20191026-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senate Standing Committees On Economics-SUBMISSION

Page 1
1
2
3 Senate Standing Committees on Economics 26-10-2019
4 PO Box 6100, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
5 Phone: +61 2 6277 3540, Fax: +61 2 6277 5719, economics.sen@aph.gov.au
6 SUBMISSION
7 Sir/Madam,
8 I refer to my various submissions to the “Manager Black Economy Division” and
9 view that all submissions that were provided to the “blackeconomy@treasury.gov.au” should
10 be required to be considered by this “Senate Standing Committees on Economics”. After all
11 what might have been ignored as to submissions by this blackeconomy treasury consideration
12 might be politically and otherwise very relevant.
13 Our constitution provides that States can only require payment in silver and gold. While treasury
14 may not hold this to be relevant as after all it is not to make decisions as to any legislation
15 proposed before the parliament to be permissible within constitutional context, the Senate
16 however has this obligation to consider this.
17 It would be inappropriate and unfair towards those who made submissions to be burdened to do
18 so again or have their submission(s) disregarded.
19
20 While I am a senior citizens, nevertheless aware that without cash on hand one can run into
21 problems. For example, attending to an ATM and discover they are out due to electricity or
22 simple internet problems (frequently eventuating) then one is left without any monies. Only
23 having cash in one pocket one still can do the purchases such as medicine needed. Those who
24 drive or are driven in government cash may no longer have the burden of having to travel at cost
25 to get somewhere. Again, when travelling for medication say at 7pm and then being told that
26 ATM’s are out and one has to come back the next day just to be able to purchase medication may
27 not be an issue for those in the Parliament but darn sure is when i have to get medication for my
28 wife. OK you may argue that the Parliament isn’t going to try to block cash. Well you must be a
29 complete idiot if you were to belief that story. We know about the GST how certain items would
30 not be subjected to GST and the level of GST wouldn’t change. Well down the time it has
31 changed anyhow. Any law that is introduced slowly is amended time and time again. So even if
32 today’s legislation is set say on $10,000.00 then slowly this will be eroded and in the passing of
33 time it will become $00,000.00. The absurdity is that there are many ways to deal with the black
34 economy but they were never pursued. This means that the real issue is not at all to deal with the
35 black-economy but to slowly reign in more and more the freedoms of citizens under any excuse.
36
37 Last week the cops came onto my property and my wife had authorised them to smash a window
38 to gain entry if I didn’t open the door. No this was not some dramatic matrimonial issue. It was
39 that my wife nearly dying and in hospital was concerned I too was going to croak it and so asked
40 the police to do a health check on my and for this authorised, if needed, to smash a window.
41 Luckily I happen to get out of bed to make a cup of coffee and heard the police. So all well
42 ended well. And my wife after 10 days in hospital was released.
43 The police officer was very cautious to explain to me that my wife had authorised their entry,
44 this because of the signage that trespassing is prohibited, etc. He also noted how much was
26-10-2019 Page 1 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 stored on items on my property and I explained to him that it was to be moved to another
2 property I own. I added I have receipts for everything. They left.
3
4 I explain this because many a person complains about the level of pensions, etc. And for sure my
5 wife and I are not living a rich life. The last fuel bull (Gas) was about $500.00 which for being
6 on a pension is a lot of monies. Still I rather have my wife to be in comfort then to suffer in cold.
7
8 As for the items I have standing about, they are lawfully paid for but are over the years my kind
9 of investment to manage financially in years to come. Not uncommon I go to a store and
10 purchase in bulk more items then I would otherwise pay for just one of those items. That is my
11 kind of security. Nothing the black economy legislation could do about. After all I am not selling
12 anything. At most what I do not need I give away. Ample of children, grandchildren and great
13 grandchildren I have for this purpose.
14
15 I understand from one person that he purchases for next to nothing a property and then barter it
16 for old cars, etc. Again the black economy system proposed isn’t going to deal with that.
17 However we already have that in my view unconstitutional the Commonwealth is selecting
18 groups on some welfare card and then when a person needs to make extra purchases they have to
19 request permission from Centrelink to be able to purchase special items. That to me is totally
20 absurd. It is one thing for the Commonwealth to petition a court to issue orders for a particular
21 person who misuses/abuses Centrelink (welfare payments) but to subject anyone no matter of not
22 misusing monies to this violates the freedoms embedded in our constitution.
23 The Commonwealth obviously would desire that all financial transactions are dealt with via
24 electronic means, this si it could apply a tax to each withdrawal/deposit, etc, but then this would
25 evolve a system that the moment electricity and/or internet breaks-down then people are stranded
26 without monies. And, as I indicated you desire to pay for medication and told to come back the
27 next day because the ATM’s are out then well when your wife is suffering of ill health that is not
28 particularly a suitable solution. Neither, if you got an ill baby and drastically need some supplies
29 and cannot access monies to pay for it. Let’s be clear about it that it has really nothing to do with
30 black economy issues as there are ample of ways to deal with financial matters.
31 Let us have a look at Sunday Markets, where some are selling items that they have 6 or more
32 people working on their stand. Considering the wages they are to be paid for the day then
33 obviously the turn over is huge. Yet, each and every sale might be less then $100.00 each. As
34 such this so called cash economy clampdown will achieve absolutely nothing when it comes to
35 Sunday Market stands that are earning perhaps tens of thousands of dollars in a day. The owner
36 of the stand can deposit into various financial institutions less then $10,000 each time, (say
37 $9,999.00 each time) and it still would be off the record.
38
39 I used to be in management of factories, and before that in accounting as a young adult, and this
40 has given me great insight as to how to bargain for discounts. For example I walk into a store (I
41 will avoid using names) and well explain that they have certain stock that didn’t move for
42 months and so offer them ridiculous low prices. I am often very successful in this. For example 4
43 door size double glazed windows were about $1,000 each. I offered $80.00 each but the manager
44 declined making known he never could do it for a mere $80.00 but could do it for $85.00. I
45 understood he was merely fooling about and I purchased the 4 for a mere $320.00 instead of the
46 $4,000. This for renovating my property. And this is how I generally, for decades, do my
47 shopping. It allows my wife and myself to live in retirement to the best comfort we have. It is no
48 ones business really how we manage financially. But if everything is to be recorded, as soon or
49 later the proposed $10,000.00 will be reduced to $00,000.00 then all cash will be abolished but
50 for what? Politicians are too often known as crooks and that will not stop them rorting the
51 system!
52
53 Now let have a look at a real issue:
Page 3
1 Various States, such as the State of Victoria, has rented/leased their Port (in this case the Port of
2 Melbourne for about $9 Billion plus) and yet this is actually a form of taxation that the Framers
3 of the Constitution specifically outlawed with Section 92 of the constitution.
4 As such we have a black economy profit of more than $9 Billion by the State of Victoria and the
5 Federal Government, let alone the ATO did absolutely nothing about this. As such, let us not be
6 kidding ourselves that this is about black economy because many states/territories are involved
7 in this kind of black economy in violation to the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
8 Then we have Premier Daniel Andres having his “FOREIGN AFFAIRS” DEALS WITH
9 ANOTHER COUNTRY SUCH AS China. This clearly defies the constitutional powers of the
10 Commonwealth because foreign affairs is within the sole powers of the Commonwealth. Then
11 again we had former High Commissioner Mr Alexander Downers who as High commissioner in
12 the UK was more as I understood it operating as a spy to undermine the US election.
13
14 /GeorgePapa19George Papadopoulos @GeorgePapa19 Oct 4
15 QUOTE
16 The Australians are trying to obstruct the investigation. They must answer why
17 Downer claims that the “Israelis” directed him to spy on me. Furthermore, they must
18 release the tape of my meeting with him to clarify Downer’s intent to guide a
19 conversation towards anything but US-OZ
20 END QUOTE
21
22 /GeorgePapa19George Papadopoulos @GeorgePapa19 Oct 1
23 QUOTE
24 Here is the Clinton errand boy, Alexander Downer, with the walrus, Stefan Halper, a
25 week before both were sent to spy on me. Both are just now going to be exposed for
26 the world to see.https://t.co/oXjxDNg9lm
27 END QUOTE
28
29 George Papadopoulos @GeorgePapa19 Sep 27
30 QUOTE
31 Alexander Downer and Stefan Halper were both recording my conversations about
32 my energy business work in Cyprus. Biden was there extorting officials and
33 threatening them with Turkey. This is as much about geopolitics as it is corruption.
34 The onion is being peeled back slowly!
35 END QUOTE
36
37 There is a lot more of this on the Twitter account of Mr George Papadopoulos.
38 So, what we seem to have is some growing black economy in the State of Victoria by the State
39 Government itself but the Federal Government is too busy involved in seeking to meddle in the
40 US political elections then to be addressing internal issues. We obviously would be served better
41 if we had High Commissioner’s and/or Ambassadors who were not involved in the alleged
42 spying but rather were involved in securing better economical future for Australians.
43 And not having some Premier to run around the world taking the law into his own hands but be
44 checked by the Federal Government that any thing he does in violation to the legal principles
45 embedded in the constitution then he will face legal accountability.
46

Page 4
1 There is this reported issue that the Federal Government desires to nullify the contract about
2 Darwin Port being leased out for 99 years. Again, in view of Section 92 of the Commonwealth of
3 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) it would indeed not only be proper but required to do so
4 regarding any port deal by any state/territory. After all when it leases out a port then those
5 contracted need to make monies out of this and so they will add a charge to port fees for this.
6 This is a tax burden in violation to Section 92. This as for example the $9 billion plus profit the
7 State of Victoria made was not for port improvements but was being used on other items, and as
8 such was violating s92. ( below referred to as claus 86):
9 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. HENRY: I would like to ask Mr. Barton what effect this would have on several Marine Boards and
12 Harbor Trusts of the colonies which are dependent for their revenues on tonnage rates. This clause, I see,
13 provides that no tonnage duty should be imposed except by Commonwealth. What position, I would like to
14 know, would the various Harbor Trusts and Marine Boards, which are dependent for a portion of their
15 revenue on these tonnage dues, occupy till the Federal Commonwealth has had time to legislate upon this
16 matter.
17 Mr. BARTON: If the tonnage dues are not an infringement upon the principles of intercolonial freetrade, I
18 take it that they would remain in force after the establishment of the Commonwealth; but if the State
19 proposed to take in hand legislation on the subject, it would not be permitted to legislate on that subject
20 without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
21 Mr. HIGGINS: If it were only an amendment?
22 Mr. BARTON: Possibly the only trouble there would be, that a period of six months would elapse before
23 the Commonwealth Parliament was called together after it is established. So far as the tonnage dues,
24 mentioned by Mr. Henry, did not infringe upon the principles of intercolonial freedom of trade, there would
25 be no difficulty.
26 Mr. GLYNN: I think the last few words of this clause are too comprehensive in their meaning. In South
27 Australia there is a lot of land which is leased with the right of purchase, and I can see that under the latter
28 portion of this clause there is considerable danger of defeating the effect of direct taxation.
29 Mr. O'CONNOR: In a case of that kind the reversion which is in the Crown would not be taxed, but
30 the letting value would be taxed.
31 Mr. BARTON: I might mention that the property of the Commonwealth in that land is the reversion upon
32 the lease. The reversion upon the lease would not be [start page 1002] taxable, but the interest of the lessee in
33 the property would be taxable.
34 Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.
35 Mr. HENRY: I would like to raise a question as to the right of the Commonwealth to tax materials
36 for State purposes. In the event of a colony importing rails, machinery, engines, &c., for State
37 purposes, I would like to know whether such exports are to be free from Customs duties. Will the
38 Federal Parliament have a right to levy duties on materials imported for State purposes?
39 Mr. BARTON: This is a matter that was discussed very fully in the Constitutional Committee, and I think
40 my hon. friend Sir George Turner will remember that I consulted the members of the Finance Committee
41 upon it, intimating to them the opinion of the Constitutional Committee on the point. The words:
42 Impose any tax on property
43 do not refer to the importation of goods at all, and any amendment to except the Customs would be
44 unnecessary. This clause states that a State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the
45 Commonwealth, impose taxation on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, meaning by that
46 property of any kind which is in hand, such as land within the Commonwealth. That has no reference to
47 Customs duties.
48 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Will articles imported by the States Governments come in free?

Page 5
1 Mr. BARTON: The question then arises whether articles imported by the States Governments are to
2 come in free, but this section has nothing to do with that. Under this Bill and in the measure of 1891 I
3 believe duties would have been collectable upon imports by any State, and after the consultation which
4 I had with the hon. member and his colleagues on the Finance Committee the Constitutional
5 Committee decided not to make any exemption in the case of any State.
6 The CHAIRMAN: I would ask hon. members to confine themselves to the discussion of this clause.
7 Sir GEORGE TURNER: I propose to carry out your desire, Sir, to restrict my remarks to this particular
8 clause. In Victoria, as I mentioned the other day, we have an independent body called a Harbor Trust, which
9 collects a large amount of money and, as far as I can recollect, does it in the way of tonnage dues. If we pass
10 this clause, and we deprive this body of its revenue, they will simply have to fall back upon the Government
11 of the State. What is the meaning of the phrase:
12 Impose tonnage dues?
13 According to the way I read the clause it means that it is not to pass any law which would put on any fresh
14 dues.
15 Mr. MCMILLAN: I suppose the States gave these rights to the harbor trust.
16 Sir GEORGE TURNER: The State passes a law constituting a Harbor Trust and gives over to them the
17 right to collect these various revenues. What I desire is to preserve that right, whatever it may be. I am in
18 great difficulty as how this particular clause will affect that body, as well as similar bodies in other colonies
19 which collect small sums. I would be glad if my hon. friend Mr. Barton can give me any assistance with
20 regard to this matter, and tell us if this clause will or will not interfere with this existing body. If that be so I
21 shall be prepared to let the clause pass, and then, before the adjourned Convention is held, we shall have an
22 opportunity in the different colonies of ascertaining how these dues and rates are collected, and how this
23 clause will affect them, and whether we should make this amendment. In the meantime I should like Mr.
24 Barton to give me the real meaning of the clause.
25 Mr. BARTON: As far as I can gather from this clause and the clause of 1891, it seems to me to refer to
26 any future legislation on the subject:
27 The State shall not impose tonnage dues.
28 [start page 1003]
29 The question of whether existing legislation would be invalidated would depend, first, upon whether
30 the dues were an infringement of the equality of trade throughout the Commonwealth, and next upon
31 whether the Commonwealth passed a law which-if it were in the province of the Commonwealth to past; it-
32 was in conflict with the law of the State, in which case, to the extent of the difference between the laws, the
33 law of the Commonwealth would prevail if section 98 were passed. It deals only with future legislation, I
34 think. but these tonnage dues may incur a prohibition if we find that they are a system of taxation,
35 because the Parliament of the Commonwealth has power to raise funds by any method of taxation. If
36 the method of carrying out that power were found to be in conflict with the law of the State, the law of
37 the Commonwealth would prevail. We have no provision for the Commonwealth taking over harbors or
38 harbor works, and it may be a question for consideration whether the Commonwealth, as it has power to
39 legislate on other subjects relating to the regulation of commerce and trade and so on, should not take over
40 harbor works too. That is what, on the face of it, seems to me to be the effect of the clause.
41 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think these tonnage dues must be excepted if the Parliament is to take over harbors.
42 Tonnage dues are simply payment for services rendered, and they do not practically come under the system
43 of taxation at all. They are levied for something done. If they are not excepted great trouble will ensue,
44 especially in regard to corporations. Is that System referred to by Sir George Turner administered by a
45 Minister of the Crown?
46 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No.
47 Mr. MCMILLAN: Does it apply then? These. are dues paid by the State as a State, but the case mentioned
48 is one of a corporation, in which there is a payment for services rendered. Tolls are exacted for the services,
49 call them dues or wharfage rates or whatever you like; they are the same in essence.

Page 6
1 Sir GEORGE TURNER: If we do not guard against it corporate bodies may evade the Act, and the State
2 may appoint corporations to do work so as to evade it.
3 Mr. MCMILLAN: Something will have to be done or great trouble may ensue.
4 Mr. BARTON: With reference to the question of wharfage rates, members will recollect that the United
5 States Constitution contains a prohibition against the State levying tonnage duties without the consent of
6 Congress. It has been decided in the case of the Packet Company v. Catlettsburg, 105 U.S., 559:
7 A city or town on a navigable river may exact a reasonable compensation for the use of the wharf which it
8 owns without infringing the constitutional provisions concerning tonnage taxes or regulations of commerce.
9 That would appear to be rather in favor of the exemption of the harbor trust.
10 Mr. HENRY: It is within my own knowledge that there are Marine Boards in Australia, at all events in
11 Tasmania, worked as State departments. They are nominee bodies with a Minister practically at their head.
12 Mr. HIGGINS: Who gets the money?
13 Mr. HENRY: The Customs officers collect the wharfage and tonnage dues, and they pass into the hands of
14 the Government. I would like to ask Mr. Barton how it would operate in cases where the tonnage rates vary at
15 different ports in Australia? We might have one harbor with a particular rate and another with double or
16 treble that rate, so that we would not have an equality of trade. This is one of the difficulties which Mr.
17 Barton. and others, in considering this matter, should have placed before them. In this clause we are going to
18 hand to the Federal Government the right to legislate with regard to tonnage dues, and it is desirable that we
19 should know precisely what we [start page 1004] are doing and how it is going to affect the various harbor
20 trusts and marine boards.
21 Mr. BARTON: On considering the matter, I think that the tonnage dues mentioned here-we have altered
22 the word "duties" into "dues," and they seem to me like the word "tonnage dues" that used to prevail in the
23 the old country, such as tonnage dues on wines. We find the word referred to in Acts 9 Anne, and 10 George
24 IV. They were tonnage dues granted to the Queen, and I think those referred to here were the same in the
25 United States Constitution. Whether that be so or not, the tonnage dues referred to in the clause seem to be
26 charges for services performed. For instance, a Harbor Trust is formed and carries out improvements and as a
27 means of recouping themselves the harbor authorities charge dues. Wharfage dues are for the use of a
28 wharf and have they not a similar meaning in the modern acceptation of the term? One is an impost
29 for the use of a wharf, the other for the use of a harbor on which money has been spent for the purpose
30 of rendering it more adapted for shipping. If that is so the words may be left out, and if they are left
31 out any tonnage due which is not a charge for services performed would be an impost interfering with
32 the freedom of trade and intercourse, and would come under section 86; that is to say, as soon as
33 uniform duties have been imposed, trade and intercourse shall be absolutely free, If they interfere they
34 could only do so so far as they are of the nature of taxes. If they are only charges for services
35 performed, as I explained in connection with clause 83, then there can be no objection to them. because
36 charges for use of a wharf are much in the same position as charges of the post office authorities for
37 the carriage of letters; they are payments for services. If that view is taken I shall offer no objection to
38 it.
39 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Why not for post and telegraphs?
40 Mr. BARTON: Any mere service that the Commonwealth does not take over is still in the hands of the
41 State. Clause 86 can only be infringed by something which means an interference with the freedom of
42 trade and intercourse. Anything that is fairly construable as a payment for services performed is not
43 handed over-the mere service can be charged for as before, because it is not an interference with trade
44 and intercourse. In such cases as that, mere service can be charged for as before, because it is not an
45 interference with trade or intercourse. I think we may well accept that view and leave out the words:
46 Impose tonnage dues or.
47 I move that they be left out.

48 END QUOTE
49

Page 7
1 Clearly the profit of $9 billion plus, was not for services rendered. In fact it was a so to say
2 windfall for the State of Victoria that was nothing less but a taxation. In violation to Section 92
3 of the constitution. And for any private corporation to increase harbour trust cost for their own
4 profit also I view is a violation of s92.
5 What we seem to have was a Federal Government more hell bend to undermine a political
6 election in the USA then to consider its internal issues.
7 .
8 Let us be clear about it tens of billions of dollars were unconstitutionally collected by the
9 States/territories and then you got a Federal Government pursuing as if ordinary Australians are
10 the most vicious criminals in the world regarding monies. Perhaps it might even want to lock up
11 every citizen as is being done with Julian Assagne for merely exposing the truth. Just that as a
12 CONSTITUTIONALIST I am too aware that our constitution has embedded political and
13 religious liberties. Religious means that any person who is an atheist nevertheless has the same
14 right as one who follows a religious doctrine. Indeed, on 19 July 2016 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka
15 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth as to this issue also.
16
17 But let us not ignore what I consider being the criminal gang named ATO (Australian Taxation
18 Office), as it pursues people before the courts as I view it concealing relevant legal issues and so
19 perverting the administration of justice.
20
21 My wife inherited from her late husband a modest amount of shares which she uses, the
22 dividends that is, to pay for her private health insurance and other related cost.
23
24 Dividend statements show “Withholding tax” $ 0.00 however it also claims
25 Record date 14-2-2019
26
27 Dividend Participating Unfranked Franked Total Franking Withholding
28 Rate per share holding amount amount amount credit tax
29 $ $ $ $ $
30 200cents 1,031 $0.00 $2,062.00 $2,062.00 $883.71 $0.00
31
32
33 Dividend statements show “Withholding tax” $ 0.00 however it also claims
34 Record date 15-8-2019
35
36 Dividend Participating Unfranked Franked Total Franking Withholding
37 Rate per share holding amount amount amount credit tax
38 $ $ $ $ $
39 231cents 1,031 $0.00 $2,381.61 $2,381.61 $1,020.69 $0.00
40
41 However, recently I happen to check the ATO website and from that information I gather that in
42 fact one has to declare not $2,381.61 but in fact ($2,381.61 + $1,020.69=) $3,402.30. And not
43 $2,062.00 but in fact ($2,062.00 + $883.71 =) $2,945.71
44 Meaning that the Withholding tax Statement wrongly claims $0.00 As it should have been
45 $883.71 and $1,020.69 Meaning that in the calendar years of 2019 a total of $1,020.69 + $883.71
46 = $1,904.40 was withheld in taxation unbeknown to my wife.
47 One has to then ask where is the black economy when the ATO conceals this?
48 I am getting all kind of messages in my various email inboxes about taxation, as they are ramped
49 scams going on. And I recall one in particular from the ATO demanding I provide certain
50 statements. What the ATO never did was to advise as to any tax it collected in regard of any past
51 shares I had with my wife. For example I got rid of the AMP shares and that was no secret as I
Page 8
1 even wrote about it to the Royal Commission into Financial Institutions and explained why, and
2 the following day several AMP board members then coincidentally or not resigned from the
3 board.
4
5 So, while the ATO purported to pursue me, not my wife, they seemed to ask if I wanted to do
6 something as to spread any monies over years. As I am on a pension and Centrelink had been
7 aware of my share holdings at the time there obviously was nothing wrong nor any secrets. ATO
8 then purportedly involved a DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY to collect from me fines. I made
9 clear that to my knowledge there had been no court order to order any fines, etc. Clearly this
10 kind of conduct by the ATO I view is one akin to a terrorist organisation and I wasn’t going to
11 cave in to the ATO. But, to my surprise it is not that my wife and/or I own any monies on
12 taxation but no it appears the ATO was concealing tens of thousands of dollars on franking credit
13 monies that it held but never disclosed to us doing so. And the statement (reproduced above)
14 clearly shows $0.00 as withholding tax.
15 Actually my wife is still owned more than $200 the State Revenue Office was wrongly paid by a
16 water supplier company claiming they no longer had my wife’s details (address, etc) this even so
17 my wife remained their customer. So, the State Revenue Office offered 50% to be paid but not
18 the total amount despite that this was paid our by my wife.
19 So let us be clear we got crooks all over in government and yet somehow we have a Federal
20 Government that pursues ordinary citizens.
21
22 Ok, I am aware that when you sell shares and make a profit you have to declare this. When I sold
23 more than $3,000 shares I certainly didn’t report any profit, this was because those were AMP
24 shares purchased at about $19,00 each and sold later for just over $5,00 each. As such a lost of
25 about $14,00 a share. I do not think that any tax is applicable on losses of shares. Again, I made
26 clear to the Royal Commission about issues with AMP.
27
28 So, in the end losing about $50,000 in share value and having the ATO concealing tens of
29 thousands of dollars it held I (so my wife) hardly were avoiding paying our rightful tax. To the
30 contrary while the ATO pursues to fine people for understating their taxation and in otherwise
31 deceive people (such as I view they did with George Williams the father of Carl Williams) they
32 themselves seem to be placing themselves above the rule of law.
33
34 In my view the ATO should have declared to my wife and myself they had received franked
35 credit monies but the ATO conveniently omitted to do so. And more than likely thousands upon
36 thousands of other (former) shareholders misled by a statement may also not be aware of this.
37
38 One then have to ask what an utter and sheer nonsense this is about some black economy where
39 the Federal Government itself act or fails to act in regard of violations of the constitution.
40
41 The Government should be a model citizen and so cannot complaint about an alleged black
42 economy where it is a offender in many ways.
43 .
44 Take for example the gun toting former member of the Wheatboard, who allegedly was sent to
45 Iraq at a pay of $1 million TAX FREE.
46
47 No constitutional provision exist for anyone to be paid a tax free income different then what
48 applies to all others.
49 .
50 Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
51 Australasian Convention)
52 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
Page 9
1 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
2 An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
3 Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
4 END QUOTE
5 .
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
10 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 And
16 QUOTE
17 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
18 Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
19 Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
20 Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
21 sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
22 END QUOTE
23 .
25
26 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
27 But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the
28 imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the
29 whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 And
35 On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may
36 determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average
37 opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout
38 the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states
39 for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.
40 END QUOTE
41
43 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
44 2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniform
45 throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from one
46 state to another;
47 END QUOTE
48
50 QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-
51 Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty
52 shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.
53 END QUOTE
54
56 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
57 That all the words after the word "taxation" where it is first used be struck out, and that the following words
58 be substituted:-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between goods passing from
59 one state to another."
60 END QUOTE
Page 10
1
2 What we have however is a deliberate ignorance by the Commonwealth to apply uniform
3 taxation.
4 .
5 It makes not one of iota difference if a person is employed by the Commonwealth or not, all
6 taxation must be uniform.
7
8 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
9 QUOTE
10 WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED
11 STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
12 NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
13
14 1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra,
15 and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who
16 in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual
17 analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training
18 and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized
19 worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
20 2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of
21 that provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
22 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
23 exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief
24 while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with
25 that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from
26 a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
27 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the
28 longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than
29 nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who
30 have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.
31 END QUOTE
32
34 QUOTE
35 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
36 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
37 religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
38 prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
39 shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
40 under the Commonwealth.
41 END QUOTE
42
44 QUOTE
45 QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
46 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
47 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
48
49 C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
50 Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
51 GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
52 Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
53 T01567737 & Q01897630
Page 11
1 AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

2
3 Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
4 offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.
5
6 Madam,
7 As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate
8 that while using the “religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the
9 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an objection
10 only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also includes any secular
11 belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds for
12 an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of
13 Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only “theistic belief” based “religious
14 objections”. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of
15 “religious objection” have a valid objection.
16 Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her
17 religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as the
18 mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a
19 “religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “religious objection” is to be taken as “objection”
20 without the word “religion” having any special meaning in that regard.
21 If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
22 I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
23
24 Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
25 END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
26 END QUOTE
27
28 We in Graham Road, Viewbank had a religious organisation who I understand were exempted
29 from taxation, and well they now were able to sell the property for what I understand millions of
30 dollars. Yet, if a person having secular beliefs then somehow the same tax exclusion doesn’t
31 apply. Clearly tax exemptions should not be based upon religious or non-religious issues. It is no
32 once business if a person practice a theistic/secular belief.
33 Therefore tax exemption for any theistic belief is unconstitutional.
34 .
35 Again nonsense to argue about black economy when in fact the Commonwealth itself can
36 address numerous ways to deal with matters without any additional legislation being required.
37 .
38 Reality is that we have an overzealous Federal Government for ever in the day pushing for
39 legislation to deal with NATIONAL SECURITY such as to deal with foreign interferences and
40 terrorism while as it appears to me Mr Alexander Downer was doing what to the USA 2016
41 election.
42 As such we need to stop this mantra of claims about NATIONAL SECURITY, BLACK
43 ECONOMY, etc, and start having a Federal Government that actually adheres to the mantra it is
44 broadcasting to others.
45
46 The ATO should be bound to disclose to those it hold monies from what monies it is holding,
47 and failing to do so it can be fined and must be caused to pay compensation to those it wrongly
48 denied the knowledge of those monies. After all, you cannot have a one direction system where
49 the ATO uses its muscles to terrorise citizens but it places itself above the rule of law.
50

Page 12
1 In my view the Senate Committee must therefore reject any proposals of limiting cash, etc, as it
2 will not solve any of the very misconduct/unlawful conduct by the State/territorial and federal
3 Governments themselves. And that is billions and billions of dollars!
4
5 Now a conversation with my alter ego INSPECTOR-RIKATI®
6
7 * Gerrit, with this submission to blackeconomy@treasury.gov.au are you not concerned they may
8 misconceive what we are on about?
9
10 **#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I had at times lawyers warning me that I should publish our
11 conversations without showing your consent in doing so but I explained that while our
12 discussions may appear real that INSPECTOR-RIKATI® is my alter ego and part of
13 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® book series.
14
15 * About this black economy are you going to include in your submission what we discussed in
16 your 4-8-2019 PRESS RELEASE?
17
18 **#** I am doing so below.
19
20 * Did you get any responses?
21
22 **#** I must admit that politicians from various states actually provided responses regarding the
23 issues such as Euthanasia, etc. So, they are taking notice.
24 I also will reproduce an email below from Jacqui. As she did also forward it to
25 blackeconomy@treasury.gov.au then clearly it s not a restricted email.
26
27 QUOTE Email received 4-8-2019
28 Subject: Re: see attachment 20190804-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H.
29 Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re ISSUE-63-Cash transactions
30
31 From jacqui cornwell
32 To admin@inspector-rikati.com blackeconomy@treasury.gov.au
33 Date Today 09:24
34
35 Hi
36
37 It is my will that you do not breach my right to choose how I wish ro pay for any goods or services
38
39 Banks have already proven their stupidity given the royal commssion findings. Notwithstanding rhat
40 there have been several failures of electronic methods of paument whereby people have been unable
41 to access funds to pay for even basic food therefore is not a reliable method of payment.
42
43 With the huge increase in fraud and identity theft this will open the floodgates and anyone who has
44 suffered rhese will tell you hard it is to resolve. It also has the biggest impact on the most vulnerable
45 as banks will become greedy as they will see it as a way to charge more for services. This bill gives
46 power to private, for profit corporations.
47
48 This is like the movie "Enemy of the state" where an individual who dissents could lose everything via
49 the click of a few keys or there is a "haircut" where funds are reduced withno warning as happened in
50 Cyprus.
51
52 All this without even considering the constitution and the fact you are there to serve the people not
53 the corporations!
54
55 Am disgusted at the rush to push this through with little to no consultation so clearly we should smell
56 a rat and it is most likely the banks driving this one!!!!
57
58 From: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <admin@inspector-rikati.com>
59 Sent: 03 August 2019 18:27:44
Page 13
1 To: Inspector Rikati <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>

2 Subject: Fwd: see attachment 20190804-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE -
3 Re ISSUE-63-Cash transactions
4 END QUOTE Email received 4-8-2019
5
6 And I can only compliment Jacqui for her comments. After all I have been at times unable to
7 withdraw monies from an ATM and so left without cash, because the ATM was out of money or
8 a technical problems or simply a power black out. Hence, having cash with you is what I always
9 do.
10
11 * But if they are merely restricting using monies to above $10,000 then surely that is not a
12 problem?
13
14 **#** I recall in 1987 I went to a property some 350 kilometres away and well arrived at about
15 11pm. I was in need of buying a house (I will safe you the set out of the circumstances) and upon
16 arrival decided to purchase the place. Now being in a small country town with no ATM’s nearby
17 I was lucky to have $10,000.00 with me to pay a deposit. I still own the property. It is now
18 intended to be used by one or more of my adult children. And why should I be denied the
19 opportunity to transact being it $10,000 or more as long as I lawfully came into possession of the
20 monies?
21 If the intention is to get taxation paid by those currently not paying their fair share of taxation
22 then there are other ways to achieve this.
23 As I indicated despite the horrendous complicated system to activate a simcard all under the
24 claim to fight terrorism it are the politicians who in fact caused/created the terrorism. As I proved
25 I can purchase hundreds of simcards and so can anyone else, including someone who intends to
26 use it for criminal activities and then the person can activate them and well as Nicola Gobbo of
27 Lawyer X fame and other police showed they can still activate simcards under false identities.
28
29 As the article below makes clear that limiting the usage of monies will not likely dent black
30 money businesses.
31
32 As I will show below there are easier ways to cut down on black money markets, and in the
33 process recoup unpaid taxes. The issue is that the ATO might not be willing to do so.
34 .
35 Let me use an example away from taxation:
36 We have all those laws purportedly to protect us against terrorism, but if you were to read at
37 https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/british-complicity-exposed-in-latest-cia-torture-unredacted-report/
38 More British complicity exposed in latest ‘CIA Torture Unredacted’ report
39 4th August 2019 / United Kingdom it becomes very clear that in the UK case it actively participated
40 in the torture and so what are we arguing to seek to prevent terrorism if the government itself is
41 participating in it? And this is what we should keep in mind with this so called proposed Cash
42 Ban that it might not address the real issues. After all we will still have ample of people who will
43 continue to use off shore tax heavens. We will still have politicians using all kinds of ways to
44 underpay taxation.
45 As such making ordinary life of innocent citizens difficult is not going to resolve anything.
46 Remember how they were demanding to register every mobile phone. Well, I once went to a
47 store and purchased 10 mobile phones. The staff member so to say threw her arms in the air for
48 having to complete 10 forms. In the end she decided not to do so. Perhaps for being a senior
49 citizen was for her enough to trust me. Now I am not aware anyone bothers to register a purchase
50 of a mobile phone.

Page 14
1 Let be honest I can simply electronically transfer $9,999.99 and do so again and any reporting
2 system about $10,000 will be avoided. Likewise I could Say pay $9,999.95 in cash and do so
3 again and well not breach any so called black market laws.
4 And those who are selling stolen goods at Sunday Markets will continue to earn tax free monies
5 to which nothing is being done, despite my writings to Mr Peter Costello when he was treasurer.
6 As such I view this is not really about black market monies as ignoring to act upon it at least 15
7 years underlines this is a gimmick to try to control the population.
8
9 Let use another example:
10 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-04/bendigo-woman-first-victorian-use-voluntary-assisted-dying-
11 law/11382332
12 Bendigo woman Kerry Robertson becomes first Victorian to use Voluntary Assisted Dying
13 Act
14
15 How then was it I attended on 5 July 2019 to a funeral of a man who died using Euthanasia
16 provided for by the hospital albeit at his home? See: 20190724-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H.
17 Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re ISSUE EUTHANASIA OR UNLAWFUL
18 KILLING(S)
19
20 What we have is legislation that really does no more but gives the Government power over
21 people nothing in my view to protect citizens.
22
23 This whole proposed Cash limitations might now be claimed to deal with $10,000 but what
24 would stop anyone to alter it to say $100 or even $5.00?
25
26 As with the terrorism issue when you have a government invading unconstitutionally another
27 country and on large scale mass murder people who did no harm to any of us and even bombing
28 babies in their cribs then surely it lacks any moral and ethical as well as any legal standing to try
29 to claim it seeks to protect us. As such when politicians lost their standing then who can you
30 trust?
31 .
32 Let us not ignore the fact that a police officer as I understand it made known to the royal
33 commission investigating Lawyer X and others like her that the Victorian Police so to say
34 couldn’t bother about moral and ethivcal issues.
35 And it seems the ATO likewise seems not bother about that or legal issues, as despite that I
36 notified them about the court ruling About AVERMENT which applies to all Commonwealth
37 matters unless otherwise provided for, the ATO to my understanding nevertheless ignored to
38 advise the trial judge about this.
39 So, let us not assume that any public servant will act honourable regarding taxation matters.
40 Indeed when it unconstitutionally engages Debt Collectors without any court order then it
41 already has violated embedded legal principles in the constitution that both sides shall be heard.
42
43 This quotation is merely a part of it all and better one read the entire article.
44
45 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-08-30/india-s-cash-ban-was-a-farce-by-a-99-3-verdict
46 By a 99.3% Verdict, India’s Cash Ban Was a Farce
47 The exercise was supposed to freeze out black money, but virtually all
48 flooded back.
49 QUOTE

Page 15
1 The RBI issued guidelines; scrapped them; made new ones, only to roll them back again. The
2 opposition Congress Party accused it of changing the rules around withdrawals and deposits 126
3 times in 43 days. Hence the unflattering moniker: the Reverse Bank of India.
4 Even before the cash crunch could ease, supporters of demonetization started extolling the virtues
5 of canceled currency. Since one of the stated goals of the exercise was to immobilize “black monwy”
6 – wealth gotten illegally or avoiding taxes - people wanted the RBI to reveal the exact amount
7 returned. When Patel told a parliamentary panel last July that the central bank was still
8 counting the old notes, he became the butt of social-media jokes and memes.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 If the aim is to deal with unpaid taxes that otherwise might be collected let us look at the ATO
12 itself:
13
14 In ATO v Melton this was an unconstitutional settlement as the ATO nor any court can ignore
15 the constitution or override its embedded legal provisions. The Melton issue in my view was
16 beyond both the ATO and the courts powers as it would be absurd that the ATO and/or the Court
17 can make some agreement in violation to the constitution. As I have made clear in many
18 publications the term LOCAL GOVERNMENT applies to the State Government and the term
19 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT applies to the Commonwealth.
20 The misuse of the term of Local Government for Municipal/shire councils should be stopped.
21 They are corporations and corporations cannot be a form of government. Hence, as the Framers
22 of the Constitution made clear not even the Colony of Victoria now State of Victoria could avoid
23 paying import taxes upon rails because it was a Commonwealth taxation power. While
24 Municipal/Shire councils may exercise at times State delegated legislative powers this doesn’t
25 make it a level of Government. Private businesses are contracted by governments to act for and
26 on behalf of a government but that doesn’t make them to be a level of government. And, any
27 private business being a corporation or otherwise must make sure that all monies collected for
28 and on behalf of the Government are deposited in the State Consolidated Revenue Funds. Failing
29 this then those organisations must be taxes as it being their income. As on 10 November 1910
30 the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to the land Tax Office, the forerunner of the ATO
31 then the states no longer retained the concurrent legislative powers to raise land taxes and so
32 neither could delegate land taxation powers to the municipal/shire councils. Hence, any monies
33 collected by the municipal/shire councils cannot be claimed to be for and on behalf of the
34 government as none of it goes into the State Consolidated Revenue Funds.
35 And the nonsense that rates are to cover the cost of garbage collection, etc, also is exposed when
36 municipal/shire councils are charging in addition of their rates also cost for collecting garbage.
37 And the are fining people for putting the wrong items in the wrong bins, and yet at the tip they
38 are dumping recycling and general rubbish together and some tips are then put on fire to burn it
39 all. As such the rules/regulations and whatever are pretended to preserve the environment while
40 it is merely a cash cow for councils while they themselves are causing harm to the environment.
41 As such let us not fall for the nonsense of cash restrictions for the sake to recover lost taxation
42 monies because it is all excuses to seek to control the population and slowly reduces the amount
43 of cash that can be used and then as Jacqui indicated also by a mere click on a computer a person
44 can be so to say wiped out of any access to monies. And while it may be claimed afterwards it
45 was an error, we cannot afford to take that risk.
46 .
47 We have constantly hackers accessing government data bases, etc, and hence cash in your pocket
48 is the ultimate security.
49
50 I was downloading video’s when I cam across the building of huts, etc, regarding people living
51 of the grid, without any electricity, etc. It may not be my kind of life style but I accept that each
52 individual has the right to live their life as he/she may desire within the rule of law.

Page 16
1 I used twice a Myki card (Melbourne transport) and then the Government changed that the old
2 cards no longer can be used. I had to purchase another one and on 4 different occasions tried to
3 get my monies back from the old cards but each time I was told that they didn’t deal with that.
4 And well I just will not use public transport anymore unless I can use cash, as I am entitled upon
5 by Section 115 of the (federal) constitution.
6
7 Let us look also at politicians who were rightly or wrongly deemed not validly elected due to
8 S44 of the (federal) constitution. As such their monies were not earned or obtained otherwise
9 because they were politicians and while the Federal government didn’t want them to repay the
10 monies paid to them it is another matter for the ATO, this as where monies were earned tax free
11 as a politicians to avoid any undue pressure upon any politician where then they were not validly
12 politicians then the ATO should by hindsight have made amendment taxation notices.
13
14 All persons must be equally assessed and not some getting exemptions unconstitutionally.
15 .
16 But let us look also at the Ministers who are drawing not only a salary to which they are entitled
17 upon but then unconstitutionally also claim ALLOWANCES.
18
21 QUOTE
22 Mr. REID: Yes, the minimum; maximum to them. That would be a change which certainly should
23 recommend itself to the representatives, I will not say of the smaller States-because that term always seems to
24 me to be entirely mistaken-I will say to the smaller populations, because in the Draft Bill the Lower House -
25 and again I do not object to those familiar phrases to which we are accustomed-had an advantage of seventy-
26 two members over the Senate. Under my suggestion, however, there would be a difference of only twenty-
27 four. My reasons for this basis are simply these, that, having regard to the work which it is proposed to allot
28 to the Federal Parliament, it should not contain a [start page 270] larger number of members than ninety-six.
29 Then, again, without seeming to belittle the system of payment of members, I think that the annual
30 allowance might well be fixed at £300, with a certain allowance for travelling common to all
31 Federations, which are generally of great extent.
32 Sir GEORGE TURNER: That would come to as much as £500 without travelling expenses, as
33 proposed in the Commonwealth Bill.
34 Mr. REID: Oh, no.
35 Sir GEORGE TURNER: More, I should think.
36 Mr. REID: The allowance I would strictly limit to something like £50.
37 Sir GEORGE TURNER: It would depend on where the Parliament sat.
38 Mr. REID: The free railway passes help one along very comfortably.
39 Mr. TRENWITH: They do not pay hotel bills.
40 Mr. REID: Of course, if my friend Sir Joseph Abbott has his way, and the capital is fixed somewhere in
41 the internal wilds of New South Wales, I admit that my figures would be inadequate. I see, however, the
42 chance of saving something like £50,000 per year on the figures of the draft Bill. I make no difficulty about
43 equality of representation in the Senate. As to the franchise of the Senate, I think, in the interests of those
44 who wish to make it a strong national body, that they should not follow the American method.
45 END QUOTE
46 Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
47 Convention)

Page 17
1 QUOTE
2 Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for
3 his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other
4 provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred
5 pounds.
6 Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
7 suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
8 adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
9 misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.
10 Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
11 Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those
12 colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement
13 of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are
14 actually paid a salary for their work, which they are not.
15 Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say
16 that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
17 move as an amendment:
18 That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
19 Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
20 That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
21 If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to
22 the payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are
23 not inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration
24 the salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard
25 against officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page
26 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision
27 of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision
28 than the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of
29 parliament who was being paid £500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of
30 the Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational
31 manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own
32 judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public.
33 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are likely to do well
34 to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give proper attention to further work to-
35 night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in
36 regard to the absence of provision on matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting
37 committee was concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution
38 with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the commonwealth in its first
39 session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great number of other matters of that kind. We have,
40 therefore, given them power to deal with this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a
41 payment of members bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual
42 allowance for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at £500.
43 Motion agreed to; progress reported.

44 END QUOTE
45 What we have is effectively DOUBLE DIPPING by Ministers.
46
47 And when a Member of the House of Representatives stands for re-election then technically he is
48 no longer a Member of Parliament, this because when the seat is declared vacant he is like any
49 other candidate in a political election. Yet you find they use taxpayers funded (purported)
50 entitlements and travel at cost of tax payers around to campaign for their re-election and use
51 mobiles, etc, also at cost of taxpayers and yet none of it is as a Member of Parliament. While
Page 18
1 ordinary Senators (other than in a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION) standing for re-election are still
2 Members of Parliament, however you cannot have double standards that a person who was a
3 Member of Parliament is denied using taxpayers funded election campaigning and a Senator can.
4 Hence, Senators also should be prohibited from doing so and any taxpayers funded campaign
5 must be taxable as like any ordinary person would be as an income.
6
7 We have members of parliament on the one hand claiming that their wife’s/husband’s/partner
8 income/business holdings are not relevant while on the other hand they claim their
9 wife’s/husband’s/partner can travel at cost of taxpayers because of the relationship. Well, either
10 you are claiming in entirety or not.
11 I was in this court case where the mother made clear that she wasn’t working and so didn’t have
12 to pay child support and her husband income could not be considered as he was not the
13 biological father of the child. I had absolutely no issue with this husband not being liable to
14 contribute to child support, however as she claimed her husbands employment expenses as part
15 of her expenses then the Court should include his income on that basis. The Court did so!
16 Likewise, if any Member of Parliament claims the right of a wife/husband/partner to travel as
17 taxpayers expenses on parliamentarian or other government business trips then I view the ATO
18 must consider for that purpose this other persons income and business interest and so should the
19 register of interest of a parliamentarian shows this also.
20 Likewise, the so to say golden handshake for a politicians to get say $40,000 if not re-elected
21 also is nonsense, this is because it got nothing to do with service in the parliament.
22 The same with this nonsense to provide officers for former Prime ministers/Governor-Generals
23 and the so called one day Prime ministers. None of it can be justified within the context of our
24 constitution and as such the ATO should issue retrospective taxation assessments to them all.
25
26 It should be clear that the ATO could likely recover hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars
27 of underpaid taxation.
28
29 The Commonwealth cannot excuse any person from not paying taxation as the rules are strict
30 that it must be uniform and on a sliding scale.
31
32 Hence the so to say gun toting former Wheat board manager who allegedly was paid $1 million
33 to go to Iraq still should be re-assessed for not having paid taxes. It is nonsense to hold that
34 somehow the Government can declare that a person gets a tax free income. The Constitution
35 doesn’t provide for this.
36 That is also why not-for-profit organisations must declare their income and show how much of
37 that income actually was used to assist the vulnerable, etc.
38
39 There is also an issue that the ATO cannot assume anything and then issue debt collectors. As I
40 successfully defeated the Commonwealth on 4 August 2005 in the magistrates Court of Victoria
41 at Heidelberg, when it sought to claim AVERMENT for not having to produce any evidence, I
42 (representing myself) submitted that the Commonwealth cannot override state provisions and
43 must accept the state court as it is and hence it couldn’t allow for AVERMENT. In the end the
44 magistrate declared that the Commonwealth had to file and serve all evidence it sought to rely
45 upon. Counsel for the Commonwealth then (albeit misleading the court) claimed this would take
46 truck loads. The magistrate made clear that was between the Commonwealth and the Defendant
47 to sort out. Later a subsequent magistrate on 17 November 2005 convicted me ignoring the
48 previous orders but on appeal on 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne upheld
49 both appeals stating also the Commonwealth had not filed any evidence.
50

Page 19
1 It should therefore be very clear that each time the ATO litigates against a person using AVERT
2 (averment) is blatantly disregard and indeed violated the courts decision that the Commonwealth
3 cannot rely upon averment.
4
5 In the (late) George Williams case I did notify the ATO about this but it nevertheless proceeds
6 with AVERT.
7 And so what is the use to purportedly cause hardship upon ordinary citizens where the ATO, the
8 politicians and others can continue their unconstitutional conduct without being held legally
9 accountable?
10 .
13 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
14 There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
15 the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
16 majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
17 amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
18 elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions
19 in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
20 constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
21 no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
22 END QUOTE
23 As such, no matter what federal legislation might eventuate is we all persist to enforce our
24 constitutional rights then there is absolutely nothing the Government can do against us. After all
25 you cannot be in violation of any laws for exercising your constitutional rights.
26
28 QUOTE
29 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
30 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
31 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
33 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
34 END QUOTE
35
38 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
39 I believe that, with certain alterations in the financial provisions, that Bill is a measure under which the
40 colonies could even now safely federate. Not that I say it is the best Bill that could be framed; but I do
41 believe it is a well-devised and well-drawn Constitution, and a Constitution [start page 11] under which a
42 free people-making such amendments from time to time as necessity will require, and the powers
43 given by the Constitution will allow-might live in perfect freedom and with perfect security.
44 END QUOTE
45
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
50 may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
51 declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
52 beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
53 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
54 END QUOTE
55 .
58 QUOTE

Page 20
1 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
2 will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
3 the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
4 be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one
5 which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
6 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
7 parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 * Well Section 115 clearly prevents the Federal government or even the State government to act
11 against this.
12
13 **#** If Parliamentarians spend less time playing games on their mobiles/computers when the
14 Parliament is sitting and more time to consider the details of any Bill when they have to vote
15 then we might all be better off.
16 Anyhow I will not reproduce our conversation of the 20190804 PRESS RELEASE:
17
18 QUOTE 20190804 PRESS RELEASE
19
20 ISSUE: 20190804- Re: ISSUE 63-Cash transactions
21
22 As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
23
24 * Gerrit, this Cash transaction restriction that is proposed do you have anything to say about
25 that?
26
27 **#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I received an email which I will quote below before making
28 further comments:
29
30 QUOTE EMAIL
31 What issue is More Important?? =Urgent View Video - What a
32 CASHLESS society will be like?
33 3 Aug. at 12:00 pm
34 healthachievers - <healthachievers@hotmail.com>
35 I want to know how many people are reading through the proposed Currency (Restrictions of Cash
36 Use) Bill 2019 and Explanatory Mememorundum, ? How many people will call the Treasurer's
37 Office and their Federal Member to extend the submissions from 12 August, 2019 to a reasonable
38 due date? How many have noticed that the Division 2 on the proposed Bill is blank. Has the words
39 "To be Inserted". How can we do a submission with an empty section? What I want to see are
40 words of expression as to what they have read in the Proposed Bill, and direct me to issues that I
41 amy Not be aware of? In short, if people do not become proactive in writing submissions when this
42 is critical to our welfare, Self Determination to control our money, being our property. What issue is
43 more important at this moment? Hopefuly, this video might spark the people who are lazy to do a
44 submission and/or make contact their Federal Member:
45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcpznpm1_s0
46
47 https://www.treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2019-t395788?fbclid=IwAR2d8mWpVTauRxrYfnCR8qNbEMb-
48 ffoH-1hnkpjOQZXNM89KXj0_tbvww-0
49 Treasury office on Direct. TEl.....No. 02/6277-7340
50 END QUOTE EMAIL
51
52 I did check out some details and noticed:
53

Page 21
1 https://www.treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2019-t395788?fbclid=IwAR2d8mWpVTauRxrYfnCR8qNbEMb-ffoH-
2 1hnkpjOQZXNM89KXj0_tbvww-0
3 QUOTE
4 Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019
5 9 days left to have your say
6 Date
7 26 July 2019 - 12 August 2019
8 Consultation Type
9 Draft Legislation
10 Email
11 blackeconomy@treasury.gov.au
12 END QUOTE
13
14 It appears to me absurd that the Government has been pondering about this issue for years and
15 then the general community is given a mere few weeks to make submissions. What an absurdity.
16 I also note that you can consider the comments made in a video:
17
18 Red Alert_ ScoMo Declares War On The Australian People
19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=770M2s6ZD8Y and
20
21 Lynette Zang And The "Great Reset" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcpznpm1_s0
22
23 I understand that the Commonwealth has made various limitations such as you can be denied to
24 pay a bill in certain coins to a limit. To me this is unconstitutional, where it relates to currency
25 usage within a state environment.
26
27 * Oh boy that is something people like to be aware off.
28
29 **#** Let us consider the provisions of the constitution:
30
31 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
32 QUOTE
33 (xii) currency, coinage, and legal tender;
34 END QUOTE
35
37 QUOTE
38 115 States not to coin money
39 A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and
40 silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 It is therefore very clear that within a State one can only be requested to pay a bill in silver
44 and/or gold coins. If therefore the Commonwealth were to restrict payments say of $2 coins by a
45 mere 10 then it means that a State issuing a bills to a state resident for say $460.00 can only get
46 paid in silver and gold coins. With 5 cent being deemed a silver coin and so 10, 20 and 50 cents
47 then effectively if there was a limit say of 10 such coins as well on the gold coins then the total
48 maximum a person could legally pay would be:
49
50 10 x 5 cents = 50 cents
51 10 x 10 cents = $1.00
52 10 x 20 cents = $2.00
53 10 x 50 cents = $5.00
54 10 x $1.00 = $10.00
55 10 x $2.00 = $20.00
56 ---------
57 Total $38.50
Page 22
1 Do you really think that a State government would settle for $38.50 if the bill was $460.00?
2 What if the bill was in thousands of dollars? Because s115 is part of the constitution then the
3 Commonwealth cannot legislate or otherwise use rules and regulations in any way that would
4 undermine the States ability to collect monies in silver and gold coins to the amount it claims
5 from any person/corporation.
6
7 Clearly any restriction by the Commonwealth would violate
9 QUOTE
10 115 States not to coin money
11 A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and
12 silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 In my view while the Commonwealth can regulate monies it cannot do so against Section 115
16 provision. And hence it cannot deny the States to collect monies such as taxes, etc.
17 Constitutionally any monies transfer by electronic system is in violation of Section 115!
18 Any state road that is tolled must have a provision to pay with gold and silver coins as otherwise
19 one cannot be forced to pay. Hence, I never either used some kind of transponder for any vehicle
20 because that would violate Section 115.
21 Actually so is Myki card for public transport, etc.
22
23 * Are you saying that any transaction limits in silver and gold coins is unconstitutional?
24
25 **#** That in my view is. We have a (federal) constitution and as the Framers of the
26 Constitution made clear:
27
30 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
31 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
32 any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
33 which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
34 Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
35 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
36 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
37 securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
38 that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
39 the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
40 Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
41 daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
42 freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
43 one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
44 liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
45 work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
46 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
47 therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
48 determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
49 with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
50 choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
51 next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
52 that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
53 court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
54 provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
55 Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
56 it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
57 Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Page 23
1 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
2 this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
3 degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
4 guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
5 the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
6 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
7 constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
8 sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
9 well.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 * Do you acknowledge that there are people who are avoiding taxation that they ought to pay on
13 what they have as an income?
14
15 **#** I in fact have been on this for a long time. Remember, Peter Costello when he was a
16 treasurer. Well I wrote way back then that we have all those Sunday Markets where there is a lot
17 of monies changing hands and a lot as I understand it tax avoidance. As I then indicated Kmart
18 was selling a certain brand of toilet paper for a certain amount and at the Sunday Market the
19 same toilet paper brand was sold for the same price as at Kmart. Just that Kmart had its overhead
20 cost, etc, where as at the market (or garage/booth sales) they generally avoid taxes. As such, I
21 held and then submitted that all vendors at Sunday Markets should be required to use transaction
22 receipts that are issued by the tax office. There are trucks at the Sunday market where no doubt
23 tens of thousands of dollars are collected by one vendor. Why should this be tax free when others
24 like businesses in a shopping centre have to pay taxes, etc? Criminal gangs can sell at Sunday
25 Markets their stolen goods and no paperwork to trace it back to them. I last year purchased at a
26 computer market various program CD’s. They looked genuine but afterwards discovered they
27 were fraudulently made. What therefore is needed is a better system and using transaction
28 records by cards isn’t going to do it. Many stores show they will not accept a card payment under
29 $20.00.
30
31 * Is there any exception that could allow the Commonwealth to place restrictions on usage of
32 monies?
33
34 **#** Section 115 deals with the States but obviously the Commonwealth can limit the transfer
35 of monies out of the Commonwealth of Australia as that wouldn’t fall within S115.
36
37 * I get it State debts payments cannot be restricted by the Commonwealth how they are paid in
38 silver and gold coins but overseas transfers can be.
39
40 **#** That is correct. As such the Commonwealth can never seize the usage of silver and gold
41 coins as a form of payment. Any business who collects monies for and on behalf of a State
42 therefore also can only accept silver and coin payments. Neither can any State court demand
43 other then silver and coin coins as a manner of payment. This as the courts are not above the
44 constitution and cannot make an order in violation to the legal principles of the constitution.
45
46 * What about the restriction upon ordinary persons to handle coins as a form of payment.
47
48 **#** In my view this goes to the legal principles embedded in the constitution;
49 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
50 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
52 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
53 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
54 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
Page 24
1 END QUOTE
2
5 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
6 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and
7 the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in
8 this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the
9 peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
10 END QUOTE
11 And
12 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
13 QUOTE
14 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people
15 of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their
16 acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the
17 peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote.
18 The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given
19 by the people of Australia to themselves.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 The constitution doesn’t belong to the courts or the politicians but is an agreement made between
23 the people and the States/Commonwealth and only the people can amend the constitution.
24
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 This applies to both State/Territory and Commonwealth Parliaments.
31
32 A Charter of Liberty is not that the State/Commonwealth can slowly erode those liberties and
33 start tracking where you spend your monies, and perhaps then dictate what you can or cannot do.
34
35 I for one am a bargain hunter. I have done so for many decades and so walk up in a store and
36 offer ridiculous low monies for items. For example, I wanted to build a patio from sleepers and
37 the bolds were about $4.75 each. So I went up to the manager and offered to pay a mere 5 cents
38 each for all bolts of any size on the entire shelf. He agreed. I paid about $90 in total. Had I
39 purchased only the bolts I needed at $4.75 each it would have cost me more than double. And
40 this I have done in numerous stores.
41
42 * So you like having the ability to have cash if needed?
43
44 **#** How are you going to teach children the value of monies when they may never get it in
45 their hands? How are people going to donate the charities their loose change when there is no
46 coins in usage?
47
48 *
49 But don’t other countries already have restrictions on monies?
50
51 **#** If one thing I am sick and tired about is people claiming about some other country which
52 may not and likely do not have our kind of constitution. So, who cares what they can do, it
53 doesn’t mean we can have any State/Commonwealth violating our (federal) constitution. People
54 in those countries may wish they had our constitutional restrictions upon politicians. My concern

Page 25
1 is what our constitution stands for and that the true meaning and application of the constitution is
2 observed by all.
3 .
5 QUOTE
6 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
7
8 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
9 state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
10 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
11 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 * What about passing legislation with something left essentially blank to be filled in afterwards?
15
16 **#** I do not accept that this can be valid. It is to me utter and sheer nonsense to use
17 regulations and rules not enshrined by the Parliament in legislation that can be altered upon the
18 wimps of anyone. Why indeed have a Parliament if any lose cannon can alter it against the
19 interest of the general community? One thing you often hear from politicians caught in rorting
20 that they didn’t know. And that are our legislators? Come on. If you watch them using their
21 mobiles during parliaments sessions times instead of properly considering what each speaker is
22 stating about a proposed Bill then little wonder they are ignorant but as every person is deemed
23 to know the law then politicians must accept this also. Hence don’t use mobiles in parliament or
24 for that laptops and other electronic devices that may distract the politicians from what is being
25 presented to the Parliament and consider what is submitted as to avoid members of the general
26 public having to fight court cases about some law that never should have been enacted if
27 parliamentarians were more alert to the issues concerned.
28 The GST (Goods and Service Tax) in my view is unconstitutional as it deals with more than one
29 items of taxation. It makes not one of iota difference that other countries can apply this kind of
30 taxation system as they have different constitution., which may allow for it.
31
33 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
34 Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties Customs on imports, shall deal with one subject
35 of taxation only.
36 What is meant by one subject of taxation? Suppose a land tax is imposed, you tax posts and rails. That
37 may be argued not to be a law dealing with one subject
38 END QUOTE
39
40 Consider how the Federal Government caused a huge financial burden upon the general
41 community for activating a simcard and yet with Lawyer X (Nicola Gobbo) royal commission it
42 shows she had 2 in false names. Just to show that it unduly burdens the general community.
43 The same with this cash restriction goal it will not dent any criminal activities as much as you do
44 not dent criminals having access to guns, etc.
45 What is needed is a common sense approach that you could demand to reduce the flow of monies
46 leaving the Commonwealth of Australia to avoid criminal purposes to be funded but then you
47 need also to stop politicians to accept monies from criminals, etc. and well it seems to me that
48 when it comes to politicians they accept bribes, etc.
49 So let it be clear, we are really having politicians to terrorize the general public while they can
50 continue their merry go around with unlawful activities.
51
52 * Any other suggestions?
53
Page 26
1 **#** Stop this unconstitutional not-for-profit exceptions. I have often written about it that it is
2 unconstitutional.
3
6 Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
7 Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
8 END QUOTE
9 .
11 QUOTE
12 Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to
13 the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that
14 we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power
15 over us.
16 END QUOTE
17 .
19 QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
20 The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
21 the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
22 END QUOTE
23 And
26 The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative
27 power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is
28 necessary or incidental to a power given.
29 END QUOTE
30 .
32 QUOTE
33 start page 1020] I think that we ought to be satisfied on these points, and satisfied that
34 if we leave the clause as it now stands there will, at any rate, be some proviso inserted
35 which will safeguard the states in the carrying out of any of their state laws over
36 which the states are to be supreme even under federation.
37 END QUOTE
38 .
41 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
42 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
43 An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
44 Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
45 END QUOTE
46 .
49 QUOTE
50 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
51 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
52 END QUOTE
53
54 And
57 QUOTE

Page 27
1 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
2 Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
3 Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
4 Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
5 sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
6 END QUOTE
7 .
9
11 But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the
12 imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the
13 whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 It is absurd that some religious entity can collect billions of dollars without any taxation
17 accountability how it was spend. Likewise major corporations earning billions can avoid paying
18 a single cent tax and in fact are paid refunds for not paying taxes. A not-got-profit organization
19 should be taxable like any other organization and like any other person must account for any
20 deductions.
21 When you got large organizations collecting billions and claiming a not-for-profit tax exemption
22 without any proper accountability then this violates the very legal principles of the constitution
23 that taxation shall be uniform and on a sliding scale.
24
25 If I were to sell books I would be slugged taxation whereas some not-for-profit organization
26 were to sell my books it would not have to pay any taxation. That I view is unconstitutional.
27 .
28 Take also where I understand there is this organization dealing with Italian seniors to build
29 retirement kind of houses and I understand is headed by Gobbo..
30
31 * Are you meaning Nicola Gobbo?
32
33 **#** No her uncle who was a Supreme Court judge. Anyhow it seems to me from reports that
34 never mind the millions provided not a single residence was build. Being a not-for-profit
35 organization those in charge can as I understand it enrich themselves. We had once a local
36 councilor who spend merely a fraction of what he collected for charity but I understand he used
37 the rest up for himself, etc. that should be stopped. As Edmund Barton made clear:
38
40 QUOTE
41 Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
42 Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the
43 funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.

45 END QUOTE
46
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. HIGGINS.-That is the question-are those dangers non-existent?
50 Mr. BARTON.-I do not think the fact that we may be held by law to be a Christian community is any
51 reason for us to anticipate that there will be any longer any fear of a reign of Christian persecution-any fear
52 that there will be any remnant of the old ideas which have caused so much trouble in other ages. The whole
53 of the advancement in English-speaking communities, under English laws and English institutions, has
Page 28
1 shown a less and less inclination to pass laws for imposing religious tests, or exacting religious observances,
2 or to maintain any religion. We have not done that in Australia. We have abolished state religion in all
3 these colonies; we have wiped out every religious test, and we propose now to establish a Government and a
4 Parliament which will be at least as enlightened as the Governments and Parliaments which prevail in various
5 states; therefore, what is the practical fear against which we are fighting? That is the difficulty I have in
6 relation to this proposed clause. If I thought there was any-the least-probability or possibility, taking into
7 consideration the advancement of liberal and tolerant ideas that is constantly going on of any of these various
8 communities utterly and entirely retracing its steps, I might be with the honorable member. If we, in these
9 communities in which we live, have no right whatever to anticipate a return of methods which were practised
10 under a different state or Constitution, under a less liberal measure of progress and advancement; if, as this
11 progress goes on, the rights of citizenship are more respected; if the divorce between Church and State
12 becomes more pronounced; if we have no fear of a recurrence of either the ideas or the methods of former
13 days with respect to these colonies, then I do suggest that in framing a Constitution for the Commonwealth of
14 Australia, which we expect to make at least as enlightened, and which we expect to be administered with as
15 much intellectuality as any of the other Constitutions, we are not going to entertain fears in respect of the
16 Commonwealth which we will not attempt to entertain with respect to any one of the states. Now, we have
17 shown that we do not intend these words to apply to our states by striking out clause 109. That might be a
18 provision that might be held to be too express in its terms, because there may be practices in various
19 religions which are believed in by persons who may enter into the Commonwealth belonging to other
20 races, which practices would be totally abhorrent to the ideas, not only to any Christian, but to any
21 civilized community; and inasmuch as the Commonwealth is armed with the power of legislation in
22 regard to immigration and emigration, and with regard to naturalization, and also with regard to the
23 making of special laws for any race, except the aboriginal races belonging to any state-inasmuch as we
24 have all these provisions under which it would be an advisable thing that the Commonwealth, under its
25 regulative power, should prevent any practices from taking place which are abhorrent to the ideas of
26 humanity and justice of the community; and inasmuch as it is a reasonable thing that these outrages on
27 humanity and justice (if they ever occur) should be prohibited by the Commonwealth, it would be a
28 dangerous thing, perhaps, to place in the Bill a provision which would take out [start page 1772] of their
29 hands the power of preventing any such practices.
30 Mr. HIGGINS.-Do you think that the Commonwealth has that power under the existing Bill?
31 Mr. BARTON.-I am not sure that it has not. I am not sure that it has not power to prevent anything
32 that may seem an inhuman practice by way of religious rite.
33 Mr. HIGGINS.-I want to leave such matters to the states.

34 END QUOTE
35 Yet, we had Peter Costello as treasurer providing thousands of dollars to the church.
36 So much more to state but let the Commonwealth deal with those issues within constitutional
37 context and we might be all better off. Just stay clear of interfering with the general communities
38 right to its civil rights to use their monies as they deem fit and proper within the provisions of
39 criminal law. We do not want to be set up for transactions tax either?
40
41 Let us not either ignore the unconstitutional bail-in laws.
42 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Section 51 subsection:
43 QUOTE
44 (xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect
45 of which the Parliament has power to make laws;
46 END QUOTE
47 Therefore the Commonwealth cannot give away to the banks a persons property or
48 entitlement/right to the value of property without just compensation. Again appropriate
49 legislation to prevent any bank to gamble away monies is in my view a more appropriate way to
50 deal with banks financial security. Where I receiving an age pension were to be denied by the
51 bank of this monies then the Commonwealth must be held liable to replace any monies of my
52 age pension wrongly taken by the banks. Obviously the question remains if the Commonwealth
53 in the first place has the constitutional legislative power to enact bail-in laws. I do not think so!
54
55 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
56
Page 29
1 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
2 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
3 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
4 END QUOTE 20190804 PRESS RELEASE
5
6 * After all the above I think they should get the message but the question is will they or are they
7 simply going ahead no matter what?
8
9 **#** That is what Premier Daniel Andrews did with the North East Link road. In 2017 we were
10 asked to provide submissions to NELA (North East Link Authority) and afterwards I was
11 provided in writing with a claim by NELA it didn’t consider any submissions as the decision was
12 already made in 2016. So much for the credibility of Premier Daniel Andrews. Who then could
13 one trust considering the above stated?
14
15 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
16 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
19 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
20 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
21 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
22 END QUOTE
23
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
27
28 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
29 state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
30 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
31 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 In my view any attempt by the “Senate Standing Committees on Economics” to undermine the
35 true meaning and application of the constitution could be regarded as nothing less than
36 “TREASON”.
37
38 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
39 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
40 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

41 (Our name is our motto!)


20191026-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senate Standing Committees On Economics-SUBMISSION

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

20191026-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senate Standing Committees On Economics-SUBMISSION

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Page 1

26-10-2019 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

21 Mr. HIGGINS: If it were only an amendment?

34 Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.

42 Impose any tax on property

26-10-2019 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

12 Impose tonnage dues?

27 The State shall not impose tonnage dues.

28 [start page 1003]

46 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No.

26-10-2019 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

12 Mr. HIGGINS: Who gets the money?

39 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Why not for post and telegraphs?

46 Impose tonnage dues or.

47 I move that they be left out.

26-10-2019 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

26-10-2019 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 To: Inspector Rikati <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>

26-10-2019 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

26-10-2019 Page 14 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

26-10-2019 Page 15 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

34 Mr. REID: Oh, no.

35 Sir GEORGE TURNER: More, I should think.

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

39 Mr. TRENWITH: They do not pay hotel bills.

26-10-2019 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

10 Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!

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

19 Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

43 Motion agreed to; progress reported.

26-10-2019 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

26-10-2019 Page 19 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

26-10-2019 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

26-10-2019 Page 24 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

26-10-2019 Page 26 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

44 [start page 1773]

33 Mr. HIGGINS.-I want to leave such matters to the states.

40 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

26-10-2019 Page 29 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Potrebbero piacerti anche