 15
[start page 643]
Dr. COCKBURN: In clause 44 it is laid down that where the question respecting the qualification of
a member, or a vacancy in the house of representatives, is debatable at all, it is to be determined by the
house of representatives. I think that in all cases where the fact of a vacancy can be called in question
there should be an adjudication either by some tribunal of justice or by some resolution of the house. 20
But in the case of a vacancy occurring in consequence of death it is not necessary to declare the
vacancy by a resolution. I am speaking of the time when the house is in session, and legislation is in
active operation.
Mr. FITZGERALD: No harm, then!
Dr. COCKBURN: There might be harm. One vote might make all the difference; and there might be 25
a certainty that when the vacancy was filled up it would be known on which side the vote would be
given; and that might make all the difference in the-world. I say, leave it to the speaker to act on his
own motion, and not on a resolution which might be brought forward for party purposes; and we know
very often that party feeling does run very high.
Mr. FITZGERALD: How would it be when the facts were disputed? 30
Dr. COCKBURN: Where there is any dispute, it would be governed by clause 44. I think it is a
mistake to retain the words to which I object; but, if the feeling of hon. members is against me, I do not
wish to occupy their time. I think the words are superfluous; and it would be better if they were left
out. But, although I have moved that they be struck out, I will not divide the Committee on the
question. 35
Mr. DONALDSON: I think there is a great deal of force in the contention of the hon. gentleman.
There will be large constituencies represented in the federal parliament, and it will take a considerable
time before a member can be returned, and several more days might elapse before he could attend in
his place in parliament, and during that time very important questions might be hanging in the
balance. I do not believe in any state being practically disfranchised through not having an opportunity 40
of returning a member in a case where be would lose his seat through insolvency, or perhaps through
treason, or through being convicted of an infamous crime. All these disqualifications are provided for
in clause 44, and I do not think there can be the slightest objection to provide for them in this clause; in
fact, I think there can be no doubt that words should be added to the clause to provide for a case in
which a man is convicted of either treason or an infamous crime. I can understand that when a man 45
either resigns or dies the speaker has power to issue a writ to have the vacancy filled; but I know that
in Queensland, in a case of insolvency, a vacancy once existed for some time after the meeting of the
House. It was reported to the House early in the session, of course, but before the writ was issued and
returned some three or four weeks elapsed, and I believe that a longer period than that will be required

p31 6-6-2014
A 1
st
in connection with the federal parliament. I have no strong feeling on the point, but I believe we would
be acting fairly by inserting these other provisions in the clause.
Amendment negatived; clause, as read, agreed to.
END QUOTE
5
QUOTE
Clause 46. Any person-
(1.) Who has taken an oath or made a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence
to a foreign power, or has done any act whereby he has become a subject or citizen or entitled to the rights or 10
privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or
(2.) Who is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent, or a public defaulter; or
(3.) Who is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or member of the house of representatives until
the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the expiration of the sentence, or a pardon, or release, 15
or otherwise.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I think in line 16, after the word "expiration" the words "or remission" ought to
be inserted.
Mr. WRIXON: If my hon. friend will allow me, before the amendment is put, I wish the Convention to
consider whether it is necessary to have these words at all: 20
until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge or the expiration of the sentence, or a pardon, or
release, or otherwise.
It seems to me that it would be better to leave out those words and to provide that if a man is convicted of
treason, felony, or an infamous crime, he shall be disqualified.
Mr. CLARK: For ever,? 25
Mr. MUNRO: Yes!
Mr. WRIXON: There is a great awkwardness in saying that a man is not to be chosen until he is
discharged; but in addition to that, looking to the broad principle, if a man is convicted of one of these serious
crimes, I do not think it is an unreasonable thing to disqualify him for a position of trust which he would
receive as a member of parliament. It is not an additional penalty upon him. It is done much on the same 30
prudential motives which would induce us not to nominate such a man as a trustee in our private affairs.
Mr. CLARK: It is left to your own choice!
Mr. WRIXON: Here you say, on the face of your law, that a man convicted of a serious offence is
disqualified until be gets out of prison. That, I think, is a mistake, and it would be well to omit the words I
have quoted. 35
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: You mean that it should read "who has been attainted"!
Mr. WRIXON: There is one case I admit which ought to be provided for. It is the case, and the very
unusual case, of ail innocent man who may have been convicted and afterwards pardoned. But I
propose, after leaving out the words I have quoted, to add a few words providing for that case.

p32 6-6-2014
A 1
st
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The hon. member should say "who has been attainted," otherwise the clause
would be ambiguous!
Mr. WRIXON: Certainly I would say, "who has been" instead of "who is," and then I would strike out the
words I have quoted with a view to insert these words:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who shall receive a free pardon from 5
the Crown.
Amendment (Mr. WRIXON) proposed:
That the word is," line 11, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "has been."
Sir GEORGE GREY: The proposed amendment raises a point of considerable [start page 656]
importance. A bill was sent home to the Imperial Parliament some time ago containing a clause in the 10
form in which this amendment would make this particular clause. On the question being argued in
parliament it was decided to add to the clause words similar to those it is now proposed to strike out. I
was satisfied from the discussion which took place upon the subject that the provision as originally
drawn by me was wrong, and that all hope of reform ought not to be cut off from a man. It is proposed,
not only to give him the punishment the law has allotted to his offence, but when he has undergone that 15
punishment, you send him forth with a brand upon him which he can never wipe out. There is less
danger really in allowing a man who has undergone the sentence the law has imposed, and which he
was entitled to receive, to afterwards go free, and thus have a chance of reformation. There is much
less harm done to the community in that way than in condemning a man to an unknown punishment.
The judge in delivering his sentence would not take this other matter into consideration, and yet the 20
additional heavy penalty is inflicted on the man. He is literally sent out a pariah among his fellow-
countrymen without any hope of being restored to his former social status. By no good conduct could
be relieve himself of the result of the errors of his past life. His children would also know that their
father had been guilty of a crime of which they might not otherwise have heard, and disgrace might be
brought upon a family for one or two generations. I think it would be better to leave the clause as the 25
British Parliament left it.
Mr. RUTLEDGE: I hope the Committee will not accept the amendment; and I hope hon. members will
carefully consider the influence which it would be likely to have. Take the case of a man who may be
convicted of what may be technically called a felony, although it might not be more than the stealing of a 5-
note. He would be at once stamped as a man belonging to a class who could not by any subsequent good 30
conduct establish a claim to such recognition as is implied in the possibility of election to the federal
legislature. I consider, also, that we are doing an injustice to men who may perhaps have passed all their
lifetime in Australia, whose antecedents are all known. If any one of these men had made a slip in his early
youth, it would at once become known. We are thus establishing a condition of things decidedly
disadvantageous to those who have passed the whole of their lifetime under the eyes of their fellow- 35
Australians as against a man who may come here to-morrow, and about whom no one may know
anything. In our liberality yesterday we decided to make any man who comes here from abroad, and
who has fulfilled the usual six months residence, enabling him to be registered as a voter in any one of
the states, eligible for election to the house of representatives.
END QUOTE 40

It must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution held that to expel a person from the
Parliament should be for serious crimes committed while being a Member of Parliament.
Even if a court of law were to have convicted Mr Geoff Shaw (not that I seek to imply it
would have) then considering serious other matters committed by Members of Parliament 45
it would have been at the extreme low and of offences.
If we were to suspend/expel any Member of Parliament for what was alleged against Mr
Geoff Shaw then better all Members of Parliament consider themselves also to be
suspended, in view what I have set out, also in my books published in the INSPECTOR-
RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues. 50

p33 6-6-2014
A 1
st
What appears to me is that Mr Denis Napthine and Mr Daniel Andrews seem to make this
rather a personal issue against Mr Geoff Shaw and are willing to undermine the credibility
of the Legislative Assembly in the process to inflict whatever harm they can against Mr
Geoff Shaw.
This I view no Speaker can tolerate this kind of conduct regardless if it 5
happens to b e a Premier and/or the leader of a politic a party!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/premier-denis-napthine-seeks-legal-advice-in-bid-to-dump-
rogue-mp-geoff-shaw-from-parliament-and-punish-his-crimes/story-fni0fit3-
1226943529873?sv=119162a70f2e421121e31b3c50c2dd5 10
QUOTE
But Dr Napthine said that, despite Mr Kennetts experience, he preferred to seek advice from legal and
constitutional experts.
END QUOTE
15
1226943529873?sv=119162a70f2e421121e31b3c50c2dd5
QUOTE
But the timing and mechanism around dumping the rogue MP is uncertain, given it would be an almost 20
unprecedented manoeuvre.
A senior Liberal source said there were fears any bid to oust Mr Shaw could collapse if not done carefully,
pointing to when criminal charges against Mr Shaw were spectacularly withdrawn by prosecutors last year.
END QUOTE
25
1226943529873?sv=119162a70f2e421121e31b3c50c2dd5
QUOTE
We are getting appropriate constitutional and legal advice to make sure that Geoff Shaw is held fully 30
accountable for his actions and (that) any decision of the Parliament actually sticks and is implemented, and
is not challenged in the High Court, Dr Napthine said.
We need to make sure that Geoff Shaw is held fully accountable for his wrongful actions. He must be
made to pay the price, and we will ensure he pays the price.
END QUOTE 35

1226943529873?sv=119162a70f2e421121e31b3c50c2dd5
QUOTE 40
Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews declared: I will not allow Geoff Shaw to run this state, and said he
wanted him gone on Tuesday.
END QUOTE

So now not the Governor but Mr Daniel Andrews determines who shall run the state? 45
Is he already or becoming the dictator?

1226943529873?sv=119162a70f2e421121e31b3c50c2dd5 50
QUOTE

Newest | Oldest | Top Comments

Gerrit just now 55
pending

p34 6-6-2014
A 1
st
I have canvassed extensively at my blog http://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati relevant matters and due to
post more on 6 June 2014 also exposing as what I consider the hypocritical conduct of Mr Daniel Andrews.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view he ought to address his own unconstitutional conduct first before
pointing the finger at anyone else.
We as taxpayers can do without the shanicans and if Mr Geoff Shaw were to b e re-elected then what did we 5
achieve? after all, he is entitled to stand for re-election. then other then wasting millions of dollars on a by-
election we still have others defrauding the taxpayers but obviously neither Mr Daniel Andrews of Mr D
Napthine have any concern for this. Perhaps bring on a VELVET REVOLUTION to reclaim out
constitutional and other legal rights and dump them all in the process.
END QUOTE 10

Let us be clear about it even if Mr Geoff Shaw had committed the abuses (not that I seek to
imply he was guilty of any alleged offences) it still would be at the lower end of the scale of
offences having been committed by fellow Members of Parliament. However Premier
Dennis Napthine and Mr Daniel Andrews both as leaders of the respective parties are so to 15
say making out as if Mr Geoff Shaw is as guilty as a convicted mass murder to which no
punishment can be too severe. Mr Daniel Andrews may be the leader of a political party
and may be a member of parliament but I view as he is not a Minister of the Crown
commissioned by the government as a constitutional advisor then he has no position to
receive an kind of special financial benefits n or ordinary provided to an independent 20
Member of Parliament and as such if receiving a salary then he must be deemed to hold
an Office of Profit and cannot remain in the Parliament, and so others like him.
I view that as the Speaker of the Legislative assembly it is your duty to check if Mr Daniel
Andrews and any others are receiving unconstitutional payments and as such can be
deemed in a position of Office of Profit and as such cannot be permitted to vote in the 25
circumstances unless and until their own position are appropriately investigated and
finding concluded.
.
If you as the Speaker tolerate this kind of conduct then I view your position as a Speaker
should be reconsidered. I have gone through some considerable effort to present you this 30
set out but it must be understood it is not my intention and neither must it be perceived
that this are all relevant details and information. There is a huge amount of material
further but I view the above stated should be sufficient to realise that so to say ousting Mr
Geoff Shaw from the Parliament may not just in the circumstances be a grave injustice but
may likely result in a successful intervention if so pursued by the High Court of Australia 35
and perhaps subsequently he may successfully sue those involved, perhaps also you as
Speaker for failing to protect his rights as a Member of Parliament.
In the end it may serve Mr Daniel Andrews political purpose to gain the upper hand in the
forthcoming State election but should this really be what this is all about? It appears to me
that Premier Dennis Napthine is desperate and so seeks to make a play for the electors as if 40
he is standing up against Mr Geoff Shaw who he alleges committed crimes and in my
view both should do better leave Parliament as both in my view are in the circumstances
not suitable to be Premier of Victoria. It appears to me that whomever Premier Dennis
Napthine and so Mr Daniel Andrews consulted may not particularly be competent in giving
the advice they may have given. But then again it was their choice of consultants. 45
.
QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House
of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration)
Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and painstaking
consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the consideration was sufficient 50
in law.
END QUOTE

DPP v Field [2001] VSC 472 (29 November 2001)

p35 6-6-2014
A 1
st
QUOTE
24. Section 35 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides that in the interpretation of the provision of
an Act consideration may be given to any matter or document that is relevant, including reports of
proceedings in any House of the Parliament. The section further provides that a construction that would
promote the purpose or object underlying an Act is to be preferred to a construction that would not promote that 5
purpose or object. Those provisions are well known.
QUOTE
.
DPP v Field [2001] VSC 472 (29 November 2001)
QUOTE 10
24. Section 35 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides that in the interpretation of the provision of
an Act consideration may be given to any matter or document that is relevant, including reports of
proceedings in any House of the Parliament. The section further provides that a construction that would
promote the purpose or object underlying an Act is to be preferred to a construction that would not promote that
purpose or object. Those provisions are well known. 15
QUOTE
.
While Mr Dennis Napthine as premier may make statements alleging crimes committed
by Mr Geoff Shaw, as a Member of Parliament of the Legislative Assembly making such a
statement in public without the protection of the Parliament I view makes him liable to 20
libel. But, I view the Speaker cannot tolerate to allow any Member of Parliament to make
allegations against another Member of Parliament of having committed crimes wharfed
as I understand it no such crimes were held by any court of jurisdiction to have been
committed in regard of which Parliament has power to inflict any kind of punishment.
Ordinary, the Courts apply a punishment upon a person convicted and I know of no 25
provision that allows the Parliament to inflict a punishment in addition of what a Court
may have applied. Breaches against Rules of the Legislative Assembly (of the Parliament)
cannot be considered to be crimes as such as is understood to be against enacted laws.
Hence, I view in that regard there can be no issue as to refer to crimes as such.
30
Why on earth Mr Geoff Shaw is referred to as a rough Member of Parliament also ought to
be questioned as to what I understand Members of Parliament are ordinary about I for one
would not consider that Mr Geoff Shaw could be rightfully referred to as being a rough
Member of Parliament. Again I will quote the previous email I received alrfeady quoted in
my previous correspondence: 35
QUOTE EMAIL 11-5-2014
Fw: NRL... ??This will open your eyes... - read to the end..
Hans Mitterer The Trash that floats upon DemoCrazy - - greetings Hans I wonder if this
can possibly be true? CAN IT ALL BE TRUE? I hope it's not true! AFL vs NRL...This will
open your eyes... 36 have been accused o 40
To Undisclosed-Recipient@
11 May

The Trash that floats upon DemoCrazy - - greetings Hans
I wonder if this can possibly be true? CAN IT ALL BE TRUE? I hope it's not true! 45

AFL vs NRL...This will open your eyes...

p36 6-6-2014
A 1
st
36 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad cheques
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits and
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the
last year

Can you guess which
organization this is?
AFL? NRL?

p37 6-6-2014
A 1
st
Give up yet? . . .. .
Scroll down

Neither,
it's the 535 members of
theAUSTRALIAN
PARLIAMENT

in CANBERRA

The same group of Idiots that
crank out hundreds of new laws
each year, designed to keep the
rest of us in line.

You've got to pass this
one on!

END QUOTE EMAIL 11-5-2014

p38 6-6-2014
A 1
st
Again, we should have a register of past and (during the lifetime of the Parliament) current
convictions of all Members of Parliament both in State and Federal Parliament so we all
can consider what really might be referred to as a rough Member of Parliament, albeit
considering that only convictions obtained during the life of the parliament can be
considered to be relevant as any convictions existing prior to the election having been held 5
cannot be relied upon this as the electors clearly voted for this person, irrespective if they
knew or didnt know about any convictions. After all, many who migrate to Australia and
subsequently are elected Members of Parliament may have a hidden criminal record they
may have been able to conceal since arriving in the Commonwealth of Australia. That is
also why the Framers of the Constitution held that it must relate to crimes committed and 10
convicted of within the Commonwealth of Australia. After all a person might be convicted
in another country of what is deemed to be a crime whereas within the Commonwealth of
Australia it might not be a crime at all. It is only relevant to the Commonwealth of
Australia if a person had hidden a criminal record and naturalised and afterwards the
Commonwealth of Australia held that the naturalisation having been the product of gross 15
deception cannot stand. Then automatically the person loses any rights as to franchise and
so to sit in a Parliament within the Commonwealth of Australia, being it state or Federal.

For the record, I had no communication whatsoever with Mr Geoff Shaw regarding the
content of this correspondence and neither sought to contact him about it. I view that as a 20
CONSTITUTIONALIST and a taxpayers I am entitled to present my views about the
matters as I understand them to be.

Mr Geoff Shaw will obviously be provided also with a copy of this writing in view that he is 25
the core subject and may desire to use some or all of my writings to have any what he may
consider unjustified conduct by the Legislative Assembly overturned by the courts.

The above quoted correspondences may be helpful and I would like to see that taxpayers
will now see that Members of Parliament are not placing themselves above the law. 30

It is not my placed to determine if Mr Geoff Shaw or for that anyone else is in breach of the
rules of the parliament, albeit I am entitled to set out, as I did, my views as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST about what I consider unconstitutional conduct. However I view
that Mr Daniel Andrews, Premier Dennis Napthine and Mr Ken Smith have all so to say 35
gone overboard to so to say make it a hanging offence for whatever they claim against Mr
Geoff Shaw, whereas to my understanding even if Mr Geoff Shaw (not that I seek to imply
he has done so) were to have misused abused his parliamentarian position, etc, then it
didnt deserve this kind of hysterical commotion and simply should be left that the Policed
care was abandoned and so it was not for the Parliament to seek to use a DOUBLE 40
JEOPARDY investigation. To me this become a soap opera by the very people entrusted to
be open minded and to concentrate upon matters of concern to the Victorian community.

As I indicated we have an Infringement system that I view ought to b e addressed by the
Victorian Parliament instead of this stoush between members of parliament. 45
On 5-6-2014 current affairs (channel Nine) showed where a traffic inspector made clear
that a person had zero chance to win in court against a issued traffic Infringement
notice.
In 2008 I was issued with a traffic Infringement notice and challenged the validity of it
claiming I had not exceeded the 3 hour parking limit. My writings were deemed an appeal 50
and dis missed by Banyule city council as I was recorded to have been parked there for
2hours and 29 minutes. Despite that 2 hours and 29 minutes (at least by me with my self-

p39 6-6-2014
A 1
st
professed crummy English was less than 3 hours council lawyer argued the matter would
go to court. But months after the issue of the Infringement Notice council then still
withdrew its Infringement Notice as I made clear that I would contest them that 2hours
and 2w39 minutes (as recorded by their own parking inspector) was less than the 3 hours of
the parking limit provided for. 5
But, how many other motorist subjected to such inappropriate issue of an Infringement
Notice would likely succeed?
.
What we have now is a form of extortion and terrorism inflicted upon motorist.
. 10
In 2011 I was issued with an Infringement Notice allegedly speeding 5 kilometres an hour.
I wrote challenging the validity of it and also the constitutional validity of the Infringement
Registrar to refuse a judicial review in violation to the High Court of Australia ruling in
Harris v Caladine.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi- 15
bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/9.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="otherwise%20fell%
20outside%20its%20jurisdiction%20"
Harris v Caladine[1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
QUOTE
The Full Court on appeal from Maxwell J. held that the review of the Deputy Registrar's 20
decision was confined to an inquiry whether the parties did in fact consent to the terms of
the order and whether the terms agreed upon were in a form appropriate to the type of order
sought and were enforceable. But the order made by the Deputy Registrar must have been
made pursuant to s.79 - the section which confers power upon the Court to order a
settlement of or an alteration in the property interests of the parties. The Court could not 25
make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties
consented to it and it follows, a fortiori, that a Registrar, exercising a delegated power,
could not do so. Thus, for instance, under s.80(1)(j) of the Act the Court may make an
order by consent, but only in exercising its powers under Pt VIII. Section 37A(1)(g) allows
the delegation to the Registrar of the power to make an order by consent, but only where it 30
is a power of the Court. And O.36A, r.2(1)(n) delegates to the Registrar the power referred
to in s.37A(1)(g).
END QUOTE

I not only didnt consent but was never even provided with any prior notice of any open 35
court hearing as is constitutionally required. Neither did the Registrar have any powers to
issue any warrant in defiance of my objection as a Registrar is not an Officer of the Court.
And there is a lot more to it all but the Sheriffs Office seems to be blatantly ignorant to the
rights of citizens and wed have Members of Parliament who are bickering over a few
thousand dollars allegedly inappropriately used by one Member of Parliament but not 40
concerned about the millions of dollars they themselves may have misappropriated and
neither as to the plain theft and extortion by numerous bodies to issue Infringement notices
for tens of millions of dollars without anyone of the Parliament to address these issues.
So they are too busy to so to say be in a cat fight pulling out each other hairs then to be
competent enough to deal with real issues one could expect and should be able to expect of 45
a Member of Parliament.

That is why I view a VELVET REVOLUTION to reclaim our constitutional and other
legal rights is imperative to eventuate because we then can throw out to ,lot of inn
competent persons now stealing from taxpayers and finally get real representation. 50
.

p40 6-6-2014
A 1
st
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- 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. 5
END QUOTE

I for one has still to see that Members of Parliament instead of so to say robbing us blind
actually are acting as out agents.
10
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to be legal advice and
may not be the same were factual details be different than those understood to be by the
writer.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
15
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
(Our name is our motto!)

20

20140606-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Speaker Christine Fyffe-Members of Parliament - Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20140606-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Speaker Christine Fyffe-Members of Parliament - Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

p1 6-6-2014

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

You might also like