1

Mr Daniel Andrews Premier

5

10

1-5-2016

daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc; Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au, attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Governor of prison Justicehealth@justice.vic.gov.au
Ian Thomas General Manager at G4S Custodial Services Justicehealth@justice.vic.gov.au
Trish Sellman Deputy GM (Deputy Governor), Port Phillip Prison, Laverton, Justicehealth@justice.vic.gov.au
Re: 20160419-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria-COMPLAINT-Supplement-01

15

Sir,
further to my 20160412-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews Premier
of Victoria-COMPLAINT & 20160419-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel
Andrews
Premier
of Victoria-COMPLAINT-Supplement-01 I now provide this
20160419-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews Premier of VictoriaCOMPLAINT-Supplement-01
In my 19-4-2016 correspondence I did state:

20

QUOTE
I was forwarded by others that if I were to file a complaint against those dealing with prison security they
would (unlawfully) extend their powers to prevent any further communication with my son Richard. People
are afraid to speak out but I am not.
END QUOTE

25

In my view tampering with postal articles in defiance of Commonwealth law (consider also
section 109 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a criminal
offence. Obviously a correspondence that is unopened cannot fall within the provisions of the
Corrections Act 1986.
Since my supplement 1 of my complaint I was notified by my son Richard that he has been
moved to Ararat. This has upset my 83 year old wife as the travel to Ararat versus that to Port
Phillip Prison obviously is a major difference to her.
I have been informed (of the records) by former prisoners that filing a complaint will result that
G45 (allegedly a company running the prisons in Victoria) will retaliate. As such who are the
real criminals I wonder. Despite my 12-4-2016 complaint with 19-4-2016 supplement 1 no
contact was made with me by any authorities regarding my complaints. In fact, I am not aware of
any official response. It seems to me we have a Minister missing in action! Where is the
Minister who is being paid to be the responsible Minister?
It must be clear that for correspondence to be returned unopened then the prison authorities had
no way of knowing what the content was and clearly violate the provisions of the Corrections
Act 1986 for so far it can be applied without violating the Commonwealth postal provisions.
I am given the understanding (of the record from former prisoners) that address labels are
removed from postal articles where it may conceal contrabands like drugs. Yet, Australian Post
stamps which could do the same somehow are not removed, apart from that I view the removal
of address labels is in violation of Commonwealth postal laws. As such there appears to be
unlawful/uncontrolled conduct by this G45 and the responsible Minister seems to be
missing in action, as I understand it for years if not decades.
Why do we have a responsible Minister on taxpayers payroll if this purportedly responsible
Minister is missing in action and cannot even bother to communicate with in a proper manner?

30

35

40

45

p1
1-5-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

2
No communication at all with me about the intentions let alone actually doing so to move my
son to Ararat. I am informed by former prisoners of the record obviously, that Port Phillips has
secure areas and so no need to transfer him to Ararat, from a general prison condition to a
more severe special Ararat unit. .
My request to Richard to place me (so my wife) on the visiting list never has proceeded. Why
not? Has this request been denied unlawfully? Now the move to Ararat makes it about
impossible for my wife to see Richard. What is happening is not that my son is being
incarcerated for any offences but that some sort of sickening additional punishment is applied
well beyond what the courts had intended and this I view is to undermine the intentions of the
court. Judges who sentence a person to prison do so upon what they understand is the prison
provisions and I do not accept that the interferences I complaint about would be or may have
been what a judge would have understood would be additional kind of punishment, including any
violations of the rule of law.
I am also given the understanding from former prisoners (of the records) that my son now will be
forced to work in the prison system not for the government but for G45 at next to no payments.
In my view this is not what I view is lawful and any legislation that may purport to permit this is
unconstitutional. I can accept that prisoners may have to be employed to perform certain
functions but then the financial profits must go to the taxpayers, and not some private security
company. In my view Section 109 of the constitution means that Commonwealth minimum
payment of wages provisions overrides any state laws! The Commonwealth cannot exempt
certain State prisoners because its laws must be UNIFORM throughout the Commonwealth! In
my view it means that superannuation is also applicable. Being it that the wages earned by a
prisoner can be put to some extend to the cost of housing and providing otherwise to the prisoner.
It would however avoid a state prisoner later to become a burden to society on Commonwealth
taxpayers where the superannuation is paid to the benefit of Commonwealth retirement
provisions.
My son was residing at my Berriwillock property when he was incarcerated and his driver
license was so showing. Yet, no one bothered to advise me that when my son was arrested the
house was left unlocked, etc. My sons wallet I found in the house empty other than some cards
and that means anyone could have entered and removed his monies and identity cards, etc. What
kind of a system do we have when those purportedly having to enforce the law provide for others
to rob a place? Surely the authorities who seek to perform enforcement of law must be deemed to
be obligated to ensure that their conduct doesnt provide an opportunity for others to violate the
rule of law? Why is it that the responsible Minister so far has not bothered to contact me to
appropriately address issues of concern?
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN:
The people of Victoria are under many obligations to their distinguished Chief Justice and especially for his judgment
in this suit, in which he has displayed the acumen of the lawyer, the eloquence of the orator, and the grasp of the
statesman. Chief Justice Higinbotham said:

90

It was the intention of the Legislative Council to provide a complete system of responsible government in and for
Victoria, and that intention was carried into full legislative effect with the knowledge and approval and at the instance
of the Imperial Government by the "Constitution Statute," passed by the Imperial Parliament.
He was supported in his opinion by Mr. Justice Kerferd, who for some time was Attorney-General of Victoria. Mr.
Justice Kerferd said:

95

100

All the prerogatives necessary for the safety and protection of the people, the administration of the law, and the conduct
of public affairs in and for Victoria, under our system of responsible government, have passed as an incident to the
grant of self-government (without which the grant itself would be of no effect) and may be exercised by the
representative of the Crown in the advice of responsible ministers.
These two quotations embody the belief which was held until lately in Victoria; the majority of our own Supreme Court
overruled this reading. Mr. Justice Williams said:

p2
1-5-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

3
I have been for years in common with, I believe, very many others, under the delusion (as I must term it) that we
enjoyed in this colony responsible government in the proper sense of the term. I awake to find, as far as my opinion
goes, that we have merely an instalment of responsible government.
Mr. Justice Holroyd considers that we have only a measure of self-government, and two other judges concur. My
colleague, Mr. Wrixon, who argued the case with great force and ability before the Privy Council, says:

105

If the reading put by the Supreme Court in Victoria upon our Constitution Act be correct, then not only in the
colony of Victoria, but in all the groups of Australasian colonies, the governments which we now enjoy are
without warrant of law.

110

115

END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the Queen
herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one would ever dream
of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a responsible Minister.
END QUOTE

Really, when in Victoria we have a responsible Minister missing in action and some private
company as I understand it flaunts the rule of law?
120

125

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
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.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government
END QUOTE

130

As the states are created within s106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK) subject to this constitution then I view we are entitled to have a responsible Minister
who actually is hands on and not just there for photo opportunities for political elections.
.

135

140

145

Hansard 17-4-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
It is just as important that the Federal Government shall have the care and management of the vehicles which carry human
beings and their goods as that it should have the care and [start page 769] management of the vehicles or ways which
carry letters and telegrams.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS:
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,
END QUOTE
.

150

155

160

HANSARD 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us, I am happy to say, are very
clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the book which he was good enough to distribute amongst us.
He puts it in this form: That it is desirable there should be a union of the Australian colonies. That is one of the
principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments. Second, that such union should be an early one-that is, that
we should remove all difficulties in the way in order that the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third,
that it should be under the Crown. Now, I am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with which
we have to deal-that the union that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown. Fourth, that it should be under one
legislative and executive government. That also is laid down by our various parliaments.
END QUOTE
Hansard 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE

165

Mr. SYMON.-A written Constitution is not exhaustive. We have implanted responsible government in this
Constitution, but we have not said so in so many words. We must have some regard to the instrument we are
framing, and we ought to look upon it as a Constitution with plenty of elasticity, under which all the constitutional
usages will apply and be interpreted.

p3
1-5-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

4
END QUOTE

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. MUNRO:
. I quite admit that the United States system suits them; and if we are simply going to form a republic, and to
establish an institution in which the executive will not be in Parliament, and will not be responsible, the state of
affairs will be totally different. But I am contemplating that this Convention has in view the formation of true
responsible government.
END QUOTE
Hansard 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: What is the way to do it I am not now considering. But I hope I am not misunderstood in
calling attention to that difficulty as likely to arise. I believe myself that the system which we call responsible
government is the best that has yet been invented in the history of the world for carrying on the good government of the
people, and I hope that it will be instituted in the Federal Government of Australia.
END QUOTE

As such irrespective if the responsible Minister engages some private company in the end the
responsible Minister is responsible and must be hands on to every issue, including the running
of vehicles. If the person being the responsible Minister is incompetent to perform the job then
he/she must resign. Failing to do so makes the responsible Minister legally responsible for
any unlawful (including unconstitutional) conduct.
As I indicated in previous writings my son requested me to pay his license renewal. Those
seemingly running the show obstructed considerably my ability to do so. For example when I
wrote to my son to possibly provide me with powers of Attorney, it appears to me this was
intercepted unlawfully by those running the prison system. I view this is unlawful. It now is that I
do not have a clue what, if anything of my postal articles and that of others does make it through
to my son, as no feedback is provided. As such I view further unlawful conduct relating to
Commonwealth legal provisions governing postal articles.
As I indicated above defacing postal articles to remove address labels but not stamps also is a
selected interference that cannot in the circumstances be legally justified.
Anyhow my son provided me with a copy of an old renewal driving license slip and with hand
written notice on it signed by him.
I on Thursday 28 April 2016 attended to counter 13 at VicRoads Bundoora and well was told I
didnt have proper authorization to renew my sons driver license. I couldnt pay unless my son
specifically authorized me to pay it. I requested for the manager. He came and advised me he
could neither accept a change of postal address nor any payment without specific written
authority of my son but I could change the address via the internet and then also make the
payment. He advised me the fee was $76 for this for 3 years. Moment, if he legally cannot accept
my monies in person where I offered to show my driving license (as to show where I resided for
the change of address, etc) then how can he advise me I can do so via the internet? When a
person is incarcerated, and as I understand it moved to Ararat, then the person cannot just take a
stroll to VicRoads Bundoora and make a payment in person. As such where my son copied his
renewal slip of 2000, and the manager confirmed that the Bpay and the Reference numbers were
applicable for renewal then why could he not then accept the payment. As I explained if the
renewal notice was sent to Berriwillock it would be returned as there are no mail deliveries. As
such where my son is in custody he cannot go every day make a 350 kilometres trip to the
Berriwillock post office to see if there is mail before it is returned.
I view even Blind Freddy could understand this. As such what we need is a responsible
Minister who will ensure that appropriate provisions are in place that a person held in custody is
provided with sufficient opportunities to for example renew a driver license or enable another
person to do so. Surely one doesnt want a person released from prison to start violating the rule
of law by driving without a driving license because the authorities prevented the renewal? And,
while a person is held in custody and so immediately Centrelink is notified to stop any
entitlement payments then why not likewise do so with VicRoads that any balance of driving
license entitlements will recommence the moment the parson is released? Besides the fact that I
p4
1-5-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

5
view $76 renewal fee is a financial rip off as it doesnt cost that much in administration in any
event, the point is that you are forcing a person to be denied of Centerlink payments and having
then to pay in full (without concession) for license renewal without having the ability to use it for
the period of being held in custody. This to me is to add to any sentence invoked unlawfully.
Unless a court otherwise orders a driver license should be automatically extended (without
charge) with the actual number of days a person is incarcerated.
There can be no doubt that as his biological father and my son residing at my property (when not
incarcerated) I have an interest in his wellbeing, etc, and yet not a single word from the
responsible Minister or anyone acting on his behalf for over 2 years! If a private citizen
showed this kind of disregard for legal obligations then no doubt the person is quickly
incarcerated! While I did As what was recommended by the manager of VicRoads as to use the
internet to alter the postal address to my residential address and to make the payment
subsequently, I waited until after midnight to make the payment so the change of postal address
is on an earlier date, to avoid afterwards arguments that the change of postal address came after
the payment, but still the nonsense of having to do it via the internet when I could have done so
in person may underline that when it comes to the right of a person held in custody to much
obstacles are used inappropriately. And was it not for the prison authorities to obstruct my
writings to be received by my son Richard then he could have written to VicRoads himself, as I
had requested him to do but the mail was intercepted and denied to him. Is this what the prison
system is about to cause a prisoner undue unlawful punishment and trouble?
It should be clear ample of people are incarcerated only to be found not guilty and so we need a
prison system that is not left to private contractors to run wild in violation to constitutional and
other legal provisions but that they must conduct management appropriately.
As a matter of fact persons incarcerated and found after some time to be innocent of any
wrongdoing may discover that their precious personal belongings that were in their residence
may have been disposed of by the landlord where the landlord was left unaware what the tenant
was. As such the landlord may have assumed that the tenant disappeared without willing to pay
any overdue rent, the latter incurred while the person was incarcerated. Hence, I view there must
be a proper system in place that where authorities incarcerate a person then a relative/next of
kin/friend, etc, is notified about it. Where none is available for this then the Authorities take
charge as to secure the belongings. For example when my daughter contacted me from interstate
that her mother (my first wife) was placed in hospital care, I immediately contacted the landlord
(then a government Department) to advise it of her location and to seal her residence as to avoid
the loss of her personal belongings. This, even so I had not any communication with her for
some 25 years. It is in my view the common and decent thing to do. For legal reasons a person
might be incarcerated but again in the end may be found not guilty of any wrongdoing, and if
nevertheless in the meantime precious belonging/mementos (such as pictures of perhaps
deceased family members) are disposed of then the innocent person may very well seek revenge.
Also, if I can be held accountable if not responding to some government Department within say
a period of 2 weeks, then why is it DOUBLE STANDARDS that as government Department (so
the responsible Minister) may not respond for years or not at all?
For sure I do not answer telephones in general because of having a severe hearing problem, and
my newly provided replacement of hearing aids simply are useless. Then again, if I were to
phone a department I would quickly be told that I cannot identify myself over the phone and so
strict Privacy Laws will not allow disclosure of details.
As such the same if someone calls me I do not know who calls, and my wife fell for this when
someone called her and advised her to be of Microsoft and then got her to provide remote control
of the laptop. She didnt know and despite my past warning about scams did so. Just that I had
made sure no confidential details were kept on her laptop! As such, if a responsible Minister
desires to contact me then it must be in an official manner that I can check, and not some phone
call that anyone can make. One cannot have DOUBLE STANDARDS that the Government
Departments will not accept phone calls from persons they cannot check the identity of but
p5
1-5-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

275

280

6
expect others to accept their calls being genuine where the receiver of the call hasnt got a clue if
the caller is as claimed or not. It also forces a person to communicate in writing and so not give
some nonsense version via a phone call and later denies the same.
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN:
They have believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their present constitution second to none in
the world. When the question of a second chamber comes to be considered, they will assuredly not be satisfied to
possess less freedom. More than this. In framing a federal constitution, we should set out with the explicit claim to
possess and exercise all the rights and privileges of citizens of the British empire to the same extent that they are
possessed and exercised by our fellow-countrymen in Great Britain itself. Australia is entitled to absolute
enfranchisement. In our union we attain political manhood and the stature of a full-grown democracy.

285

END QUOTE

290

295

300

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE

In my view we should never cause undue/unlawful added punishment/treatment upon any person
held in custody! Any punishment measured out by the Courts is to reflect the needs of society to
hold an offender accountable for any wrongdoing, it is not in societys interest to have a
responsible Minister missing in action and let some private company running amok in
violation to constitutional and other legal rights of a prisoner and/or others who have an interest
in the circumstances regarding a prisoner.
.

305

310

315

320

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the
substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall
be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be
liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the
United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution,
the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have
been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE

325

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is
charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the
agents of the people.
END QUOTE

330

We, as a society punish offenders through the courts and should avoid the measuring out of
additional punishments totally unjustified/unlawful by those wielding powers in the prisons
system, as this also undermined public confidence in the judicial system!
No excuses by any responsible Minister that some agency failed (in exercising delegation of
power) as ultimately it is the Minister who is responsible.
Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our

name is our motto!)

p6
1-5-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati