p1 9-6-2014

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
Mr David Hurley 9-6-2014
david.hurley@news.com.au
5
Cc: Christine Fyffe, Speaker christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Geoff Shaw MP geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Treasurer Michael OBrien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au 10
Mr Ken Smith ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au

20140609-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr David Hurley Re Balance of power-etc
Sir, 15
It appears to me that you (and your co-writer Jade Gailberger) seem to have so to say
an unhealthy obsession about the Geoff Shaw issues, without bothering to appropriately
consider matters and it appears to me you may not even understand the parliamentarian
and other principles you are writing about.
OK, I misspelled rogue as rough because I wrote phonetic, but at least this was a 20
reasonable typing error, but lets look at your writing:
The article is THE EGO HAD LANDED commencing on page 31 of the Herald Sun.
In this article you state:
QUOTE
This week the independent Frankston MP, who holds the balance of power in Victoria thanks to his 25
desertion of the coalition amid a probe over his rorting of his taxpayers funded car for business use,
threatened to bring down the Napthine Government.
END QUOTE
And on and on it goes about taxi drivers punch up, etc, which I view places it generally out
of context. After all Mr Geoff Shaw was as a Member of Parliament entitled to unrestricted 30
access to the Parliament and the confrontation by taxi drivers in my view was an unlawful
obstruction. If the same was done say to a judge of a court the taxi drivers may have faced
CONTEMPT OF COURT charges and placed immediately in custody.
The term desertion in my view was inappropriate where Mr Geoff Shaw in the
circumstances resigned from the Liberal Party. 35
I do not know what kind of education you had about political matters and to report about
them however I suggest you refrain from dealing with this subject until you get some
proper education about the issues you contemplate to write ab out. It may also avoid people
to be misled/deceived by your writings.
. 40
As for the issue of balance of power, I cannot see what this has to do with Mr Geoff Shaw
being an independent Member of Parliament.
If you had a proper understanding about relevant political issues you write about then you
should be aware that where there is a balance of power then each and every Member in the
relevant House holds the balance of power. 45
While generally Members of Parliament may vote along party lines and when not doing so
are deemed to cross the floor or where they absent themselves from the vote, nevertheless



p2 9-6-2014
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
either the Government party/ parties or the non-Government party/parties may introduce
a bill and then it is up to each Member to vote as to what is deemed to be in the best
interest of his/her constituency.
If therefore opposition Members of Parliament desire to vote in favour of a bill introduced
by a Government party Member of Parliament then there is no balance of power issue. If 5
the Government parties desire to vote along the line with a bill introduced by a non-
Government Member of Parliament then there is no issue of balance of power.
The issue of balance of power is where there is a dispute between government and non-
Government Members of Parliament and then each Member of Parliament, not just an
independent Member of Parliament holds the balance of power. This as if the Government 10
party introduces as bill but one of its own political affiliated Member of Parliament decides
not to be present at the vote, abstain to vote or vote against the bill then this Member of
Parliament decides the outcome of the bill. Likewise if the same eventuates with a non-
Government Member of Parliament.
It may be that a vote is taken and 4 of the government Members of Parliament may vote 15
against a bill and 4 of the non-Government Members of Parliament may vote in favour of
the bill and one member of parliament being away on sick leave or something else then the
Bill as I understand it is defeated as it fails to gain the majority.
Constitutionally a person merely being a Minister of the Crown can have no legal authority
to submit to the Parliament any Bills. This is as a Minister of the Crown might not be a 20
Member of Parliament. For example during elections there are in the State no Members of
Parliament. The Minister may act in a care taking capacity commissioned by the Governor
but that doesnt make him to be a Member of Parliament. The Government has no
authority in the Parliament as it are the President of the legislative council and the Speaker
of the Legislative Assembly who are specifically employed by the Parliament and who 25
continue to be so irrespective if they no longer (such as during general elections) are
Members of Parliament until Members of the relevant House has appointed a new
Speaker/President.
In my view your article joint article is deceiving readers to what really is applicable and
causes undue misconceptions. If neither one of you can master to understand/comprehend 30
relevant issues to the matters you write ab out then so to say find yourself another job. We
can do well without this kind of deceptive writings. Many persons may not have the
understanding of the workings of Parliament and may very well misconceive the way
Parliament operates as result of your writings.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH isnt so to say maliciously or otherwise writing about a Member 35
of Parliament, regardless who this Member of Parliament might be as to perhaps try to sell
a newspaper. The media owns a duty to report with appropriate researched details. I view
this did not or couldnt have been the case in the parts I read of the article. In my view the
article should be investigated as to what I deem to be deceptive and misleading writings.
40
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)
45
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
(Our name is our motto!)
Commented [HOhf1]: