ISSUE: 20180531- Re: Malcolm Turnbull on it again with Barnaby Joyce, etc & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

I understood from a news report on Wednesday 30 May 2018 that Parliamentarian Christopher
Payne seeks to justify the with pay leave of Barnaby Joyce, so let we consider the following:
[PDF]G. H. Schorel Hlvaka (August 2017)(PDF 18.94 ... - Parliament of Victoria
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/.../S51-_Gerrit_Schorel_Hlvaka-Att_D_.pdf
Aug 22, 2017 - Kevin Rudd who then in his 2007 successful election campaign announced he was an.
'unemployed former diplomate. Members of parliament ...
20160724-Mr GH Schorel-Hlavka OWB to ATO & Others - Scribd
https://www.scribd.com/.../20160724-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-ATO-Others
When I wrote about this loss of status to Mr Kevin Rudd in 2017 to his credit Mr ... then stated during the
election that he was an unemployed former diplomate.
What should be understood is that the Government of the Day doesn’t have any legislative
powers as it can only operate within the context of the constitution and so any legislative power
provided to it by the Parliament. The parliament can only legislate within its powers provided for
in the constitution. As I recall it when it came to Julia Gillard to increase pensions allegedly
about 18 months was needed to assess this. Yes, politicians are very concerned that pensioners
who worked for and paid the 7% into retirement fund pensions somehow need to justify even
getting a mere fraction of their monies back. Oops the politician are putting their mouths in the
money bucket. Many politicians were declared not to be validly elected and so in the parliament
and well Barnaby Joyce was one of them. While I regard he was validly elected as the true
meaning and application of s44 of the constitution should never have been twisted by the High
Court of Australia nevertheless if politicians goes along with this gross deception then they
should also accept the legal consequences. After all the alternative would have been to get rid of
the judges for treason against the constitution and so We, the People.
But no politicians ousted are entitled NOT having to pay back the monies wrongly paid to them.
Yet, if a pensioned was wrongly paid then the government wouldn’t hesitate to take them to
court if necessarily to reclaim the monies, even if the pensioner was not at fault. So Barnaby
Joyce somehow did not have to repay the about $3 million he was paid over the time he was
deemed not constitutionally validly to b e a Member of Parliament. The Governments mantra is
that the monies would have been paid anyhow to someone else. That is a lame duck excuse as if
it was unconstitutional then no Minister can overrule the constitution and the monies should have
been paid back and so all other associated cost over about the decade of unconstitutionally sitting
in the Parliament. After all if a person falsely create a CV and then is found out, even years later,
then the courts will not excuse this conduct whatsoever. After all the person essentially stole the
job from someone else who was otherwise legally entitled to the job and so likewise with
Barnaby Joyce and others ousted where other candidates constitutionally were entitled to be in
the Parliament had not the ousted persons taken the seats.
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
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.

p1 31-5-2018 © 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
 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!
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.
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 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.
END QUOTE
It should be clear that Members of Parliament are not employed by the parliament neither by the
government of the Day. They are entitled to an allowance for the expenses incurred to attend to
the parliament. Any person (being a Member of Parliament or not – see Section 64) is entitled to
be paid for being a Minister. However, Barnaby Joyce as I understand it is a so called
backbencher who doesn’t hold any Ministerial position and as such not entitled to any
wages/salary for being in the Parliament. Hence, if he doesn’t like to turn up in the Parliament
then it is for his constituents to have an issue with this, but he cannot be paid any form of
allowance when not representing the electorate in the Parliament.
When I first heard that Malcolm Turnbull was going to have a talk with Barnaby Joyce I
wondered if Malcolm Turnbull as a Prime minister has really any clue as to what the constitution
stands for. After all Barnaby Joyce is not a member of his political party and it is for the National
Party leader to discuss matters that are party issues. Neither can Malcolm Turnbull dictate the
Parliament what to do as the Parliament is not part of the government. It is above the
Government. It is a sovereign entity that cannot be dictated by the Government of the Day what
it can or cannot do. The mere fact that the national Party is part of the Governing coalition
doesn’t whatsoever give Malcolm Turnbull or for that the Parliament any powers to provide for
Barnaby Joyce any paid leave where this is not provided for in the constitution! While not
uncommon women as Members of parliament due to giving birth or whatever are also getting
paid and this too constitutionally is unlawful if they are not in a Ministerial position but we now

p2 31-5-2018 © 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
should bring it to a head that this gigantic rip off taxpayers hard earned monies no longer should
be squandered. Again “It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.”.
When a person enters the Parliament the does so regardless if he still has a private employment
and/or manage as a self-employed person any business provided it doesn’t violate s44 of the
constitution. Well s44 as the true meaning and application is and not twisted by nonsense now
dictated upon us. Unless s128 of the constitution is amended by We, the people, to allow for non-
elected judges to pervert the course of justice to amend nilly willy the true meaning and
application of the constitution the constitution applies as it did from onset. Any judge who
pretend otherwise I view commits TREASON and so any politicians or other person who
supports this judge decision.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
intention of its makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)

"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words
should remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which
they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed
as language changes. "
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted,
the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the
historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the text in
question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does
not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we
can of an historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing
in a particular way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE

Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

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

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE

When I arrived in Australia in 1971 regardless English was not my native language I simply had
an obligation to learn the rule of law. If therefore I did so I see absolutely no excuse for those
p3 31-5-2018 © 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
born within Australia not to have done so, in particular those sitting in the Parliament and/or are
Ministers of the crown. I proved in the county court of Victoria (exercising federal jurisdiction –
representing myself) AEC v Schorel-Hlavka that when it came to constitutional issues I defeated
comprehensively all State/Territory/Commonwealth Attorney-Generals as none challenged my
constitutionally based written submissions. I succeeded in both appeals that compulsory voting
was unconstitutional! Likewise, I had already on 4 August 2005 defeated the Commonwealth as
to the application of AVERMENT. This is very relevant also to anyone having a battle with the
ATO who claims averment despite that the court ruled against this.
As I recall it Malcolm Turnbull claimed to be a constitutionalist, well on that basis I view he
conspired with Barnaby Joyce to rip of the taxpayers to provide him with a reported 11 paid
leave this even so I view this is unconstitutional. If Barnaby Joyce was as Minister then I view he
could possibly entitled to paid leave of the job, but as he is to my knowledge not a Minister then
I view he simply has to take leave without any pay.
How can a Prime Minister pursue ordinary people respect the rule of law when he demonstrate,
at least to me, that he couldn’t give a hoot about the rule of law when he wants it his way.
The issue is not if Barnaby Joyce is really ill or merely that Malcolm Turnbull tries so to say get
rid of him for a few months to avoid further distraction involving Barnaby Joyce as what is
relevant is that we need as Prime Minister who respects the Rule of law and the Constitution is
the very basis of the rule of law. I view that Malcolm Turnbull lacks the competence and ability
to be a Prime Minister. Remember how he was mouthing of about how he knew what to do with
the NBN? Well what came from it all and consider his kind of reduced spending I understand is a
huge blow out. I wonder how long as I view him to be an incompetent fool can carry on trashing
what our constitution stands for. If this is an indication of the mind of republic he was on about
to rob the hard earned monies of taxpayers to suit himself and his political agenda then well we
can well do without that kind of a system. If Barnaby Joyce desired paid leave then he should
have acquired a paid employment job. Failing that he cannot leech upon the public purse. I have
absolutely no issue with reportedly Barnaby Joyce desiring to get the public record straight about
his private live, but surely not at the expenses of taxpayers. Ordinary employers would be
horrified if this was the kind of paid leave they would need to provide for their employees.
In my view this is the straw that broke the camel’s v back and it would be absurd to leave
Malcolm Turnbull to continue as a Prime Minister as he in my view clearly displayed he has no
respect for the constitution and so the rule of law. We cannot afford DOUBLE STANDARDS
that somehow politicians are above the rule of law!
Never again should be accept unelected judges to twist and pervert the true meaning and
application of the constitution. We have and are and remain to be so under an English
constitution and I challenge any judge to prove where in the constitution it shows they have
backdoor power to amend and twist the true meaning and application of the constitution pending
their contemporary views. Failing that they can but only deemed to commit treason when they
pervert the true meaning and application of the constitution. Politicians who go along with that
(the judges deceptive interpretations) themselves I view are traitors against We, the People.
It seem to me that parliamentarians like Christopher Payne are so accustomed to rorts that they
consider unconstitutional conventions to override the constitution and so the rule of law!
Some years ago during a federal election they had the shredder gimmick and well Christopher
Payne was then shredded albeit later was resurrected. I wonder if perhaps the shredding caused
him some long term mental problems that he no longer, if he ever did, understand that a person
not employed cannot use a sick leave certificate to claim sick leave.
And while we are onto the rorting. During political elections politicians are not entitled to use
public monies to fund their travelling, etc, for this. They are simply thieving from the taxpayers!
And why not add the following:
https://russia-insider.com/en/dummies-guide-russia-collusion-hoax-who-what-where-when-
why/ri23601?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=2fa6a90915&mc_eid=2c57cd92c9
The Dummies Guide to The Russia Collusion Hoax: Who, What, Where, When & Why
QUOTE
p4 31-5-2018 © 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
 Back in May 2016, the twenty-something Papadopoulous had gotten outside a number of drinks with one
Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat in London and had let slip that “the Russians” had compromising
information about Hillary Clinton. When Wikileaks began releasing emails hacked from the Democratic
National Committee in June and July, news of the conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos was
communicated to the FBI. Thus, according to the Times, the investigation was born.
There were, however, a couple of tiny details that the Times omitted. One was that Downer, an avid
Clinton supporter, had arranged for a $25 million donation from the Australian government to the
Clinton Foundation. Twenty-five million of the crispest, Kemo Sabe. They also neglected say exactly how
Papadopoulos met Alexander Downer.
END QUOTE

https://russia-insider.com/en/dummies-guide-russia-collusion-hoax-who-what-where-when-
why/ri23601?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=2fa6a90915&mc_eid=2c57cd92c9
The Dummies Guide to The Russia Collusion Hoax: Who, What, Where, When & Why
QUOTE
Like almost everyone else, they assumed that Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in, so they were careless about
covering their tracks. If Hillary had won, the department of Justice would have been her Department
of Justice, John Brennan would still be head of the CIA, and the public would never have known about
the spies, the set-ups, the skulduggery.
END QUOTE

Here we have it that the High Commissioner to London, at least I understood that was his
position, had reportedly in fact been organising very successfully a $25 million robbery of the
Consolidated Revenue funds for the Clinton Foundation, a private owned business entity.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an annual
service.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from special
grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which we are
accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.
Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place
expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a service.
END QUOTE

Therefore, if any monies paid to the Clinton Foundation by which ever Government in Australia
was not specifically approved by a special Appropriation Bill then the monies were
unconstitutionally and so unlawfully defrauded from the Consolidated Revenue Funds and
should be repaid by those involved. And if Malcolm Turnbull was involved in any of it then well
let him be one of them to pay back the theft of the monies.
And, likewise all those persons who were ousted from the Parliament as not being eligible should
be repaying all monies, including any expenses incurred for and on their behalf as they were not
entitled to it. The minister simply lacks the constitutional powers to allow any person not validly
a Member of Parliament and not appointed within the limits of 66t4 of the constitution to not
demanding the repayment of the monies. Likewise the ATO must pursue they are charged
taxation both over their income and other things such as car usage, etc, as it would apply if the
same were provided to someone by a business entity in private employment. This, as while
income of a Member of Parliament relating to his services to the parliament may be tax exempted
it can however not be if it turns out the person was never validly a Member of Parliament.
I can assure people that if I were in charge I would go after each and everyone of them to repay
monies and suffer the legal consequences also. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE RULE OF LAW!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
p5 31-5-2018 © 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