Chapter Allowance - Politicians - Robbery

Page 1
This is a general document about “ALLOWANCES” for politicians. Just consider for yourself if
you are being robbed!
.
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of
those colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as
the reimbursement of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea
that members of parliament are actually paid a salary for their work, which they are
not.
END QUOTE
.
Herald Sun Monday 27 April 2009 page 2 article;
QUOTE
Brown vows to stop increase Anger at MPs’ $4700 bonus
END QUOTE
.
ISSUE:
AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO DEAL WITH FEDERAL PARLIAMENTARIANS
PAY (Allowance)!
.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
You be the judge! Consider what is set out below and the proposed amendment of the Constitution
from;
48 Allowance to members
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of
Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the
day on which he takes his seat.
.
to;
Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, subject to that such
allowance shall be calculated to include in totality, including postage, traveling, stationary,
overnight accommodation to no more but the maximum of the average weekly earnings on a
yearly basis, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat, and shall continue only for the
duration of time until the seat is vacated and no longer.
.
Chapter AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO DEAL WITH FEDERAL
PARLIAMENTARIANS PAY (Allowance)!
* Gerrit, should judges and parliamentarians have increase in allowances, at least the way they have
now?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, lets first see what one of the Framers of the Constitution had to
say;

QUOTE
Chapter 000X Page 1
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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 2
not.
END QUOTE
.
It is therefore important to understand that Federal Members of Parliament are constitutionally not
permitted to have any “salary” as otherwise they are AUTOMATICALLY disqualified from
having a seat in the Federal Parliament. If therefore the Remuneration Tribunal sets their “salary”
then “constitutionally” every Federal Member of parliament is disqualified from being a member of
parliament, both Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, as they only salary
excluded are those shown in Section 44 of the constitution, such as the “salary” when appointed to
being a Minister of the Crown.
.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
44 Disqualification
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or
adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or
entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a
foreign power; or
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under
sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence
punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State
by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension
payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the
revenues of the Commonwealth; or
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement
with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than
as a member and in common with the other members of an
incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five
persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a
member of the House of Representatives.
But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the
Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the
Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or
a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s
navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of
the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person
whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.
.
45 Vacancy on happening of disqualification
If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
(i) becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the
last preceding section; or
(ii) takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or
otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent
debtors; or
(iii) directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or
honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or
Chapter 000X Page 2
Page 3
for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State;

his place shall thereupon become vacant.
.
It also can be stated that if the Remuneration Tribunal sets the yearly “ALLOWANCES” upon the
yearly salary of public servants then the following applies for this also;
.
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement
with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than
as a member and in common with the other members of an
incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five
persons;
.
Look at when the election was called in 2007 and since October 2007 until February 2008 not a
single member of parliament was dealing with attending to matters ordinary involving their
attendances to the parliament. They were going on about elections which is a political UNION
matter, where as when it comes to employees of a company wanting to do the same then they
prohibit this kind of payment to union Members.
.
When you consider the sitting days of the Parliament then I view they are well overpaid in terms of
what the Constitution provides for.
I view they all are defrauding the tax payers and we must put a stop to this.
.
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR NOT!
.
Therefore payments must be as to being “ALLOWANCES” as intended by the Framers of the
Constitution to cover everything albeit the amount payable to each member can be adjusted by the
parliament, but must be equal to all members.
.
As stated below;
What we need is to amend the Constitution to make clear that no former
politician/Governor-General is permitted to draw monies from Consolidated Revenue in
regard of past services rendered!
.
And
.
What we need is to amend the Constitution to make clear that any Federal Member of
Parliament maximum yearly benefits payable as ALLOWANCE is not to exceed the
average weekly income taken on a yearly basis.
.
Below I am setting out various issues that also ought to be considered.
.
What is however important to notice is that a $30,000 or whatever payment to any person (defeated
Federal member of parliament) who was not re-elected is not within the provisions of the
constitution and neither can be deemed to be an “ALLOWANCE”, as it is not a
REIMBURSEMENT for cost incurred!
.
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we
embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no
longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent
bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their
Chapter 000X Page 3
Page 4
constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary

sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to
have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament
being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is
split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference:
When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of
parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers,
legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
.
Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge
under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from
Parliament or Government.
Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the
interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same
sense as a federal judge is, the same circumstances remain in part; but where you will
have a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution against the
inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it is essential that no
judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do not know
exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether consciously or not, in
biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might be
dangerous to the Constitution itself.
.
* That seems to me to be that Judges should not be made dependable upon pay rises while they are
in office or they could be bias towards the government.
**#** Correct, albeit, the Constitution does not prevent increases while they are serving.
* What about allowances for parliamentarians?
**#** That is another problem.

During 1891 and 1897 something went on that what was discussed in 1891 in great length somehow
had alterations which are un explained in 1897. Other that it was argued that it was the same.
However, when you consider that “Until the Parliament otherwise provides” suddenly creeped up
in the Debates on 21-4-1897 before any of the members referred to it, then one must wonder why
on earth this was done before the debate about it eventuated. And, then the subsequent debate
appears to indicate that it was not to alter the “allowances” as to increase or decrease it from time to
time but rather to allow the parliament to deal with it that a Member of Parliament, upon becoming
a Minister didn’t receive both his “allowance” as a Member of Parliament and that as a Minister of
the Crown.

Clause 43.-Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the States
Assembly or of the House of Representatives, shall receive an allowance for his services of
four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
.
Chapter 000X Page 4

Page 5
The Hon. S. FRASER: It is done in other countries.
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia)[5.11]: The salary, if one were
absolutely dependent upon it, does not seem very large. At the same time, I do not suppose
we expect those who are chosen to be members of the senate and the house of
representatives will be altogether dependent on the emoluments they receive as
members.
The Hon. S. FRASER: Many may be!

The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: I do not think so. It is more an honorarium
than a salary; otherwise we should not find the distinguished persons who now occupy seats
in the local legislatures willing to accept positions.
The Hon. E. BARTON: We should either give a man nothing, or make it worth his while to
attend!
[start page 994]

The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: It seems to me that if the £400 per annum is to
be considered as a salary, it is altogether inadequate. If, on the other hand, it is to be
considered an honorarium, it is too large. We must not altogether get rid of the idea that
there is some patriotism in the people, and that they desire to give their best services to the
state without looking at the matter from an £ s. d. point of view. I am afraid that, when we
have formed the federal parliament, we shall find that those who have businesses which
require their constant attention will not be able to leave them in order to attend.
And
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST:
But I take it that the persons who will become members of the senate, or house of
representatives will not be persons who are altogether dependent upon this small honorarium.
And
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: All that I desired to emphasise was my opposition
to a member receiving the salary of a minister and at the same time the salary of a member of
the commonwealth parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria)[5.29]: If the words "until the parliament otherwise provides" are
used it will permit each member to receive a salary of £400 a year, and the commonwealth
would then be able to provide that members are not to receive that salary in addition to an
official salary.
New clause negatived.
.
The latter statement clearly indicates what really was intended with the wording "until the
parliament otherwise provides". It was to organise one or the other.
.
But also you may have noticed that the statement;
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: It seems to me that if the £400 per annum is to
be considered as a salary, it is altogether inadequate. If, on the other hand, it is to be
considered an honorarium, it is too large.
.
That is where the critical point is. A Minister of the Crown is in an Office of Profit with the
Commonwealth and has a “salary”, however, a Member of Parliament is receiving an
Chapter 000X Page 5
Page 6
“honorarium” (“allowance”) that is only payable while he/she is a Member of Parliament and is
diminished when obtaining a position as Minister of the Crown.
.
At the time of federation 500 pound was considered to be sufficient for a Federal Member of
Parliament
.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ABS@.NSF/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article15200
1?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2001&num=&view=
QUOTE (HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION)

This article explores the nature of the increase in living standards as measured by changes in
the level of household income and its distribution. In undertaking such an exercise, it is
important to emphasise some of the limitations of income as an indicator of economic
wellbeing or standard of living. There is more to life than money, just as there is more to one’s
standard of living than income. But in a market economy like Australia, income reflects the
ownership and use of human, financial and physical capital and provides access to the goods
and services that support the standard of living. People’s status in society-both as workers
who contribute to economic output and as consumers who benefit from it-also reflects their
income and the level of consumption that it can sustain.
The distribution of income can be presented in a variety of different ways, each focusing on a
different aspect of income variation. A range of measures is also available for summarising
how much inequality exists at any point in time. Most of these measures indicate how far the
observed distribution deviates from a situation of total equality, where all incomes are equal.
They reflect relative income differences. Supplementary statistics are needed to provide more
insight into the nature of inequality and to identify its causes, but how the inequality statistics
are presented can be important. Measures that relate income differentials to differences in
location, ethnicity, age, gender, educational qualifications, or employment participation each
reveal part of what is a complex multi-dimensional reality. It is not possible to do justice to all
of these aspects in the limited space available. Emphasis has been given to describing the
Australian income distribution, exploring how it has changed and how it compares
internationally. Such an account, while primarily descriptive, provides the basis for further
study of the causes and consequences of inequality.
END QUOTE (HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION)
The table below shows that final consumption from 1901 to about 1945 was static and then it rose
from $5,000 expenditure per capita to $20,000 by 2000. Over the 100 years it was about 4 fold
increase. One then have to ask if the total package now spend on Federal parliamentarians was also
increased 4 fold or that it went well out of hand.
.
If is essential for this that we do consider that at the time of federation it was clearly held that 500
pounds (as then the currency was used) was to include out-of pocket expenses for parliamentarians
such as overnight accommodation for several months, etc. As such, the then 500 pounds
“allowance” did not just mean it was about compensation of loss of income but also all out of
pocked expenses , such as hotel accommodation, etc.
It was never then intended that Federal parliamentarians were to be paid more then the average
weekly earnings for the whole of the year because it was deemed that politicians would have an
ordinary job besides their parliamentarians work. And many still do as they run their own
businesses, being it as lawyers, farmers, etc.
.
Chapter 000X Page 6

Page 7
There is also a hidden cost that at the time never was considered as that we now have federal
parliamentarians having postal budgets, other traveling entitlements – other then for their traveling
to and from Parliament), printing allowances and a host of others, including staff, the printing of
their stationary, etc.
.
The Framers of the Constitution held that a 500 pound yearly payment would be a significant
burden. Well I view they would, so to say, turn over in their graves if they knew the absurd cost
now associated with each federal parliamentarian. Which more then likely trumps more then 1
million dollars a year! And, that doesn’t even take into account all the UNCONSTITUTIONAL
perks they have after leaving office. I state UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the constitution
provides only for payments WHILST THEY ARE SERVING MEMBERS OF THE
PARLIAMENT, and not having Gold passes, etc after they leave their position and certainly not
for family members of ex-politicians.
.
If we therefore rely upon the average weekly spending having increased 4 fold then assuming this
reflects the average weekly increase by 4 fold, then looking at the federal politicians having gone
from 500 pounds a year, then deemed to include also all out of pocked expenses and obviously not
being more then the then average weekly earnings as it was held they would still have a normal
income otherwise when not serving as Members of Parliament at the Parliament, then we have to
look at the monies they are now being paid.
QUOTE Herald Sun 5-12-2008
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24753165-661,00.html
Ben Packham
December 05, 2008 12:00am
POLITICIANS have called for a pay rise, saying they are not getting a fair reward for their
responsibilities.
With many Australians cash-strapped, MPs have endorsed a report saying they are underpaid by up
to $100,000.
Backbenchers get about $127,000, plus allowances, while the Prime Minister earns about $330,000.
West Australian MP Wilson Tuckey said such salaries did not attract the best candidates.
"We're just not getting top-rate people," he said.
"And as I've said, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys."
Former Cabinet minister Tony Abbott, whose salary was cut by $90,000 when the Coalition lost
office, said he'd love a pay rise.
"Everyone would like to be paid more. Politicians are no different in this respect," Mr Abbott said.
But he held out little hope of getting one, as voters wanted politicians to live like them, not
merchant bankers.
In its annual report, the Remuneration Tribunal, said MPs were not paid enough.
Chapter 000X Page 7

Page 8
"It is evident clearly that, notwithstanding modest annual salary adjustments, the long-term trend
has seen a reduction in overall benefits," the political paymaster said.
"At the same time, the responsibilities and expectations of government and of individual members
and ministers have undoubtedly increased."
Mr Tuckey said he had long believed MPs were underpaid.
"You only have to look at the people who now come here," he said.
"They're either ex-Liberal staffers or third-level union officials. They're about the only people who
believe there is a financial reward in it."
Opposition frontbencher Joe Hockey said he didn't get into politics for the money.
But he said politicians were unfairly criticised about their salaries.
"It is just one of those things. Whenever people have the capacity to determine their own
remuneration, there is criticism," he said.
END QUOTE Herald Sun 5-12-2008
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/comments/0,22023,24753165-661,00.html
QUOTE Herald sun 5-12-2008 (Internet)
Ben Packham
POLITICIANS have called for a pay rise, saying they are not getting a fair reward for their
responsibilities.
With many Australians cash-strapped, MPs have endorsed a report saying they are underpaid by up
to $100,000.
Backbenchers get about $127,000, plus allowances, while the Prime Minister earns about $330,000.
Read full story
I would love a 50% increase in my pension then may be I can pay the house off instead of
giving it to the the greedy banks.
Posted by: Teebee 9:01pm December 05, 2008
Comment 11 of 11
Wilson tuckey says you pay peanuts you get monkeys you are right Wilson they are monkeys
and the only thing missing is the organ grinder,So we pay macadamia's and we get
Gorillias,What a joke they are the last people that should get anything a $127,000 for a back
bencher to do what?Plus the perks they recieve even after they retire stuff the pollies if
anything they should be giving it back.
Posted by: Greedy polliticians of MELBOURNE 10:25am December 05, 2008
Comment 10 of 11
The latest world economic crises proves that the balance of wealth distribution is not fair. The
whole system and ideology needs a revamp. The person who cleans toilets needs a pay rise
and not politicians. The self employed need more assistance also. I've had a gutful of the "get
Chapter 000X Page 8
Page 9
monkeys paid peanuts" mantra regarding politicians. Maybe; there should be a bit more
altruism in politics; then we could look up to them like Buddhists monks and that would be
their pay-off; that we respect them. Anyway they do Ok. Plenty of staffers to do your
paperwork, free travel, guaranteed super, secure employment, generous holidays. Have you
ever wondered why the likes of Wilson Tuckey and Peter Costello won't leave parliament?
Because they know where their bread is buttered. Because they are living on easy street.
Posted by: Manfred Ollie of Melb 9:40am December 05, 2008
Comment 9 of 11
Politicians underpaid? Yes some are but the majority are not! Those that represent the best
interests of their electorates and behave in a manner fitting their office are certainly underpaid.
Unfortunately most are party hacks who vote as they are directed. Most do not have the best
interests of their electorate driving their actions. Most behave like petulant children whilst in
parliament. Most don¿t act in a way that demonstrates they care about preserving the
environment. Perhaps we should introduce ¿performance based pay¿ for our politicians and
set the criteria not on loyalty to their party but on how well they have represented their
electorate and the nation. We might also include adherence to ¿public service values¿. But if
we did this I suspect only a very small number of our pollies would actual get an increase.
Posted by: Graeme Dobson of Kensington 8:54am December 05, 2008
Comment 8 of 11
Underpaid by $100,000? That's lunacy. Half of them aren't even worth what they're getting
now! Look at the way the Vic Govt is stuffing up the state.I understand the principle of
'monkeys and peanuts' quoted but hell, first the candidate has to prove they're worth it. Not too
many have succeeded so far.
Posted by: June of Melbourne 8:45am December 05, 2008
Comment 7 of 11
If they get a pay rise then we should get a pay rise. They are all money-hungry and don't really
care about the rest of us. I say give them a pay cut and drop the fuel taxes
Posted by: Gary of Pakenham 8:38am December 05, 2008
Comment 6 of 11
haw haw haw hehehehehe hahahahahaha...this is the funniest thing I've heard all day!!!! - pay
them what they deserve - we'd save a fortune!
Posted by: Anarchist of Australia 8:34am December 05, 2008
Comment 5 of 11
I am sure I will be just one of many hundreds of pensioners who are laughing at this proposal
of salary increase for politicians. Try living on the pension, paying all your bills, and, if you're
lucky, feeding yourself and putting petrol in the car. It doesn't happen guys.
Posted by: HELENA ALDRIDGE of MID NORTH COAST NSW 8:32am December 05,
2008
Comment 4 of 11
Such salaries did not attract the best candidates.== How ever when they see all the perks they
get for the rest of there lives there minds EXPLODE with joy ==We have heard this speech
from these SWOLLEN HEADS before = My answer = GET OUT YOU GREEDY FARTS
Posted by: martin of bayside 8:32am December 05, 2008
Comment 3 of 11
Chapter 000X Page 9

Page 10
I'm happy for politicians to receive higher salaries, but they should be genuinely linked to
performance and key outcomes. If they can prodice more policies and pass more laws, that's
fibe but no pay rise just for the sake of it.
Posted by: Ian Roberts of Kew 8:30am December 05, 2008
Comment 2 of 11
With our taxes we are already topping up their deflated super funds whilst the rest of us suffer.
A pay rise? I don't bloody think so!!!
Posted by: Leigh of Melbourne 8:30am December 05, 2008
Comment 1 of 11
END QUOTE Herald Sun 5-12-2008 (Internet)
.
Herald Sun Friday December 5, 2008
QUOTE
How much they earn
Backbencher $127.060
Cabinet minister $219,179
Prime Minister $330,456
Cashier $ 28,392
Hairdresser $ 28,860
Nurse $ 50,100
Police officer $ 58,867
Teacher $ 63,312
Aneasthetist $101,764
Engineering manager $136,700
END QUOTE
.
It should be understood that constitutionally there should be no difference in pay for being a
member of parliament other that a Member of Parliament who also is a Minister then in principle
should not get his/her pay as a Member of Parliament when receiving a “salary” as a Minister. This,
is obvious as the Minister has a “salary” which is payable from “Consolidated Revenue” to the
Queen where as the Member of Parliament not being a Minister receives his/her “allowance” from
Consolidated Revenue.
.
Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each
member of the House of Representatives shall receive an
allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the
.
66 Salaries of Ministers
There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated
Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the
Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament
otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a
year.
.
As such, there cannot be any additional payments for a so called “shadow Minister” (opposition
members) because the Constitution does not provide for this.
Chapter 000X Page 10

Page 11
.
WARNING; It should not be overlooked that Members of Parliament who are attending to
parliamentarian work and for this stay over away from their homes can make significant claims for
this and so more then a thousand dollars a week. As such, what the 500 pounds original allowance
was to cover now is separated that their claims for overnight accommodation is more then many
earn on an average weekly earning. More over, it does not even consider the fact that they have now
expensive offices provided to them which at the time of Federation as such was never contemplated.
As such, what politicians now claim just for accommodation cost is more then what was at the time
of federation (considering the difference of cost also) to exceed by far the total allowance then
contemplated. As such I view that federal Members of Parliament in general as a cancerous growth
as to the financial health of the Commonwealth of Australia!
.
QUOTE ( HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION)

1 HOUSEHOLD FINAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA, in 1999-2000
Prices- 1900-1901 to 1999-2000
END QUOTE (HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION )

.
(This picture may not be reproduce on the blog and for this, again, it must be stated that it shows
that the average weekly household income was in 1901 about $5,000 and in 1945 about the same
and then it went up to 2000 to about $20,000)
.
Even if we were to assume that the total allowance and benefits Federal Members of Parliament just
after federation enjoyed was the value of $5,000 a year (including free travel, etc) we would see that
at 2000 position should maximum ought to have escalated to a mere $20,000!
.
We find however that by 2008 it is
QUOTE
How much they earn
END QUOTE
.
And then on top of that the cost of other cost like their own office at both Parliament House as well
as a electorate office with staff, telephone/fax/internet facilities and a lot more. Then we have the

Page 12
travel and the letter heads, etc, and again it will more then likely exceed a million dollars for
backbenchers once one also include items such as overnight accommodation, dinners, etc.
.
Below I have reproduced my published Chapter “Chapter 444 – remuneration tribunal-gay-
constitution”.
.
This also has;
QUOTE
JAMES ANDREW McGINTY AND OTHERS v THE

STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA F.C. 96/001
COURT
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BRENNAN CJ(1), DAWSON(2), TOOHEY(3), GAUDRON(4), McHUGH(5) AND GUMMOW(6) JJ
HRNG
CANBERRA, 12-14 September 1995
JUDGE1 BRENNAN CJ.

6. The plaintiffs submit that disparities in voting power are inconsistent with the principle of representative
democracy as that principle is understood at the present time. Representative democracy, so the argument runs,
requires that (a) every legally capable adult has the vote; and (b) each person's vote be equal to the vote of every
other person. Of course, the term "legally capable adult" assumes without defining the scope of the franchise. In
this century, the age of legal adulthood has been reduced from 21 to 18 and the legal incapacity of women to vote
has been removed. Aborigines, who were once constitutionally disqualified from the franchise, are no
longer so disqualified.
END QUOTE
.
Again;
QUOTE
Aborigines, who were once constitutionally disqualified from the franchise, are no
longer so disqualified.
END QUOTE
The truth is that since federation aboriginals were NEVER, I repeat NEVER, constitutionally
disqualified prior to the 1967 referendum! Once they had Colonial/State franchise then they had
AUTOMATICALLY Federal franchise by way of Section 41 of the Constitution. It was up to the
colonies/States to provide colonial/state franchise to enable them to have federal franchise!
However, what is clear is that we have judges giving this kind of utter and sheer nonsense and then
the general population take this for granted taking the view that surely those judges whose task is to
interpret the Constitution and who are to be the GUARDIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION will
know what they are talking about, then we get it that the people simply do not know any longer the
truth.
.
It are the judges who are the culprits, and as I have stated in the past their lack of competence
resulted for them to block my applications within Section 75(v) of the Constitution to prevent
Australian troops to be involved in an armed murderous invasion into Iraq and we all suffer the
consequences of this.
.
Now, what we have is that politicians can fool around as much as they like about how much money
they are getting because we lack competent judges to stop this rot.
.
When one is given the understanding that as an excuse it is used that those working for Kevin Rudd,
Prime Minister, are earning as public servants more then $400,000 and so he should earn more, then
we see the illogical arguments.
Page 13
Are we going to have the politicians creating million dollar jobs for public servants and then use
this as a lever to argue they too should be paid million dollar jobs?
Lets have a reality check as to expenditure in 1901 versus 2000 and then consider if the price
increases really are such that politicians by far outstrip the average income of ordinary workforce
participants.
.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ABS@.NSF/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article48200
1?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2001&num=&view=
QUOTE (PRICES IN AUSTRALIA AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE 20th CENTURY)
PRICES IN AUSTRALIA AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE 20th CENTURY
This article takes a brief look at how the relative prices of many of today's common items
have changed since Federation. To assist in making comparisons, 1901 prices have been
mulitiplied by a factor of 50 to take account of general inflation. This factor is derived from
table 28.5, which shows that the purchasing power of one pound (or $2.00) in 1901 is
equivalent to about $100 in 2001. The 1901 prices in this article (which were originally
measured in pounds, shillings and pence) have been converted to decimal amounts. Likewise,
imperial measurements of quantity have been converted to their metric equivalents.
In 1901, the average weekly wage for an adult male was about $4.35 for a working week of
almost 50 hours, which after inflation equates to $217.50. However, wages have grown much
faster than inflation, with the average weekly ordinary time earnings for adult males in May
2000 being about $830.00 for around 37 hours work, in far better conditions.
The price of gold has often been used as a measure of inflation. At Federation, the price of
gold was $8.50 an ounce, or $425.00 in today's money. The actual price of gold in 1999-2000
averaged about $460.00 an ounce, showing that it has generally maintained pace with
inflation.
The basket of items used in 1901 to calculate the equivalent of today's CPI consisted of a
number of food items, a few laundry products such as starch, 'blue' (a laundry whitener) and
soap, candles for lighting, kerosene for heating and house rents. Although the brands and
range of products have changed over time, many of the items commonly used at the turn of
century are still everyday items. However, in many cases there will have been changes in
quality, presumably for the better.
A look at some common food items shows that some are relatively more expensive today,
some are relatively cheaper and some are about the same. In 1901 a loaf of bread cost about 2
cents (equivalent to $1.00 today), while the actual price today is about $2.30; milk was 3 cents
a litre ($1.50) compared with $1.40 today; 180 grams of tea cost 6 cents ($3.00) compared
with $3.40; potatoes were 2 cents ($1.00) a kilogram compared with $1.30; eggs were 12
cents a dozen ($6.00) compared with $2.90, and rump steak was 14 cents a kilogram ($7.00)
compared with $12.50 a century later.
A man's cotton business shirt cost about 85 cents (or $42.50 today after inflation), while a pair
of ladies shoes was about $1.45 ($72.50). These items could be purchased for comparable
prices today.
The average weekly rent for a three bedroom house in 1901 was $1.30, equivalent to about
$65.00 today. The actual value today varies depending on location, but the average of 8
Page 14
capital cities for a three bedroom house is about $250 a week. In the house, a metal-framed
double bed, mattress, a pair of blankets and two pillows cost about $12.10 ($605.00) in 1901.
Today, you could expect to pay upwards of $830.00.
At the time of Federation, motor cars were almost unheard of. Most people relied on public
transport or walking to get around. While walking was free, a return train trip, travelling first
class, from Sydney to Penrith was 60 cents ($3.00). Today, the same return trip costs $12.80.
In 1901 such a journey was considered to be a day excursion, whereas today people commute
regularly between Penrith and Sydney for work. Bicycles were starting to be seen on the
streets, but were a luxury item for most people. A new bicycle at about $31.00 ($1,550.00)
cost the equivalent of more than seven weeks wages, whereas today you can buy a good
quality bicycle for about $320.00, less than half a week's wages.
Although wine was not as popular in 1901 as it is today, people still enjoyed a drink. A bottle
of whisky cost 38 cents, or $19.00 after inflation. Today you would pay about $26.00 for a
bottle of popular brand scotch whisky. For beer drinkers, only full strength beer was available.
A carton of a dozen bottles cost 70 cents in 1901, or $35.00 after inflation, whereas the actual
price today is about $28.00. For the smokers, a packet of cigarettes was 5 cents ($2.50)
whereas today you pay about $11.20. Of course, cigarettes carried no health warnings in 1901.
In fact, an advertisement for a brand of cigarettes appearing in an issue of the Sydney Morning
Herald of the time carried the endorsement that they were "guaranteed not to harm the throat
or lungs" and, perhaps more disconcertingly, "recommended by doctors".
For recreation, there are far more choices today than there were a hundred years ago.
Nevertheless, there are still some common forms of amusement. A newspaper cost 1 cent in
1901, or 50 cents after inflation, whereas the actual cost of a daily newspaper today is about
$1.00. A new release novel cost about 25 cents ($12.50) compared with an actual price of
about $45.00 for a hard cover new release today, although of course paperbacks are often
available at cheaper prices. A concert at the Tivoli cost was 75 cents ($37.50) in 1901, much
the same as the cost of a concert today (about $40). Admission to a game of football in 1901
was 10 cents ($5.00), considerably cheaper than the $21.70 you would pay today. However,
some things do not change much-Essendon won the 1901 VFL Premiership and the 2000 AFL
Premiership!
Table 28.7 summarises the costs of a common 'basket' of goods and services in 1901 and
today.
28.7 Wages and price - 1901 and 2000
1901 prices 2000

1901 prices after inflation actual prices
$ $ $
Average weekly wage, adult males 4.35 217.50 830.00
Gold (1oz) 8.50 425.00 460.00

Loaf of bread 0.02 1.00 2.30
Flour (2kg) 0.04 2.00 3.00
Sugar (2kg) 0.09 4.50 2.30
Coffee (150g) 0.05 2.50 6.00
Tea (180g) 0.06 3.00 3.40
Rice (1kg) 0.05 2.50 1.65

Page 15
Butter (500g) 0.13 6.50 2.00

Potatoes (1kg) 0.02 1.00 1.30
Onions (1kg) 0.03 1.50 1.25
Rump steak (1kg) 0.14 7.00 12.50
Eggs (1 dozen) 0.12 6.00 2.90
Bacon (1kg) 0.19 9.50 9.40
Jam (500g) 0.04 2.00 2.50
Milk (1 litre) 0.03 1.50 1.40
Men’s cotton shirt 0.85 42.50 53.10
Men’s trousers’ 0.50 25.00 58.50
Women’s shoes (1 pair) 1.45 72.50 65.80
Umbrella 0.40 20.00 16.50
Rent on 3 bedroom house (1 week) 1.30 65.00 250.00
Double bed, mattress, blankets and pillows 12.10 605.00 830.00
Train trip 0.60 3.00 12.80
Bicycle 31.00 1,550.00 320.00
Whisky (1 bottle) 0.38 19.00 26.00
Carton of beer (1 dozen 750ml bottles) 0.70 35.00 28.00
Packet of cigarettes 0.05 2.50 11.20
Soap (600g) 0.03 1.50 3.05
Cough medicine (200ml) 0.25 12.50 14.90
Daily newspaper 0.01 50c 1.00
New release novel 0.25 12.50 45.00
Concert 0.75 37.50 39.30
Theatre 0.35 17.50 30.90
Game of football 0.10 5.00 21.70
Source: See references.

References
Australian Bureau of Statistics:
 Average Retail Prices of Selected Items (6403.0).

 Average Weekly Earnings, States and Australia (6302.0).
Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics:

 Labour and Industrial Branch Report No. 1, Prices, Price Indexes and Cost of
Living in Australia, December 1912;
 Official Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia, No. 21, 1901-1928.
Coopers Brewery Ltd.
Sydney Morning Herald 1901, various issues.
The Age 1901, various issues.
The Advertiser 1901, Adelaide, various issues.
This page last updated 3 October 2007

END QUOTE (PRICES IN AUSTRALIA AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE 20th
CENTURY)
.
Consider also the following, a Member of Parliament can be sacked, so to say, without being given
notice (such as an employee in a civil company is entitled upon) instanter by the Governor-General
Page 16
calling for an Double Dissolution. There is no such thing as to argue that a person who was a
Member of Parliament, say for 20 years, then get so many weeks per year of service as termination
payment. The position as a Member of Parliament simply is seen as an honorary position, not
intended by the Constitution to be one of a salary.
For this also, the Framers of the Constitution referred to the free travel, etc.
This nonsense about Members of Parliament upon retirement getting the usage of a Gold pass, etc,
is sheer lunacy. Their entitlements clearly must be restricted to the time they are actually serving as
a Member of Parliament, and no further.
* But, Gerrit…
**#** No buts. They are stripping invalids of their entitlements. Soldiers who served the country
are still being robbed of their entitlements, and the parliamentarians seems to be in the job to rob the
Consolidated Revenue to the maximum and who cares about the electors. We simply must get
sanity back into how the Constitution is used.
* What do you propose?
**#** Strip them of most of the fringe benefits. Get rid of the unconstitutional superannuation
deals. Strip them of the GOLD CARD and other benefits. Just provide them with appropriate
compensation while they are serving as a Member of Parliament.
Remember;
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST:

We must not altogether get rid of the idea that there is some patriotism in the people, and that
they desire to give their best services to the state without looking at the matter from an £ s. d.
point of view.
.
Currently, I see the Members of Parliament as vulgars …
.
* Gerrit, if I may, you said “vulgars” you mean “vultures”, am I correct?
.
I have always the problem that I tend to say/write “vulgars”, but meaning “vultures”. To me they
represent the same. Have you ever seen a “vulture” eating in what we seem to consider in a proper
tasteful manner? Likewise so parliamentarians, they seem to go wild on the consolidated revenue to
get whatever they can, even at times unlawfully, and this leaves me, and likely most others also, so
to say, with a bad taste in the mouth.
.
Look at someone who stands for election, with the “payment per vote” they can just stand for a
major political party and get thousands of dollars without bothering to do any campaigning. It gives
them a way to “earn” an income on an election.
.
Now they want to have some golden handshake when they are kicked out of office. Next in the
private sector, a casual employee, after all parliamentarians are not elected for a permanent time,
and are not even “employees” in that regard, will also demand a golden handshake.
.
We have this absurdity that the Government wants to try to break unionism, while in the federal
arena doing everything to restrict as much as possible benefits to their union, whatever their
political party might be called.
.
Page 17
Just consider this, if a Union were to make special requirements for prospective employees not
being a member of a union to have certain disabilities to be able to not applicable to people being a
member of a union. There would be a huge outcry by the Industrial Relations minister that this can’t
be allowed. Yet, the Federal Parliament has done everything to have as much as possible the close
shop mentality. When there is an election, then if you are a Member of the Parliament you get
unfair advantages against those who are not. Not just the fact that they can have in Senate elections
a square above the line, or can have access to electoral rolls but also in regard to nominations of 1
versus 50, etc.
.
But we have government who are blinded by their own greed and selfishness that they do not
comprehend this discrimination.
.
Here they are forcing discrimination upon the electorate and then on the other hand argue that if the
same is occurring in the private sector then it is a terrible thing to do.
* I understood that the High Court of Australia has approved of what you consider to be improper.
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI® to me those judges are at times complete idiots who don’t know
what they are talking about. If they were farting they would make as much sense as what they claim
at times.
The Pochi case is one of many examples how they appear not to understand what Australian
citizenship is about. It got simply nothing to do with being a member of the Australian community
to obtain Australian Citizenship.
This is the problem, as I see it, that they are political appointments. They are appointed regardless
of their incompetence in constitutional matters.
Time and again when I read their judgments, I think that even a first year law student could do
better if that student had read the Hansard as to the Constitutional Convention Debates that resulted
to the creation of the Federation.
As such, what the High Court of Australia claims to be often, in my view, is a lot of rubbish.
Gerrit, you better be careful. They might just take you up on a challenge?
So what, Let them prove me wrong. Just that we then have to find first competent judges who have
an ability to be aware what is JUSTICE. The judges themselves hardly could sit in judgment of
their own cases. They would simply railroad my cases. I would have no problem to take them on
before an International Court where independent judges would adjudicate.
They can use my books, and determine upon that material if my claims are right or wrong.
The above stated was published in 2003 as Chapter 27 in the book;

.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & ADDRESS TO THE COURT
A book on CD, making litigation a more level playing field
ISBN 9580569-7-8
.
Little has changed since the publication more then 5 years ago of this Chapter.
.

Page 18

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual allowance for
their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at £500.
.
Mr. A. FORREST:
I am certain that in our colony we can get men to come for a far less sum than that; in fact, I
believe we can get men to come without payment at all. It has been a principle of our
Parliament for many years, and will be, I hope, for years to come, that members shall have
that amount of good feeling towards their country that they will not ask the country to pay
their expenses.
.
Mr. GORDON: I move:
To strike out the word "four," in the third line, with the view of inserting " five."
The ground for the motion is that £400 a year is insufficient. While some local Parliaments
are paying their resident mem- [start page 1032] bers £300 a year, £400 is not enough for a
member who has to leave-as most members of the Federal Parliament would have to do-his
colony and practically abandon his business or his profession. He would have to rely either
upon his private means or his parliamentary salary, which, in this case, would be inadequate. I
think, if £400 a year is fixed, the choice for members of the House of Representatives will be
limited to those who can afford to leave their business or profession, and to those who are
prepared to depend entirely on the small parliamentary salary. While members of both of these
classes are exceedingly desirable members of any Parliament, I think it would be a mistake to
have the whole Parliament consisting of them, which the payment of the salary proposed
would probably lead to. I think £500 is little enough; the £100 makes all the difference to the
ordinary professional or business man.
.
It is clear that the “ALLOWANCE” for members of parliament was based upon time away from
their ordinary employment and not be a replacement so they do not have to have any kind of normal
employment and can leisure of the earnings of taxpayers.
.
Mr. TRENWITH: I hope that Mr. Gordon's amendment will be carried. We have no right
to assume that the Federal Parliament will not have a good deal to do. All our experience
teaches us that, as civilisation advances, the requirements of the people increase, and the
tendency to ask Parliament to do things, that in the past have been done by private
enterprise, is increasing very rapidly. I feel confident that the Federal Parliament, instead of
having less to do as time goes on, will have a great deal more to do.
.
Contrary to this assertion it seems Ministers are more and more privatizing and/or outsourcing what
they should be doing and then blame whomever when something goes wrong. As such, the monies
they are receiving is I view under false pretences as they are not putting a good days work in for it
on the average of the whole year.
Page 19
.
. Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
Clause 44. Until the parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the senate
or of the house of representatives, shall receive an allowance for his services of four hundred
pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
.
Now this term “Until the parliament otherwise provides” related to the $400.00 and not to alter
“each member” to members getting different kinds of “ALLOWANCES”. Technically, where
Members of Parliament are spending different amounts on travel, phone, printing, postage, etc then
there is clearly no equal kind of “ALLOWANCE” for each member as constitutionally required.
.
members.
.
Again, it is clear that Members of Parliament are not at all to receive something of yearly salary but
a reasonable compensation for loss of earnings and out of pocket expenses to travel to and from the
Parliament and so including overnight accommodation, but no more like the absurdity of monies
now paid out to them.
.
[start page 994]
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: It seems to me that if the £400 per annum is to be
considered as a salary, it is altogether inadequate. If, on the other hand, it is to be
require their constant attention will not be able to leave them in order to attend. No
doubt those who live close to the seat of government will be able to go by train from
Melbourne or Sydney to attend to their parliamentary duties, returning now and again to look
after their ordinary business; but what about these living in colonies which are far distant?
Take the case of Western Australia. How, for instance, will members of the legal profession
be able to leave their place of business and take part in the government of the country? They
will not be able to do it. Unless they are men of some means, or have no business to attend to,
they will not be able to leave their homes-especially will they be unable to take office. Their
businesses would be ruined whilst they were a thousand, or a couple of thousand miles away. I
hope we shall find that those who are willing to become members of the federal parliament
will be persons who are able to devote some time to their duties. For that reason I do not look
very much at the amount of the emolument to be given. It is either too little, or it is quite
Page 20
enough. I do not feel inclined to move that it be reduced, or to support its reduction. At the
same time I think £300 a year would be quite sufficient. But I take it that the persons who
will become members of the senate, or house of representatives will not be persons who
are altogether dependent upon this small honorarium.
.
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: All that I desired to emphasise was my
opposition to a member receiving the salary of a minister and at the same time the salary
of a member of the commonwealth parliament.
official salary.
.
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. That would get over the difficulty. If in sub-section (2) of clause 46 you
put an express reference to a certain class of insolvency, that must exclude by inference any
other class of insolvency. There is another point, and this is also a very serious one, to which
the Premier of Victoria drew my attention before lunch. Sub-section (3) of clause 46 provides
that the seat of a senator or member of the House of Representatives is to become vacant if he-
directly or indirectly accepts or receives any fee or honorarium for work done or service
rendered by him for and on behalf of the Commonwealth while sitting as such member.
No exception is made to meet the case of a Minister of the Crown. There is provision made
elsewhere in the Constitution for the payment of salary to Ministers for services
rendered to the Commonwealth, which might include his services as a senator. Clause
48A provides that-
.
Allowance to members.
48. Until The Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House
of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned
from the day on which he takes his seat.
.
Again, there never was any intention by the Framers of the Constitution that there would be
anything but equality in total payment of “ALLOWANCE to every Federal Member of Parliament.”
What this also shows there was no such thing as provisions for a Gold Pass, for former Members of
Parliament, former Governor-General’s, former ministers, former judges let alone Gold passes for
people like Alexander Downer mother as widow of her later husband who had served in Parliament.
What it means is that once a Member of Parliament leaves the Parliament then all and any benefits
enjoyed as a Member of Parliament no longer is applicable.
.
I now reproduced more extensively what the Framers of the Constitution debated so that the Reader
will understand the context of debates and that clearly any kind of “FREE TRAVEL” by former
politicians, as now reported to still to continue is a gross abuse of Consolidated Revenue and I view
each and every former Member of parliament doing so or having done so should be held
accountable before the Courts for defrauding the Commonwealth (by this the taxpayers).
Page 21
No excuse they didn’t know because if ordinary people can be placed before the Courts in regard of
fraudulent conduct then they should too. They are getting ample of money that they can do without
having a day job and so should in the first place have researched constitutional provisions and
limitations and if they are too lazy to do so then this never should be an excuse.
.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
It is provided, then, that each member of either house shall have an annual allowance for his
services, which is proposed to be fixed in the meantime at £500 a year. The ordinary
disqualifications are inserted as to members holding offices of profit, with the exception of
ministers of the Crown, or becoming public contractors and other similar provisions.

Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual
allowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to
time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual
allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting
here, except to suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think,
the best that could be adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the
clause as an allowance for services is a misdescription. It is really an allowance for the
reimbursement of expenses.
Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
not.
Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included
at all. Why not say that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives,
shall receive an annual allowance? I move as an amendment:
That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.

Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with
reference to the payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be
inserted in the bill which are not inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will
find provisions which take into consideration the salaries that are paid to ministers, to
officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against officials being
paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654]
Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no
provision of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill
to make any other provision than the bald provision already made. Surely it is not
contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was being paid £500 a
year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus his salary
Page 22
as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational manner; and to

settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own
judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are
likely to do well to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give
proper attention to further work to-night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to
what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in regard to the absence of provision on matters
of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting committee was concerned,
because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution with matters of
detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the commonwealth in its first
session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great number of other matters of that
kind. We have, therefore, given them power to deal with this subject. We did not think it
necessary to make this in an sense a payment of members bill. We lay down, however, the
principle that they, are to receive an annual allowance for their services, and we thought
that it should start in the first instance at £500.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.

Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an
annual allowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament
from time to time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount
of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
Upon which Mr. Marmion had moved by way of amendment:

That the words "for his services" be omitted.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. A. FORREST: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the amount of the
allowance to be paid to the members of both houses of the federal parliament. The allowance
will amount to at least £100,000 for the different states, and I think it would be better if it were
left to each colony to fix the amount of the payment to members.
Mr. MUNRO: Oh, nonsense!
Mr. A. FORREST: I am sure that the colony which I have the honor to represent will
object most strongly to pay its members anything like £500 a year. At the present time
we have no payment of members, nor are we likely to have it in Western Australia, and
if we allow this amount to stand in the clause we shall find that the local parliament will
move in that direction. The colony is not in a position to pay any large sum as an allowance
to its members, and I protest most strongly against this Convention in any way pledging the
local parliaments to the payment-of £500 per annum to members [start page 655] to attend the
senate sitting in Sydney or Melbourne. I am certain that in our colony we can get men to come
for a far less sum than that; in fact, I believe we can get men to come without payment at all. It
has been a principle of our Parliament for many years, and will be, I hope, for years to come,
that members shall have that amount of good feeling towards their country that they will not
ask the country to pay their expenses. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will leave it to
the different state, legislatures to arrange for the payment of their members.
Clause, as read, agreed to.
.
Page 23

45. Each member of the Senate and House of Representatives shall receive an annual
allowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the Parliament from time to
time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the Parliament the amount of such annual
allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
.
Mr. REID: Yes, the minimum; maximum to them. That would be a change which certainly
should recommend itself to the representatives, I will not say of the smaller States-because
that term always seems to me to be entirely mistaken-I will say to the smaller populations,
because in the Draft Bill the Lower House -and again I do not object to those familiar phrases
to which we are accustomed-had an advantage of seventy-two members over the Senate.
Under my suggestion, however, there would be a difference of only twenty-four. My reasons
for this basis are simply these, that, having regard to the work which it is proposed to allot to
the Federal Parliament, it should not contain a [start page 270] larger number of members than
ninety-six. Then, again, without seeming to belittle the system of payment of members, I think
that the annual allowance might well be fixed at £300, with a certain allowance for travelling
common to all Federations, which are generally of great extent.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: That would come to as much as £500 without travelling
expenses, as proposed in the Commonwealth Bill.
Mr. REID: Oh, no.

Sir GEORGE TURNER: More, I should think.
Mr. REID: The allowance I would strictly limit to something like £50.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: It would depend on where the Parliament sat.
Mr. REID: The free railway passes help one along very comfortably.
Mr. TRENWITH: They do not pay hotel bills.

Mr. REID: Of course, if my friend Sir Joseph Abbott has his way, and the capital is fixed
somewhere in the internal wilds of New South Wales, I admit that my figures would be
inadequate. I see, however, the chance of saving something like £50,000 per year on the
figures of the draft Bill. I make no difficulty about equality of representation in the Senate. As
to the franchise of the Senate, I think, in the interests of those who wish to make it a strong
national body, that they should not follow the American method.
.
SIR GEORGE TURNER: Before you pass on, will you look at the last words in clause 10-
"Houses of Representatives." Should not that be "States Assembly?"
Mr. BARTON: That is a slip which was made at the last moment, and it should read
"States Assembly." I will propose in Committee that that should be altered. Now, I will pass
over such formal matters as the election of the President and the Speaker of either House, the
disqualification clauses, and so on, and come to a matter which may be as important as to
some it will be interesting, of course, in this Chamber. That is a provision relating to both
Houses, which is that, until the Parliament otherwise provides, each member of either House
of the Federal Parliament shall receive an allowance for his services of £400 a year, to be
Page 24
reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat. This is a matter which does not require
much discussion at my hands. There will be here, as elsewhere, two opinions upon the
question of payment of members. While I myself may have seen some events which have
caused me not to be so fond of the operation of that principle as I once was-thinking that that
which is apparently logical in reason will always work out with success in legislation-still, I
think there are circumstances which will be taken into consideration by hon. members which
make this a different question from the question of payment of members in the provincial
Parliaments. There are difficulties which have to be considered. There is the difficulty of there
being only the one Parliament and seat of Government to govern the whole of the three
million square miles of territory, and the difficulty of attending that Parliament will be
infinitely greater than that involved in members attending the Parliaments of their own
colonies. Inasmuch as the members of the Federal Parliament will, without intermission, have
to be in attendance for three or four months each Session, I think the question whether they
should be entitled to receive some allowance becomes a much more serious question than it is
in regard to the provincial Legislatures. Many of those who are not much enamoured of the
subject in regard to the provincial Parliaments may have a very different opinion in regard to
the Federal Parliament. As for me, I may say I am prepared to accept the principle as it applies
to the Federal Parliament.
.
Clause 83.-Upon the establishment of the Commonwealth, all officers employed by the
Government of any State in any department of the Public Service, the control of which is by
this Constitution assigned to the Commonwealth, shall become subject to the control of the
Executive Government of the Commonwealth; and thereupon every such officer shall be
entitled to receive from the State any gratuity, pension, or retiring allowance, payable under
the law of the State on abolition of his office.
Also
Mr. O'CONNOR: In answer to Mr. Kingston's remark, I should like to call attention to the
wording of this clause, that he is only entitled to what becomes payable under the law of the
State on abolition of office. If the law of the State gives nothing on the abolition of office, no
right accrues to him. There would be no right to take over a pension. Of course there would be
no objection to the payment of the retiring allowance or gratuity being deferred until after his
services to the Commonwealth have ceased. That might be done. What we really want to get
at is that his right shall be crystallised at the time, and that the money shall be payable not by
the Commonwealth, but by the State.
Mr. HIGGINS: The State has a chance of his dying.
Mr. O'CONNOR: On the other hand, you take away from him the right that he would have
if he did not die.
Mr. HIGGINS: There will be a lot of grumbling.
Mr. O'CONNOR: You cannot do absolute justice in this case, and we have to do the best
we can. Something ought to be done by which the same rights should be given to those
officers whose services are taken over, and whose rights, by being taken over, are
Somewhat interfered with.
.
Sub-section 4-Remuneration of justices-as read agreed to.

Page 25
Mr. KINGSTON: I would like to ask Mr. Barton whether he does not think it would be an
improvement to provide in this clause, as we have provided with regard to the salary of the
Governor, not only that it shall not be diminished during continuance in office, but that it shall
not be increased?
Mr. BARTON: I think it would.
Mr. SYMON: I hope Mr. Barton will not so readily agree to that, because there is a great
distinction between the appointment of the Governor-General and his salary, and the
appointment of a judge and his salary. The appointment of a Governor-General is for four,
five, or six years. The object of the clause fixing his remuneration is to prevent him
intriguing for an increase of salary during that short period; but where you are
appointing judges for life, during good behavior, the conditions are so altered that the
condition would not be essential.
Mr. ISAACS: Would not your argument apply to diminishing as well as to increasing?
Mr. SYMON: No; because the provision with regard to diminishing is again
introducing the principle of preventing pressure being put on on a judge.
Mr. O'CONNOR: A judge should have nothing to hope for.

Mr. SYMON: That is a very convenient phrase, yet like other phrases it is one which
creates a good deal of misapprehension. I should only like to call the attention of Mr. Barton
to the view taken by the Federalist on this very point. It is a singular thing how little alteration
there has been in the points which have been raised on this judiciary question, and indeed on
many other questions.
Sir JOHN DOWNER: In fact, on any other question.
Mr. SYMON: And how little the objections have changed in the last 120 years or so in
relation to these matters. This very point was taken, that if you provided that the remuneration
of the President of the United States of America should not be increased nor diminished
during his term of office you should provide the same for the judges. This is what Hamilton,
in one of his exceedingly able disquisitions, not written so much philosophically as from a
practical politician's point of view, says on the point of the non-interference by way of
diminution with salaries:
It was therefore necessary to leave it to the discretion of the legislature, to vary its provisions
in conformity to the variations in circumstances, yet under such restrictions as to put it out of
the power of that body to change the condition of the individual for the worse. A man may
then be sure of the ground upon which he stands, and can never be deterred from his duty by
the apprehension of being placed in a less eligible situation. The clause which has been
quoted, combines both advantages. The salaries of judicial officers may from time to time be
altered, as occasion shall require, yet so as never to lessen the allowance with which any
particular judge comes into office, in respect to him. It will be observed that a difference has
been made by the Convention between the compensation of the President and of the judges.
That of the former can neither be increased nor diminished; that of the latter can only not be
diminished. This probably arose from the difference in the duration of the respective offices.
As the President is to be elected for no more than four years, it can rarely happen that an
adequate salary, fixed at the commencement of that period, will not continue to be such to its
end. But with regard to the judges, who, if they behave properly, will be secured in their
Page 26
places for life, it may well happen, especially in the early stages of the government, that a
stipend, which would be sufficient at their first appointment, would become too small in the
progress of their service.
Mr. ISAACS: Why is not the contrary correct?
Mr. SYMON: That is the view on [start page 962] which all these provisions with respect
to the salaries of judges have been drafted, and I would beg my hon. friend not to place too
readily this provision with regard to judges' salaries on the same footing as that which applies
to an executive officer, who only holds his office for a comparatively short term.
Mr. HIGGINS: When did Hamilton write that?
Mr. SYMON: After the Constitution had been framed, when he was dealing with objections
taken to its provisions
Mr. ISAACS: When he was pressing the people to accept it.

Mr. SYMON: Yes, just as, I suppose, the hon. member is trying to persuade us to reject the
proper provisions of this Constitution.
Mr. BARTON: The suggestion made is one worthy of consideration. Although it may be
that the circumstances of a new country may show that the salary which a judge is paid on his
accepting office becomes inadequate as time goes on, I think that is a question which he
should consider for himself before he takes office Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.
Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge
under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from
Parliament or Government.
Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the
interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same
sense as a federal judge is, the same circumstances remain in part; but where you will
have a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution against the
inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it is essential
that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do
not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether consciously
or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which
might be dangerous to the Constitution itself. My friend Mr. O'Connor points out that the
most important questions that may arise may be those between the States and the
Commonwealth, the validity of State laws, and the validity of Commonwealth laws which
may overlap or override them. Those very questions which the Senate exists to prevent may
be arising and embarrassing the Constitution. The Senate will have to exercise its powers to
prevent overlapping of that kind, but if it fails to exercise its authority power must be present
in the court to adjust matters. You may easily conceive a case in which there might be a
desire to reward a judge for past services, and with the view that he may be insensibly
influenced in regard to future cases. I do not think a judge should have anything to
expect in that way.
Clause as read agreed to.

.
Page 27
Mr. GORDON: I move:
To strike out the word "four," in the third line, with the view of inserting " five."
The ground for the motion is that £400 a year is insufficient. While some local Parliaments
are paying their resident mem- [start page 1032] bers £300 a year, £400 is not enough for a
member who has to leave-as most members of the Federal Parliament would have to do-his
colony and practically abandon his business or his profession. He would have to rely either
upon his private means or his parliamentary salary, which, in this case, would be inadequate. I
think, if £400 a year is fixed, the choice for members of the House of Representatives will be
limited to those who can afford to leave their business or profession, and to those who are
prepared to depend entirely on the small parliamentary salary. While members of both of these
classes are exceedingly desirable members of any Parliament, I think it would be a mistake to
have the whole Parliament consisting of them, which the payment of the salary proposed
would probably lead to. I think £500 is little enough; the £100 makes all the difference to the
ordinary professional or business man.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: £400 is quite enough.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON: £100 too much.
Mr. GORDON: I think it is a question on which the sense of the Committee should be
taken, and, without further remark, I move the amendment.
Mr. HIGGINS: I think that, having regard to the fact that the Federal Parliament will have
much less to do than the ordinary local Parliaments after the first Parliament, £400 is
sufficient. I am as strongly in favor of payment of members, on the grounds alluded to by Mr.
Gordon, as any man, but I say that the work done in the States Parliaments takes far more time
than will the work in the Federal Parliament, after its first meeting. It is not likely, indeed, that
the Federal Parliament will sit more than two months in the year. I should like to strike out
"four," with a view to the insertion of "three." At the same time, as £400 has been fixed as a
compromise, I hope it will remain at that amount as the maximum.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: I consider that £400 is ample payment for the services of members.
In addition to that they possess the privilege of a free railway pass. The amount proposed to be
paid-£400-is twice as much as the Dominion Parliament of Canada pays its members. I trust
hon. members will not support the amendment to increase the amount to £500.
Mr. TRENWITH: I hope that Mr. Gordon's amendment will be carried. We have no right
to assume that the Federal Parliament will not have a good deal to do. All our experience
teaches us that, as civilisation advances, the requirements of the people increase, and the
tendency to ask Parliament to do things, that in the past have been done by private
enterprise, is increasing very rapidly. I feel confident that the Federal Parliament, instead of
having less to do as time goes on, will have a great deal more to do. I think that it will be
found to the advantage of the States to hand over work to the central Government. Of course, I
can understand the objection that any sum is too much, by those who disapprove of the
principle of payment of members. But the principle of payment of members has been adopted
throughout all the colonies. It was adopted after a good deal of resistance on the part of those
who disapprove of it, which showed the strong growing public feeling in favor of paying

Page 28
members for the work they do, and of looking upon the position of a member of Parliament
not merely as a position of honor, but rather regarding them as State servants who are paid for
their work. We are paid not merely to reimburse us for expenses incurred, and to pay members
of the Federal Parliament £500 a year would be little enough, considering that during a portion
of the year they will have to be great distances from their established homes.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It will cost them nothing to travel.
Mr. TRENWITH: That is a very popular delusion.

[start page 1033]
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Let them keep out of Parliament.
Mr. TRENWITH: That is exactly the idea. I say let the people have the widest possible
area of selection for Parliament in order that all sections may be represented.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: To keep a lot of idle fellows doing nothing.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
Mr. TRENWITH: I am anxious that members of Parliament should not be idle fellows. In
the non-payment days a great many members were idle fellows who looked upon a seat in
Parliament as an addition to their social position, who cared very little for its worth, and in
some instances who paid themselves very handsomely by the opportunities they had.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: You cannot say that with truth. That is a most scandalous
assertion!
Mr. TRENWITH: It is the truth.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Quite scandalous. You have no right to make such a statement.
Mr. TRENWITH: I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort, but when Sir William
Zeal talks about idle fellows, he brings upon himself, naturally and properly, the rejoinder I
have made.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON: A most unjust rejoinder.
Mr. TRENWITH: In some of the colonies the best lands and water-frontages-the very eyes
of the colonies, in fact-were mopped up by members of Parliament during the regime of non-
payment of members.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: How many of them?
Mr. TRENWITH: As I said before I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort.
Mr. WALKER: What you say may be the case in Victoria, you know.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It is a gross exaggeration.
Mr. TRENWITH: I am not speaking merely of Victoria. I lived during the early part of my
life in a nice little colony which suffered in the same way.
Mr. WALKER: Do you mean Van Diemen's Land?

Page 29
Mr. TRENWITH: I mean Tasmania. I was pointing out that the instincts of our people tend
towards payment of members of Parliament for their work. My hon. friend, Sir William Zeal,
interjected that we have free railway passes. I would remark that any person who knows
anything about travel must recognise that it carries with it a large amount of expense. Those
who are here, away from their homes, know that if they were getting £400 a year for this
work, they would be losing money, and they would not even be reimbursed for the
expenditure incurred. Those who urge that the amount should be left as proposed in the Bill,
are not in favor of payment of members, but are simply favorable to reimbursing members for
the disbursements they make in connection with the performance of their duties.
Mr. HIGGINS: I was always in favor of payment of members.
Mr. TRENWITH: I feel confident that my hon. friend Mr. Higgins could not have looked
thoroughly at the question or he would not have spoken as he did.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: He is losing now ten times as much as he will ever get for being
here, but he is bearing it cheerfully.
Mr. TRENWITH: There are some who could not afford to lose anything at all. Parliament
is to be composed, as it ought to be, of representatives of all sections of the community.
There must be in Parliament some who cannot afford to lose anything at all, and who must be
paid for their services, and if those services are worth having, there ought to be adequate
remuneration for them. I sincerely hope that the higher figure will be [start page 1034]
adopted, not because I believe in extravagance, but because I believe that any lesser sum will
not pay members of Parliament for their work.
Question-That the word "four," proposed to be struck out, stand part of the question-put. The
Committee divided.
Ayes, 26; Noes, 9. Majority, 17.
.
Clause 44. Until the parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the senate
or of the house of representatives, shall receive an allowance for his services of four hundred
pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
Suggested amendment by the Legislative Council of South Australia and the Legislative
Council and House of Assembly of Tasmania:
Omit "four" insert "three."

The Hon. J.H. GORDON (South Australia)[5.8]: I hope the suggested amendment will not
be agreed to. I shall only repeat now, in a few words, the contention I made when the
Convention sat in Adelaide: that if the salary is made too low it will result in either men of
independent means or men to whom the salary itself is sufficient inducement to leave their
colonies becoming members of the federal parliament. Whilst in both these classes we may
have able and desirable representatives, I think it would be a mistake that the character of the
representatives should be confined, as it will to a large extent be confined if the salary is made
too small, to those two classes of the community.
The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[5.9]: I would suggest that it would not be
conducive to obtaining the service of the best men in the parliament of the commonwealth if
the salary were made equal to that of members of one of the state parliaments. The salary, for
instance, in the Parliament of New South Wales, is £300, and membership does not involve
Page 30
absence from the colony during the session. In the case of most of the colonies, however, after
the commonwealth is established, membership will involve absence from home during the
whole of the session. Under such circumstances, the competition is relatively less in the case
of the commonwealth than in the case of the states.
The Hon. S. FRASER (Victoria)[5.10]: I think £400 per annum is little enough to pay to
representatives who come from distant colonies. I think, however, some distinction should be
made.
HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
The Hon. S. FRASER: It is done in other countries.
members.
The Hon. E. BARTON: We should either give a man nothing, or make it worth his while to
attend!
[start page 994]
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: It seems to me that if the £400 per annum is to be
considered as a salary, it is altogether inadequate. If, on the other hand, it is to be
require their constant attention will not be able to leave them in order to attend. No
doubt those who live close to the seat of government will be able to go by train from
Melbourne or Sydney to attend to their parliamentary duties, returning now and again to look
after their ordinary business; but what about these living in colonies which are far distant?
Take the case of Western Australia. How, for instance, will members of the legal profession
be able to leave their place of business and take part in the government of the country? They
will not be able to do it. Unless they are men of some means, or have no business to attend to,
they will not be able to leave their homes-especially will they be unable to take office. Their
businesses would be ruined whilst they were a thousand, or a couple of thousand miles away. I
hope we shall find that those who are willing to become members of the federal parliament
will be persons who are able to devote some time to their duties. For that reason I do not look
very much at the amount of the emolument to be given. It is either too little, or it is quite
enough. I do not feel inclined to move that it be reduced, or to support its reduction. At the
same time I think £300 a year would be quite sufficient. But I take it that the persons who
will become members of the senate, or house of representatives will not be persons who
are altogether dependent upon this small honorarium. If there are no persons on this
continent willing to give up some time without much reward to the service of the state, then I

Page 31
take it we are far from being ready to take upon ourselves the responsibilities of this federal
government. If we expect that this small amount of £400 a year will be a sufficient
inducement to persons to give their services, and, if they have nothing else but this, I think we
shall have very indigent persons as members of both houses of parliament. No one would say
that any of the gentlemen I see around me would leave their businesses, and go away to the
federal parliament, and that £400 a year would recompense them for the loss they would
sustain. That is not thought of for a moment. The actual loss they would sustain, if they had
businesses to attend to in their own colony, instead of being represented by £400, would
amount to several times more than that. I hope we shall not for a moment think that the
persons who are to be members of the senate and house of representatives will be persons who
will depend altogether upon the small amount named in this bill. If it were so, all I can say is,
the amount seems to me inadequate.
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS (Victoria)[5.19]: I take it that our great object in electing two houses
of parliament as representatives of the people is to see that the people are represented. It is
impossible, having regard to the immense area of the continent, that the people can be
adequately represented if the choice is restricted by want of means on the part of would-be
representatives, and I think the only doubt in this matter is whether £400 is enough.
The Hon. Sir W.A. ZEAL: That is twice as much as the amount paid in Canada!
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: It is perfectly plain that anything less than £400 would be a farce.
If there was a proposal to [start page 995] increase the amount, it might be a matter for
Consideration; but we ought not to hesitate to retain at least £400 a year.
Question-That the word "four" proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause -agreed to.
Amendment suggested by the Legislative Assembly of Victoria:
Omit "on which he takes his seat," insert of his election."
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS (Victoria)[5.21]: If we say that the honorarium shall be reckoned
from the day on which the member takes his seat, it may be very hard indeed on the members
of the house of representatives. The house might not be sitting at the time of an election.
Indeed, it might be the case with a member of the senate. A vacancy might occur, a member
might be elected, and might have to commence his services and perform all the duties of his
position and get none of its emoluments. If we were to adopt the amendment suggested by
Victoria, and omit the words "on which he takes his seat," inserting the words "of his
election," there would be a difficulty in the case of the senate; because the date of the
election of the senators is previous to the 1st of January, so that by omitting these words
you might be paying two people at the same time. I would suggest to the Drafting
Committee that they should adopt some such words as these "from the day on which his
services commence." That would apply in the case of a member of the house of
representatives to the day of his election, and in a case of a senator to the date from
which his services were actually reckoned.
Mr. SYMON: Does not a senator begin his services on the day of his election?
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: A senator is elected in the year preceding the 1st of January, and
his predecessor, so to speak, retains his office until the expiration of the year.
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia)[5.23]: I would point out to the hon. and learned member that
his suggestion does not go quite far enough. Under clause l3 the services of the first senator,
or the senators of the first parliament, commence from the January preceding the date of his
Page 32
election. So that if the suggestion of the hon. and learned member is carried out we shall be
paying a man for time be does not serve.
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: It is the date on which the law deems his services to have
commenced!
Mr. GLYNN: Does not the hon. and learned member know that under clause 13, in the case
of the senators of the first parliament, instead of their services dating from the January
succeeding the election, they date from the January preceding the election; so that if you say
that the payment shall date from the commencement of their services, in such general terms,
you will be paving the first senators for time they never served. I would suggest that the clause
should be amended in this way:
That after the words "on which he takes his seat" we should add the words "in the case of a
senator, the commencement of his services."
That would be the January succeeding the date of his election, and I think also the date when
the term of office of the old senator would expire, so that there would be no overlapping. Then
I should add the words "and in the case of a member of the house of representatives, from the
day of his election." In the case of the first election of the senate the allowance should be
reckoned from the date of the election. That would be right as regards the first senators,
because the date of their election would also be the date on which their real services
commenced, though theoretically the date of their services would be from the January
preceding.
[start page 996]
The CHAIRMAN: There are some new clauses proposed by South Australia and Tasmania
to follow clause 44, and I shall first put clause 44 to the Committee.
Clause 44 agreed to.
New clause to follow clause 44 suggested by the Legislative Council of South Australia:
No member of the senate or house of representatives whilst in receipt, out of the general
revenue, of any official Wary or annual sum shall be entitled to receive any such payment as
aforesaid, except in so far as such payment may exceed the amount of such official salary or
annual sum.
The Hon. E. BARTON: I would suggest that we should not pass this proposed new clause.
It is a mere matter of legislation for the commonwealth to consider.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia)[5.25]: I think it would be very undesirable to agree to this
proposal. It is very unlikely that any minister would refuse to deduct from his official salary
the salary he receives as a member of the house of representatives. Besides that, if any
provision of the kind be necessary, it will be competent for the federal parliament to pass it.
There is no need to put the provision in this constitution.
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia)[5.26]: What I want to know is
whether it will be competent for a minister to receive a salary as a member of the house
of representatives in addition to the emolument attached to his ministerial office? I
should say that he ought not to receive the two remunerations, and that is in accord with
our present practice.

Page 33
The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[5.27]: This is not a matter to be provided
against in the constitution. We may rely upon the parliaments of the different colonies to
provide against the receipt of the two salaries by their members while members of the
commonwealth parliament, and the parliament of the commonwealth will make a
similar provision in regard to its own officers.
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: But this provision does not refer to states!
The Hon. E. BARTON: It maybe the case in a state or in the commonwealth. In any, case
there is a competent authority to make the provision, and there is no need to put it in the
constitution.
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: All that I desired to emphasise was my
opposition to a member receiving the salary of a minister and at the same time the salary
of a member of the commonwealth parliament.
official salary.
New clause negatived.

.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Ought you not to have the same phrase in sub-section (2) as you have in
sub-section (3) of clause 45?
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. That would get over the difficulty. If in sub-section (2) of clause 46 you
put an express reference to a certain class of insolvency, that must exclude by inference any
other class of insolvency. There is another point, and this is also a very serious one, to which
the Premier of Victoria drew my attention before lunch. Sub-section (3) of clause 46 provides
that the seat of a senator or member of the House of Representatives is to become vacant if he-
directly or indirectly accepts or receives any fee or honorarium for work done or service
rendered by him for and on behalf of the Commonwealth while sitting as such member.
No exception is made to meet the case of a Minister of the Crown. There is provision made
elsewhere in the Constitution for the payment of salary to Ministers for services
rendered to the Commonwealth, which might include his services as a senator. Clause
48A provides that-
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator, and each member of the House of
Representatives, shall receive for his services an allowance of £400 a year, to be reckoned
The allowance spoken of there might be regarded as an honorarium, or as a fee, but it

is an allowance for "services," which is the word used in sub-section (3) of clause 46.
[start page 1944]
Mr. LYNE.-What would be the position of a barrister or solicitor voting in connexion. with
a case in which he was interested outside?

Page 34
Mr. ISAACS.-The clause does not deal with that matter, though no doubt it is one of very
great importance. Although most excellent work has been done by the Drafting
Committee in recasting three clauses of the Bill, I think it is necessary that I should draw
attention to these matters. I think that a very slight alteration would get rid of the difficulties
to which I have referred.
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The last point which the honorable and learned
member has raised no doubt requires attention, but I think the difficulty would be got over by
the insertion of some words like these:-
directly or indirectly accepts or receives, otherwise than as is provided by this Constitution.

48. Until The Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House
of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned
.
Again;
not.
.
QUOTE Chapter 444
Chapter 444 – remuneration tribunal-gay-constitution
.
* Gerrit, a subject you may not get too many friends with, am I right?
.
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I give my views as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” first and I view
as such there is no constitutional powers to provide for Federal or State legislation as demanded.
.
Monica Attard, Media Watch ABC
Cc;
The Australian
Alan Ramsey
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Monica,
On Monday 23-7-2007 I noticed you lagging in onto of The Australian as to the fact of
homosexual Michal Kirby J of the High Court of Australia having claimed travel and other cost for
his travelling as a judge for his male companion van Vloten.
I had the impression that you were a lawyer and if so then surely I had expected you to do some
ground research rather then to criticise a person without, so to say, having done your homework.
Page 35
Unless the Remuneration Tribunal is in the constitution given powers to override constitutional
provisions, I view, as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” it makes not one of iota difference that the
Remunerations Tribunal has decided in 2004, as it will remain unconstitutional and so without legal
force. The fact that Alan Ramsey in his 29 May 2004 article (you referred to) did not raise the
constitutional issue does not make it lawful!
In my view, Michael Kirby J of the High Court of Australia is defrauding the commonwealth of
Australia Consolidated Revenue if he is claiming travel cost and other cost associated to his
companion as I view that this is and remains unlawful!
Below I have set out some argument to indicate misconceptions by the High Court of Australia and
the fact that Michael Kirby J is a judge of the High Court of Australia ought not give him any
special position to be in breach of law, as I view he is.
See also my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

and my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
Please note the following Chapter of my forthcoming book;
Chapter 000J-remuneration tribunal-gay-constitution.doc

* Gerrit, did you ever get the FOI requested details/information you requested years ago about the
allegations of Kirby J of the High Court of Australia allegedly picking up males using taxpayers
funded taxis?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, so far they never provided them to me and neither Kirby J
himself
* Why would it be important to you?
**#** Once I was driving taxis and knows what goes on and as such could have checked if the
details/information provided and that which was recorded on the files of the High Court of Australia
as to cost may in fact have revealed something to me ordinary would not be picked up by others.
But, so far for years I didn’t get it and to me this may imply there was something that might be
sought to kept hidden.
* Didn’t a Senator Bill Heffernan pursue that issue once and later apologizes?
**#** Well, he may have but that has nothing to do with the fact that I may have a better
understanding how it operates and as such could have detected from the records something that he
may never have been able to detect, if there was anything at all to be detected.
* But doesn’t Kirby J already live for a long time in a relationship?
**#** Well, the rumor is that he was living in breach of law while he was a Judge of a Court in
NSW. As such, he was in breach of law residing in a homosexual relationship while at the bench
dealing with offenders. To me one must be a hypocrite to take such a double standard of how the
law applies. I view he was unfit to be a judge of the High Court of Australia. And, I view he is
defrauding the taxpayers to claim for his homosexual partner.

Page 36
* But didn’t the Remuneration Tribunal make a so called “Kirby clause” to allow same sex partners
to be claimed for?
**#** It may or may not have but that to me is not relevant. It was reported that Kirby seeks the PM
(Prime Minister) to provide for his homosexual partner to be entitled to pension benefits but to me
that is also unconstitutional.
As I have set out below;

QUOTE
Therefore, I take the position that the Remuneration Tribunal cannot have a greater powers,
acting as an agent for the Commonwealth of Australia then the Commonwealth of Australia
has itself and hence cannot allow payments for so to say same sex couples, and hence I view
Michael Kirby J is defrauding the Consolidated Revenue to claim for his male companion.
END QUOTE
* Hold on Kirby J is a judge of the High Court of Australia and surely he would know what is and
isn’t permissible?
**#** Well, not just him but also other High Court of Australia judges may lack any competence in
certain constitutional issues, and we (as a society) end up with the rot. As I published already on 27-
5-2007 the Books setting out why the High Court of Australia was so wrong about the validity of
the so called WorkChoices legislation, and my 30 September 2003 published book for example set
out citizenship, and what it really is about, I keep exposing the incompetence of High Court of
Australia judges.
Now take for example THE QUEEN v. PEARSON; Ex parte SIPKA (1983) 152 CLR 254 case
and what I view the utter and sheer nonsense that is stated in that judgement. Sure, the judges did
not then consider the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution appropriately because they
ignored to use the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates until 1992, but still that
is no excuse.
Take for example the issue of “franchise” which is part of the political rights of “citizenship”.
Now, as shown below the Framers of the Constitution voted against the Commonwealth of
Australia to allow the Commonwealth of Australia to legislate as to define/declare “citizenship”.
Now, “citizenship” is not a “nationality” but again the “political rights” of a person.
.
Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard
to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament
to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the
Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by
the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
.
What the Framers of the Constitution made clear is that the Commonwealth of Australia within
subsection 30 could alter the “adult” age from 21 to lower but if it were to do so it had to be
uniform law that is permitted by all States. As they made clear the Commonwealth could not
provide a liberal voting provision not existing in a State.
The “Adult” age was put in place because that way it allowed any State to allow in State elections
to have the so called “baby franchise” of children to vote but by Section 41 of the Constitution they
could not vote in Federal elections unless they were of “adult age”.
Page 37
Likewise, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that if any State were to subsequently after
federation amend its franchise to allow women to vote then this was already provided for in Section
41 of the Constitution.
They made clear that unless and until all “adult” in a State were entitled to vote only half of the
people were to be counted.
They made clear that States could not be forced to allow women to vote merely because in Section
41 of the Constitution it was provided for “adult” and as such included women, as not unless a State
itself provided for this could this be accepted.
Reading the THE QUEEN v. PEARSON; Ex parte SIPKA (1983) 152 CLR 254 case it is very
clear to me the judges didn’t have a clue what Section 41 of the Constitution stands for and neither
that it remained applicable and still is.
Indeed, on 19 July 2006 I succeeded in my appeals regarding FAILING TO VOTE on that the
Commonwealth of Australia was specifically denied to make registration and voting compulsory.
The fact that a private members bill was introduced in 1924 does not make it lawful where the
Federal Government in 1915 abandoned a Section 128 of the Constitution referendum to permit
compulsory voting.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of
law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and
any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a
law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of
law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since
unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of
the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as
inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it
purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no
duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone,
affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot
operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the
fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
Now, take for example the nonsense of the following;

JAMES ANDREW McGINTY AND OTHERS v THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
F.C. 96/001
COURT
BRENNAN CJ(1), DAWSON(2), TOOHEY(3), GAUDRON(4), McHUGH(5) AND
GUMMOW(6) JJ
HRNG
JUDGE1 BRENNAN CJ.

Page 38
6.
Aborigines, who were once constitutionally disqualified from the franchise, are no longer so
disqualified.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that any Aboriginal who had obtained colonial (State)
franchise could vote in Federal elections and nothing the commonwealth could do to deny this.
Indeed, Chinese and other nationals who had paid their POL TAX (prior to federation) also were
entitled to vote and so voted in Federal elections. Indeed, they were promised they would not loose
their right to vote.
It must be understood to be a very simple principle.
Some Colonies (now States), allowed people, regardless of their nationality, to vote in local
elections and so the election of lawmakers (being elected Members of Parliament. Hence, they had
also to vote in the referendums to hand over some of the colonial powers to the Commonwealth of
Australia. It means that the legislative powers previously dealt with by the local Parliament now
were in the hands of the Commonwealth of Australia. Now why on earth would then a State elector
be denied to vote in federal elections? This is a total and utter nonsense.
Section 30 of the Constitution never intended to railroad the State citizenship as is shown in the
quotation below of the Hansard that a State citizen is a Commonwealth citizen (Australian citizen)
without definition at all. What Section 30 was is to allow the Commonwealth to broaden franchise,
but without forcing any State to follow suit. You cannot have that a person could vote in a Federal
election but not in a State election.
Therefore, regardless that women within Section 41 of the Constitution would be entitled to vote, it
could not be allowed unless they had first obtained State franchise! It is the State franchise that
determined if a person could vote or not in federal elections.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear they were not going to have the Commonwealth of
Australia interfere with the rights of any citizen’s franchise. Therefore, if a person is a State citizen
and by this has franchise then regardless if the commonwealth closes its rolls Section 41 of the
Constitution protects their right to vote nevertheless in Federal elections provided they are enrolled
on a State roll by election date of a federal election. Territories are considered quasi States for this.
* Excuse me but we were talking about Kirby J and didn’t you go off the deep end a bit?
**#** No, not at all, as I was giving you an example about how wrong the High Court of Australia
is about “citizenship” and ignoring that Aboriginals were entitled to vote and did so if they had
State franchise since federation!
Now, if the judges for over 100 years have not been able to manage to comprehend that “Australian
citizenship” is a political rights that includes franchise and is not a “nationality” then does this not
underline they did better to be educated in constitutional provisions and limitations?
* OK, and what has got this to do with Kirby charging taxpayers for his male companion to travel
with him?
**#** Well, I have given you an example how wrong the High Court of Australia is about
“citizenship” what it stands for and franchise, etc, and again below I have quoted some further
information. Now, the same is with what the powers are or aren’t of the Remuneration Tribunal.
Now, lets give you a simple example. Say, that you are having flats for rent and you make with each
person renting a flat a lease.
* Yes.
Page 39
**#** Now, the tenants decided among themselves that they do not like the restrictions of the lease
and mutual agree that they change the terms of the leases.
* They can’t as I am the owner of the property and unless I agree they can do nothing about it.
**#** Well, the people of Australia have given the Commonwealth of Australia a PURPETUAL
LEASE by the terms of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution act 1900 (UK) and unless and
until by way of Section 128 of the Constitution referendum(s) is/are held it cannot be changed a bit!
* Moment, the High Court of Australia did validate the Australia Act 1986, didn’t they?
**#** To me that was an act of TREASON.

.
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is
quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out
that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had
another motive.
.
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.
.
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."
And
Mr. BARTON.-
The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that
which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power
given.
Again;
In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to
conform to it.
.
Therefore, the Federal Parliament cannot legislate as to a purported substitute constitution, as it
never had such legislative powers!
.
Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
“In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual
injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is
of the essence of the conspiracy.”
.
HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
National Australasian Convention)
Mr. ISAACS:
Page 40
There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to pass
that line would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely to
abandon the principle of responsible government, when we are invited to surrender the latest-
born, but, as I think, the noblest child of our constitutional system-a system which has not
only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the liberties of our people-then,
.
In my view it would be TREASON by the High Court of Australia to purport the validity of the
Australia act 1986.
Fancy this, the High Court of Australia under the British Crown has been handing down judgments
till 1996 and then suddenly declares that since 1986 they have been operating under a Queen of
Australia! Now, the Commonwealth of Australia is a “political union” and not at all a country,
republic, kingdom, dominion or empire and as such it cannot have its own Queen.
Australians are constitutionally born or naturalised “subjects of the British Crown”;
.
As Barton made clear on 2-3-1898
“We are all alike subjects of the British Crown.”
Now, how stupid would it be that without any Section 128 of the Constitution referendum somehow
they entire application of the Constitution is amended. Just sheer and utter nonsense. Either we have
a Constitution or not!
.
So, on the basis that our 1900 Constitution is they only valid constitution and we must consider the
intentions of the Framers of the Constitution, such as in regard of the marriage powers, then….
* By jolly you have finally managed to get somehow to a relevant point, did you?
**#** Look, unless you explain matters the Reader may wonder how it all applies. Anyhow, at the
time of framing the constitution the marriage powers was that to deal with one man and one woman
becoming married. They did not have something like one man and one beast, one woman and one
beast, one man and another man, one woman and another woman, but simply just one man and one
woman. Subsection 51(xxii) was originally with the “marriage” but then was later split from it as to
deal with custody and guardianship “in relation thereto” as to marriage break-ups. In fact the draft
committee had changed the DRAFT constitution by September 1897 and there was a protest that
this had been done without the approval of the Delegates attending to the convention and their
concern was that it may relate to any child, and hence the term “in relation thereto” related to
divorce.
As such, constitutionally children not being of a marriage are beyond legislative powers of the
Commonwealth of Australia.
* Moment, didn’t the States refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia in 1986
regarding children not being of a marriage?
**#** That is unconstitutional as Section 123 of the Constitution provides that any changing of the
legislative “limits” of a State must be approved by a State referendum! And there is more to it as set
out in my already published books.
Anyhow, as “marriage” is between one man and one woman then any Commonwealth law must
represent this. Hence, the Remuneration Tribunal cannot circumvent constitutional limitations and
provide for homosexuals and/or lesbians to have partner benefits as it is in breach of Subsection
51(xxi) of the Constitution, as this marriage power has embedded that it is between a man and a
woman.
Page 41
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that any power exercised by the Commonwealth of
Australia had to be considered in totality of the entire constitution. Likewise any laws regarding
marriage cannot deal with “religion” albeit judges still do.
.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should
be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the
great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and
that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the
foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the people of United
Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care
has not been exercised.
.

Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I
think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of
those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of
the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting together the
draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material they found in
every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a great deal of
responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of
the United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my
honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word
that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no word in it which we do not see
some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to come, when this
Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to
it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may
be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes
into this Constitution.
.
Therefore, any provision of payments to judges is bound by the marriage legislation as you cannot
have Commonwealth legislation that on the one hand dictates a marriage is between one woman
and one man and on the other hand recognises gay and/or lesbian relationships or de facto
relationships as this interferes with the marriage concept. Likewise the issue of conception of
children is to be deemed a marriage issue and I for one therefore do not accept that States can
legislate as to IVF for gay/lesbians and/or de facto couples people because it would interfere with
the marriage legislative powers. If gay/lesbian and/or de facto couples desire marriage like
benefits/rights etc then the best they can do is to pursue the Constitution to be amended to achieve
that, not that I seek to promote such a cause!
.
If you are going to claim that the Remuneration Tribunal can despite Subsection 51(xxi) still make
regulations as to homosexuals/lesbians then likewise it could then make regulations regarding
religion, etc. Clearly a nonsense.
Therefore, I take the position that the Remuneration Tribunal cannot have a greater powers, acting
as an agent for the Commonwealth of Australia then the Commonwealth of Australia has itself and
Page 42
hence cannot allow payments for so to say same sex couples, and hence I view Michael Kirby J is
defrauding the Consolidated Revenue to claim for his male companion.
* What about taxation?
**#** I view that is the same. The Commissioner of Taxation cannot somehow allow for same-sex
couples to benefit as if they are a married couple. Likewise so with Social Security, etc.
Look, homosexual were complaining for a long time that what they did in their bedrooms should be
left to them to decide. Well, they got their freedom but since then more and more are corrupting the
rights of others.
If they do not want to enter a marriage with a person of an opposite sex then that is their right, but
they cannot demand then the benefits of such a marriage. To make it simple. If you drive a pushbike
to work because you do not want to incur the cost of petrol then you cannot expect to have the
comforts of driving a car.
* But aren’t people gay because of something they have in their gene’s or something like that?
**#** To me that is a lot of bull. Sure, they are presenting all kinds of purported medical evidence
but the issue is how much reliable is this.
I had 3 brothers and two sisters…
* You say had. Did one die?
**#** Well, let me explain.

My second eldest brother was a seaman and always telling how he was having an other woman in
every tow. But he and my oldest brother were always after any girlfriend that I had at the time.
Well., I got fed up with that and so arranged for them both to date a colleague of my girlfriend, and
both married them. Subsequently I broke of with this girlfriend (I had my reasons) and later became
married to my first wife and this ex girlfriend was standing there crying her head of and even years
later was trying to get my brothers to talk me into still getting married to her.
* But you were already married, weren’t you?
**#** Yes, and no intention to get a divorce. Anyhow, lets get back to my second eldest brother. He
was surely hot on woman and ended up eventually with three children.
* So what is wrong with that?
**#** Well, he was married and I had moved as a teenager to Germany and was living there when
he came to visit. During the night he ended up raping me. So, I discovered he was not just
heterosexual but also appeared to be bi-sexual.
* Well doesn’t that happen to many?
**#** That is not yet the end of it either. He had an accident aboard a ship, that he had a fall and
then subsequently had a sex change and even married a bloke, became a widow (by natural causes I
am told) and from there on I don’t know. So, he had a bit of everything.
When my mother died and my father was moved to a home my former second eldest brother (“it)
then robbed my parents place empty. His lawyers claiming that my mother had died leaving only
debts.
Page 43
* Did she?
**#** Of course not.
* How did you know?
**#** Because “it” lawyers were making clear that if I did not assign my rights over they would
take me to Court. I made clear that if there was no money why then take me to Court? In any event I
refused to sign any document, despite all kind of demands by the lawyers.
* What happened?
**#** I never heard of it again. “It” went then travelling around the world, and I have little doubt
that my parents monies were being used as the Court, had given him executive powers. My mothers
body was dumped in a poor grave.
Years later, when my father died, “it” again was appointed by the Court as executive and again “it”
had arranged for my fathers body to be dumped in a poor grave. Just that I phoned the undertaker in
Europe and directed him to burry my father in a special private grave, and my wife and I would pay
for it.
* Did you?
**#** Of course I did. At the very least this is the honour my dad was entitled upon. None of the
other sibling paid towards the grave! Still my wife and I do not regret this at all. Because the grave
is in Europe my eldest sister has been given part ownership of the grave so she can maintain the
grave. Now, here we had my experience with “it” and the general conduct of thievery and immoral
conduct and anyone who is to say that it is in his gene’s may have his/her head read.
With MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®, a special lifeline service since 1982, I have been
dealing with many persons who were having their sexual orientations and also who saw nothing
wrong in sexual abusing children and their general position was what was their right.
The same with those gay couples, it is all about their rights. Who gives a darn about the right of the
children forced to live in their conditions? Who give a darn about the right of children to have a
natural environment? Many gay people argue that they can be better parents then heterosexual are,
well I can say that I might be a better car owner then my neighbour does this mean I can take his
car? Certainly not!
Some 25 years ago, a friend of my had her sister in law being a lesbian. I gave her a 24 gold
bracelet as a present, as it didn’t worry me what her lifestyle was, she was just a very nice person.
She and her lesbian girlfriend made clear that they were in it for the rest of their life. A few years
later I heard that she had given birth to a baby since she had become married to her husband. I was
informed that she had given up being a lesbian and now only desired to be a heterosexual, not bi-
sexual. Now, if it was in a persons gene’s or whatever to be gay then hardly could they just like that
give it up. Yet I experienced time and again both woman and men to do so.
I have been dealing with gay people for some 25 years, with the special lifeline service, and do not
seek to cast judgment upon them, but it is another thing when we have them demanding the rights
that goes with marriage.
So what if other judges take their wives on trips paid for by the taxpayers, at least they are lawfully
married, and so entitled to do so within constitutional principles.

Page 44
If two men between themselves can create a child then they may constitute a natural family and if
two women between themselves can create a child then the same applies, but if they can’t then that
is the end of it.
* What about a man and a woman who cannot have a baby?
**#** Well, my wife, being retired long ago, hardly would be able to conceive but in a natural way
a man and a woman can conceive. Sure, at times both partners in the marriage may have a certain
problem preventing any pregnancy but that does not make them any less to be a family and being
entitled to be married. We neither can demand that a woman should have a baby as that is the
choice of the woman if she desires to conceive or not.
* So you do not tow the line with Bill Heffernan?
**#** Well, last time I saw Julia Gillard on television she certainly did look to be a woman. I
cannot see why her capabilities in the Parliament or otherwise in government would be handicapped
because she doesn’t have a child. Considering the antics of Kirsty Marshall, I rather prefer a woman
in Parliament who can concentrate on what she is elected for to do.
Anyhow, getting back to “marriage” powers this is clearly a prohibition against same-sex couples as
at the time of the creation of the Constitution the Framers didn’t contemplate to deal with so called
same sex couples.
If you are crazy enough to argue that “marriage” in the Constitution does not deny specifically
same sex couples to marry, then you have to also argue it does not deny as such a human and an
animal to get married. The true application of the Constitution however is in the Hansard records of
the Constitution Convention Debates, as the Framers themselves made that clear.
Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,

Mr. BARTON.-
this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government
And
Mr. BARTON.-
We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is responsible
government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
And
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.
And
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.
Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
And
Page 45
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.
And
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia
a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for
their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude
in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are
about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons
of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of
Australia to themselves.
And
Mr. BARTON.-
We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it,
but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the
instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not
become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any
Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees
you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation
that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so,
in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that
Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these
regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth
from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
* The last quotation makes you point very clear about the purported Australia Act 1986, doesn’t it?
**#** Yes, it does. Hence if the Commonwealth of Australia does not have any legislative powers
to pas any Constitution then what is the purported Australia Act 1986 about? And, as I have already
extensively canvassed in my recent published books, the judges neither had any constitutional
powers to declare such a purported legislation to be constitutional valid. And there is a lot more to
it.
* I gather from this that you hold the Remunerations Tribunal is acting in breach of the
Constitution, do they?
**#** If they intended to refer to gay couples having the rights of a married couple then it would
be. they same as setting the salaries for Ministers of the crown, which it has no powers to do so as
the Constitution stipulates that it must be paid to the British Crown. And, there are maximum 7
minister allowed in a Government!
* How is that?

Page 46
**#** Because that is embedded in the Constitution, and Barton in fact refused to appoint more
because of this! That is why two members of the federal executive were without portfolio in 1901.
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I pursue to make it my business to research this kind of material.
* From what you have stated and what is to follow I take it we are not having a nationality of
“Australian citizenship” but are still “British nationals””
**#** You are correct, and just read what follows, and do not forget to read also the following
mentioned Chapters at the very least;
Chapter 000D 3+ (3) To have every blue-eyed baby killed (9761 Characters)
Chapter 001 19 (19) CREATION OF THE CONSTITUTION (60605 Characters)
Chapter 002 5+ (5) OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN (15263 Characters)
Chapter 003 30+ (30) LEGAL FICTION - persona designata (113744 Characters)
Chapter 004 28 Is our Constitution Safe
Chapter 005 6+ (6) The Westminster Act is ULTRA VIRES (19366 Characters)
Chapter 006 36&a,b,c The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE
Chapter 007A 7 (7) The Great Deception (22133 Characters)
Chapter 007B 23 PEACE-ORDER AND GOOD GOVERNMENT
Do keep in mind that whatever judges may have stated since Federation it makes not one iota of
difference where it is in conflict with constitutional provisions and limitations. I have for long
pursued that what needs to be created is the OFICIE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional
council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional
powers and limitations. If this had occurred then we never would have had the purported
“Australian Citizenship Act 1948, the purported Australia Act 1986, the Heather Hill saga, the
Phill Cleary saga, the Vivian Alvarez Solon disgraceful incident and likewise numerous others as
then we all would have been alerted to what is constitutionally appropriate. Indeed, we would have
neither have had gay people unconstitutionally claiming for their companions travel, as it would not
be permitted in the first place. Now, it appears the Remunerations Tribunal is placing itself above
the Constitution, and that is very dangerous as where will it stop you may ask?
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-The honorable member who has just sat down has assumed a
possible difficulty that I cannot conceive is likely to occur. He assumes that unless we define
clearly what we mean by citizenship, the Federal Parliament may take such action as will
infringe some liberties which we now possess, and which we ought to possess. When we
remember that we have provided in the Constitution that both Houses of Parliament shall be
elected on the broadest possible franchise, it seems to me to be utterly impossible to conceive
that such a Parliament will proceed to infringe any of the liberties of the citizens.
And
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I only wish to say a word or two about this proposal. I
think that Dr. Quick will probably see that his amendment may be raising a very serious
difficulty on the one hand, or else that it is unnecessary on the other. I quite agree with him as
to the necessity under some circumstances of giving some definition as to what shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, but underlying the whole of that is this fundamental principle:
That the citizens of the states are the citizens of the Commonwealth. That is the
fundamental principle we must have regard to, and I ask my honorable friend to say
whether a citizen of the Commonwealth is not a citizen of the state?
And

Page 47
Mr. SYMON.-Mr. Trenwith has said he was not at first inclined to support this amendment,
and I think that if he gives it further consideration he will feel that it is utterly unnecessary to
do so, and that it is unwise to put into the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament a power
which might be likely to be exercised, as my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Wise) has
said, for the purpose of outlawing citizens of the state who are citizens of the Commonwealth.
Of course the Federal Parliament would not do such a thing as [start page 1763] that, and,
therefore, it seems to me that it is unnecessary to put in such a power. Is there any person
whom the Federal Parliament, by virtue of this provision, could make a citizen of the
Commonwealth who would not already be a citizen of a state? You cannot do it. There is
nothing to which this can possibly apply. You have given the Federal Parliament power to
deal with the question of aliens, immigration, and so on, to prevent the introduction of
undesirable races. Under that provision you enable the Federal Parliament to legislate within
certain limits, and in a certain direction. Under that they may, within those limits, take
away, or they may restrict, the rights of citizenship in a particular case. That is what we
intend them to do. I am not going to give carte blanche to the Federal Parliament to say who
shall and who shall not be citizens. The object of all who are represented here is that the
Union of these states is of itself to confer upon the citizens of the states the rights of
citizens of the Commonwealth.
Mr. HIGGINS.-You may depend upon it that the states will see that this is kept up.
Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the
Commonwealth will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of the
Commonwealth which will enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it will be
merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen of the Commonwealth who is not already a citizen of
the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue of it he is entitled to the citizenship
of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow different people to come
in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they become naturalized, and
thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they
come here.
Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of the
states, and it is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens of the
Commonwealth. Are you going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens of the
Commonwealth?
Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.
Mr. SYMON.-Then I think they ought to. The whole object of legislating for aliens is
that there should be uniformity.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They would not have that in the Federal Council.
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come
under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not
also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such
discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it
is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two
men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is
a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is
Page 48
meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of
the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That
does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to
the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on
the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not expect will be
exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the
citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it,
and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be
a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the
Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of
depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate
such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than
£1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of
Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest
this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of
a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have
no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to
one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on. Subject to
that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over our birth right as citizens
to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the amendment will not be
accepted.
And
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
So far the right of citizenship, if there is a right of citizenship under the empire, is
defined in the Constitution. Now, each citizen of a state is, without definition, a citizen of
the Commonwealth if there is such a term as citizenship to be applied to a subject of the
empire.
And
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but the term has since disappeared, and it disappeared owing to
objections from members of the Convention. I am inclined to think that the Convention is
right in not applying [start page 1765] the term "citizens" to subjects residing in the
Commonwealth or in the states, but in leaving them to their ordinary definition as subjects of
the Crown. If, however, we make an amendment of this character, inasmuch as citizens of the
state must be citizens of the Commonwealth by the very terms of the Constitution, we shall
simply be enabling the Commonwealth to deal with the political rights of the citizens of
the states. The one thing follows from the other. If you once admit that a citizen or
subject of the state is a citizen or subject of the Commonwealth, the power conferred in
these wide terms would enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the political rights of
subjects of the states. I do not think the honorable member intends to go so far as that,
but his amendment is open to that misconception.
And
Mr. BARTON.-If the honorable member's exclamation means more than I have explained,
then the best thing to do is to confide to the Commonwealth the right of dealing with the lives,
liberty, and property of all the persons residing in the Commonwealth, independently of any
law of any state. That is not intended, but that is what the expression "Trust the Federal
Page 49
Parliament" would mean unless it was limited by the consideration I have laid down. I am sure
Dr. Quick will see that he is using a word that has not a definition in English constitutional
law, and which is not otherwise defined in this Constitution. He will be giving to the
Commonwealth Parliament a power, not only of dealing with the rights of citizenship,
but of defining those rights even within the very narrowest limits, so that the citizenship
of a state might be worth nothing; or of extending them in one direction, and narrowing
them in another, so that a subject living in one of the states would scarcely know
whether he was on his head or his heels. Under the Constitution we give subjects political
rights to enable the Parliament to legislate with regard to the suffrage, and pending that
legislation we give the qualification of electors. It is that qualification of electors which is
really the sum and substance of political liberty, and we have defined that. If we are going to
give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to
pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the
Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by
the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.

Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons subjects of the
British Empire. Have we not done enough? We allow them to naturalize aliens. That is a
power which, with the consent of the Imperial authority, has been carried into legislation
by the various colonies, and, of course, we cannot do less for the Commonwealth than we
have done for the colonies.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Such legislation is only good within the limits of each state.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection
under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be recollected that the
ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects confided
to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page 1766] the laws regarding
property and personal liberty is still left with the states.
And
Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the
Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. I
then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of the British
Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining
the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our
position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of
a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I see therefore nothing
unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British subjects, in proposing to place
power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the question of federal
citizenship. An objection has been raised in various quarters-as by the honorable and learned
members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the effect that we ought to define federal
citizenship in the Constitution itself. I have considered this matter very carefully, and it has
seemed to me that it would be most difficult and invidious, if not almost impossible, to frame
a satisfactory definition. There is in the Constitution of the United States of America a
cast-iron definition of citizenship, which has been found to be absolutely unworkable,
because, among other things, it says that a citizen of the United States shall be a natural-
Page 50
born or naturalized citizen within the jurisdiction of the United States, and it has been
found that that excludes the children of citizens born outside the limits of this
jurisdiction. That shows the danger of attempting definitions, and although I have
placed a proposed clause defining federal citizenship upon the notice-paper, the subject,
seems to me surrounded with the greatest difficulty, and no doubt the honorable and
learned members (Mr. Wise, Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Symon) would be the first to
attack any definition, and would be able to perforate it. In my opinion, it would be
undesirable to implant a cast-iron definition of citizenship in the Constitution, because it
would be better to leave the question more elastic, more open to consideration, and more
yielding to the advancing changes and requirements of the times.
Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the
Commonwealth will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of the
Commonwealth which will enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it will be
merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen of the Commonwealth who is not already a citizen of
the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue of it he is entitled to the citizenship
of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow different people to come
in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they become naturalized, and
thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they
come here.
Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of the
states, and it is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens of the
Commonwealth. Are you going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens of the
Commonwealth?
Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.
Mr. WALKER.-Is not a citizen of the state, ipso facto, a citizen of the Commonwealth?
Dr. QUICK.-It required the 14th amendment to place that beyond doubt in the American
Constitution. In the [start page 1767] proposition which I have put before the Convention I do
not desire at all to interfere with state citizenship. I leave that entirely to the states. In my
opinion, it is in no way desirable to trench upon state citizenship. But I think we are entitled
to place in the Constitution a provision empowering the Federal Parliament to deal with the
incidence of Commonwealth citizenship, its mode of acquisition, the status it confers, and the
manner in which it may be lost. It has been suggested by, I think, the honorable and
learned member (Mr. Glynn), that a definition of citizenship should be accompanied by
something in the nature of inter-state citizenship, that is, that the citizens of one state
should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of another state. But
I would point out that such a provision would be inconsistent with an amendment
already placed in the Constitution. We have already eliminated interstate citizenship,
upon the ground that it might interfere with the right of each state to impose disabilities
and disqualifications upon certain races. I am sure that the Federal Parliament would not be
able, under the provision which I wish to insert, to legislate in regard to state citizenship or to
in any way enlarge the Commonwealth rights or privileges at the expense of the rights of the
states. The power of the Federal Parliament could only be exercised in regard to the privileges
and rights contemplated by the Constitution itself. I may point out roughly some of the rights
which are contemplated by the Constitution. There is the right to assert any claim which a
citizen might have upon the Government, the right to transact any business he might have, the
right to seek the protection of the Government, to share its offices, to engage in its
Page 51
administrative functions, to have free access to the ports of the Commonwealth and to its
public offices and courts of justice, to use its navigable waters, and to all the privileges and
benefits secured by the Commonwealth for its citizens by treaties with foreign nations. In
my earlier remarks I did not enumerate more than the last of these rights. When the
Federal Government is negotiating with foreign nations, say for treaties of commerce,
and certain rights and privileges are obtained thereby for the citizens of the
Commonwealth, it ought to be able to point to a definition of Commonwealth citizenship. I
am amazed at the force and the consistency with which technical objections are being raised
against every proposal calculated to improve and popularize the Constitution. One would
imagine that this was to be a mere lawyers Constitution, and that everything that seems to go
beyond mere legal literalism must be rejected. Again, I ask are we to have a Commonwealth
citizenship? If we are, why is it not to be implanted in the Constitution? Why is it to be
merely a legal inference? It is all nonsense to say that the Commonwealth Parliament is going
to cut down and reduce the state citizenship. It will only deal with federal citizenship. Why
should not the Federal Parliament be able to deprive any person who broke the
Commonwealth laws of the Commonwealth citizenship? Would not that be within the
functions and jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Parliament? I think that it would be strictly
within its functions. If we are not to provide for this Commonwealth citizenship, what will
be the position of those residing in territories which may hereafter be created? The
honorable member (Mr. Walker), among others, is desirous that a certain portion of
territory shall be set apart as within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth for
a federal capital. That is a view which I share with him. But I ask what will be the civic
status of the inhabitants of the federal territory? I hope that the provision which I have
brought forward will be dealt with by the Convention, not from a strictly legal aspect,
but from the broad and [start page 1768] comprehensive point of view from which we
have been accustomed to deal with it when upon the public platform we have informed
our people that by federation they will be placed upon a higher plane of citizenship. I
would ask is a provision of this kind to be rejected merely upon technical grounds?
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think we ought to protest against its being suggested that
any of us are opposing this provision upon technical grounds. This is a very much larger
question, and it is a question deserving of all the earnestness and energy which the honorable
member (Dr. Quick) has thrown into its discussion. But when he submits as a reason for
carrying the provision that it should not be dealt with as a lawyers' question, and one dealing
with the rigid legal interpretation of the Constitution, I venture, with great respect and
emphasis, to dissent from his position. This is a matter which goes to the very foundation of
the Constitution which we are framing. At the very root of the proposed Union is the
invitation to the citizens of the states to join the Federation, and to obtain, as their reward,
citizenship of the Commonwealth. My honorable and learned friend has enumerated a number
of things which might or might not be done under this provision. Will he tell me whether it is
not a fact that the Federal Parliament could, under this provision, take away the citizenship
which might be obtained by joining the Union?
Mr. ISAACS.-Under other clauses of the Constitution, the Federal Parliament could take
away the franchise from any one.
Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power
to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member
(Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is asked to do is
to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not, of taking away
from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining the Union. I am
Page 52
not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal
Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very
strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of
whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the
Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or
diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am
willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not
prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading
inducement for joining the Union.
Question-That the proposed new sub-section (31A) be inserted-put.
The committee divided-
Ayes ... ... ... 15

Noes ... ... ... 21
Majority against Dr. Quick's
amendment ... ... 6
JAMES ANDREW McGINTY AND OTHERS v THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

F.C. 96/001
COURT
BRENNAN CJ(1), DAWSON(2), TOOHEY(3), GAUDRON(4), McHUGH(5) AND
GUMMOW(6) JJ
HRNG
JUDGE1 BRENNAN CJ.

6. The plaintiffs submit that disparities in voting power are inconsistent with the principle of
representative democracy as that principle is understood at the present time. Representative
democracy, so the argument runs, requires that (a) every legally capable adult has the vote;
and (b) each person's vote be equal to the vote of every other person. Of course, the term
"legally capable adult" assumes without defining the scope of the franchise. In this century,
the age of legal adulthood has been reduced from 21 to 18 and the legal incapacity of women
to vote has been removed. Aborigines, who were once constitutionally disqualified from the
franchise, are no longer so disqualified.
22. In Nationwide News(48), there is a dictum by Deane and Toohey JJ(49) that tends in
favour of the plaintiffs' argument: "While one can point to qualifications and exceptions, such
as those concerned with the protection of the position of the less populous States(50), the
general effect of the Constitution is, at least since the adoption of full adult suffrage by all the
States, that all citizens of the Commonwealth who are not under some special disability are
entitled to share equally in the exercise of those ultimate powers of governmental control".
JUDGE2 DAWSON J.
10. Sections 1, 7, 8, 16, 24 and 30 of the Constitution provide for the minimum requirements
of representative government but do not purport to go significantly further. The Constitution
also provides for the maintenance of equal representation of the Original States in the Senate
and a minimum number of senators for each Original State (s 7), the rotation of senators (s
Page 53
13), the filling of casual Senate vacancies (s 15), the disqualification of members (s 44),
disputed elections (s 47) and certain other matters of machinery. It further provides in s 41 that
no adult person who has or acquires a right to vote for the more numerous House of
Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the
Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth.
JUDGE4 GAUDRON J
9. As already indicated, reference was made in McKinlay to a number of matters which
indicate that the Constitution tolerates some disparity in voting strength. There is of course the
consideration that, subject to the requirement in ss 8(260) and 30(261), the Constitution
expressly allowed for State laws to determine the qualification of electors until the Parliament
of the Commonwealth should otherwise provide, and did so in a context where the franchise
was far from uniform(262) and full adult suffrage existed only in South Australia(263). There
is also the consideration that, despite population differences between the States, s 7 requires
an equal number of senators for each of the Original States(264) while s 24 directs that,
notwithstanding its requirement that "(t)he number of members chosen in the several States
(for the House of Representatives) shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their
people", five members at least are to be chosen in each Original State(265).
JUDGE5 McHUGH J
58. These differences in the franchise show that, although the original States were to be
represented in the House of Representatives, proportionately to their populations, the
Constitution laid down no requirements apart from s 41 as to which members of the
population of a State were to elect its representatives. That being so, it seems unlikely that s
24 was concerned with equal representation for equal numbers of voters in each State. Thus s
30 confirms the view that equality of voting power for the adult people of Australia is not a
constitutional requirement. The refusal of the Convention delegates to provide for universal
suffrage in the Constitution is itself eloquent evidence that such matters as the franchise and
the size of electoral divisions were matters for the States until the Parliament legislated.
60. In so far as any notion of equality is present in the Constitution, it applies only to the
Original States in respect of representatives for those States in the House of Representatives
and not to individual electorates which may constitutionally consist of an entire State or of
electorates whose size and population are determined by the federal Parliament from time to
time or, in the absence of legislation, by the parliaments of the respective States. The plain
meaning of the Constitution is that it was for the States to determine the size of divisions
within the States until the federal Parliament decided to legislate on the question. If and when
the federal Parliament decided to legislate, ss 29, 30 and 31 gave it the power to determine the
size and nature of the electoral divisions in each State and the nature of the franchise as well
as other matters(346).
JUDGE6
GUMMOW J
93. The existence of female franchise in South Australia and Western Australia was, at the
federal level, protected by s 41 of the Constitution. The effect of s 41 was that no adult person
who, before the establishment of the federal franchise, had acquired a right to vote at a State
election was to be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for
either house of the federal Parliament(472). Further, until the qualification of electors of
members of the House of Representatives became uniform throughout the Commonwealth (by
reason of the adult franchise conferred by s 3 of the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902
Page 54
(Cth)), s 128 provided that in any State with adult suffrage only one-half of electors voting for
or against a referendum were to be counted.
94. However, the Constitution did not entrench the secret ballot, compulsory voting,
preferential or proportional voting, nor any universal adult franchise. Nor did the Constitution
prescribe any authority or body to determine from time to time the electoral divisions in each
State. 95. Compulsory enrolment for federal elections and for referendums was introduced by
s 8 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1911 (Cth) and compulsory voting at referendums
was introduced by the Compulsory Voting Act 1915 (Cth). Compulsory voting in elections
was introduced by s 2 of the Commonwealth ElectoralAct 1924 (Cth) and the validity of that
law was upheld in Judd v McKeon(473). Professor Crisp wrote that both major parties were in
favour of the 1924 legislation though neither wished to take overt responsibility for it; hence it
was introduced as a private member's bill on which no Minister spoke and no division was
called in either House(474). The Commonwealth ElectoralAct 1918 provided (s 124) for the
introduction of preferential voting for House of Representatives elections and this was
achieved for the Senate by s 7 of the Commonwealth Act 1919 (Cth). Finally, proportional
representation in the Senate was introduced by s 3 of the Commonwealth Act 1948
(Cth)(475).
346 Section 41 of the Constitution provided however: " No adult person who has or acquires a
right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while
the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections
for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth." Because at federation women were
entitled to vote in South Australia and Western Australia, s 41 gave women in those two
States a right to vote in federal elections which was denied to women in other States. This
discrimination was abolished by s 3 of the Franchise Act 1902 (Cth). But it is further evidence
that it was the federal Parliament and not the Constitution that concerned itself with the
equality of individual voters. The operation of s 41 is now spent. This Court has held that the
"right to vote" in s 41 is the right (if any) that was possessed under State law when the federal
franchise was established and that s 41 does not confer a right to vote in a federal election on
any person who from time to time has the right to vote at a State election: R v Pearson; Ex
parte Sipka (1983) 152 CLR 254.
THE QUEEN v. PEARSON; Ex parte SIPKA (1983) 152 CLR 254

High Court of Australia
Gibbs C.J.(1), Mason(1), Murphy (2), Wilson(1), Brennan(3), Deanne(3) and
Dawson(3) JJ.
HRNG
1983, February 16, 17, 24. #DATE 24:2:1983
JUDGE1 GIBBS C.J., MASON AND WILSON JJ.
5. Section 41 does not in terms confer a right to vote. It provides that no

person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous
House of the Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be
prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at Commonwealth
elections. The section appears to be framed on the assumption that an adult
person who has or acquires (i.e. has at the date of the Constitution or
acquires thereafter) a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House
of the Parliament of a State would be entitled to vote at Commonwealth
elections unless a law of the Commonwealth prevented it; the section, on that
Page 55
assumption, forbids the Commonwealth Parliament from passing any law which
would have the effect of depriving any such person of his right to vote at
Commonwealth elections while his right to vote at State elections continues.
If this were not the correct construction of the section, the use of the words
"be prevented" would be quite inapt. The section prevents the Commonwealth
Parliament from taking away a right to vote; it does not create an entitlement
which does not otherwise exist. Under the Constitution, persons qualified as
electors for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State were
qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives,
but only until the Parliament otherwise provided: see s. 30 of the
Constitution. By s. 8 of the Constitution, a person qualified to vote for the
election of members of the House of Representatives is also qualified to vote
for the election of Senators. The Parliament has power to make laws with
respect to matters in respect of which the Constitution makes provision until
the Parliament otherwise provides (s. 51(xxxvi)) and thus has power to
establish the franchise for electors of members of the House of
Representatives and Senators. A law dealing with the franchise may be
complete, so that it excludes for the future all reference to State law, or it
may deal only with some aspects, leaving other aspects to be dealt with by
State law. Once a law of the Commonwealth has completely provided the
qualifications for electors for Commonwealth elections (as in fact
Commonwealth laws have done since the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 was
passed) no elector thereafter could acquire a qualification to vote at
Commonwealth elections under ss. 30 and 8 of the Constitution. By virtue of s.
41, the Commonwealth law which first established the franchise could not have
prevented any person who then had a right to vote at elections for the more
numerous House of the Parliament of a State from voting at elections for
either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. But once a Commonwealth
law had been passed completely establishing the franchise, no person, not
already qualified to vote at Commonwealth elections, could become so qualified
by virtue of the Constitution alone. No future law could be said to prevent
such persons from voting, since there was nothing in the Constitution or in
the law that gave them a right to vote. This construction, which requires that
the right to vote to which s. 41 refers must have been acquired by the persons
concerned before the federal franchise was established, gives a narrow effect
to s. 41. However, this construction of the section is supported not only by
obvious considerations of policy, but also by the history of the section. If
the section gave a right to vote at Commonwealth elections to any person who,
after the Commonwealth franchise was established, became entitled to vote by
virtue of amendments to the State laws, the result would be that the uniform
franchise established under ss. 30 and 51 (xxxvi) of the Constitution would be
subject to amendment by the laws of the various States. The Commonwealth law
could in effect be amended by any State law which conferred a more liberal
franchise. In other words, any State could, unilaterally, alter the
Commonwealth franchise in a way which discriminated in favour of its own
citizens. It is impossible to suppose that results of this kind were intended.
The provisions of s. 128 of the Contitution, which require a law for an
alteration to the Constitution to be passed, inter alia, by a majority of
electors, and which also provides that "until the qualification of electors of
members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the
Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed
Page 56
law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails" is opposed
to any such construction. But in any case it is apparent that it was intended
by s. 30 that once the Commonwealth Parliament had made provision for the
qualification of electors such enactment would prevail over any conflicting
State law subject to the protection of existing rights afforded by s. 41. As a
matter of historical fact, the object intended by the framers of the
Constitution to be achieved by s. 41 is quite clear. It is unnecessary, for
the present purposes, to consider the extent to which debates at the
Constitutional Conventions may be regarded in the construction of the
Constitution. It was, however, accepted in the early case of Municipal Council
of Sydney v. The Commonwealth (1904) 1 CLR 208, at pp 213-214 by Griffith C.J.
that it is permissible to have regard to such debates "for the purpose of
seeing . . . what was the evil to be remedied". The Convention debates, whose
effect is summarized in Quick and Garran, Annotated Constitution of the
Australian Commonwealth, pp. 483-487, show that the apprehended mischief which
s. 41 was designed to prevent was that the women of South Australia might be
deprived of the federal franchise by the Commonwealth Parliament. At the time
of the debates women were entitled to vote only in South Australia; in the
other colonies the suffrage was restricted to males, although by the time the
Constitution came into operation the women of Western Australia were also
enfranchised. (at p262)
6. It was recognized by the most eminent constitutional lawyers at the time

the Constitution was enacted that it was not intended that s. 41 should have
such a sweeping effect as the prosecutors' argument would attribute to it.
Professor Harrison Moore, in The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia
(1902), pp. 108- 109, inclined to the view that s. 41 refers only to persons
entitled to vote under State law at the establishment of the Commonwealth.
Quick and Garran, writing in 1900, suggested (op. cit., p. 486) three possible
interpretations -
"(1) That the right may be acquired at any time, under a State law passed
at any time.
(2) That the right may be acquired at any time, but only under a State law
passed before a federal franchise is fixed.
(3) That the right must be acquired by the 'adult person' concerned before
the federal franchise is fixed."
Their own conclusion, expressed at p. 487, was that "it is not to be presumed
that it was intended that the State Parliament should be able, after the
Federal Parliament had legislated, to confer by fresh legislation any further
right of voting at federal elections". For the reasons that we have given we
consider that the third of the interpretations suggested by Quick and Garran
is the correct one. (at p262)
7. On behalf of the prosecutors, reference was made to two decisions of this

Court, which, it was submitted, must have proceeded on the view that s. 41 had
the first of the constructions suggested by Quick and Garran. The first of
these cases was Muramats v. Commonwealth Electoral Officer (W.A.) (1923) 32
CLR 500 . That was an application to review a decision of a magistrate who had
rejected a claim by Muramats to have his name enrolled on the Commonwealth
Page 57
electoral roll. Muramats was a Japanese born in Japan and the magistrate held
that he was an aboriginal native of Asia or the Pacific Islands within the
meaning of s. 39(5) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1922, that
therefore he was not entitled to be enrolled or to vote unless he was
protected by s. 41 of the Constitution, and that that section did not protect
him because, although his name was on the electoral roll of the State of
Western Australia, he was disqualified from voting by the Electoral Act 1907
(W.A.) by reason of his being an aboriginal native of Asia or the Pacific
Islands. Having regard to the fact that Muramats was not entitled to vote at
an election for the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, the appeal was
on any view hopeless and the respondent was not called upon to argue. Since
the appellant in that case could not possibly come within the protection
afforded by s. 41, it was unnecessary for the Court to discuss the possible
effect of that section and it did not do so. The majority, who dismissed the
appeal in a few lines, did not refer to the section and Higgins J., who dealt
at length with other aspects of the matter, did not discuss the difficulties
and possible meanings of the section (1923) 32 CLR, at pp 503-505 . In King v.
Jones (1972) 128 CLR 221 the question for decision was whether persons under
the age of twenty-one were adult persons within the meaning of s. 41. It was
held that they were not. The reasons given for the decision are quite
inconsistent with the claim by Miss Walters in the present case, but in the
view that we take of the section it is unnecessary to pursue that question
further. The Court addressed itself to the primary argument which was advanced
to it, namely that a person over the age of eighteen was an adult person, and
was prepared to assume, without deciding, that s. 41 applied to an adult
person who at any time, by amendment of State electoral legislation, acquired
a right to vote at relevant State elections (1972) 128 CLR, at pp 229, 251,
257-259, 267 . Only Menzies J. expressed a view which provides any support for
the argument of the prosecutors; he said that the character of s. 41 is "that
of a permanent constitutional provision" and that it "applies to a person,
who, in 1901, had or who, in the future, acquires particular voting rights by
the law of a State" (1972) 128 CLR, at p 246 . No other member of the Court
expressed a final view on the question. Neither of the two cases upon which
the prosecutors relied decides the present question and they provide no
authority in favour of the prosecutors' contentions. (at p264)
8. On the other hand, Cameron v. Fysh (1904) 1 CLR 314 is opposed to the
submission of the prosecutors. In that case, the votes of two men were refused
because their names were on the State roll, not the Commonwealth roll (1904) 1
CLR, at p 319 . The number of votes in question was in any case not enough to
have affected the election, but Griffith C.J. did say (1904) 1 CLR, at p 319 :
"As to the objection that voters on the State roll, and not on the
Commonwealth roll, were not allowed to vote, I am not inclined to
encourage the idea that they had any right to vote."
The Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 was at that time in force. It does not
appear whether Griffith C.J. accepted the view of s. 41 advanced by Professor
Harrison Moore, or the third of the interpretations suggested by Quick and
Garran, but he obviously held that a person who had a right to vote at a State
election was not necessarily entitled to vote at a Commonwealth election. (at
Page 58
p264)
9. The conclusion that we have reached is expressed in an opinion given by

Sir Robert Garran in 1914, as Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department;
it is, of course, no authority, but it conveniently states our view. Sir
Robert Garran said (Opinions of Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth of
Australia, vol. 1, p. 695, no. 542):
". . . the intention of section 41 is that an elector, who under the

provisional franchise established by section 30, has (at the establishment
of the Commonwealth) or acquires (before the Parliament passes a Franchise
Act) a right to vote at Commonwealth elections by virtue of his State
right, that right shall not be taken away by any law of the Commonwealth.
That is to say, the right to vote at State elections which is referred
to in section 41 means a right to vote at State elections which is by
section 30 made effective for Federal elections; a man who is a Federal
elector by virtue of section 30 cannot, while his State right continues,
be disfranchised by Commonwealth Law." (The emphasis is that of Sir Robert
Garran.) (at p264)
10. For the reasons we have given we hold that s. 41 preserves only those
rights which were in existence before the passing of the Commonwealth
Franchise Act 1902. It follows that none of the prosecutors can succeed in the
present case. None of them had acquired any right to vote at a State election
before the federal franchise was established. None, therefore, is prevented
from voting, within the meaning of s. 41, by the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Section 41 is also open to the interpretation that it is directed to the
franchise and not to the machinery for voting. The Parliament of the
Commonwealth has power to make laws relating to elections for members of the
House of Representatives and of the Senate: see ss. 9, 31 and 51(xxxvi).
Section 45(a) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act is a law of that kind. There
is much to be said for the view that to give effect to all the relevant
sections of the Constitution it would be necessary to hold that any
entitlement to vote given by s. 41 should be exercised in accordance with the
provisions of a law for the conduct of elections validly made under the
provisions of ss. 9, 31 and 51(xxxvi). It could not be suggested that s. 45(a)
was other than a reasonable and bona fide exercise of constitutional power.
However, it is unnecessary to discuss further this aspect of the matter. (at
p265)
11. In our opinion none of the prosecutors is entitled to vote at the

forthcoming elections of the Commonwealth Parliament and the application in
each case should be refused. (at p265)
END QUOTE Chapter 444
.
Herald sun 5-12-2008 (page 37);
QUOTE
High flyers
Julie Bishop Bill Shorten

Top Spenders Top Savers
Page 59
The biggest domestic travelers* Biggest users of frequent flyer points
Deputy Opposition Leader Parliamentarian secretary

Julie Bishop (WA, Lib) - $75,452 Bill Shorten (Vic) ALP) - $ 9064
Sports Minister Kate Ellis (SA Senator Natasha Stott Despoja

ALP) - $51,917 (Dem, SA) - $2973
Resource Minister Martin Special Minister of State John

Ferguson (Vic, ALP) - $50,938 Faulkner (NSW, ALP) - $2023
Immigration Minister Chris Steve Gibbons MP

Evans (WA, ALP) - $50,348 (Vic, ALP) - $1435
Peter Lindsay MP_ (QLD, Lib Resource Minister Martin

- $45,107 Ferguson (Vic, ALP) - $963
Communication Minister * Commercial flights.

Stephen Conroy – (Vic, ALP) Does not include Prime Minister
$41,512 Kevin Rudd, who flies RAAF
END QUOTE
.
What I view should be considered is that this doesn’t include all transport cost such as hire car and
other services.
.
Many of the trips are made for (political) UNION business of Parliamentarians engaging in political
UNION matters and not related to specifically Parliamentarian duties. Hence, I view they should be
reimbursed out of the pocket of the relevant members.
Members of Parliament are serving in the parliament to represent the electors and while they may
hold a certain political party connection it should be deemed irrelevant to their duties.
If two employees are working for a company and one is a UNION member and the other not then
hardly would the employer accept that the UNION member would cause the company to incur
additional cost that might be more then being his ordinary salary whereas the non UNION member
may have no such cost.
In my view, the same should be considered with regard of Members of Parliament and not that
taxpayers are so to say robbed blind.
.
The following quoted article also appeared on page 37 of the 5-12-2008 Herald Sun under the
heading MPs flying high on the taxpayers.
.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24752559-662,00.html
Most MPs too lazy to save taxpayer money with flyer points.doc
QUOTE
Ben Packham

Page 60
FEDERAL politicians could save taxpayers $4 million a year by using frequent-flyer

points for official travel - but most are too lazy.
Victorian MP Bill Shorten has set the gold standard for loyalty point use, saving more than
$9000 in just six months.
But just 10 other MPs used their frequent flyers, offsetting a combined $21,000 worth of
travel costs from January 1 to June 30.
Travel reports released yesterday also revealed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd clocked up more
than $600,000 in overseas travel costs in the first half of this year.
The bill was more than twice that clocked up by former prime minister John Howard
throughout 2007.
Mr Howard, who is reportedly taking driving lessons, cost taxpayers about $50,000 in his first
six months out of office. The bill included $48,200 worth of Comcar travel, but no private-
plated vehicle expenses.
The next biggest Comcar user was Malcolm Fraser, who ran up a $14,000 bill.
There is nothing stopping the 215 MPs who failed to use frequent-flyer points for official
travel from using them for private use.
However, the number using their points was an improvement on previous years, and follows
an edict from Special Minister of State John Faulkner.
Senator Faulkner was among those offsetting their travel, saving taxpayers more than $2000.
The now retired Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja, who left Parliament in June, saved
taxpayers $2973 by using her points.
If every MP followed Mr Shorten's example, they would save more than $4,096,000 in travel
costs a year.
Mr Shorten's office said the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities had criss-crossed the
nation meeting more than 500 disabilities groups.
Most of the points he used would have been accumulated before he entered Parliament,
through his work as a union official.
All up, MPs spent about $4.1 million on domestic travel in six months, and about $3.5 million
on overseas trips.
Travel by former parliamentarians and holders of the coveted Gold Pass cost about $500,000.
Among the big spenders was former Labor leader Kim Beazley, who took $24,000 in
domestic flights.
END QUOTE
.
AGAIN;
QUOTE
Mr Howard, who is reportedly taking driving lessons, cost taxpayers about $50,000 in his first
six months out of office. The bill included $48,200 worth of Comcar travel, but no private-
plated vehicle expenses.
Page 61
END QUOTE
.
This is the man who pursued WorkChoices against ordinary workers and now is as I view it
defrauding Consolidated Revenue, so the taxpayers, of about $50,000 in the first six months out of
office.
.
THIS MUST BE STOPPED!
.
No increase for pensioners but ample of money to splurge around for ex politicians and ex-
Governor-Generals it appears!
.
.
Again;
.
.
Consider the following also;
QUOTE
The next biggest Comcar user was Malcolm Fraser, who ran up a $14,000 bill
END QUOTE
.
Now this doesn’t include even the about $100,000 or so cost for his Melbourne office, etc, this even
so he was in employment of the Queen and should draw his benefits from Her Majesty and not from
Consolidated Revenue.
.
With the fact that it was also reported that Alexander Downer in regard of his 11-day US study trip
incurring $47,000 but did not file any report due by September, Opposition Health spokesman
failed to file his report by April regarding his $15,000 trip to Turkey and
QUOTE
WA MP Mal Washer’s report on his $33,000 trip to Africa, South America and the US was
among the most expansive and bizarre, including references to sunset drinks and, in
Botswana, a large sign of a gentleman playing with himself.
END QUOTE
surely questions the proper usage of taxpayers monies. Indeed, those failing to provide an
appropriate report should AUTOMATICALLY be required to reimburse the entire cost.
.
In my view it is utter and sheer nonsense to use the Remuneration Tribunal as to set the “salary” of
Federal Members of Parliament because Federal members of parliament are not employed as such
and only entitled to be provided with an ALLOWANCE, that reimburse them also for cost incurred.
If we were to return to the fold of the Constitution then we would find that billions of dollars, I
mean billions of dollars now squandered by federal politicians could easily provide for a payrise of
pensioners, etc.
If Federal Members of Parliament were caused to fund their trips from their own
“ALLOWANCES” then no doubt their traveling will be drastically reduces to be next to nothing.

Page 62
If Federal Members of Parliament were caused to fund accommodation from their

“ALLOWANCES” then I have no doubt that they will find suddenly a lot cheaper accommodation
and less likely are to stay overnight at expensive hotels.
As I understood it from media reports that Wilson Tuckey MP stated that if you pay peanuts then
you can expect monkeys. Well, I for one do not regard the about million dollar cost per Federal
Member of Parliament – and counting – to be regarded as “peanuts”. Still we do get more monkey
business in the Federal Parliament.
I neither view that paying more to Federal Members of Parliament somehow is going to get better
quality of politicians, rather the system more then likely will be more corrupt.
.
To pay more to Federal Members of Parliament only will ensure that political parties are going to
get more of their members to be elected and less likely an average non political union member will
has no chance at all to get elected. More over, unlikely will the best and brightest be elected but
more likely political parties will have candidates that might be sporting figures and others who may
lack any competence in constitutional and other relevant matters and so more then likely will follow
the leader of the political party what his desires are and forget about what is constitutionally
permissible and appropriate.
.
Many a Member of Parliament seeks to boost about having law degrees as if that is any indication
of their competence in constitutional matters. If they cannot grasp what is constitutionally
appropriate then how on earth are they voting by way of INFORMED DECISIONS?
.
What we need is to amend the Constitution to make clear that any Federal Member of
Parliament maximum yearly benefits payable as ALLOWANCE is not to exceed the
average weekly income taken on a yearly basis.
.
As this refers to Federal Member of Parliament and not to a Minister of the Crown, it means that it
will not curtail those who are appointed as Ministers to perform their duties, it will however cut
down the squandering of public monies by other federal Members of Parliament.
When Federal Members of Parliament are given a maximum of annual average weekly earnings
then they will quick smart avoid a lot of traveling and going into expensive hotels and start to live
like those they are representing! They may even learn what real life is about!
.
No one then can prevent the Federal Member of Parliament to use op his/her entire ALLOWANCE
for trips such as a sign of a man playing with himself or other such nonsense as after all no longer
will taxpayers be stung by such cost. The Federal Member of Parliament then can change his/her
letterhead day after day but knowing he/she will have to pay for it and no longer the taxpayer.
.
The Framers of the Constitution recognized that being “poor” could be the result of conduct by
others beyond once control. They held that a person could still be competent otherwise. And as
such, WE, THE PEOPLE, may just do better to kick out of parliament a lot of leaches(so to say)
and get in people who have learned what real life and hardship is about and they might for a lot less
do a lot better!
.
Get the elderly in the Federal Parliament and unlikely will ever again there be a scandal of neglect
of the elderly regarding dental care!
.
Get a destitute person into the Federal Parliament and quickly this person will present ways how to
deal with those problems relating to being destitute.
.

Page 63
To me it is utter and total nonsense to argue that you need to pay more to get better politicians as
reality is that it is all about elections and the person no matter how intelligent he might be simply
will unlikely succeed where the might of the financial political UNIONS are against him in
elections.
The more pay the more likely the political UNIONS will get a hold on the positions. The less pay
the more likely non political party (UNION) members may get a better opportunity to be elected.
.
When one look at today’s economical crises where Members of the Board of large companies were
paid tens of millions of dollars in salaries and those companies are no more then it should be very
obvious that even paying tens of millions of dollars isn’t a guarantee you do not get those who
ultimately will wreck a company.
.
“INTELLIGENCE” IS NOT FOR SALE AS IF IT CAN BE PURCHASED OF THE SHELF.
.
Being it law degrees or other degrees doesn’t mean it gives you more intelligence just more know
how but pending on the intelligence of the person it can be useful or is idle.
Many a person without having completed even primary school ended up heading multi-million
dollar companies because their INTELLIGENCE enabled them to do so where as those with
university degrees are working for them.
Unlikely would even a single Federal Member of Parliament have such comprehensive knowledge
as how the Constitution is to be applied and its limitations then which I poses, yet they are by far
overpaid and I do it all for FREE, because to me it is fun and enjoyable!
.
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.
.
And this is what it really is about to get Federal Members of Parliament who wish to be the
AGENT of the people to represent the electors for the HONOUR and not just have dollar signs in
his/her eyes and give any crap to electors to make it to the Federal parliament.
I have no doubt that if the Constitution was to be amended to limit the yearly “ALLOWANCE” in
totality to be maximum of the yearly “average weekly earnings” then many a current politician
would do us a favour and vacate his/her seat in the Parliament, probably in droves, and we could
finally get true representation in the Parliament by those who do care about what is required of
them.
We might no longer have the silly complain about a $7 piece of meat because we might get new
Federal Members of Parliament who would value the true meal presented to them knowing how
hard it is when one cannot afford any ordinary.
.
Herald Sun 5 December 2008 page 9
QUOTE
With many cash strapped, MPs have endorsed a report saying they are underpaid by up to
$100,00.
END QUOTE
.
Well I for one and no doubt many others are very willing to take their seats in the Federal
parliament without nagging about being underpaid where they are paid an ALLOWANCE beyond
what the Framers of the Constitution ever intended.

Page 64
If Federal MPs are unable to manage their private lives in such a manner that they can live of the
huge ALLOWANCE now being paid, then why does it take the government a long running inquiry
to deal with the plight of pensioners and others if they should get a increase in payments where they
might just get about $14,144 for as single pensioner (and about $22,100 for a couple on a pension)
when again they receive;
.
HeraldSun Friday December 5, 2008
QUOTE
How much they earn
Cashier $ 28,392
Hairdresser $ 28,860
Nurse $ 50,100
Police officer $ 58,867
Teacher $ 63,312
Aneasthetist $101,764
Engineering manager $136,700
END QUOTE
.
Again, Federal Politicians would do better to spend their time to understand and comprehend what
the Framers of the Constitution intended as to “ALLOWANCE” payable to them and they might
just realize they better shut up as they are by far overpaid!
.
For the above and also already canvassed extensively in my various published books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series I would rather urge that the Constitution is amended as follows;
From;
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each
member of the House of Representatives shall receive an
allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the
.
To;
Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, subject to that such
allowance shall be calculated to include in totality, including postage, traveling, stationary,
overnight accommodation to no more but the maximum of the average weekly earnings on a
yearly basis, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat, and shall continue only for the
duration of time until the seat is vacated and no longer.
.
Gerrit
.
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
.
5-12-2008


Chapter Allowance - Politicians - Robbery

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Chapter Allowance - Politicians - Robbery

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Page 1

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State;

constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

* What about allowances for parliamentarians?

**#** That is another problem.

Hansard 21-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Chapter 000X Page 4

Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

The Hon. S. FRASER: It is done in other countries.

The Hon. S. FRASER: Many may be!

[start page 994]

QUOTE (HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION)

Chapter 000X Page 6

December 05, 2008 12:00am

"We're just not getting top-rate people," he said.

"And as I've said, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys."

Chapter 000X Page 7

Mr Tuckey said he had long believed MPs were underpaid.

But he said politicians were unfairly criticised about their salaries.

QUOTE Herald sun 5-12-2008 (Internet)

Chapter 000X Page 9

Chapter 000X Page 10

QUOTE ( HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION)

END QUOTE (HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION )

Chapter 000X Page 11

JAMES ANDREW McGINTY AND OTHERS v THE

JUDGE1 BRENNAN CJ.

28.7 Wages and price - 1901 and 2000

1901 prices 2000

Gold (1oz) 8.50 425.00 460.00

Chapter 000X Page 14

Butter (500g) 0.13 6.50 2.00

Source: See references.

Australian Bureau of Statistics:

 Average Retail Prices of Selected Items (6403.0).

Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics:

Sydney Morning Herald 1901, various issues.

The Age 1901, various issues.

The Advertiser 1901, Adelaide, various issues.

This page last updated 3 October 2007

* What do you propose?

The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST:

The above stated was published in 2003 as Chapter 27 in the book;

Chapter 000X Page 17

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.

as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational manner; and to

Motion agreed to; progress reported.

Upon which Mr. Marmion had moved by way of amendment:

Mr. MUNRO: Oh, nonsense!

Hansard 9-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. REID: Oh, no.

Sir GEORGE TURNER: It would depend on where the Parliament sat.

Mr. TRENWITH: They do not pay hotel bills.

Mr. HIGGINS: The State has a chance of his dying.

Mr. HIGGINS: There will be a lot of grumbling.

Chapter 000X Page 24

Mr. BARTON: I think it would.

Mr. O'CONNOR: A judge should have nothing to hope for.

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

Mr. ISAACS: Why is not the contrary correct?

# That is another problem.

# To me that was an act of TREASON.

# Well, let me explain.

# Of course not.