20161002-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Malcolm Turnbull Re ATO Stalking & Harassment, Etc

1
Mr Malcolm Turnbull
10
2-10-2016
Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au
Cc: Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Barnaby Joyce Barnaby.Joyce.MP@aph.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Commissioner of Taxation c/o dun&bradstreet DEBT COLLECTOR SERVICE clientservices@dnb.com.au
Re: 20161002-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re ATO stalking & harassment,-etc
15
Malcolm,
I did provide you with my 20160923-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
O.W.B. - ISSUE -Taxation, Debt collection, etc & the constitution this subsequently that I
previously had forwarded to you the 96 page document 20160913-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re vatious election issues-etc and I rely upon the content
of both those documents also, (The word vatious ought to be various) which included the
following;
20
QUOTE 20160913-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re vatious election issues-etc

https://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/Getting-started/In-detail/Types-of-charities/Religious-institutions--access-to-tax-concessions/
QUOTE
Religious institutions: access to tax concessions

Introduction
25
30
35
This information explains the requirements for religious institutions to access

the following tax concessions:
o
income tax exemption
fringe benefits tax (FBT) concessions
goods and services tax (GST) concessions.
We explain:
o
what is a religious institution
types of tax concessions available to a religious institution
the steps a religious institution takes before it can access these concessions.
Work it out
To work out if your organisation can receive tax deductible gifts refer to
Deductible gift (DGR) endorsement.
p1
2-10-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
End of work it out
Last modified: 19 Mar 2014QC 35223
END QUOTE
END QUOTE 20160913-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re vatious election issues-etc
10
S116 of the constitution specifically denied the Commonwealth of Australia to legislate as to

religion and as I did set out in my successful appeals against compulsory voting my
unchallenged written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT was that even asking a
persons religion is a violation of the persons constitutional rights of religious liberty. Neither
can the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) ask any questions as to some organization being a
religious organization. Regardless of if any religious organization is exempted from taxation for
being a religious entity then any non-religious organization likewise is entitled to tax exemption.
15
QUOTE 20160913-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re vatious election issues-etc
As shown below in greater extend the question of the Defendants religion itself would be
an invasion as to his rights. Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion
as the matter in U.S. Supreme Court.
20
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
25
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth.
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No.
76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
30
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is
in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose
all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that
Congress used the words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic
sense and to confine it to formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive
group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision
that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those
whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those
whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be
"neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical
source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding
policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the
exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been
unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.
35
40
45
And;
50
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and
support materials provided in the following link:
55
Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation

Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a
recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not
p2
2-10-2016
3
require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious
exemption to be challenged.
And
Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law.
You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to
submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple;
do not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
And
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the
law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They
are betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.
10
What appears to be clear is that a religious objection is not qualified to a specific religion
and neither can be as this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can
it be associated with any particular religion as this would also interfere with Section 116 of
the Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the religious objection
Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to
be a religious person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the
equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made
clear that it (the religious objection applies as much to non religious persons as religious
persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is entitled
to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned.
15
20
25
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
END QUOTE 20160913-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re vatious election issues-etc
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
30
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the
funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
[start page 1773]
END QUOTE
35
There appears to be a conflict that the constitution creates a Commonwealth of Australia not
being a corporation registered with the Dominion Republic as this would violate s44 of the
constitution but as a POLITICAL UNION;
.
40
45
50
55
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
Therefore, my past request to the ATO if it is acting for the Commonwealth of Australia (the
political union) or for the corporate Commonwealth of Australia is something it failed to clarify.
.
In the Colosimo case I then represented Mr Colosimo and at the first hearing I attended as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST and Professional Advocate I immediately objected to the lawyers of
p3
2-10-2016
10
15
4
council to be present as that they had NO LEGAL STANDING. While the barrister tried in vain
to remain with the instructing solicitor I was adamant they had to leave and they were ordered to
do so. Likewise the ATO would have in my view NO LEGAL STANDING to litigate against
me in regard of any purported representation it makes for a corporate Commonwealth of
Australia. The courts have made clear corporations cannot govern and cannot legislate nor
adjudicate.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that taxation/appropriation Bills must be
corresponding for the financial year they are enacted for. While there is much about amending
any legislation the reality is that unless the taxation legislation in full has been enacted each year
I view it has no legal force, this as amending it to some extend doesnt fit the constitutional
requirements to have the legislation in full enacted.
While ordinary legislation may be enacted and remain on the books for donkey times, with
Appropriation/Taxation Bills it is only for the financial year to follow its enactment.
HANSARD 16-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN: They propose that the senate shall have equal power with the house of representatives in
respect of all bills, except money bills, so that in every other matter that comes before the senate it stands as
well equipped for dealing with legislation as does the popular chamber. There should be a tribunal to which it
would not be too difficult to appeal in case of differences between the two houses on those measures; but,
allowing that to pass, my hon. colleague excepts from the control of the senate money bills, bills dealing with
customs and excise, and the annual appropriation bill. He does not say these may not be rejected, but he says
that they must not be amended; he believes that the second chamber should only exercise its power with
regard to money bills in such extreme cases as those in which it will be prepared to reject the whole proposal
put before it, but should not meddle with the financial affairs of the country by entering into the details of
those proposals. The 2nd resolution says:
20
25
The act of union shall provide that it shall not be lawful to include in the annual appropriation bill any
matter or thing other than the votes of supply for the ordinary service of the year.
30
What this means is that every money bill which may be a bill involving a question of policy shall come to
the second chamber independently, and the second chamber shall, if it please, be entitled to reject that
measure, to challenge the opinion of the country upon it, and to say that until the opinion of the
country is pronounced, that measure shall not pass into law. Are not these large and sufficient powers?
35
40
45
50
END QUOTE
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
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.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
55
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I should like to ask a question with regard to clause 75, as to whether it is
intended to leave the right of appeal from a state or the Federal High Court itself direct to the Privy Council,
as it stands in the Bill, or whether the matter can be subsequently opened by the Parliament?
p4
2-10-2016
5
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am afraid that if I were to answer questions as to what is intended to
be done, I should expose the Drafting Committee to a flood of interrogations. I can only say that what we
intend to do is to carry out the decisions of the committee. Of course there are one or two cases in which
the [start page 2439] decisions which have been arrived at require a certain amount of interpretation in
the light of the debates, and in those cases we shall take what was said, as well as what was put in the
Bill, for the purpose of ascertaining what the movers of provisions desire. In the case of the proposal my
honorable friend carried, and which was put as a proviso to clause 74, it is evident that the words as they
appear are only in the nature of instructions to the committee, and they will have to be interpreted in
the light of statements made by my honorable friend in answer to inquiries by me. That is the course that will
be pursued. When an amendment, as carried, is intended only as a suggestion to the committee, it will be
interpreted in that way.
10
END QUOTE
15
20
25
30
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HOLDER.-I hope that the time which was spent in Adelaide was as pleasant to the visiting
representatives as the time which we have spent under the care and hospitality of the Government of Victoria
has been to us. I think that a word is due to those who have laboured, not merely to make our stay pleasant,
but to assist us in accomplishing that which we have had in view. Speaking for myself, I consider that the
reporting of our debates has been remarkably good. There has hardly been the need of even trifling verbal
alterations, and the way in which the speeches have been reported, transcribed, and committed to print has
[start page 2494] left nothing to be desired. I am quite sure that in the permanent record of our proceedings
we have a document entirely worthy of the purpose we have in view.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
35
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE
40

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
45
50
55
QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has
described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This
Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to
this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or
rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and
it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to
understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole
time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is
commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be
appreciated by the people.
END QUOTE
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers"
Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
60
p5
2-10-2016
6
"... But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
10
15
1.
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."
20
END QUOTE
25
30
35

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
40
45
50
55
60
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.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
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.
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
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our
own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above
Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
p6
2-10-2016
7
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55

QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution
we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act
capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let
the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but
trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution.
The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
Constitution.
END QUOTE
I know of no taxation legislation in full having been enacted each year say since the turn of the
century. It is not relevant if the Commonwealth of Australia being it the Political Union and/or
the corporation applies conventions as no convent ion can overrule the constitution and so
neither my constitutional rights.
A few months ago I succeeded in my appeal to have Magistrates Court orders set aside which
were issues when I was too ill in 2015 to attend personally to the hearing, which then was for
about $3,300 including the Infringement Notice of about $1,460 and legal cost) and despite that
this council claimed to have spent more than $18,000 by the time the appeal was heard it found
the magistrates court orders to be set aside and no order for cost whatsoever. And, as I submitted
to the Court an Infringement Notice is not at all a debt (As was claimed by the Legal Service
Commission but is no more but an invitation to pay to avoid possible litigation, this as the
Imperial Act Application Act 1980 (Vic) provides it to be unlawful to fine a person before
conviction.
The Victorian Legal Service Commission as I understand it investigated me for about a year as to
if I was being paid any fees for representing/assisting parties in litigation at court, and well they
found no such evidence existed. A judicial officer had wrongly claimed I had stated so and
issued an order for investigation, but the transcript proves otherwise. While the Legal Service
Commission sought to even prevent me to use the word constitutionalist or it would place the
matter before the Supreme Court of Victoria, I made clear it had no legal powers to prevent me
from doing so. I have never been so to say a vulture as a lawyer to suck the blood out of a client
as I simply provides my services free of charge. And subsequently to the investigation I then
represented barrister Johnson, on 4 occasions, with the Legal Service Commission being the
opponent. That was so to say rubbing salt in the wound.
In the past I requested the ATO to refund me an overcharge on GST (Bunnings) and the ATO
gave menthe understanding it has no records as to who pays what GST.
Besides the fact that I maintain the GST is unconstitutional (as set out in past writings and in my
books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues),
the fact that I was denied a full refund by Bunnings of the overcharge means I was caused to pay
GST regarding a refund.
The ATO (Australian Taxation Office) must be aware of what taxation is paid by whomever, as
after all if it lacks this information then it is unreliable to conduct taxation matters.
p7
2-10-2016
10
15
8
Indeed, for more than a decade I pointed out to the Federal Government that an item sold in
Kmart would sell at a Sunday Market for the same price. As such while Kmart has its overhead
cost and includes GST a market vendor pays about $50 for the day and generally keeps the GST
component.
As I indicated in the past Sydney Council versus the Commonwealth 1904 the High Court of
Australia held that the council was rating unconstitutionally within State delegated land taxation.
The Constitution Section 114 States may not raise forces. Taxation of property of
Commonwealth or State
Federal Court Melbourne Re Melton v Com of Taxation Fed Court 2011. In this purported
settlement the ATO agreed not to tax anything of Melton Shire Council. This violates Ss51 (ii)
taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States; Municipal/Shire councils only
can be excused regarding taxation of any kind where it specifically acts within delegated powers
within s114 of the constitution, however, the ATO has no constitutional powers to so to say let
Melton shire Council or for that anyone else of the hook, and the judgment by consent therefore
is ULTRA VIRES. Likely other councils likewise are doing the same.
.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
The ATO is in no position to violate ss51(ii) merely as to seek to reach some settlement. It as a
purported Agent for the Commonwealth of Australia being it the political union or the
corporation cannot override the grantor (the Parliament) limited constitutional powers.
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE
I understand that the ATO in another case pursued an about $80million dollar tax and then settle
in court for about 10% of it. Again this violated Ss51(ii).
The ATO cannot allow someone to pay less than a fair share of taxation.
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).p8
2-10-2016
In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
10
The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
END QUOTE
15
20
Again, it would be appropriate for any municipal/shire council not to charges taxation for so far
it relates for exercising State legislative provisions within s114 however where a municipal/shire
council enters into some commercial arrangements such as purchasing properties then ordinary
taxation laws must be applied.
Moreover, since the 1904 decision referred to above on 11 November 1910 the Commonwealth
commenced the Land Tax Office and by this the States no longer could apply land taxation and
neither so could it delegate any land taxation to municipal/shire councils in the form of rates.
QUOTE
25
30
Mr. DEAKIN.-That might relieve it of a number of its paupers. I do not make that statement of the
single tax as such, but a land tax might have that result. The leader of the Convention points to the
divorce which exists between the Federal Parliament and the land as contrasted with the state Parliaments,
and their relation to the land, but the difference is not so wide as his argument would imply. For, after all,
there does rest dormant in this Constitution a power of direct federal taxation which can reach the
land if it ever becomes necessary to do so. Consequently if it be found that by injudicious or injurious land
systems this burden is being cast on the Federal Commonwealth, the Federal Commonwealth will fortunately
have within its own power a means of remedying to some extent any such law, and of placing the burden
where it ought to be placed-on the land.
[start page 22]
Mr. BARTON.-Would not that be the only rational thing for the Federal Parliament to do-to put on a
land tax?
35
40
END QUOTE
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
QUOTE
45
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?
50
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
QUOTE
p9
2-10-2016
10
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an
apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word
"exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the
Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does
mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power
under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the
attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive
power arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties
being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph says-
10
But this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed
by the Parliament.
It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the
position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it [start page 255]
stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese.
15
20
Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately
on the establishment of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises upon the
establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of legislation. The doubt seems to
be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may be
postponed until legislation takes place. But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the
competence of the local Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not in
contradiction of federal legislation?
25
Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.

Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful whether the
exclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if it is possible that it may only
come into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still be said that on the passing of exclusive
legislation the power of the local Parliaments to legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of
concurrent legislation that power does not cease?
30
Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I think that enough has now been said on this subject by honorable
members both sides of the chamber, and I have only a very few remarks to offer. It appears that if the
sub-section remains where it is state laws will be valid until federal legislation, but the states will not be
able to alter or improve those laws during the possibly long interval between federation and federal
legislation. Under these circumstances, as we leave to the states for an indefinite time the power of
maintaining the laws they have, we should grant to them the power of improving those laws. It would
recommend the Constitution more to a large number of persons if we put the sub-section in clause 52,
thus enabling each state to legislate on this matter until the Federal Parliament comes in and legislates
for all.
35
40
END QUOTE
45

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
.
50
55

QUOTE Mr. REID:
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points
enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two
laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal
criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any
complication of the kind.
END QUOTE
.
p10
2-10-2016
11
10
15
20
25
30

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
on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to
exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from
that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will
be exercised.
END QUOTE
It is irrelevant that some of the land tax legislation was abolished in 1952 and then further
abolished in 1953 only for this act of 1953 itself being abolished and so reinstituted the 1952 act,
because those abolishments only applied to the Commonwealth has the constitution doesnt
provide any mechanism for the Commonwealth to allow the States to tax matters once it has
commenced to legislate.
The error is that lawyers/politicians perceive the concurrent legislative powers to always exist.
It doesn.t, as it only existed up to the time the Commonwealth commences to legislate. Hence, as
from 11 November 1910 any State land taxation (including municipal/shire council rates) is
unconstitutional. Because municipal/shire council rates are of different rates pending
municipal/shire council and/or states then it cannot be claimed that this falls within the concept
of UNIFORM taxation throughout the Commonwealth of Australia.
Yet, somehow the ATO fails to take appropriate action and allows the states so the
municipal/shire councils under purported delegated land taxation powers claiming rates
The recent nonsense to allow states to charge their own GST may underline how ill-informed/
uneducated politicians are about the constitution!
.
35
40
I am not aware of the ATO having claimed that I somehow failed to pay appropriate
taxation, to the contrary it claimed not to have proper records.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL is a registered trade mark, and a registered business,
entity as well as my belief. It is not for the ATO to question my belief as this would be
unconstitutional. (WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333)
What appears to be is that the ATO has decided to fine me in total $1,700.00 not because I owe
any taxation but merely because its own sheer incompetence to understand what is
constitutionally permissible and what is not.
.
45
50
55

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
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
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
As such, with dun&bradstreet DEBT COLLECTION SERVICE claiming in its 26 September

2016 correspondence (Re TFN 325681885/00551 for now $1,770.00) If you have paid your
debt in clearly refers to a debt. As such the fine was converted to a debt. In my view this
p11
2-10-2016
12
could be considered CONTEMPT OF COURT in that the ATO now has taken the law into its
own hands and decided for the courts that I should be fines and owe a debt.
5
10
15

QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just
interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
.
20

QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
25
The legal doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur action denies any remedy to a litigant
(including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.
If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with Dirty Hands
best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
In my view within the provisions of the Crimes Act (Vic) the ATO and dun&bradstreet are
stalking and/or harassing me for unconstitutional/unlawful purposes.
30
35
40
45
50

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
As a senior citizen trying to live my twilight years in peace and tranquility I find it disturbing,
upsetting and harmful (and also to my family) that the ATO and so allegedly dun&bradstreet
for it are pestering me with demands disregarding entirely the legal principles embedded in the
constitution.
As I did set out in my successful appeals against compulsory voting, that there is also an issue as
to the courts in question being impartial and independent. Hence, if the ATO for some strange
reason does decide to litigate against me then it better make sure not to overlook the numerous
constitutional issues I then raised and so unchallenged by any of the Attorney-Generals on 19
July 2006. After all, I am entitled to the benefits of those successful appeals and the ATO cannot
circumvent those rights/entitlements.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
Awaiting your response,
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

55
Our name is our motto!)
p12
2-10-2016

20161002-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Malcolm Turnbull Re ATO Stalking & Harassment, 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

20161002-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Malcolm Turnbull Re ATO Stalking & Harassment, Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

QUOTE 20160913-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re vatious election issues-etc

Religious institutions: access to tax concessions

This information explains the requirements for religious institutions to access

income tax exemption

fringe benefits tax (FBT) concessions

goods and services tax (GST) concessions.

what is a religious institution

types of tax concessions available to a religious institution

End of work it out

Last modified: 19 Mar 2014QC 35223

S116 of the constitution specifically denied the Commonwealth of Australia to legislate as to

QUOTE 20160913-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re vatious election issues-etc

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 12-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.

Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

As such, with dun&bradstreet DEBT COLLECTION SERVICE claiming in its 26 September

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Awaiting your response,

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

You might also like