Kevin Rudd PM - Unconstitutional Payments - Etc

Kevin Rudd PM 26-1-2010
C/o R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au
5 .
Cc: Mr Tony Abbott MP Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
.
Mr Daniel Street Channel Nine News news.feedback@ninemsn.com.au
10 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

.
Ref: Information and details required regarding unconstitutional payments, etc.
.
Some of the issues at hand: As a CONSTITUTIONALIST it is my position that only serving
15 parliamentarians (including Ministers of State) and Governor-General can be paid. Members of
parliament are restricted to an “ALLOWANCE” from the time they are elected until the day
their seat is vacated, being by another person having been elected for the seat in regard of the
House of Representatives and in regard of the Senate a Senator-elect can only be paid an
“allowance’ from the time he actually takes the seat until the time he resigns, dies or another
20 person takes the seat. A governor-General, while on holidays must have a deputy acting for him
and the governor-General must pay this deputy for performing his job instead. No constitutional
provisions exist for a former Governor-General or a former Minister (including Prime Minister)
or former Member of Parliament to draw monies directly or indirectly from Consolidated
Revenue Funds after the person has left his position. Hence, the in excess of an estimated $30
25 million paid out to former Prime Ministers and former Governor-General (not even including
other former politicians, in 2008 alone) all was paid out unconstitutionally and must be recouped.
After all if struggling law abiding pensioner were force to make repayment (beyond their fault)
over payments then so shall it be for former politicians and Governor-Generals.
.
30 Kevin,
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am about the RULE OF LAW but regretfully I found
that when it comes to the Commonwealth of Australia rather then honouring legal principles
embedded in the constitution it seeks to thwart the rights of the very people it is supposed to
serve. Huge amounts of lawyers are then engaged by the Commonwealth of Australia who then
35 pervert the course of JUSTICE to every extend as to try to rob the ordinary citizen of their
constitutional and other legal rights.
At the time of the 2007 federal election it was you, and I didn’t tell you to state this, claiming to
be a “federalist” and yet little if anything really so far has been shown by you to honour this
commitment to the people of Australia.
40 It means you have disgraced your own character in the process. Well, I am giving you on this
very AUSTRALIA DAY an opportunity as to now prove you are not as Red Indians would say
speaking with split tong but you are actually going to honour being a “FEDERALIST”.
.
I request that there is a full disclosure by the Commonwealth of Australia to me as to all
45 and any payments made out to and on behalf of former Prime Ministers since each
respective former Prime Minister left office and so also in regard of each and every
Governor-General., as well as full disclosure as to each and every other person being
funded in some way (being it with a Gold Card or otherwise) including any family member
on his/her behalf after the person left (vacated) his seat in Parliament?
26-1-2010 Page 1
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
.
It should be understood, as set out below, the Freedom of Information Act provisions cannot be
used against me in this regard as to deny me part or all of the details/information requested and
neither can be used as to cause me to pay for any information/details or otherwise pay for any
5 cost that otherwise might be claimed, as is set out below.
.
But, let me first set out some matters.
.
This document also includes past correspondences and a Chapter regarding allowances and for
10 this the entire document is comprehensive and of some length, then again if you had ensured
appropriate action in the past then I would not have needed to write about it yet again.
.
The Framers of the Constitution embedded legal principles in the constitution and I will now
quote some of them;
15 .
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the
observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of
20 misconception.
END QUOTE
.
It is very clear that the Framers of the Constitution were well aware that the people who were
ultimately having to vote in referendums as to accept the federal constitution would have to rely
25 upon the content of the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates (Official
Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention))
And as you may be aware the High Court of Australia does also rely upon those Hansard records
to pursue the true meaning and application of constitutional provisions.
.
30 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other
power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal
35 law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent
of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every
man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency
behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
40 .
What this means that every person is a “sentry”. We all therefore are obligated to protect our
constitutional rights. If we squander this opportunity then we cannot claim the moral high ground
as to pursue the RULE OF LAW in other matters, as either we accept the RULE OF LAW or
we don’t.
45 .
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!
.
As such, if you demand that people respect you to hold the Office of Prime Minister then you
also are bound to honour all commitments to this office. If you expect people to honour your
50 position as an elected Member of Parliament then you are bound to honour your commitments in
that regard also. If you expect others to respect your right to be entitled to be a candidate in
26-1-2010 Page 2
elections then you are bound to respect the rights of others likewise also. And on and on it goes.
And this includes that if you expect people respect your right and others elected to be paid
“ALLOWANCES’ as provided for in the constitution being a federal Member of Parliament and
any “SALARY” where being appointed as a Minister of State” in employment of the Crown as
5 provided for in the constitution then we the People likewise expect you to honour your
commitments to ensure that any such payments are lawful and appropriate.
As such, don’t come with any nonsense that you can have your rights but are ignoring your
obligations as you either claim your rights and accept all duties and responsibilities or you accept
not to be a Member of Parliament and neither be a Prime Minister so you are free of those
10 obligations.
.
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
15 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able
to understand.
END QUOTE
.
As such, there is no such thing as the High Court of Australia somehow discovering about 100
20 years after federation there is some legislative power that never before was known to exist
merely because the judges finding it convenient to do so because it must be clear to the ordinary
man on the street that the constitution has a certain meaning and that anyone who seeks to
present a certain explanation as to the meaning and application of the constitution does so in a
well set out manner to prove his case. Not as the judges of the High Court of Australia did in the
25 14-11-2006 so called WorkChoices case to fabricate some meaning where they took out of
context what the Framers of the Constitution had stated and concealed other relevant parts that
would have shown that the judges of the High Court of Australia were deliberately misleading
the people of Australia.
.
30 The same with the Constitution Commission 1988 report to have “assumed” certain legislative
powers such as “CITIZENSHIP” where clearly the Framers of the Constitution specifically
refused to give such legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia.
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
35 QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains
unwritten,
END QU
.
40 That is why as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I research the Hansard records and so able to bring
out with numerous quotations the true meaning and application of the constitution.
.
When I am facing off in court rooms against lawyers it is typical that they love to refer to
Authorities (Case law, etc) and then stake their claim as to how this Authority applies. I do it
45 differently, I quote the precise passage of the case I refer to as I found ample of time that judges
have a different perception of what the case was about then what I am actually quoting. One
judge went as far as to first claim I was wrong because he was the (losing) barrister in the case
and so he knew the case. Well, after I read out part of the judgment he discovered that in fact he
was wrong and I was all along right. Hence, while it may cause my writings to be longer by
50 quoting certain parts the real benefit is that people can read continuously on what I am setting out
and do not have to wonder what Authority I am referring to and read the case to try to find out
what I am on about. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST it is my obligation to explain matters
without political bias and so that any person who reads it can have a reasonable understanding
26-1-2010 Page 3
what I have set out, and I do not taint my set out as to who may have benefits of it because quite
frankly I couldn’t care less as to me what I write is for all to consider in the same manner.
.
5 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been
made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but
not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it
embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all
10 have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
15 Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the
people.
END QUOTE
20 .
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
25 Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
Therefore you as prime minister are obligated to ensure our rights are appropriately provided for.
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
30 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
35 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and
secure to him.
END QUOTE
.
40 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
.
45 Therefore, it cannot be argued that somehow the Commonwealth of Australia can override the
constitution and have in place the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT that requires a person
to pay a fee and to pay for other cost as this would be an obstacle to the right of any person to be
a “SENTRY” and would turn the Commonwealth of Australia into some kind of
DICTATORSHIP where the Commonwealth of Australia can somehow set itself up to deny a
50 “SENTRY”. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST there is no legislation the Commonwealth validly
can have in place that somehow would deny me to pursue constitutional issues.
.
26-1-2010 Page 4
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we
embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is
5 no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but
constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of
amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of
parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent
body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again,
10 instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate
bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all
that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with,
instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful
judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the
15 sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
QUOTE
.
After all, if this were permissible then the Commonwealth of Australia could set such high
absurd fees as to make it virtually impossible for the ordinary person to gain access to
20 details/information and so to pursue his position as a “SENTRY” and more over would allow the
Commonwealth of Australia to deny or grossly interfere with any details/information being
released at all.
.
25 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can
reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also
a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
30 whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
35 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about
to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about
to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
40 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
And
45 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
50 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
26-1-2010 Page 5
altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
5 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
Political liberty isn’t pending what the Commonwealth of Australia permits to be it to be by
10 whatever legislation it may deem to put in place but is an unrestricted political rights.
.
QUOTE
Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes
15 of those colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put
as the reimbursement of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the
idea that members of parliament are actually paid a salary for their work, which they
are not.
END QUOTE
20 .
QUOTE
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS (Victoria)[5.21]: If we say that the honorarium shall be reckoned
from the day on which the member takes his seat, it may be very hard indeed on the
25 members of the house of representatives. The house might not be sitting at the time of an
election. Indeed, it might be the case with a member of the senate. A vacancy might occur,
a member might be elected, and might have to commence his services and perform all the
duties of his position and get none of its emoluments. If we were to adopt the amendment
suggested by Victoria, and omit the words "on which he takes his seat," inserting the
30 words "of his election," there would be a difficulty in the case of the senate; because
the date of the election of the senators is previous to the 1st of January, so that by
omitting these words you might be paying two people at the same time. I would
suggest to the Drafting Committee that they should adopt some such words as these
"from the day on which his services commence." That would apply in the case of a
35 member of the house of representatives to the day of his election, and in a case of a
senator to the date from which his services were actually reckoned.
END QUOTE
.
Again:
40 QUOTE
That would apply in the case of a member of the house of representatives to the day of
his election, and in a case of a senator to the date from which his services were
actually reckoned.
END QUOTE
45 .
As such only one person can be paid either an “allowance” or a ”salary” in regard of a position
and not more then one!
Clearly, a former Prime Minister and/or a former Governor-General cannot be reimbursed for
expenditure as they no longer are in their position once held! For whatever reason they are no
50 longer in the employ of the Queen and as such there is no constitutional provision to pay from
Consolidated Revenue Funds any former Prime Minister and or any former Governor-General
26-1-2010 Page 6
from Consolidated Revenue Funds as the only payments permissible is directly to the Queen for
serving Ministers and a serving Governor-General!
.
QUOTE 9-9-2009 EMAIL
5 Kevin Rudd, PM
.
Kevin,
I understand from media reports that the Auditor-General has or is to deplore the misuse of
allowance for election usage. As you are aware as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have for many
10 years made clear that it is unconstitutional to do so.
.
Chapter AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO DEAL WITH FEDERAL
PARLIAMENTARIANS PAY (Allowance)!
.
15 This is a Chapter that also extensively deals with this, and previously also provided to you.
.
My 30-4-2009submission to the Remuneration Tribunal dealt with many issues. Regrettably it
appears to me that the issues I raised have been ignored time and again and what we have is that
those who are to represent the electors actually are placing themselves above the law, other then
20 perhaps my correspondence may have somehow ended up with the Auditor-General in view that
he canvass issues I referred to in my correspondence.
.
I request you to provide my past writings to the Auditor-General so that it can be appropriately
investigated if the federal government and others knowingly abused “ALLOWANCES” despite
25 my numerous warnings.
.
As I indicated in my 8-9-2009 email to you also the Constitutional Policy Unit is failing to
provide appropriate advise to the federal government and should be under the governor-General
rather then being political bias or be seen as political bias.
30 .
QUOTE
of those colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put
35 as the reimbursement of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the
are not.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Sir PHILIP FYSH:

It is very certain that, in connection with the Financial Committee, they ought to
receive our instructions as to what they are to do with the various expenses which are
45 to be incurred in the payment of members. I presume that is hardly a question for
discussion. I have not heard anyone raise the issue. I take it for granted that every
member who attends the Federal Convention will certainly have to be recognised as a
professional or other man leaving home for business, and must be recouped for the
expenditure and loss he incurs. It is very well to attend local Parliaments without pay,
50 and with us we get no pay. We do refund some small amount of expenditure necessary
in travelling to and from Parliament; but if the delegates from Tasmania, Western
Australia, and South Australia had to follow our New South Wales friends to Moss
26-1-2010 Page 7
Vale, or our Victorian friends to Mount Macedon, we should expect them to be paid.
Or come to Hobart if you please-I have no desire to see you there, as it is hardly the
point or place to be discussed, except for a holiday, and I should like to see our friends
there then, especially Mr. Barton.
5 Mr. BARTON: It depends whether it is summer or winter.
Sir PHILIP FYSH: If members are to travel long distances you must have a class of
politicians who are ready to give themselves up to that particular class of work for
two or three months, and they must be paid.
END QUOTE
10
QUOTE 30-4-2009 submission
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The President 30-4-2009
Remuneration Tribunal
15 P.O. Box 281, Civic Square ACT 2608
submissions@remtribunal.gov.au
.
Cc; Mr Kevin Rudd PM
.
20 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Sir/Madam,
As a constitutionalist, and not as a lawyer, I deal with what the Framers of the
Constitution intended and not as to how to twist the true meaning of constitutional
25 provisions as to undermine the proper application of constitutional provisions.
.
This submission is regarding the constitutional validity or the lack of thereof in regard of
parliamentarians payments to Members of Parliament, being in various ways, as well as
their so called dependants, their travelling, etc. for this I refer also to other matters.
30 .
Much can be argued if a pay-rise or a de-facto pay-rise is constitutionally justified or not
but ultimately one also should consider, which the Remuneration Tribunal never does, if
the performance of those seeking to be provided with a pay-rise/de facto pay-rise do
deserve this based on their standards of performance.
35 END QUOTE 30-4-2009 submission
.
The so called Gold Card has also been criticised by me over time that it is unconstitutional and in
my view as much as clients of Centrelink are forced to repay monies, regardless if it was beyond
their fault, then I view likewise politicians who misused their printing allowance should be
40 forced to repay this and other unconstitutional financial benefits as to teach them once and for all
that the RULE OF LAW applies to them also.
.
As I made clear in past correspondences, which you and others seemed to ignore, the misuse of
printing allowances was unfair to candidates who had to pay their own way of printing, etc.
45 Effectively it undermines a FAIR and PROPER election, something I also canvassed in the
litigation on constitutional matters against the Commonwealth and which the Court on 19 July
2006 adjudicated in my favour, unreservedly.
.
Likewise past submissions to the JSCEM (Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matter
50 contained issues regarding this and again it was time and time again ignored. As such, this was
26-1-2010 Page 8
an ongoing deliberate conduct to deceive the electors and to fraudulently use Consolidated
Revenue Funds for ulterior purposes and I view it should be repaid.
.
You cannot have that ordinary persons are to be answering for any wrong doings, and even if
5 they did not engage in any wrongdoing but Centrelink overpaid them or wrongly paid them then
they still have to repay the moneys while politicians who ongoing over the years were warned
nevertheless can get away with their rot. We cannot apply DOUBLE STANDARDS and so I
view the monies wrongly used should be repaid as not to do so would be to award the offenders
and wrongdoers.
10 .
I urge you to provide my past correspondences on these matters to the Auditor-General so a
proper investigation can be held in these and other matters.
.
Obviously there is what I would say there is a cancerous cell within the Commonwealth where
15 despite my numerous warnings there was a blatant ignorance to my warnings and this fraudulent
and other misuse of Consolidate Revenue funding flourished unchecked.
.
While I understand there are politicians who are complaining about the possibility of lack of
funding it should be understood that at the time of Federation there was no Internet system, no
20 communication system as now available via television, etc, and yet those politicians nevertheless
had to fund it all out of their (then) 400 pounds a year allowance and as such in today’s society
politicians have it much easier to come across to members of their electorate then the earlier
politicians had.
.
25 Elections are clearly not part of the representation but are for personal gains of the candidate and
therefore never should there be a system that allows politicians to have a better position to be
elected then other candidates, as now the rot is going on.
.
30 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
They say that the principle of having the whole colony as one electorate is a bad one,
and that under it only rich men will be elected. I think if the question be looked into
more closely it will be seen that true safety lies in either small electorates or in an
electorate so huge that it cannot be influenced by rich men. I think we are all desirous
35 that any man, no matter how poor he may be, shall be in a position to become a
member of the senate, and if you adopt the huge electorate of the whole colony the
result will be that those arts which are used for the purpose of getting rich men into
the House will be impracticable. No candidate could cover the whole colony with his
committee-rooms; no man is able to incur expenditure on account of the whole colony
40 in the way in which and, to the extent to which he would incur it in a large district.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
And although I do admit that there is a danger of the operation of what is called the
45 party ticket, of only one party being represented in an election by the colony as a
whole, I think that any one who looks carefully into the matter, will see that by the
adoption of the Hare system, or something of that sort, it will be quite possible to
avoid the whole of the members being elected upon a party ticket. I am one of those
who have no fear of the due representation of minorities.
50 END QUOTE
.
You need to consider this that if ordinary trade unions were like political union use the monies of
employers to fund elections of their office holders, etc, if you then were to accept this as
26-1-2010 Page 9
appropriate or you would hold this is inappropriate use of employers monies? As much as there
has been a clamp down on rorting by trade unions the same should be in regard of political
unions like the political parties in Parliament. NO DOUBLE STANDARDS!
.
5 Gerrit
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
.
9-9-2009
10 END QUOTE 9-9-2009 EMAIL
.
Daniel Street, journalist/reporter for Channel Nine News reported that there was for the year of
2008 an expense paid for by the Commonwealth of Australia regarding former Prime Ministers;
15 John Howard $908,551

(As I understand this to be the reported total for 2008 including
some of the following, besides other cost;
$196,040 rent
$329,831 out-fit office
20 $33,000 airfares
$53,616 chauffeur driven car)
Paul Keating $370,000
Gough Whitlam $423,000
Bob Hawke $429,000
25 Malcolm Fraser $525,000
J. Howard written reply as I understand it was:

“I regard the expenses involved reasonable and justified”
.
30 I understand that Tony Abbott (Now leader of the opposition) reportedly stated;
QUOTE
These are all absolutely routine expenditures and there is nothing wasteful.
END QUOTE
.
35 Senator Nick Xenophon reportedly state;
QUOTE
It’s ridiculous. It’s an obscene amount of monies
END QUOTE
.
40 John Howard, as I understand it to be issued a statement which also contained the following
comment;
QUOTE
I regard the expenses involved as reasonable and justified
END QUOTE
45 .
We must recognised that we all have different views and we all are entitled upon our own views,
regardless if we are legally right or wrong, provided we do not act in an unlawful manner.
.
Hence, if John Howard views that “I regard the expenses involved as reasonable and
50 justified” then so be it and he can show this by repaying every cent to the consolidated Revenue
funds as I view none of its was constitutionally validly paid out for him.
.
As my 30-4-2009 submission to the Senate Committee also stated:
26-1-2010 Page 10
QUOTE 30-4-2009 SUBMISSION
.
Herald sun (Melbourne) Friday 1 May 2009 page 28 “IN BRIEF” article;
QUOTE
5 Nursing home mice horror
A BEDRIDDEN 89-year old war veteran was found on
Anzac Day with bloody ears, hands, face and neck after
Being “severely chewed” by a plague of mice at a
Southwest Queensland nursing home.
10 .Queensland Health has rostered on extra staff and
Pest control agents to kill mice at the home.
END QUOTE
.
Heidelberg Leader Tuesday April 28 2009 page 16 article
15 QUOTE
Perk Exposed
IT has been reported that Minister
Macklin conveniently couldn’t re-
member a four week all expenses
20 paid visit to the US.
Well, minister, nor can we. You
didn’t tell us either and one would
have thought this would have been
a high point in her political career,
25 but it appears not so.
Oh yes, never forgetting, it’s
never a perk until it is exposed.
Then it becomes a regrettable
oversight. Some oversight, minis-
30 ter.
Bill Howard, Ivanhoe.
END QUOTE.
.
QUOTE http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25344305-662,00.html
35 Jenny Macklin failes to declare free US trip
Ben Packham
April 17, 2009 12:00am
KEVIN Rudd has been embarrassed again by a minister who failed to declare a free
trip paid for by foreign interests.
40 Families Minister Jenny Macklin has confessed, after 12 years, to a four-week study trip to
Washington DC, Boston, Chicago, El Paso and New Orleans, paid for by the US Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs.
It's understood she examined her records after the furore over Defence Minister Joel
Fitzgibbon's admission of two free trips to China, paid for by his landlady, businesswoman
45 Helen Liu.
"I very much regret this oversight and I have moved to amend it," Ms Macklin told the
Herald Sun. "As soon as I realised that I had failed to declare the trip, I updated my
pecuniary interest declaration to include the trip."
26-1-2010 Page 11
The updating occurred on April 1, five days after Mr Fitzgibbon's admission.
The PM's office said: "The minister has indicated this was a regrettable oversight and has
acted immediately to redress it, which is appropriate."
Shadow special minister of state Michael Ronaldson said all MPs had to disclose freebies.
5 END QUOTE
END QUOTE 30-4-2009 SUBMISSION
.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO CLAMP DOWN ON THE WAY POLITICIANS AND
FORMER POLITICIANS ARE ROBBING THE PUBLIC PURSE.
10 And, this also include former Governor-General’s!
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view none of the former Prime Ministers and/or Governor-
Generals are entitled to those perks and more over neither former members of parliament with a
Gold Card and other perks. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that for example a
15 Senator-Elect could not receive any “allowance” until the day the sitting Senator finished to hold
the seat and the Senator elect accepted the seat. As such, payments of allowances were limited to
the actual time a Member of Parliament holds a seat and not more then one person can be paid at
the time in regard of a seat in Parliament. Neither so can Senator elect be funded from
Consolidated Revenue for pre-attendances to the parliament as the Framers of the Constitution
20 made it very clear that not until they actually took up the seat could they be receiving any
monies. Where then the parliament has no powers to overrule the constitution then the
Remuneration Tribunal acting on behalf of the Parliament neither can overrule the constitution!
.
25 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
.
30 Therefore, where as shown below the payments of ALLOWANCES are restricted within the
meaning of s.48 of The commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK);
QUOTE
48 Allowance to members
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each
35 member of the House of Representatives shall receive an
allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the
day on which he takes his seat.
END QUOTE
.
40 The payments of salary to Ministers of State is restricted by s.66 of the constitution
QUOTE
66 Salaries of Ministers
There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated
Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the
45 Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament
otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a
year.
END QUOTE
.
50 And the salary payments to a Governor-General is restricted by s.3 of the constitution
QUOTE
3 Salary of Governor-General
26-1-2010 Page 12
There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated
Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the
Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament
otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds.
5 The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his
continuance in office.
END QUOTE
.
Therefore, unless there is within the constitution some clause that allows payments to former
10 Prime Minister’s and/or former Governor-General’s then all and any monies so far paid out to
each and everyone of them, including the cost of renting offices, fit out’s, car, airfares, etc, all
was unconstitutionally drawn from the Consolidated Revenue Funds and must be reclaimed
against each and every person as such.
.
15 We have honest law abiding pensioners who beyond any fault of their own may have been over
paid and then are forced to repay any over payment and we then are talking about small amounts
of monies compared to the in excess of estimated $30 million in 2008 alone paid out
unconstitutionally for former Prime Ministers and Governor-General’s. and we are not even
including the millions of dollars in unpaid taxes by former politicians who unconstitutionally
20 have certain tax exclusions. No wonder politicians and others want to turn the Commonwealth of
Australia into some REPUBLIC so they can even more rob the taxpayers of their hard earned
monies.
.
25
QUOTE 30-4-2009 submission

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The President 30-4-2009
30 Remuneration Tribunal
P.O. Box 281, Civic Square ACT 2608
submissions@remtribunal.gov.au
.
Cc; Mr Kevin Rudd PM
35 .
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Sir/Madam,
As a constitutionalist, and not as a lawyer, I deal with what the Framers of the
40 Constitution intended and not as to how to twist the true meaning of constitutional provisions as
to undermine the proper application of constitutional provisions.
.
This submission is regarding the constitutional validity or the lack of thereof in regard of
parliamentarians payments to Members of Parliament, being in various ways, as well as their so
45 called dependants, their travelling, etc. for this I refer also to other matters.
.
Much can be argued if a pay-rise or a de-facto pay-rise is constitutionally justified or not but
ultimately one also should consider, which the Remuneration Tribunal never does, if the
performance of those seeking to be provided with a pay-rise/de facto pay-rise do deserve this
50 based on their standards of performance.
.
26-1-2010 Page 13
Before entering into the constitutional validity or the lack thereof in regard of payments, lets first
have a look at some issues as to if Ministers could be deemed to earn their monies in the first
place.
END QUOTE 30-4-2009 submission
5
QUOTE FROM THE SUBMISSION 30-4-2009
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
.
2 Governor-General
10 A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her
Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and
may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure,
but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the
Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
15 3 Salary of Governor-General
20 The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his
4 Provisions relating to Governor-General
The provisions of this Constitution relating to the
Governor-General extend and apply to the Governor-General for
25 the time being, or such person as the Queen may appoint to
administer the Government of the Commonwealth; but no such
person shall be entitled to receive any salary from the
Commonwealth in respect of any other office during his
administration of the Government of the Commonwealth.
30 .
44 Disqualification
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or
adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or
35 entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a
foreign power; or
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under
sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence
punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State
40 by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension
payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the
revenues of the Commonwealth; or
45 Chapter I The Parliament
Part IV Both Houses of the Parliament
Section 45
26 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement
50 with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than
as a member and in common with the other members of an
incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five
persons;
26-1-2010 Page 14
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a
member of the House of Representatives.
But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the
Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the
5 Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or
a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s
navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of
the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person
whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.
10 .
member of the House of Representatives shall receive an
15 day on which he takes his seat.
.
64 Ministers of State
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such
departments of State of the Commonwealth as the
20 Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the
Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal
Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for
the Commonwealth.
25 Ministers to sit in Parliament
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office
for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a
senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
.
30 66 Salaries of Ministers
Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament
35 year.
67 Appointment of civil servants

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the appointment and
removal of all other officers of the Executive Government of the
40 Commonwealth shall be vested in the Governor-General in
Council, unless the appointment is delegated by the
Governor-General in Council or by a law of the Commonwealth to
some other authority.
.
45 Terms used;
.
Governor-General
50 Governor-General in Council
There shall be payable to the Queen
26-1-2010 Page 15
until the Parliament otherwise provides
for the salaries of the Ministers of State

5
They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council
and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.
10 officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth

END QUOTE FROM THE SUBMISSION 30-4-2009
And
QUOTE FROM THE SUBMISSION 30-4-2009
REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL
15 Determination 2006/18:
Members of Parliament – Entitlements
QUOTE
Members of Parliament – Entitlements).
ELECTORATE ALLOWANCE
20 1.1 The rates of electorate allowance payable to senators and members are as follows:
Chamber State or Territory / Electorate Annual rate
Senators all States and Territories $27,300
Electorate of less than 2,000 km2 $27,300
Electorate of 2,000 to 4,999 km2 $32,450
25 Members
Electorate of 5,000 km2 or more $39,600
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Determination 2009/01 – Remuneration 14/01/2009 Cl 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6
and Allowances for Holders of Public F2009L00049 15/01/2009
Office and Members of Parliament - Cl 2.4 - 1/01/2009
Entitlements
30
END QUOTE
35 Report Number 1 of 2006 (17-10-2006)

.
Additional % of Base Salary
Prime Minister
40 160.0%
Deputy Prime Minister
105.0%
Treasurer
87.5%
45 Leader of the Government in the Senate
87.5%
Leader of the House
75.0%
Other Minister in Cabinet who is also manager of
26-1-2010 Page 16
Government business in the Senate
75.0%
Other Ministers in Cabinet
72.5%
5 Other Minister in who is also manager of
67.5%
Other Ministers
57.5%
10 Parliamentarian secretary who is also manager of
35.o%
Parliamentary Secretaries
25.0%
15
It should be noticed that the following is effective from “Effective on and from 1 November
2008” and “1.2 This Determination takes effect on and from 1 November 2008.”and as such
appears to me to be backdated! Not likely that pensioners are going to get backdated a pension
increase!
20
QUOTE
Remuneration Tribunal Determination 2008/19 Page 1
Determination 2008/19:
25 Parliamentary Office Holders – Additional Salary
This Determination governs additional salary for parliamentary office holders.
PART 1 - GENERAL
1.1 This Determination is issued pursuant to s7(1) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act
1973, and prevails, to the extent of any inconsistency, over Schedule 4 of the
30 Remuneration and Allowances Act 1990 (as contemplated in s3(2) of that latter
Act).
1.2 This Determination takes effect on and from 1 November 2008. It revokes
Determination 2007/17 in full.
PART 2 – ADDITIONAL SALARY AND RELATED MATTERS
35 2.1 For the purposes of this Determination, the basic salary to which reference is
made in Table 1 shall be the amount from time to time payable pursuant to
Division 1 of Schedule 3 to the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1990 and
Regulation 5 of the Remuneration and Allowances Regulations 2005.
2.2 A person who holds a parliamentary office shall be paid the additional salary
40 specified in Table 1.
2.3 In administering this Determination, authorities shall:
(a) calculate additional salary in Table 1 by rounding up to the nearest ten
dollars; and
(b) pay the annual benefits specified in proportion (pro rata) to the office
45 holder’s period of service during that year.
2.4 Where the words ‘member of Parliament’ are used in this Determination they refer
to members of both Houses, unless there is an explicit contrary intention.
TABLE 1 RATES OF ADDITIONAL SALARY
50 Effective on and from 1 November 2008
Office Additional salary as a
percentage of the basic salary
Leader of the Opposition
26-1-2010 Page 17
85.0%
President of the Senate
75.0%
Speaker of the House of Representatives
5 75.0%
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
57.5%
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
57.5%
10 Leader of a recognised party of more than 10 members of
Parliament, other than a party whose Leader is the Prime
Minister or the Leader of the Opposition
45.0%
Leader of a recognised party of at least 5, and no more than
15 10, members of Parliament.
42.5%
Chief Government Whip in the House of Representatives
26.0%
Chief Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives
20 23.0%
Deputy President and Chair of Committees in the Senate
20.0%
Deputy Speaker in the House of Representatives
20.0%
25 Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
20.0%
Chief Government Whip in the Senate
20.0%
Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate
30 18.0%
Second Deputy Speaker in the House of Representatives
13.0%
Whip in the House of Representatives of a Government party
with more than 10 Members in the House
35 13.0%
Whip in the House of Representatives of an Opposition party
with more than 10 Members in the House
12.0%
Head of a recognised party, not being a party whose Leader is
40 the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, with at least
five members in each house, sitting in the house other than
that in which the Leader of the party sits.
11.0%
Whip in the House of Representatives of a party with at least 5,
45 and no more than 10, Members in the House
9.0%
Whip in the Senate of a recognised party of at least 5, and no
more than 10, Senators
9.0%
50 Government Deputy Whip in the Senate
5.0%
Opposition Deputy Whip in the Senate
5.0%
26-1-2010 Page 18
Deputy Whip in the House of Representatives of a Government
party with more than 10 Members in the House
3.0%
Deputy Whip in the House of Representatives of an Opposition
5 party with more than 10 Members in the House
3.0%
Member of the Speaker's Panel in the House of Representatives
3.0%
Temporary Chairman of Committees in the Senate
10 3.0%
Deputy Whip in the House of Representatives of a party with at
least 5, and no more than 10, Members in the House
2.0%
15 Parliamentary Committees
Chair of the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
16%
Chair of the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Works
16%
20 Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and
Trade
16%
Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
16%
25 Chair of a Joint Statutory Committee or Joint Standing Committee, not
otherwise specified (except the Joint Standing Committee on the
Parliamentary Library)
11%
Chair of a Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing
30 Committee
11%
Chair of a House of Representatives General Purpose Standing
Committee
11%
35 Chair of a Joint Select Committee or Select Committee in the Senate
or the House of Representatives
11%
Chair of an Investigating Standing Committee established by
resolution of either House
40 11%
Chair of the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges
11%
Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of
Privileges
45 11%
Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and
Ordinances
11%
Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
50 11%
Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Procedure
11%
26-1-2010 Page 19
Deputy Chair of the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Accounts and
Audit
8%
Deputy Chair of the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Works
5 8%
Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Defence and Trade
8%
Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
10 8%
Deputy Chair of a Joint Statutory Committee or Joint Standing
Committee, not otherwise specified (except the Joint Standing
Committee on the Parliamentary Library)
5.5%
15 Deputy Chair of a Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing
Committee
5.5%
Deputy Chair of a House of Representatives General Purpose Standing
Committee
20 5.5%
Deputy Chair of a Joint Select Committee or Select Committee in the
Senate or the House of Representatives
5.5%
Deputy Chair of an Investigating Standing Committee established by
25 resolution of either House
5.5%
Deputy Chair of the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges
5.5%
Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of
30 Privileges
5.5%
Deputy Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and
Ordinances
5.5%
35 Deputy Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of
Bills
5.5%
Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Procedure
40 5.5%
Chair of the Senate Standing Committee of Senators’ Interests
3%
Chair of the House of Representatives Committee of Members’
45 Interests
3%
Chair of a Parliamentary Committee concerned with public affairs
rather than the domestic affairs of Parliament not otherwise specified
3%
50
END QUOTE
QUOTE
26-1-2010 Page 20
Determination 2006/18:
Members of Parliament – Entitlements
As amended.
5 Made under sub-sections 7(1), 7(3) and 7(4) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act
1973.
Consolidated as at 14 January 2009 and incorporates amending determinations
up to and including 2009/01 – Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of
Public Office and Members of Parliament – Entitlements.
10 Pursuant to sub-sections 7(1), 7(2) and 7(4) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, the
Remuneration Tribunal has inquired into the allowances to be paid out of the public
moneys of Australia to members of the Parliament by reason of their membership of the
Parliament or by reason of their holding particular offices, or performing particular
functions in, or in relation to the Parliament or either House of Parliament, has inquired
15 into certain entitlements, being matters significantly related thereto, and,
notwithstanding Clause 2 of Schedule 3 of the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1990,
determines as set out below with effect on and from 1 July 2006, unless otherwise
specified.
This Determination supersedes and revokes in full Determination Number 9 of 2005
20 (Members of Parliament – Entitlements).
ELECTORATE ALLOWANCE
1.1 The rates of electorate allowance payable to senators and members are as follows:
Chamber State or Territory / Electorate Annual rate
Senators all States and Territories $27,300
25 Electorate of less than 2,000 km2 $27,300
Electorate of 2,000 to 4,999 km2 $32,450
Members
Electorate of 5,000 km2 or more $39,600
Remuneration Tribunal Determination 2006/18 – CONSOLIDATED 2
30 TRAVEL ENTITLEMENTS - SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT
Senators and Members
2.1 A senator or member when travelling within Australia, excluding the external
territories, on parliamentary, electorate or official business but not including party
business (other than meetings of a parliamentary political party, or of its
35 executive, or of its committees, and the national conference of a political party, of
which he or she is a member), shall be entitled to travel at government expense.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
40 Definitions
2.8 For the purposes of this determination:
‘accompany’ means to travel with a senator or member to the final destination of
a trip he or she is undertaking.
‘dependent child’ means:
45 (a) a person under the age of 16 who:
(i) is in the custody, care and control of the senator or member, or is a
person to whom the senator or member has access; or
(ii) where no other person has the custody, care and control of the person
- is wholly or substantially in the care and control of the senator or
50 member; or
(b) a person who is aged at least 16 but is under 25 and is wholly or
substantially dependent on the senator or member; and
(c) is not a person who is otherwise receiving the entitlements of a nominee.
26-1-2010 Page 21
‘designated person’ means a person or persons (not being a dependent child,
spouse or nominee or a member of the staff of the senator or member) nominated
by the senator or member who:
5 (a) is substantially dependent on the senator or member; or
(b) has significant caring responsibilities for:
(i) a person substantially dependent on the senator or member; or
(ii) the senator's or member's spouse, nominee, or dependent child; or
(c) is any other member of the senator's or member's family.
10 'home base' means the principal place of residence of a senator or member as
nominated from time to time to the Special Minister of State.
‘interstate trip’ means a trip:
(a) from one state to another state or territory; or
(b) from a territory to a state or territory; or
15 (c) from a territory or state to an external territory when travel is to
accompany or join a senator or member travelling under Clauses 2.5(c),
2.5(d) and 2.5(e), except if the external territory forms part of the
senator’s or member’s electorate.
‘join’ means to travel to meet a senator or member for a period of at least 3
20 hours.
‘nominee’ means a person nominated by the senator or member and approved at
the discretion of the Special Minister of State; a senator or member may only
have one nominee at any time.
‘year’ means a period commencing 1 July and ending on the following 30 June.
25 FAMILY REUNION TRAVEL
2.9 Subject to clauses 2.10, 2.11 and 2.20, a senator or member is entitled to be
accompanied or joined when travelling at Commonwealth expense on
parliamentary, electorate or official business by any one or more of the senator’s
or member’s:
30 (a) spouse or nominee;
(b) dependent children;
(c) designated person(s).
2.10 The entitlement under clause 2.9 is limited to travel for non-commercial purposes
by:
35 (a) scheduled commercial services by any mode of transport, by the most
direct route to the intended destination for the mode of transport used
without voluntary stopovers; and
(b) special purpose (Defence) aircraft the use of which has been approved by
40 the Minister for Defence before the particular travel.
2.11 In addition to clause 2.10, where the spouse, nominee, dependent child or
designated person, in relation to a senator or member from:
(a) Western Australia;
(b) the Northern Territory; or
45 (c) Queensland at least 1,100kms flight distance from Brisbane;
travels to or from Canberra, the journey may be broken by one stop-over of one
night in a capital city, provided the journey to or from Canberra is completed.
Canberra and Intra-State Family Travel (other than for ACT Senators and
Members)
50 END QUOTE
END QUOTE FROM THE SUBMISSION 30-4-2009
.
26-1-2010 Page 22
The following is a full set out of the Chapter; “Chapter AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO
DEAL WITH FEDERAL PARLIAMENTARIANS PAY (Allowance)!”
.
QUOTE Chapter AMEND THE CONSTITUTION…
5
This is a general document about “ALLOWANCES” for politicians. Just consider for yourself if
you are being robbed!
.
10 QUOTE
15 are not.
END QUOTE
.
Herald Sun Monday 27 April 2009 page 2 article;
QUOTE
20 Brown vows to stop increase Anger at MPs’ $4700 bonus
END QUOTE
.
ISSUE:
AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO DEAL WITH FEDERAL PARLIAMENTARIANS
25 PAY (Allowance)!
.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
You be the judge! Consider what is set out below and the proposed amendment of the
30 Constitution from;
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of
Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the
35 .
to;
Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, subject to that such
40 allowance shall be calculated to include in totality, including postage, traveling, stationary,
overnight accommodation to no more but the maximum of the average weekly earnings on a
yearly basis, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat, and shall continue only for
the duration of time until the seat is vacated and no longer.
.
45 Chapter AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO DEAL WITH FEDERAL
PARLIAMENTARIANS PAY (Allowance)!
* Gerrit, should judges and parliamentarians have increase in allowances, at least the way
they have now?
50
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, lets first see what one of the Framers of the Constitution had to
say;
26-1-2010 Page 23
QUOTE
are not.
END QUOTE
.
10 It is therefore important to understand that Federal Members of Parliament are constitutionally
not permitted to have any “salary” as otherwise they are AUTOMATICALLY disqualified
from having a seat in the Federal Parliament. If therefore the Remuneration Tribunal sets their
“salary” then “constitutionally” every Federal Member of parliament is disqualified from being a
member of parliament, both Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, as they only
15 salary excluded are those shown in Section 44 of the constitution, such as the “salary” when
appointed to being a Minister of the Crown.
.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
44 Disqualification
20 Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or
adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or
entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a
foreign power; or
25 (ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under
sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence
punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State
by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
30 (iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension
payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the
revenues of the Commonwealth; or
with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than
35 as a member and in common with the other members of an
persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a
member of the House of Representatives.
40 But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the
Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the
Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or
a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s
navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of
45 the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person
whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.
.
45 Vacancy on happening of disqualification
If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
50 (i) becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the
last preceding section; or
(ii) takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or
otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent
debtors; or
55 (iii) directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or
26-1-2010 Page 24
honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or
for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State;
his place shall thereupon become vacant.
.
5 It also can be stated that if the Remuneration Tribunal sets the yearly “ALLOWANCES” upon
the yearly salary of public servants then the following applies for this also;
.
with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than
10 as a member and in common with the other members of an
persons;
.
Look at when the election was called in 2007 and since October 2007 until February 2008 not a
15 single member of parliament was dealing with attending to matters ordinary involving their
attendances to the parliament. They were going on about elections which is a political UNION
matter, where as when it comes to employees of a company wanting to do the same then they
prohibit this kind of payment to union Members.
.
20 When you consider the sitting days of the Parliament then I view they are well overpaid in terms
of what the Constitution provides for.
I view they all are defrauding the tax payers and we must put a stop to this.
.
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR NOT!
25 .
Therefore payments must be as to being “ALLOWANCES” as intended by the Framers of the
Constitution to cover everything albeit the amount payable to each member can be adjusted by
the parliament, but must be equal to all members.
.
30 As stated below;
What we need is to amend the Constitution to make clear that no former
politician/Governor-General is permitted to draw monies from Consolidated Revenue
in regard of past services rendered!
.
35 And
.
What we need is to amend the Constitution to make clear that any Federal Member of
Parliament maximum yearly benefits payable as ALLOWANCE is not to exceed the
average weekly income taken on a yearly basis.
40 .
Below I am setting out various issues that also ought to be considered.
.
What is however important to notice is that a $30,000 or whatever payment to any person
(defeated Federal member of parliament) who was not re-elected is not within the provisions of
45 the constitution and neither can be deemed to be an “ALLOWANCE”, as it is not a
REIMBURSEMENT for cost incurred!
.
50 parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we
no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but
constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of
26-1-2010 Page 25
instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate
5 bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all
that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with,
sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
10 .
Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a
judge under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for
from Parliament or Government.
15 Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the
interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the
same sense as a federal judge is, the same circumstances remain in part; but where you
will have a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution against the
20 inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it is essential that
no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do not
know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether consciously or
not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which
might be dangerous to the Constitution itself.
25
.
* That seems to me to be that Judges should not be made dependable upon pay rises while they
are in office or they could be bias towards the government.
30 **#** Correct, albeit, the Constitution does not prevent increases while they are serving.
* What about allowances for parliamentarians?
**#** That is another problem.

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

Clause 43.-Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the
States Assembly or of the House of Representatives, shall receive an allowance for his
services of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes
his seat.
50 .
26-1-2010 Page 26
The Hon. S. FRASER: It is done in other countries.
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia)[5.11]: The salary, if one were
5 absolutely dependent upon it, does not seem very large. At the same time, I do not
suppose we expect those who are chosen to be members of the senate and the house of
representatives will be altogether dependent on the emoluments they receive as
members.
The Hon. S. FRASER: Many may be!
10 The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: I do not think so. It is more an honorarium
than a salary; otherwise we should not find the distinguished persons who now occupy
seats in the local legislatures willing to accept positions.
The Hon. E. BARTON: We should either give a man nothing, or make it worth his
while to attend!
15 [start page 994]

The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: It seems to me that if the £400 per annum is
to be considered as a salary, it is altogether inadequate. If, on the other hand, it is to
be considered an honorarium, it is too large. We must not altogether get rid of the idea
that there is some patriotism in the people, and that they desire to give their best services to
20 the state without looking at the matter from an £ s. d. point of view. I am afraid that, when
we have formed the federal parliament, we shall find that those who have businesses which
require their constant attention will not be able to leave them in order to attend.
And
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST:
25 But I take it that the persons who will become members of the senate, or house of
representatives will not be persons who are altogether dependent upon this small honorarium.
And
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: All that I desired to emphasise was my
opposition to a member receiving the salary of a minister and at the same time the salary of
30 a member of the commonwealth parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria)[5.29]: If the words "until the parliament otherwise provides"
are used it will permit each member to receive a salary of £400 a year, and the
commonwealth would then be able to provide that members are not to receive that salary in
addition to an official salary.
35 New clause negatived.
.
The latter statement clearly indicates what really was intended with the wording "until the
parliament otherwise provides". It was to organise one or the other.
.
40 But also you may have noticed that the statement;
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: It seems to me that if the £400 per annum is
to be considered as a salary, it is altogether inadequate. If, on the other hand, it is to
be considered an honorarium, it is too large.
.
45 That is where the critical point is. A Minister of the Crown is in an Office of Profit with the
Commonwealth and has a “salary”, however, a Member of Parliament is receiving an
26-1-2010 Page 27
“honorarium” (“allowance”) that is only payable while he/she is a Member of Parliament and is
diminished when obtaining a position as Minister of the Crown.
.
At the time of federation 500 pound was considered to be sufficient for a Federal Member of
5 Parliament
.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ABS@.NSF/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article152
001?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2001&num=&view=
10 QUOTE (HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION)

This article explores the nature of the increase in living standards as measured by changes
in the level of household income and its distribution. In undertaking such an exercise, it is
important to emphasise some of the limitations of income as an indicator of economic
wellbeing or standard of living. There is more to life than money, just as there is more to
15 one’s standard of living than income. But in a market economy like Australia, income
reflects the ownership and use of human, financial and physical capital and provides access
to the goods and services that support the standard of living. People’s status in society-both
as workers who contribute to economic output and as consumers who benefit from it-also
reflects their income and the level of consumption that it can sustain.
20
The distribution of income can be presented in a variety of different ways, each focusing on
a different aspect of income variation. A range of measures is also available for
summarising how much inequality exists at any point in time. Most of these measures
indicate how far the observed distribution deviates from a situation of total equality, where
25 all incomes are equal. They reflect relative income differences. Supplementary statistics are
needed to provide more insight into the nature of inequality and to identify its causes, but
how the inequality statistics are presented can be important. Measures that relate income
differentials to differences in location, ethnicity, age, gender, educational qualifications, or
employment participation each reveal part of what is a complex multi-dimensional reality.
30 It is not possible to do justice to all of these aspects in the limited space available.
Emphasis has been given to describing the Australian income distribution, exploring how it
has changed and how it compares internationally. Such an account, while primarily
descriptive, provides the basis for further study of the causes and consequences of
inequality.
35 END QUOTE (HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION)
The table below shows that final consumption from 1901 to about 1945 was static and then it
rose from $5,000 expenditure per capita to $20,000 by 2000. Over the 100 years it was about 4
fold increase. One then have to ask if the total package now spend on Federal parliamentarians
40 was also increased 4 fold or that it went well out of hand.
.
If is essential for this that we do consider that at the time of federation it was clearly held that
500 pounds (as then the currency was used) was to include out-of pocket expenses for
parliamentarians such as overnight accommodation for several months, etc. As such, the then 500
45 pounds “allowance” did not just mean it was about compensation of loss of income but also all
out of pocked expenses , such as hotel accommodation, etc.
It was never then intended that Federal parliamentarians were to be paid more then the average
weekly earnings for the whole of the year because it was deemed that politicians would have an
ordinary job besides their parliamentarians work. And many still do as they run their own
50 businesses, being it as lawyers, farmers, etc.
.
There is also a hidden cost that at the time never was considered as that we now have federal
parliamentarians having postal budgets, other traveling entitlements – other then for their
26-1-2010 Page 28
traveling to and from Parliament), printing allowances and a host of others, including staff, the
printing of their stationary, etc.
.
The Framers of the Constitution held that a 500 pound yearly payment would be a significant
5 burden. Well I view they would, so to say, turn over in their graves if they knew the absurd cost
now associated with each federal parliamentarian. Which more then likely trumps more then 1
million dollars a year! And, that doesn’t even take into account all the UNCONSTITUTIONAL
perks they have after leaving office. I state UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the constitution
provides only for payments WHILST THEY ARE SERVING MEMBERS OF THE
10 PARLIAMENT, and not having Gold passes, etc after they leave their position and certainly not
for family members of ex-politicians.
.
If we therefore rely upon the average weekly spending having increased 4 fold then assuming
this reflects the average weekly increase by 4 fold, then looking at the federal politicians having
15 gone from 500 pounds a year, then deemed to include also all out of pocked expenses and
obviously not being more then the then average weekly earnings as it was held they would still
have a normal income otherwise when not serving as Members of Parliament at the Parliament,
then we have to look at the monies they are now being paid.
QUOTE Herald Sun 5-12-2008
20
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24753165-661,00.html
Ben Packham
December 05, 2008 12:00am
25
POLITICIANS have called for a pay rise, saying they are not getting a fair reward for
their responsibilities.
With many Australians cash-strapped, MPs have endorsed a report saying they are underpaid by
up to $100,000.
30 Backbenchers get about $127,000, plus allowances, while the Prime Minister earns about
$330,000.
West Australian MP Wilson Tuckey said such salaries did not attract the best candidates.
"We're just not getting top-rate people," he said.
"And as I've said, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys."
35 Former Cabinet minister Tony Abbott, whose salary was cut by $90,000 when the Coalition lost
office, said he'd love a pay rise.
"Everyone would like to be paid more. Politicians are no different in this respect," Mr Abbott
said.
But he held out little hope of getting one, as voters wanted politicians to live like them, not
40 merchant bankers.
In its annual report, the Remuneration Tribunal, said MPs were not paid enough.
26-1-2010 Page 29
"It is evident clearly that, notwithstanding modest annual salary adjustments, the long-term trend
has seen a reduction in overall benefits," the political paymaster said.
"At the same time, the responsibilities and expectations of government and of individual
members and ministers have undoubtedly increased."
5 Mr Tuckey said he had long believed MPs were underpaid.
"You only have to look at the people who now come here," he said.
"They're either ex-Liberal staffers or third-level union officials. They're about the only people
who believe there is a financial reward in it."
Opposition frontbencher Joe Hockey said he didn't get into politics for the money.
10 But he said politicians were unfairly criticised about their salaries.
"It is just one of those things. Whenever people have the capacity to determine their own
remuneration, there is criticism," he said.
END QUOTE Herald Sun 5-12-2008

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/comments/0,22023,24753165-661,00.html
15
QUOTE Herald sun 5-12-2008 (Internet)
Ben Packham
POLITICIANS have called for a pay rise, saying they are not getting a fair reward for their
20 responsibilities.
With many Australians cash-strapped, MPs have endorsed a report saying they are underpaid by
up to $100,000.
Backbenchers get about $127,000, plus allowances, while the Prime Minister earns about
25 $330,000.
Read full story
I would love a 50% increase in my pension then may be I can pay the house off instead of
giving it to the the greedy banks.
30 Posted by: Teebee 9:01pm December 05, 2008
Comment 11 of 11
Wilson tuckey says you pay peanuts you get monkeys you are right Wilson they are
monkeys and the only thing missing is the organ grinder,So we pay macadamia's and we
get Gorillias,What a joke they are the last people that should get anything a $127,000 for a
35 back bencher to do what?Plus the perks they recieve even after they retire stuff the pollies
if anything they should be giving it back.
Posted by: Greedy polliticians of MELBOURNE 10:25am December 05, 2008
Comment 10 of 11
The latest world economic crises proves that the balance of wealth distribution is not fair.
40 The whole system and ideology needs a revamp. The person who cleans toilets needs a pay
26-1-2010 Page 30
rise and not politicians. The self employed need more assistance also. I've had a gutful of
the "get monkeys paid peanuts" mantra regarding politicians. Maybe; there should be a bit
more altruism in politics; then we could look up to them like Buddhists monks and that
would be their pay-off; that we respect them. Anyway they do Ok. Plenty of staffers to do
5 your paperwork, free travel, guaranteed super, secure employment, generous holidays.
Have you ever wondered why the likes of Wilson Tuckey and Peter Costello won't leave
parliament? Because they know where their bread is buttered. Because they are living on
easy street.
Posted by: Manfred Ollie of Melb 9:40am December 05, 2008
10 Comment 9 of 11
Politicians underpaid? Yes some are but the majority are not! Those that represent the best
interests of their electorates and behave in a manner fitting their office are certainly
underpaid. Unfortunately most are party hacks who vote as they are directed. Most do not
have the best interests of their electorate driving their actions. Most behave like petulant
15 children whilst in parliament. Most don¿t act in a way that demonstrates they care about
preserving the environment. Perhaps we should introduce ¿performance based pay¿ for our
politicians and set the criteria not on loyalty to their party but on how well they have
represented their electorate and the nation. We might also include adherence to ¿public
service values¿. But if we did this I suspect only a very small number of our pollies would
20 actual get an increase.
Posted by: Graeme Dobson of Kensington 8:54am December 05, 2008
Comment 8 of 11
Underpaid by $100,000? That's lunacy. Half of them aren't even worth what they're getting
now! Look at the way the Vic Govt is stuffing up the state.I understand the principle of
25 'monkeys and peanuts' quoted but hell, first the candidate has to prove they're worth it. Not
too many have succeeded so far.
Posted by: June of Melbourne 8:45am December 05, 2008
Comment 7 of 11
If they get a pay rise then we should get a pay rise. They are all money-hungry and don't
30 really care about the rest of us. I say give them a pay cut and drop the fuel taxes
Posted by: Gary of Pakenham 8:38am December 05, 2008
Comment 6 of 11
haw haw haw hehehehehe hahahahahaha...this is the funniest thing I've heard all day!!!! -
pay them what they deserve - we'd save a fortune!
35 Posted by: Anarchist of Australia 8:34am December 05, 2008
Comment 5 of 11
I am sure I will be just one of many hundreds of pensioners who are laughing at this
proposal of salary increase for politicians. Try living on the pension, paying all your bills,
and, if you're lucky, feeding yourself and putting petrol in the car. It doesn't happen guys.
40 Posted by: HELENA ALDRIDGE of MID NORTH COAST NSW 8:32am December 05,
2008
Comment 4 of 11
Such salaries did not attract the best candidates.== How ever when they see all the perks
they get for the rest of there lives there minds EXPLODE with joy ==We have heard this
45 speech from these SWOLLEN HEADS before = My answer = GET OUT YOU GREEDY
FARTS
Posted by: martin of bayside 8:32am December 05, 2008
Comment 3 of 11
26-1-2010 Page 31
I'm happy for politicians to receive higher salaries, but they should be genuinely linked to
performance and key outcomes. If they can prodice more policies and pass more laws,
that's fibe but no pay rise just for the sake of it.
Posted by: Ian Roberts of Kew 8:30am December 05, 2008
5 Comment 2 of 11
With our taxes we are already topping up their deflated super funds whilst the rest of us
suffer. A pay rise? I don't bloody think so!!!
Posted by: Leigh of Melbourne 8:30am December 05, 2008
Comment 1 of 11
10 END QUOTE Herald Sun 5-12-2008 (Internet)
.
Herald Sun Friday December 5, 2008
QUOTE
How much they earn
15 Backbencher $127.060
Cabinet minister $219,179
Prime Minister $330,456
Cashier $ 28,392
20 Hairdresser $ 28,860
Nurse $ 50,100
Police officer $ 58,867
Teacher $ 63,312
Aneasthetist $101,764
25 Engineering manager $136,700
END QUOTE
.
It should be understood that constitutionally there should be no difference in pay for being a
member of parliament other that a Member of Parliament who also is a Minister then in principle
30 should not get his/her pay as a Member of Parliament when receiving a “salary” as a Minister.
This, is obvious as the Minister has a “salary” which is payable from “Consolidated Revenue” to
the Queen where as the Member of Parliament not being a Minister receives his/her “allowance”
from Consolidated Revenue.
.
35 Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
40 day on which he takes his seat.
.
45 Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament
year.
.
As such, there cannot be any additional payments for a so called “shadow Minister” (opposition
50 members) because the Constitution does not provide for this.
.
26-1-2010 Page 32
WARNING; It should not be overlooked that Members of Parliament who are attending to
parliamentarian work and for this stay over away from their homes can make significant claims
for this and so more then a thousand dollars a week. As such, what the 500 pounds original
allowance was to cover now is separated that their claims for overnight accommodation is more
5 then many earn on an average weekly earning. More over, it does not even consider the fact that
they have now expensive offices provided to them which at the time of Federation as such was
never contemplated. As such, what politicians now claim just for accommodation cost is more
then what was at the time of federation (considering the difference of cost also) to exceed by far
the total allowance then contemplated. As such I view that federal Members of Parliament in
10 general as a cancerous growth as to the financial health of the Commonwealth of Australia!
.
QUOTE ( HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION)

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

.
(This picture may not be reproduce on the blog and for this, again, it must be stated that it shows
20 that the average weekly household income was in 1901 about $5,000 and in 1945 about the same
and then it went up to 2000 to about $20,000)
.
Even if we were to assume that the total allowance and benefits Federal Members of Parliament
just after federation enjoyed was the value of $5,000 a year (including free travel, etc) we would
25 see that at 2000 position should maximum ought to have escalated to a mere $20,000!
.
We find however that by 2008 it is
QUOTE
How much they earn
30 Backbencher $127.060
Prime Minister $330,456
END QUOTE
.
35 And then on top of that the cost of other cost like their own office at both Parliament House as
well as a electorate office with staff, telephone/fax/internet facilities and a lot more. Then we
have the travel and the letter heads, etc, and again it will more then likely exceed a million
dollars for backbenchers once one also include items such as overnight accommodation, dinners,
etc.
40 .
26-1-2010 Page 33
Below I have reproduced my published Chapter “Chapter 444 – remuneration tribunal-gay-
constitution”.
.
This also has;
5 QUOTE
JAMES ANDREW McGINTY AND OTHERS v THE

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

6. The plaintiffs submit that disparities in voting power are inconsistent with the principle of representative
democracy as that principle is understood at the present time. Representative democracy, so the argument
runs, requires that (a) every legally capable adult has the vote; and (b) each person's vote be equal to the vote
of every other person. Of course, the term "legally capable adult" assumes without defining the scope of the
20 franchise. In this century, the age of legal adulthood has been reduced from 21 to 18 and the legal incapacity
of women to vote has been removed. Aborigines, who were once constitutionally disqualified from the
franchise, are no longer so disqualified.
END QUOTE
.
25 Again;
QUOTE
Aborigines, who were once constitutionally disqualified from the franchise, are no
longer so disqualified.
END QUOTE
30 The truth is that since federation aboriginals were NEVER, I repeat NEVER, constitutionally
disqualified prior to the 1967 referendum! Once they had Colonial/State franchise then they had
AUTOMATICALLY Federal franchise by way of Section 41 of the Constitution. It was up to
the colonies/States to provide colonial/state franchise to enable them to have federal franchise!
However, what is clear is that we have judges giving this kind of utter and sheer nonsense and
35 then the general population take this for granted taking the view that surely those judges whose
task is to interpret the Constitution and who are to be the GUARDIAN OF THE
CONSTITUTION will know what they are talking about, then we get it that the people simply
do not know any longer the truth.
.
40 It are the judges who are the culprits, and as I have stated in the past their lack of competence
resulted for them to block my applications within Section 75(v) of the Constitution to prevent
Australian troops to be involved in an armed murderous invasion into Iraq and we all suffer the
consequences of this.
.
45 Now, what we have is that politicians can fool around as much as they like about how much
money they are getting because we lack competent judges to stop this rot.
.
When one is given the understanding that as an excuse it is used that those working for Kevin
Rudd, Prime Minister, are earning as public servants more then $400,000 and so he should earn
50 more, then we see the illogical arguments.
Are we going to have the politicians creating million dollar jobs for public servants and then use
this as a lever to argue they too should be paid million dollar jobs?
26-1-2010 Page 34
Lets have a reality check as to expenditure in 1901 versus 2000 and then consider if the price
increases really are such that politicians by far outstrip the average income of ordinary workforce
participants.
.
5 http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ABS@.NSF/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article482
001?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2001&num=&view=
QUOTE (PRICES IN AUSTRALIA AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE 20th

CENTURY)
10 PRICES IN AUSTRALIA AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE 20th
CENTURY
This article takes a brief look at how the relative prices of many of today's common items
have changed since Federation. To assist in making comparisons, 1901 prices have been
15 mulitiplied by a factor of 50 to take account of general inflation. This factor is derived from
table 28.5, which shows that the purchasing power of one pound (or $2.00) in 1901 is
equivalent to about $100 in 2001. The 1901 prices in this article (which were originally
measured in pounds, shillings and pence) have been converted to decimal amounts.
Likewise, imperial measurements of quantity have been converted to their metric
20 equivalents.
In 1901, the average weekly wage for an adult male was about $4.35 for a working week of
almost 50 hours, which after inflation equates to $217.50. However, wages have grown
much faster than inflation, with the average weekly ordinary time earnings for adult males
25 in May 2000 being about $830.00 for around 37 hours work, in far better conditions.
The price of gold has often been used as a measure of inflation. At Federation, the price of
gold was $8.50 an ounce, or $425.00 in today's money. The actual price of gold in 1999-
2000 averaged about $460.00 an ounce, showing that it has generally maintained pace with
30 inflation.
The basket of items used in 1901 to calculate the equivalent of today's CPI consisted of a
number of food items, a few laundry products such as starch, 'blue' (a laundry whitener)
and soap, candles for lighting, kerosene for heating and house rents. Although the brands
35 and range of products have changed over time, many of the items commonly used at the
turn of century are still everyday items. However, in many cases there will have been
changes in quality, presumably for the better.
A look at some common food items shows that some are relatively more expensive today,
40 some are relatively cheaper and some are about the same. In 1901 a loaf of bread cost about
2 cents (equivalent to $1.00 today), while the actual price today is about $2.30; milk was 3
cents a litre ($1.50) compared with $1.40 today; 180 grams of tea cost 6 cents ($3.00)
compared with $3.40; potatoes were 2 cents ($1.00) a kilogram compared with $1.30; eggs
were 12 cents a dozen ($6.00) compared with $2.90, and rump steak was 14 cents a
45 kilogram ($7.00) compared with $12.50 a century later.
A man's cotton business shirt cost about 85 cents (or $42.50 today after inflation), while a
pair of ladies shoes was about $1.45 ($72.50). These items could be purchased for
comparable prices today.
50
The average weekly rent for a three bedroom house in 1901 was $1.30, equivalent to about
$65.00 today. The actual value today varies depending on location, but the average of 8
26-1-2010 Page 35
capital cities for a three bedroom house is about $250 a week. In the house, a metal-framed
double bed, mattress, a pair of blankets and two pillows cost about $12.10 ($605.00) in
1901. Today, you could expect to pay upwards of $830.00.
5 At the time of Federation, motor cars were almost unheard of. Most people relied on public
transport or walking to get around. While walking was free, a return train trip, travelling
first class, from Sydney to Penrith was 60 cents ($3.00). Today, the same return trip costs
$12.80. In 1901 such a journey was considered to be a day excursion, whereas today people
commute regularly between Penrith and Sydney for work. Bicycles were starting to be seen
10 on the streets, but were a luxury item for most people. A new bicycle at about $31.00
($1,550.00) cost the equivalent of more than seven weeks wages, whereas today you can
buy a good quality bicycle for about $320.00, less than half a week's wages.
Although wine was not as popular in 1901 as it is today, people still enjoyed a drink. A
15 bottle of whisky cost 38 cents, or $19.00 after inflation. Today you would pay about $26.00
for a bottle of popular brand scotch whisky. For beer drinkers, only full strength beer was
available. A carton of a dozen bottles cost 70 cents in 1901, or $35.00 after inflation,
whereas the actual price today is about $28.00. For the smokers, a packet of cigarettes was
5 cents ($2.50) whereas today you pay about $11.20. Of course, cigarettes carried no health
20 warnings in 1901. In fact, an advertisement for a brand of cigarettes appearing in an issue
of the Sydney Morning Herald of the time carried the endorsement that they were
"guaranteed not to harm the throat or lungs" and, perhaps more disconcertingly,
"recommended by doctors".
25 For recreation, there are far more choices today than there were a hundred years ago.
Nevertheless, there are still some common forms of amusement. A newspaper cost 1 cent in
1901, or 50 cents after inflation, whereas the actual cost of a daily newspaper today is about
$1.00. A new release novel cost about 25 cents ($12.50) compared with an actual price of
about $45.00 for a hard cover new release today, although of course paperbacks are often
30 available at cheaper prices. A concert at the Tivoli cost was 75 cents ($37.50) in 1901,
much the same as the cost of a concert today (about $40). Admission to a game of football
in 1901 was 10 cents ($5.00), considerably cheaper than the $21.70 you would pay today.
However, some things do not change much-Essendon won the 1901 VFL Premiership and
the 2000 AFL Premiership!
35
Table 28.7 summarises the costs of a common 'basket' of goods and services in 1901 and
today.
28.7 Wages and price - 1901 and 2000
1901 prices 2000

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

Loaf of bread 0.02 1.00 2.30
Flour (2kg) 0.04 2.00 3.00
Sugar (2kg) 0.09 4.50 2.30
Coffee (150g) 0.05 2.50 6.00
Tea (180g) 0.06 3.00 3.40
Rice (1kg) 0.05 2.50 1.65
Butter (500g) 0.13 6.50 2.00
26-1-2010 Page 36
Potatoes (1kg) 0.02 1.00 1.30
Onions (1kg) 0.03 1.50 1.25
Rump steak (1kg) 0.14 7.00 12.50
Eggs (1 dozen) 0.12 6.00 2.90
Bacon (1kg) 0.19 9.50 9.40
Jam (500g) 0.04 2.00 2.50
Milk (1 litre) 0.03 1.50 1.40
Men’s cotton shirt 0.85 42.50 53.10
Men’s trousers’ 0.50 25.00 58.50
Women’s shoes (1 pair) 1.45 72.50 65.80
Umbrella 0.40 20.00 16.50
Rent on 3 bedroom house (1 week) 1.30 65.00 250.00
Double bed, mattress, blankets and pillows 12.10 605.00 830.00
Train trip 0.60 3.00 12.80
Bicycle 31.00 1,550.00 320.00
Whisky (1 bottle) 0.38 19.00 26.00
Carton of beer (1 dozen 750ml bottles) 0.70 35.00 28.00
Packet of cigarettes 0.05 2.50 11.20
Soap (600g) 0.03 1.50 3.05
Cough medicine (200ml) 0.25 12.50 14.90
Daily newspaper 0.01 50c 1.00
New release novel 0.25 12.50 45.00
Concert 0.75 37.50 39.30
Theatre 0.35 17.50 30.90
Game of football 0.10 5.00 21.70
Source: See references.

References
Australian Bureau of Statistics:

 Average Retail Prices of Selected Items (6403.0).
5  Average Weekly Earnings, States and Australia (6302.0).
Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics:

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

20 END QUOTE (PRICES IN AUSTRALIA AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE 20th
CENTURY)
.
Consider also the following, a Member of Parliament can be sacked, so to say, without being
given notice (such as an employee in a civil company is entitled upon) instanter by the Governor-
25 General calling for an Double Dissolution. There is no such thing as to argue that a person who
was a Member of Parliament, say for 20 years, then get so many weeks per year of service as
26-1-2010 Page 37
termination payment. The position as a Member of Parliament simply is seen as an honorary
position, not intended by the Constitution to be one of a salary.
For this also, the Framers of the Constitution referred to the free travel, etc.
5 This nonsense about Members of Parliament upon retirement getting the usage of a Gold pass,
etc, is sheer lunacy. Their entitlements clearly must be restricted to the time they are actually
serving as a Member of Parliament, and no further.
* But, Gerrit…
10
**#** No buts. They are stripping invalids of their entitlements. Soldiers who served the country
are still being robbed of their entitlements, and the parliamentarians seems to be in the job to rob
the Consolidated Revenue to the maximum and who cares about the electors. We simply must
get sanity back into how the Constitution is used.
15
* What do you propose?
**#** Strip them of most of the fringe benefits. Get rid of the unconstitutional superannuation
deals. Strip them of the GOLD CARD and other benefits. Just provide them with appropriate
20 compensation while they are serving as a Member of Parliament.
Remember;
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST:

We must not altogether get rid of the idea that there is some patriotism in the people, and
25 that they desire to give their best services to the state without looking at the matter from an
£ s. d. point of view.
.
Currently, I see the Members of Parliament as vulgars …
.
30 * Gerrit, if I may, you said “vulgars” you mean “vultures”, am I correct?
.
I have always the problem that I tend to say/write “vulgars”, but meaning “vultures”. To me they
represent the same. Have you ever seen a “vulture” eating in what we seem to consider in a
proper tasteful manner? Likewise so parliamentarians, they seem to go wild on the consolidated
35 revenue to get whatever they can, even at times unlawfully, and this leaves me, and likely most
others also, so to say, with a bad taste in the mouth.
.
Look at someone who stands for election, with the “payment per vote” they can just stand for a
major political party and get thousands of dollars without bothering to do any campaigning. It
40 gives them a way to “earn” an income on an election.
.
Now they want to have some golden handshake when they are kicked out of office. Next in the
private sector, a casual employee, after all parliamentarians are not elected for a permanent time,
and are not even “employees” in that regard, will also demand a golden handshake.
45 .
We have this absurdity that the Government wants to try to break unionism, while in the federal
arena doing everything to restrict as much as possible benefits to their union, whatever their
political party might be called.
.
50 Just consider this, if a Union were to make special requirements for prospective employees not
being a member of a union to have certain disabilities to be able to not applicable to people being
a member of a union. There would be a huge outcry by the Industrial Relations minister that this
can’t be allowed. Yet, the Federal Parliament has done everything to have as much as possible
26-1-2010 Page 38
the close shop mentality. When there is an election, then if you are a Member of the Parliament
you get unfair advantages against those who are not. Not just the fact that they can have in
Senate elections a square above the line, or can have access to electoral rolls but also in regard to
nominations of 1 versus 50, etc.
5 .
But we have government who are blinded by their own greed and selfishness that they do not
comprehend this discrimination.
.
Here they are forcing discrimination upon the electorate and then on the other hand argue that if
10 the same is occurring in the private sector then it is a terrible thing to do.
* I understood that the High Court of Australia has approved of what you consider to be
improper.
15 **#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI® to me those judges are at times complete idiots who don’t
know what they are talking about. If they were farting they would make as much sense as what
they claim at times.
The Pochi case is one of many examples how they appear not to understand what Australian
citizenship is about. It got simply nothing to do with being a member of the Australian
20 community to obtain Australian Citizenship.
This is the problem, as I see it, that they are political appointments. They are appointed
regardless of their incompetence in constitutional matters.
Time and again when I read their judgments, I think that even a first year law student could do
better if that student had read the Hansard as to the Constitutional Convention Debates that
25 resulted to the creation of the Federation.
As such, what the High Court of Australia claims to be often, in my view, is a lot of rubbish.
Gerrit, you better be careful. They might just take you up on a challenge?
30 So what, Let them prove me wrong. Just that we then have to find first competent judges who
have an ability to be aware what is JUSTICE. The judges themselves hardly could sit in
judgment of their own cases. They would simply railroad my cases. I would have no problem to
take them on before an International Court where independent judges would adjudicate.
They can use my books, and determine upon that material if my claims are right or wrong.
35
The above stated was published in 2003 as Chapter 27 in the book;
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & ADDRESS TO THE COURT
A book on CD, making litigation a more level playing field
40 ISBN 9580569-7-8
.
Little has changed since the publication more then 5 years ago of this Chapter.
.
45 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual allowance for their
services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at £500.
.
50 Mr. A. FORREST:
I am certain that in our colony we can get men to come for a far less sum than that; in fact, I
believe we can get men to come without payment at all. It has been a principle of our
Parliament for many years, and will be, I hope, for years to come, that members shall have
26-1-2010 Page 39
that amount of good feeling towards their country that they will not ask the country to
pay their expenses.
.
5 Clause 43.-Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the
services of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his
seat.
Mr. GORDON: I move:

10 To strike out the word "four," in the third line, with the view of inserting " five."
The ground for the motion is that £400 a year is insufficient. While some local
Parliaments are paying their resident mem- [start page 1032] bers £300 a year, £400 is not
enough for a member who has to leave-as most members of the Federal Parliament would
have to do-his colony and practically abandon his business or his profession. He would
15 have to rely either upon his private means or his parliamentary salary, which, in this case,
would be inadequate. I think, if £400 a year is fixed, the choice for members of the House
of Representatives will be limited to those who can afford to leave their business or
profession, and to those who are prepared to depend entirely on the small parliamentary
salary. While members of both of these classes are exceedingly desirable members of any
20 Parliament, I think it would be a mistake to have the whole Parliament consisting of them,
which the payment of the salary proposed would probably lead to. I think £500 is little
enough; the £100 makes all the difference to the ordinary professional or business man.
.
It is clear that the “ALLOWANCE” for members of parliament was based upon time away from
25 their ordinary employment and not be a replacement so they do not have to have any kind of
normal employment and can leisure of the earnings of taxpayers.
.
Mr. TRENWITH: I hope that Mr. Gordon's amendment will be carried. We have no
30 right to assume that the Federal Parliament will not have a good deal to do. All our
experience teaches us that, as civilisation advances, the requirements of the people increase,
and the tendency to ask Parliament to do things, that in the past have been done by
private enterprise, is increasing very rapidly. I feel confident that the Federal
Parliament, instead of having less to do as time goes on, will have a great deal more to do.
35 .
Contrary to this assertion it seems Ministers are more and more privatizing and/or outsourcing
what they should be doing and then blame whomever when something goes wrong. As such, the
monies they are receiving is I view under false pretences as they are not putting a good days
work in for it on the average of the whole year.
40 .
. Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
Clause 44. Until the parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the
senate or of the house of representatives, shall receive an allowance for his services of four
hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
45 .
Now this term “Until the parliament otherwise provides” related to the $400.00 and not to
alter “each member” to members getting different kinds of “ALLOWANCES”. Technically,
where Members of Parliament are spending different amounts on travel, phone, printing, postage,
26-1-2010 Page 40
etc then there is clearly no equal kind of “ALLOWANCE” for each member as constitutionally
required.
.
5 The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia)[5.11]: The salary, if one
were absolutely dependent upon it, does not seem very large. At the same time, I do not
members.
10 The Hon. S. FRASER: Many may be!
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: I do not think so. It is more an honorarium
.
15 Again, it is clear that Members of Parliament are not at all to receive something of yearly salary
but a reasonable compensation for loss of earnings and out of pocket expenses to travel to and
from the Parliament and so including overnight accommodation, but no more like the absurdity
of monies now paid out to them.
.
[start page 994]
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: It seems to me that if the £400 per annum is to
be considered as a salary, it is altogether inadequate. If, on the other hand, it is to be
considered an honorarium, it is too large. We must not altogether get rid of the idea that
25 there is some patriotism in the people, and that they desire to give their best services to the
state without looking at the matter from an £ s. d. point of view. I am afraid that, when
we have formed the federal parliament, we shall find that those who have businesses
which require their constant attention will not be able to leave them in order to
attend. No doubt those who live close to the seat of government will be able to go by train
30 from Melbourne or Sydney to attend to their parliamentary duties, returning now and again
to look after their ordinary business; but what about these living in colonies which are far
distant? Take the case of Western Australia. How, for instance, will members of the legal
profession be able to leave their place of business and take part in the government of the
country? They will not be able to do it. Unless they are men of some means, or have no
35 business to attend to, they will not be able to leave their homes-especially will they be
unable to take office. Their businesses would be ruined whilst they were a thousand, or a
couple of thousand miles away. I hope we shall find that those who are willing to become
members of the federal parliament will be persons who are able to devote some time to
their duties. For that reason I do not look very much at the amount of the emolument to be
40 given. It is either too little, or it is quite enough. I do not feel inclined to move that it be
reduced, or to support its reduction. At the same time I think £300 a year would be quite
sufficient. But I take it that the persons who will become members of the senate, or
house of representatives will not be persons who are altogether dependent upon this
small honorarium.
45 .
opposition to a member receiving the salary of a minister and at the same time the
salary of a member of the commonwealth parliament.
26-1-2010 Page 41
5 .
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. That would get over the difficulty. If in sub-section (2) of clause 46
you put an express reference to a certain class of insolvency, that must exclude by inference
any other class of insolvency. There is another point, and this is also a very serious one, to
10 which the Premier of Victoria drew my attention before lunch. Sub-section (3) of clause 46
provides that the seat of a senator or member of the House of Representatives is to become
vacant if he-
directly or indirectly accepts or receives any fee or honorarium for work done or service
rendered by him for and on behalf of the Commonwealth while sitting as such member.
15 No exception is made to meet the case of a Minister of the Crown. There is provision
made elsewhere in the Constitution for the payment of salary to Ministers for services
rendered to the Commonwealth, which might include his services as a senator. Clause
48A provides that-
.
Allowance to members.
48. Until The Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the
House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be
reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
25 .
Again, there never was any intention by the Framers of the Constitution that there would be
anything but equality in total payment of “ALLOWANCE to every Federal Member of
Parliament.” What this also shows there was no such thing as provisions for a Gold Pass, for
former Members of Parliament, former Governor-General’s, former ministers, former judges let
30 alone Gold passes for people like Alexander Downer mother as widow of her later husband who
had served in Parliament. What it means is that once a Member of Parliament leaves the
Parliament then all and any benefits enjoyed as a Member of Parliament no longer is applicable.
.
I now reproduced more extensively what the Framers of the Constitution debated so that the
35 Reader will understand the context of debates and that clearly any kind of “FREE TRAVEL” by
former politicians, as now reported to still to continue is a gross abuse of Consolidated Revenue
and I view each and every former Member of parliament doing so or having done so should be
held accountable before the Courts for defrauding the Commonwealth (by this the taxpayers).
No excuse they didn’t know because if ordinary people can be placed before the Courts in regard
40 of fraudulent conduct then they should too. They are getting ample of money that they can do
without having a day job and so should in the first place have researched constitutional
provisions and limitations and if they are too lazy to do so then this never should be an excuse.
.
45 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
It is provided, then, that each member of either house shall have an annual allowance for
his services, which is proposed to be fixed in the meantime at £500 a year. The ordinary
disqualifications are inserted as to members holding offices of profit, with the exception of
ministers of the Crown, or becoming public contractors and other similar provisions.
26-1-2010 Page 42
Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual
allowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time
5 to time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such
annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting
here, except to suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I
think, the best that could be adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in
10 the clause as an allowance for services is a misdescription. It is really an allowance for
the reimbursement of expenses.
Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
are not.
Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be
included at all. Why not say that each member of the senate, and of the house of
20 representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I move as an amendment:
That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies,
25 with reference to the payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought
to be inserted in the bill which are not inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act,
they will find provisions which take into consideration the salaries that are paid to
ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the
30 [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament
lapses. There is no provision of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present
contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than the bald provision already made.
Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was
being paid £500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the
35 Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions
in a rational manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to
commend it to our own judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are
likely to do well to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give
40 proper attention to further work to-night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to
what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in regard to the absence of provision on
matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting committee was
concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution with
matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the commonwealth
45 in its first session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great number of other
matters of that kind. We have, therefore, given them power to deal with this subject. We
26-1-2010 Page 43
did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a payment of members bill. We lay
down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual allowance for their
services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at £500.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.
Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an
annual allowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the
parliament from time to time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the
parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
10 Upon which Mr. Marmion had moved by way of amendment:
That the words "for his services" be omitted.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. A. FORREST: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the amount of the
allowance to be paid to the members of both houses of the federal parliament. The
15 allowance will amount to at least £100,000 for the different states, and I think it would be
better if it were left to each colony to fix the amount of the payment to members.
Mr. MUNRO: Oh, nonsense!
Mr. A. FORREST: I am sure that the colony which I have the honor to represent
will object most strongly to pay its members anything like £500 a year. At the present
20 time we have no payment of members, nor are we likely to have it in Western
Australia, and if we allow this amount to stand in the clause we shall find that the
local parliament will move in that direction. The colony is not in a position to pay any
large sum as an allowance to its members, and I protest most strongly against this
Convention in any way pledging the local parliaments to the payment-of £500 per annum to
25 members [start page 655] to attend the senate sitting in Sydney or Melbourne. I am certain
that in our colony we can get men to come for a far less sum than that; in fact, I believe we
can get men to come without payment at all. It has been a principle of our Parliament for
many years, and will be, I hope, for years to come, that members shall have that amount of
good feeling towards their country that they will not ask the country to pay their
30 expenses. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will leave it to the different state,
legislatures to arrange for the payment of their members.
Clause, as read, agreed to.
.
35 Allowance to members.
45. Each member of the Senate and House of Representatives shall receive an annual
allowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the Parliament from time
to time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the Parliament the amount of such
annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
40 .
Mr. REID: Yes, the minimum; maximum to them. That would be a change which
certainly should recommend itself to the representatives, I will not say of the smaller
States-because that term always seems to me to be entirely mistaken-I will say to the
45 smaller populations, because in the Draft Bill the Lower House -and again I do not object to
26-1-2010 Page 44
those familiar phrases to which we are accustomed-had an advantage of seventy-two
members over the Senate. Under my suggestion, however, there would be a difference of
only twenty-four. My reasons for this basis are simply these, that, having regard to the
work which it is proposed to allot to the Federal Parliament, it should not contain a [start
5 page 270] larger number of members than ninety-six. Then, again, without seeming to
belittle the system of payment of members, I think that the annual allowance might well be
fixed at £300, with a certain allowance for travelling common to all Federations, which are
generally of great extent.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: That would come to as much as £500 without travelling
10 expenses, as proposed in the Commonwealth Bill.
Mr. REID: Oh, no.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: More, I should think.
Mr. REID: The allowance I would strictly limit to something like £50.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: It would depend on where the Parliament sat.

15 Mr. REID: The free railway passes help one along very comfortably.
Mr. TRENWITH: They do not pay hotel bills.

Mr. REID: Of course, if my friend Sir Joseph Abbott has his way, and the capital is fixed
somewhere in the internal wilds of New South Wales, I admit that my figures would be
inadequate. I see, however, the chance of saving something like £50,000 per year on the
20 figures of the draft Bill. I make no difficulty about equality of representation in the Senate.
As to the franchise of the Senate, I think, in the interests of those who wish to make it a
strong national body, that they should not follow the American method.
.
25 SIR GEORGE TURNER: Before you pass on, will you look at the last words in clause
10-"Houses of Representatives." Should not that be "States Assembly?"
Mr. BARTON: That is a slip which was made at the last moment, and it should read
"States Assembly." I will propose in Committee that that should be altered. Now, I will
pass over such formal matters as the election of the President and the Speaker of either
30 House, the disqualification clauses, and so on, and come to a matter which may be as
important as to some it will be interesting, of course, in this Chamber. That is a provision
relating to both Houses, which is that, until the Parliament otherwise provides, each
member of either House of the Federal Parliament shall receive an allowance for his
services of £400 a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat. This is a
35 matter which does not require much discussion at my hands. There will be here, as
elsewhere, two opinions upon the question of payment of members. While I myself may
have seen some events which have caused me not to be so fond of the operation of that
principle as I once was-thinking that that which is apparently logical in reason will always
work out with success in legislation-still, I think there are circumstances which will be
40 taken into consideration by hon. members which make this a different question from the
question of payment of members in the provincial Parliaments. There are difficulties which
have to be considered. There is the difficulty of there being only the one Parliament and
seat of Government to govern the whole of the three million square miles of territory, and
the difficulty of attending that Parliament will be infinitely greater than that involved in
45 members attending the Parliaments of their own colonies. Inasmuch as the members of the
Federal Parliament will, without intermission, have to be in attendance for three or four
months each Session, I think the question whether they should be entitled to receive some
26-1-2010 Page 45
allowance becomes a much more serious question than it is in regard to the provincial
Legislatures. Many of those who are not much enamoured of the subject in regard to the
provincial Parliaments may have a very different opinion in regard to the Federal
Parliament. As for me, I may say I am prepared to accept the principle as it applies to the
5 Federal Parliament.
.
Clause 83.-Upon the establishment of the Commonwealth, all officers employed by the
Government of any State in any department of the Public Service, the control of which is
10 by this Constitution assigned to the Commonwealth, shall become subject to the control of
the Executive Government of the Commonwealth; and thereupon every such officer shall
be entitled to receive from the State any gratuity, pension, or retiring allowance, payable
under the law of the State on abolition of his office.
Also
15 Mr. O'CONNOR: In answer to Mr. Kingston's remark, I should like to call attention to
the wording of this clause, that he is only entitled to what becomes payable under the law
of the State on abolition of office. If the law of the State gives nothing on the abolition of
office, no right accrues to him. There would be no right to take over a pension. Of course
there would be no objection to the payment of the retiring allowance or gratuity being
20 deferred until after his services to the Commonwealth have ceased. That might be done.
What we really want to get at is that his right shall be crystallised at the time, and that the
money shall be payable not by the Commonwealth, but by the State.
Mr. HIGGINS: The State has a chance of his dying.

Mr. O'CONNOR: On the other hand, you take away from him the right that he would
25 have if he did not die.
Mr. HIGGINS: There will be a lot of grumbling.
Mr. O'CONNOR: You cannot do absolute justice in this case, and we have to do the
best we can. Something ought to be done by which the same rights should be given to
those officers whose services are taken over, and whose rights, by being taken over,
30 are Somewhat interfered with.
.
Sub-section 4-Remuneration of justices-as read agreed to.
Mr. KINGSTON: I would like to ask Mr. Barton whether he does not think it would be
35 an improvement to provide in this clause, as we have provided with regard to the salary of
the Governor, not only that it shall not be diminished during continuance in office, but that
it shall not be increased?
Mr. BARTON: I think it would.

Mr. SYMON: I hope Mr. Barton will not so readily agree to that, because there is a great
40 distinction between the appointment of the Governor-General and his salary, and the
appointment of a judge and his salary. The appointment of a Governor-General is for
four, five, or six years. The object of the clause fixing his remuneration is to prevent
him intriguing for an increase of salary during that short period; but where you are
appointing judges for life, during good behavior, the conditions are so altered that the
45 condition would not be essential.
Mr. ISAACS: Would not your argument apply to diminishing as well as to increasing?
26-1-2010 Page 46
Mr. SYMON: No; because the provision with regard to diminishing is again
introducing the principle of preventing pressure being put on on a judge.
Mr. O'CONNOR: A judge should have nothing to hope for.
Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

5 Mr. SYMON: That is a very convenient phrase, yet like other phrases it is one which
creates a good deal of misapprehension. I should only like to call the attention of Mr.
Barton to the view taken by the Federalist on this very point. It is a singular thing how little
alteration there has been in the points which have been raised on this judiciary question,
and indeed on many other questions.
10 Sir JOHN DOWNER: In fact, on any other question.
Mr. SYMON: And how little the objections have changed in the last 120 years or so in
relation to these matters. This very point was taken, that if you provided that the
remuneration of the President of the United States of America should not be increased nor
diminished during his term of office you should provide the same for the judges. This is
15 what Hamilton, in one of his exceedingly able disquisitions, not written so much
philosophically as from a practical politician's point of view, says on the point of the non-
interference by way of diminution with salaries:
It was therefore necessary to leave it to the discretion of the legislature, to vary its
provisions in conformity to the variations in circumstances, yet under such restrictions as to
20 put it out of the power of that body to change the condition of the individual for the worse.
A man may then be sure of the ground upon which he stands, and can never be deterred
from his duty by the apprehension of being placed in a less eligible situation. The clause
which has been quoted, combines both advantages. The salaries of judicial officers may
from time to time be altered, as occasion shall require, yet so as never to lessen the
25 allowance with which any particular judge comes into office, in respect to him. It will be
observed that a difference has been made by the Convention between the compensation of
the President and of the judges. That of the former can neither be increased nor diminished;
that of the latter can only not be diminished. This probably arose from the difference in the
duration of the respective offices. As the President is to be elected for no more than four
30 years, it can rarely happen that an adequate salary, fixed at the commencement of that
period, will not continue to be such to its end. But with regard to the judges, who, if they
behave properly, will be secured in their places for life, it may well happen, especially in
the early stages of the government, that a stipend, which would be sufficient at their first
appointment, would become too small in the progress of their service.
35 Mr. ISAACS: Why is not the contrary correct?
Mr. SYMON: That is the view on [start page 962] which all these provisions with
respect to the salaries of judges have been drafted, and I would beg my hon. friend not to
place too readily this provision with regard to judges' salaries on the same footing as that
which applies to an executive officer, who only holds his office for a comparatively short
40 term.
Mr. HIGGINS: When did Hamilton write that?
Mr. SYMON: After the Constitution had been framed, when he was dealing with
objections taken to its provisions
Mr. ISAACS: When he was pressing the people to accept it.
26-1-2010 Page 47
Mr. SYMON: Yes, just as, I suppose, the hon. member is trying to persuade us to reject
the proper provisions of this Constitution.
Mr. BARTON: The suggestion made is one worthy of consideration. Although it may be
that the circumstances of a new country may show that the salary which a judge is paid on
5 his accepting office becomes inadequate as time goes on, I think that is a question which he
should consider for himself before he takes office Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.
Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a
judge under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for
from Parliament or Government.
10 Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.
Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the
interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the
same sense as a federal judge is, the same circumstances remain in part; but where
you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution
15 against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it
is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected
weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may
result, whether consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements
made by the Parliament which might be dangerous to the Constitution itself. My
20 friend Mr. O'Connor points out that the most important questions that may arise may be
those between the States and the Commonwealth, the validity of State laws, and the validity
of Commonwealth laws which may overlap or override them. Those very questions which
the Senate exists to prevent may be arising and embarrassing the Constitution. The Senate
will have to exercise its powers to prevent overlapping of that kind, but if it fails to exercise
25 its authority power must be present in the court to adjust matters. You may easily conceive
a case in which there might be a desire to reward a judge for past services, and with
the view that he may be insensibly influenced in regard to future cases. I do not think
a judge should have anything to expect in that way.
Clause as read agreed to.
30 .
Clause 43.-Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the
services of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his
35 seat.
Mr. GORDON: I move:
To strike out the word "four," in the third line, with the view of inserting " five."
The ground for the motion is that £400 a year is insufficient. While some local
Parliaments are paying their resident mem- [start page 1032] bers £300 a year, £400 is not
40 enough for a member who has to leave-as most members of the Federal Parliament would
have to do-his colony and practically abandon his business or his profession. He would
have to rely either upon his private means or his parliamentary salary, which, in this case,
would be inadequate. I think, if £400 a year is fixed, the choice for members of the House
of Representatives will be limited to those who can afford to leave their business or
45 profession, and to those who are prepared to depend entirely on the small parliamentary
salary. While members of both of these classes are exceedingly desirable members of any
26-1-2010 Page 48
Parliament, I think it would be a mistake to have the whole Parliament consisting of them,
which the payment of the salary proposed would probably lead to. I think £500 is little
enough; the £100 makes all the difference to the ordinary professional or business man.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: £400 is quite enough.
5 Sir EDWARD BRADDON: £100 too much.
Mr. GORDON: I think it is a question on which the sense of the Committee should be
taken, and, without further remark, I move the amendment.
Mr. HIGGINS: I think that, having regard to the fact that the Federal Parliament will
have much less to do than the ordinary local Parliaments after the first Parliament, £400 is
10 sufficient. I am as strongly in favor of payment of members, on the grounds alluded to by
Mr. Gordon, as any man, but I say that the work done in the States Parliaments takes far
more time than will the work in the Federal Parliament, after its first meeting. It is not
likely, indeed, that the Federal Parliament will sit more than two months in the year. I
should like to strike out "four," with a view to the insertion of "three." At the same time, as
15 £400 has been fixed as a compromise, I hope it will remain at that amount as the
maximum.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: I consider that £400 is ample payment for the services of
members. In addition to that they possess the privilege of a free railway pass. The amount
proposed to be paid-£400-is twice as much as the Dominion Parliament of Canada pays its
20 members. I trust hon. members will not support the amendment to increase the amount to
£500.
Mr. TRENWITH: I hope that Mr. Gordon's amendment will be carried. We have no
right to assume that the Federal Parliament will not have a good deal to do. All our
experience teaches us that, as civilisation advances, the requirements of the people increase,
25 and the tendency to ask Parliament to do things, that in the past have been done by
private enterprise, is increasing very rapidly. I feel confident that the Federal
Parliament, instead of having less to do as time goes on, will have a great deal more to do. I
think that it will be found to the advantage of the States to hand over work to the central
Government. Of course, I can understand the objection that any sum is too much, by those
30 who disapprove of the principle of payment of members. But the principle of payment of
members has been adopted throughout all the colonies. It was adopted after a good deal of
resistance on the part of those who disapprove of it, which showed the strong growing
public feeling in favor of paying members for the work they do, and of looking upon the
position of a member of Parliament not merely as a position of honor, but rather regarding
35 them as State servants who are paid for their work. We are paid not merely to reimburse us
for expenses incurred, and to pay members of the Federal Parliament £500 a year would be
little enough, considering that during a portion of the year they will have to be great
distances from their established homes.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It will cost them nothing to travel.
40 Mr. TRENWITH: That is a very popular delusion.
[start page 1033]
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Let them keep out of Parliament.
Mr. TRENWITH: That is exactly the idea. I say let the people have the widest
possible area of selection for Parliament in order that all sections may be represented.
26-1-2010 Page 49
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: To keep a lot of idle fellows doing nothing.
HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
Mr. TRENWITH: I am anxious that members of Parliament should not be idle fellows.
In the non-payment days a great many members were idle fellows who looked upon a seat
5 in Parliament as an addition to their social position, who cared very little for its worth, and
in some instances who paid themselves very handsomely by the opportunities they had.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: You cannot say that with truth. That is a most scandalous
assertion!
Mr. TRENWITH: It is the truth.
10 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Quite scandalous. You have no right to make such a statement.
Mr. TRENWITH: I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort, but when Sir
William Zeal talks about idle fellows, he brings upon himself, naturally and properly, the
rejoinder I have made.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON: A most unjust rejoinder.
15 Mr. TRENWITH: In some of the colonies the best lands and water-frontages-the very
eyes of the colonies, in fact-were mopped up by members of Parliament during the regime
of non-payment of members.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: How many of them?

Mr. TRENWITH: As I said before I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort.
20 Mr. WALKER: What you say may be the case in Victoria, you know.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It is a gross exaggeration.
Mr. TRENWITH: I am not speaking merely of Victoria. I lived during the early part of
my life in a nice little colony which suffered in the same way.
Mr. WALKER: Do you mean Van Diemen's Land?
25 Mr. TRENWITH: I mean Tasmania. I was pointing out that the instincts of our people
tend towards payment of members of Parliament for their work. My hon. friend, Sir
William Zeal, interjected that we have free railway passes. I would remark that any person
who knows anything about travel must recognise that it carries with it a large amount of
expense. Those who are here, away from their homes, know that if they were getting £400 a
30 year for this work, they would be losing money, and they would not even be reimbursed
for the expenditure incurred. Those who urge that the amount should be left as proposed
in the Bill, are not in favor of payment of members, but are simply favorable to reimbursing
members for the disbursements they make in connection with the performance of their
duties.
35 Mr. HIGGINS: I was always in favor of payment of members.
Mr. TRENWITH: I feel confident that my hon. friend Mr. Higgins could not have
looked thoroughly at the question or he would not have spoken as he did.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: He is losing now ten times as much as he will ever get for being
here, but he is bearing it cheerfully.
26-1-2010 Page 50
Mr. TRENWITH: There are some who could not afford to lose anything at all.
Parliament is to be composed, as it ought to be, of representatives of all sections of the
community. There must be in Parliament some who cannot afford to lose anything at all,
and who must be paid for their services, and if those services are worth having, there ought
5 to be adequate remuneration for them. I sincerely hope that the higher figure will be [start
page 1034] adopted, not because I believe in extravagance, but because I believe that any
lesser sum will not pay members of Parliament for their work.
Question-That the word "four," proposed to be struck out, stand part of the question-put.
The Committee divided.
10 Ayes, 26; Noes, 9. Majority, 17.
.
Clause 44. Until the parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the
senate or of the house of representatives, shall receive an allowance for his services of four
15 hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
Suggested amendment by the Legislative Council of South Australia and the Legislative
Council and House of Assembly of Tasmania:
Omit "four" insert "three."

The Hon. J.H. GORDON (South Australia)[5.8]: I hope the suggested amendment will not
20 be agreed to. I shall only repeat now, in a few words, the contention I made when the
Convention sat in Adelaide: that if the salary is made too low it will result in either men of
independent means or men to whom the salary itself is sufficient inducement to leave their
colonies becoming members of the federal parliament. Whilst in both these classes we may
have able and desirable representatives, I think it would be a mistake that the character of
25 the representatives should be confined, as it will to a large extent be confined if the salary is
made too small, to those two classes of the community.
The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[5.9]: I would suggest that it would not be
conducive to obtaining the service of the best men in the parliament of the commonwealth
if the salary were made equal to that of members of one of the state parliaments. The salary,
30 for instance, in the Parliament of New South Wales, is £300, and membership does not
involve absence from the colony during the session. In the case of most of the colonies,
however, after the commonwealth is established, membership will involve absence from
home during the whole of the session. Under such circumstances, the competition is
relatively less in the case of the commonwealth than in the case of the states.
35 The Hon. S. FRASER (Victoria)[5.10]: I think £400 per annum is little enough to pay to
representatives who come from distant colonies. I think, however, some distinction should
be made.
HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
The Hon. S. FRASER: It is done in other countries.

40 The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia)[5.11]: The salary, if one were
absolutely dependent upon it, does not seem very large. At the same time, I do not
members.
45 The Hon. S. FRASER: Many may be!

26-1-2010 Page 51
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: I do not think so. It is more an honorarium
The Hon. E. BARTON: We should either give a man nothing, or make it worth his
5 while to attend!
[start page 994]
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: It seems to me that if the £400 per annum is to
be considered as a salary, it is altogether inadequate. If, on the other hand, it is to be
considered an honorarium, it is too large. We must not altogether get rid of the idea that
10 there is some patriotism in the people, and that they desire to give their best services to the
state without looking at the matter from an £ s. d. point of view. I am afraid that, when
we have formed the federal parliament, we shall find that those who have businesses
which require their constant attention will not be able to leave them in order to
attend. No doubt those who live close to the seat of government will be able to go by train
15 from Melbourne or Sydney to attend to their parliamentary duties, returning now and again
to look after their ordinary business; but what about these living in colonies which are far
distant? Take the case of Western Australia. How, for instance, will members of the legal
profession be able to leave their place of business and take part in the government of the
country? They will not be able to do it. Unless they are men of some means, or have no
20 business to attend to, they will not be able to leave their homes-especially will they be
unable to take office. Their businesses would be ruined whilst they were a thousand, or a
couple of thousand miles away. I hope we shall find that those who are willing to become
members of the federal parliament will be persons who are able to devote some time to
their duties. For that reason I do not look very much at the amount of the emolument to be
25 given. It is either too little, or it is quite enough. I do not feel inclined to move that it be
reduced, or to support its reduction. At the same time I think £300 a year would be quite
sufficient. But I take it that the persons who will become members of the senate, or
house of representatives will not be persons who are altogether dependent upon this
small honorarium. If there are no persons on this continent willing to give up some time
30 without much reward to the service of the state, then I take it we are far from being ready to
take upon ourselves the responsibilities of this federal government. If we expect that this
small amount of £400 a year will be a sufficient inducement to persons to give their
services, and, if they have nothing else but this, I think we shall have very indigent persons
as members of both houses of parliament. No one would say that any of the gentlemen I see
35 around me would leave their businesses, and go away to the federal parliament, and that
£400 a year would recompense them for the loss they would sustain. That is not thought of
for a moment. The actual loss they would sustain, if they had businesses to attend to in their
own colony, instead of being represented by £400, would amount to several times more
than that. I hope we shall not for a moment think that the persons who are to be members of
40 the senate and house of representatives will be persons who will depend altogether upon the
small amount named in this bill. If it were so, all I can say is, the amount seems to me
inadequate.
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS (Victoria)[5.19]: I take it that our great object in electing two
houses of parliament as representatives of the people is to see that the people are
45 represented. It is impossible, having regard to the immense area of the continent, that the
people can be adequately represented if the choice is restricted by want of means on the
part of would-be representatives, and I think the only doubt in this matter is whether £400
is enough.
The Hon. Sir W.A. ZEAL: That is twice as much as the amount paid in Canada!
26-1-2010 Page 52
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: It is perfectly plain that anything less than £400 would be a
farce. If there was a proposal to [start page 995] increase the amount, it might be a matter
for Consideration; but we ought not to hesitate to retain at least £400 a year.
Question-That the word "four" proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause -agreed to.
5 Amendment suggested by the Legislative Assembly of Victoria:
Omit "on which he takes his seat," insert of his election."
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS (Victoria)[5.21]: If we say that the honorarium shall be reckoned
from the day on which the member takes his seat, it may be very hard indeed on the
members of the house of representatives. The house might not be sitting at the time of an
10 election. Indeed, it might be the case with a member of the senate. A vacancy might occur,
a member might be elected, and might have to commence his services and perform all the
duties of his position and get none of its emoluments. If we were to adopt the amendment
suggested by Victoria, and omit the words "on which he takes his seat," inserting the
words "of his election," there would be a difficulty in the case of the senate; because
15 the date of the election of the senators is previous to the 1st of January, so that by
omitting these words you might be paying two people at the same time. I would
suggest to the Drafting Committee that they should adopt some such words as these
"from the day on which his services commence." That would apply in the case of a
member of the house of representatives to the day of his election, and in a case of a
20 senator to the date from which his services were actually reckoned.
Mr. SYMON: Does not a senator begin his services on the day of his election?
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: A senator is elected in the year preceding the 1st of January,
and his predecessor, so to speak, retains his office until the expiration of the year.
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia)[5.23]: I would point out to the hon. and learned member
25 that his suggestion does not go quite far enough. Under clause l3 the services of the first
senator, or the senators of the first parliament, commence from the January preceding the
date of his election. So that if the suggestion of the hon. and learned member is carried out
we shall be paying a man for time be does not serve.
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: It is the date on which the law deems his services to have
30 commenced!
Mr. GLYNN: Does not the hon. and learned member know that under clause 13, in the
case of the senators of the first parliament, instead of their services dating from the January
succeeding the election, they date from the January preceding the election; so that if you
say that the payment shall date from the commencement of their services, in such general
35 terms, you will be paving the first senators for time they never served. I would suggest that
the clause should be amended in this way:
That after the words "on which he takes his seat" we should add the words "in the case of
a senator, the commencement of his services."
That would be the January succeeding the date of his election, and I think also the date
40 when the term of office of the old senator would expire, so that there would be no
overlapping. Then I should add the words "and in the case of a member of the house of
representatives, from the day of his election." In the case of the first election of the senate
the allowance should be reckoned from the date of the election. That would be right as
regards the first senators, because the date of their election would also be the date on which
26-1-2010 Page 53
their real services commenced, though theoretically the date of their services would be
from the January preceding.
[start page 996]
The CHAIRMAN: There are some new clauses proposed by South Australia and
5 Tasmania to follow clause 44, and I shall first put clause 44 to the Committee.
Clause 44 agreed to.
New clause to follow clause 44 suggested by the Legislative Council of South Australia:
No member of the senate or house of representatives whilst in receipt, out of the general
revenue, of any official Wary or annual sum shall be entitled to receive any such payment
10 as aforesaid, except in so far as such payment may exceed the amount of such official
salary or annual sum.
The Hon. E. BARTON: I would suggest that we should not pass this proposed new
clause. It is a mere matter of legislation for the commonwealth to consider.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia)[5.25]: I think it would be very undesirable to agree to this
15 proposal. It is very unlikely that any minister would refuse to deduct from his official salary
the salary he receives as a member of the house of representatives. Besides that, if any
provision of the kind be necessary, it will be competent for the federal parliament to pass it.
There is no need to put the provision in this constitution.
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia)[5.26]: What I want to know is
20 whether it will be competent for a minister to receive a salary as a member of the
house of representatives in addition to the emolument attached to his ministerial
office? I should say that he ought not to receive the two remunerations, and that is in
accord with our present practice.
The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[5.27]: This is not a matter to be provided
25 against in the constitution. We may rely upon the parliaments of the different colonies
to provide against the receipt of the two salaries by their members while members of
the commonwealth parliament, and the parliament of the commonwealth will make a
similar provision in regard to its own officers.
The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST: But this provision does not refer to states!
30 The Hon. E. BARTON: It maybe the case in a state or in the commonwealth. In any,
case there is a competent authority to make the provision, and there is no need to put it in
the constitution.
opposition to a member receiving the salary of a minister and at the same time the
35 salary of a member of the commonwealth parliament.
40 New clause negatived.

.
26-1-2010 Page 54
Mr. HIGGINS.-Ought you not to have the same phrase in sub-section (2) as you have in
sub-section (3) of clause 45?
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. That would get over the difficulty. If in sub-section (2) of clause 46
you put an express reference to a certain class of insolvency, that must exclude by inference
5 any other class of insolvency. There is another point, and this is also a very serious one, to
which the Premier of Victoria drew my attention before lunch. Sub-section (3) of clause 46
provides that the seat of a senator or member of the House of Representatives is to become
vacant if he-
directly or indirectly accepts or receives any fee or honorarium for work done or service
10 rendered by him for and on behalf of the Commonwealth while sitting as such member.
No exception is made to meet the case of a Minister of the Crown. There is provision
made elsewhere in the Constitution for the payment of salary to Ministers for services
rendered to the Commonwealth, which might include his services as a senator. Clause
48A provides that-
15 Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator, and each member of the House of
Representatives, shall receive for his services an allowance of £400 a year, to be reckoned
from the day on which he takes his seat.
The allowance spoken of there might be regarded as an honorarium, or as a fee, but

it is an allowance for "services," which is the word used in sub-section (3) of clause
20 46.
[start page 1944]
Mr. LYNE.-What would be the position of a barrister or solicitor voting in connexion.

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

Constitution.

Allowance to members.
48. Until The Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the
House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be
reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
40
.
Again;
26-1-2010 Page 55
5 idea that members of parliament are actually paid a salary for their work, which they
are not.
.
QUOTE Chapter 444
Chapter 444 – remuneration tribunal-gay-constitution
10 .
* Gerrit, a subject you may not get too many friends with, am I right?
.
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I give my views as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” first and I
view as such there is no constitutional powers to provide for Federal or State legislation as
15 demanded.
.
Monica Attard, Media Watch ABC
Cc;
20 The Australian
Alan Ramsey
25 Monica,
On Monday 23-7-2007 I noticed you lagging in onto of The Australian as to the fact
of homosexual Michal Kirby J of the High Court of Australia having claimed travel and other
cost for his travelling as a judge for his male companion van Vloten.
30 I had the impression that you were a lawyer and if so then surely I had expected you to do some
ground research rather then to criticise a person without, so to say, having done your homework.
Unless the Remuneration Tribunal is in the constitution given powers to override constitutional
provisions, I view, as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” it makes not one of iota difference that the
35 Remunerations Tribunal has decided in 2004, as it will remain unconstitutional and so without
legal force. The fact that Alan Ramsey in his 29 May 2004 article (you referred to) did not raise
the constitutional issue does not make it lawful!
In my view, Michael Kirby J of the High Court of Australia is defrauding the commonwealth of
40 Australia Consolidated Revenue if he is claiming travel cost and other cost associated to his
companion as I view that this is and remains unlawful!
Below I have set out some argument to indicate misconceptions by the High Court of Australia
and the fact that Michael Kirby J is a judge of the High Court of Australia ought not give him
45 any special position to be in breach of law, as I view he is.
See also my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-

ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
50 Please note the following Chapter of my forthcoming book;
Chapter 000J-remuneration tribunal-gay-constitution.doc

26-1-2010 Page 56
* Gerrit, did you ever get the FOI requested details/information you requested years ago about
the allegations of Kirby J of the High Court of Australia allegedly picking up males using
taxpayers funded taxis?
5 **#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, so far they never provided them to me and neither Kirby J
himself
* Why would it be important to you?
10 **#** Once I was driving taxis and knows what goes on and as such could have checked if the
details/information provided and that which was recorded on the files of the High Court of
Australia as to cost may in fact have revealed something to me ordinary would not be picked up
by others. But, so far for years I didn’t get it and to me this may imply there was something that
might be sought to kept hidden.
15
* Didn’t a Senator Bill Heffernan pursue that issue once and later apologizes?
**#** Well, he may have but that has nothing to do with the fact that I may have a better
understanding how it operates and as such could have detected from the records something that
20 he may never have been able to detect, if there was anything at all to be detected.
* But doesn’t Kirby J already live for a long time in a relationship?
**#** Well, the rumor is that he was living in breach of law while he was a Judge of a Court in
25 NSW. As such, he was in breach of law residing in a homosexual relationship while at the bench
dealing with offenders. To me one must be a hypocrite to take such a double standard of how the
law applies. I view he was unfit to be a judge of the High Court of Australia. And, I view he is
defrauding the taxpayers to claim for his homosexual partner.
30 * But didn’t the Remuneration Tribunal make a so called “Kirby clause” to allow same sex
partners to be claimed for?
**#** It may or may not have but that to me is not relevant. It was reported that Kirby seeks the
PM (Prime Minister) to provide for his homosexual partner to be entitled to pension benefits but
35 to me that is also unconstitutional.
As I have set out below;

QUOTE
Therefore, I take the position that the Remuneration Tribunal cannot have a greater powers,
40 acting as an agent for the Commonwealth of Australia then the Commonwealth of Australia
has itself and hence cannot allow payments for so to say same sex couples, and hence I
view Michael Kirby J is defrauding the Consolidated Revenue to claim for his male
companion.
END QUOTE
45
* Hold on Kirby J is a judge of the High Court of Australia and surely he would know what is
and isn’t permissible?
**#** Well, not just him but also other High Court of Australia judges may lack any competence
50 in certain constitutional issues, and we (as a society) end up with the rot. As I published already
on 27-5-2007 the Books setting out why the High Court of Australia was so wrong about the
validity of the so called WorkChoices legislation, and my 30 September 2003 published book for
26-1-2010 Page 57
example set out citizenship, and what it really is about, I keep exposing the incompetence of
High Court of Australia judges.
Now take for example THE QUEEN v. PEARSON; Ex parte SIPKA (1983) 152 CLR 254 case
and what I view the utter and sheer nonsense that is stated in that judgement. Sure, the judges did
5 not then consider the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution appropriately because they
ignored to use the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates until 1992, but still
that is no excuse.
Take for example the issue of “franchise” which is part of the political rights of “citizenship”.
10 Now, as shown below the Framers of the Constitution voted against the Commonwealth of
Australia to allow the Commonwealth of Australia to legislate as to define/declare “citizenship”.
Now, “citizenship” is not a “nationality” but again the “political rights” of a person.
.
15 Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with
regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the
Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted
elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is
20 not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
.
What the Framers of the Constitution made clear is that the Commonwealth of Australia within
subsection 30 could alter the “adult” age from 21 to lower but if it were to do so it had to be
uniform law that is permitted by all States. As they made clear the Commonwealth could not
25 provide a liberal voting provision not existing in a State.
The “Adult” age was put in place because that way it allowed any State to allow in State
elections to have the so called “baby franchise” of children to vote but by Section 41 of the
Constitution they could not vote in Federal elections unless they were of “adult age”.
Likewise, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that if any State were to subsequently after
30 federation amend its franchise to allow women to vote then this was already provided for in
Section 41 of the Constitution.
They made clear that unless and until all “adult” in a State were entitled to vote only half of the
people were to be counted.
They made clear that States could not be forced to allow women to vote merely because in
35 Section 41 of the Constitution it was provided for “adult” and as such included women, as not
unless a State itself provided for this could this be accepted.
Reading the THE QUEEN v. PEARSON; Ex parte SIPKA (1983) 152 CLR 254 case it is very
clear to me the judges didn’t have a clue what Section 41 of the Constitution stands for and
40 neither that it remained applicable and still is.
Indeed, on 19 July 2006 I succeeded in my appeals regarding FAILING TO VOTE on that the
Commonwealth of Australia was specifically denied to make registration and voting compulsory.
The fact that a private members bill was introduced in 1924 does not make it lawful where the
45 Federal Government in 1915 abandoned a Section 128 of the Constitution referendum to permit
compulsory voting.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance
of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land,
50 and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution
and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
26-1-2010 Page 58
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name
of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since
unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date
of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as
5 inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it
purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no
duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone,
affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .
10 A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot
operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the
fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
15 Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
Now, take for example the nonsense of the following;

JAMES ANDREW McGINTY AND OTHERS v THE STATE OF WESTERN
AUSTRALIA F.C. 96/001
20 COURT
BRENNAN CJ(1), DAWSON(2), TOOHEY(3), GAUDRON(4), McHUGH(5) AND
GUMMOW(6) JJ
HRNG
25 CANBERRA, 12-14 September 1995
JUDGE1 BRENNAN CJ.
6.
30 Aborigines, who were once constitutionally disqualified from the franchise, are no longer
so disqualified.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that any Aboriginal who had obtained colonial
(State) franchise could vote in Federal elections and nothing the commonwealth could do to deny
35 this.
Indeed, Chinese and other nationals who had paid their POL TAX (prior to federation) also were
entitled to vote and so voted in Federal elections. Indeed, they were promised they would not
loose their right to vote.
It must be understood to be a very simple principle.
40 Some Colonies (now States), allowed people, regardless of their nationality, to vote in local
elections and so the election of lawmakers (being elected Members of Parliament. Hence, they
had also to vote in the referendums to hand over some of the colonial powers to the
Commonwealth of Australia. It means that the legislative powers previously dealt with by the
local Parliament now were in the hands of the Commonwealth of Australia. Now why on earth
45 would then a State elector be denied to vote in federal elections? This is a total and utter
nonsense.
Section 30 of the Constitution never intended to railroad the State citizenship as is shown in the
quotation below of the Hansard that a State citizen is a Commonwealth citizen (Australian
citizen) without definition at all. What Section 30 was is to allow the Commonwealth to broaden
50 franchise, but without forcing any State to follow suit. You cannot have that a person could vote
in a Federal election but not in a State election.
26-1-2010 Page 59
Therefore, regardless that women within Section 41 of the Constitution would be entitled to vote,
it could not be allowed unless they had first obtained State franchise! It is the State franchise that
determined if a person could vote or not in federal elections.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear they were not going to have the Commonwealth of
5 Australia interfere with the rights of any citizen’s franchise. Therefore, if a person is a State
citizen and by this has franchise then regardless if the commonwealth closes its rolls Section 41
of the Constitution protects their right to vote nevertheless in Federal elections provided they are
enrolled on a State roll by election date of a federal election. Territories are considered quasi
States for this.
10
* Excuse me but we were talking about Kirby J and didn’t you go off the deep end a bit?
**#** No, not at all, as I was giving you an example about how wrong the High Court of
Australia is about “citizenship” and ignoring that Aboriginals were entitled to vote and did so if
15 they had State franchise since federation!
Now, if the judges for over 100 years have not been able to manage to comprehend that
“Australian citizenship” is a political rights that includes franchise and is not a “nationality” then
does this not underline they did better to be educated in constitutional provisions and limitations?
20 * OK, and what has got this to do with Kirby charging taxpayers for his male companion to
travel with him?
**#** Well, I have given you an example how wrong the High Court of Australia is about
“citizenship” what it stands for and franchise, etc, and again below I have quoted some further
25 information. Now, the same is with what the powers are or aren’t of the Remuneration Tribunal.
Now, lets give you a simple example. Say, that you are having flats for rent and you make with
each person renting a flat a lease.
30 * Yes.
**#** Now, the tenants decided among themselves that they do not like the restrictions of the
lease and mutual agree that they change the terms of the leases.
35 * They can’t as I am the owner of the property and unless I agree they can do nothing about it.
**#** Well, the people of Australia have given the Commonwealth of Australia a
PURPETUAL LEASE by the terms of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution act 1900
(UK) and unless and until by way of Section 128 of the Constitution referendum(s) is/are held it
40 cannot be changed a bit!
* Moment, the High Court of Australia did validate the Australia Act 1986, didn’t they?
**#** To me that was an act of TREASON.

45 .
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable
member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to
point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid
50 if they had another motive.
.
Mr. OCONNOR.-
26-1-2010 Page 60
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this
case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform
to it.
5 .
Mr. GORDON.-
The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution
we will have to wipe it out."
10 And
Mr. BARTON.-
The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that
which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power
given.
15
Again;
In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to
conform to it.
.
20 Therefore, the Federal Parliament cannot legislate as to a purported substitute constitution, as it
never had such legislative powers!
.
Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
“In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual
25 injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal
is of the essence of the conspiracy.”
.
HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
30 Mr. ISAACS:
There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to
pass that line would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely to
abandon the principle of responsible government, when we are invited to surrender the
latest-born, but, as I think, the noblest child of our constitutional system-a system which
35 has not only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the liberties of our people-then,
.
In my view it would be TREASON by the High Court of Australia to purport the validity of the
Australia act 1986.
Fancy this, the High Court of Australia under the British Crown has been handing down
40 judgments till 1996 and then suddenly declares that since 1986 they have been operating under a
Queen of Australia! Now, the Commonwealth of Australia is a “political union” and not at all a
country, republic, kingdom, dominion or empire and as such it cannot have its own Queen.
Australians are constitutionally born or naturalised “subjects of the British Crown”;
.
45 As Barton made clear on 2-3-1898
“We are all alike subjects of the British Crown.”
Now, how stupid would it be that without any Section 128 of the Constitution referendum
50 somehow they entire application of the Constitution is amended. Just sheer and utter nonsense.
Either we have a Constitution or not!
.
26-1-2010 Page 61
So, on the basis that our 1900 Constitution is they only valid constitution and we must consider
the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution, such as in regard of the marriage powers,
then….
5 * By jolly you have finally managed to get somehow to a relevant point, did you?
**#** Look, unless you explain matters the Reader may wonder how it all applies. Anyhow, at
the time of framing the constitution the marriage powers was that to deal with one man and one
woman becoming married. They did not have something like one man and one beast, one woman
10 and one beast, one man and another man, one woman and another woman, but simply just one
man and one woman. Subsection 51(xxii) was originally with the “marriage” but then was later
split from it as to deal with custody and guardianship “in relation thereto” as to marriage break-
ups. In fact the draft committee had changed the DRAFT constitution by September 1897 and
there was a protest that this had been done without the approval of the Delegates attending to the
15 convention and their concern was that it may relate to any child, and hence the term “in relation
thereto” related to divorce.
As such, constitutionally children not being of a marriage are beyond legislative powers of the
Commonwealth of Australia.
20 * Moment, didn’t the States refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia in 1986
regarding children not being of a marriage?
**#** That is unconstitutional as Section 123 of the Constitution provides that any changing of
the legislative “limits” of a State must be approved by a State referendum! And there is more to it
25 as set out in my already published books.
Anyhow, as “marriage” is between one man and one woman then any Commonwealth law must
represent this. Hence, the Remuneration Tribunal cannot circumvent constitutional limitations
and provide for homosexuals and/or lesbians to have partner benefits as it is in breach of
Subsection 51(xxi) of the Constitution, as this marriage power has embedded that it is between a
30 man and a woman.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that any power exercised by the Commonwealth of
Australia had to be considered in totality of the entire constitution. Likewise any laws regarding
marriage cannot deal with “religion” albeit judges still do.
.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution
should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we
consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any
40 alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly
have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the
people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident
that too much care has not been exercised.
.

Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs)
is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672]
one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the
provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting
50 together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material
they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be
26-1-2010 Page 62
incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least
degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these
provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable;
and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be
5 very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no
word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in
time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and
an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which
we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now
10 contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every
clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
.
Therefore, any provision of payments to judges is bound by the marriage legislation as you
cannot have Commonwealth legislation that on the one hand dictates a marriage is between one
15 woman and one man and on the other hand recognises gay and/or lesbian relationships or de
facto relationships as this interferes with the marriage concept. Likewise the issue of conception
of children is to be deemed a marriage issue and I for one therefore do not accept that States can
legislate as to IVF for gay/lesbians and/or de facto couples people because it would interfere with
the marriage legislative powers. If gay/lesbian and/or de facto couples desire marriage like
20 benefits/rights etc then the best they can do is to pursue the Constitution to be amended to
achieve that, not that I seek to promote such a cause!
.
If you are going to claim that the Remuneration Tribunal can despite Subsection 51(xxi) still
make regulations as to homosexuals/lesbians then likewise it could then make regulations
25 regarding religion, etc. Clearly a nonsense.
Therefore, I take the position that the Remuneration Tribunal cannot have a greater powers,
acting as an agent for the Commonwealth of Australia then the Commonwealth of Australia has
itself and hence cannot allow payments for so to say same sex couples, and hence I view Michael
30 Kirby J is defrauding the Consolidated Revenue to claim for his male companion.
* What about taxation?
**#** I view that is the same. The Commissioner of Taxation cannot somehow allow for same-
35 sex couples to benefit as if they are a married couple. Likewise so with Social Security, etc.
Look, homosexual were complaining for a long time that what they did in their bedrooms should
be left to them to decide. Well, they got their freedom but since then more and more are
corrupting the rights of others.
40 If they do not want to enter a marriage with a person of an opposite sex then that is their right,
but they cannot demand then the benefits of such a marriage. To make it simple. If you drive a
pushbike to work because you do not want to incur the cost of petrol then you cannot expect to
have the comforts of driving a car.
45 * But aren’t people gay because of something they have in their gene’s or something like that?
**#** To me that is a lot of bull. Sure, they are presenting all kinds of purported medical
evidence but the issue is how much reliable is this.
I had 3 brothers and two sisters…
50
* You say had. Did one die?
**#** Well, let me explain.

26-1-2010 Page 63
My second eldest brother was a seaman and always telling how he was having an other woman
in every tow. But he and my oldest brother were always after any girlfriend that I had at the time.
Well., I got fed up with that and so arranged for them both to date a colleague of my girlfriend,
and both married them. Subsequently I broke of with this girlfriend (I had my reasons) and later
5 became married to my first wife and this ex girlfriend was standing there crying her head of and
even years later was trying to get my brothers to talk me into still getting married to her.
* But you were already married, weren’t you?
10 **#** Yes, and no intention to get a divorce. Anyhow, lets get back to my second eldest brother.
He was surely hot on woman and ended up eventually with three children.
* So what is wrong with that?
15 **#** Well, he was married and I had moved as a teenager to Germany and was living there
when he came to visit. During the night he ended up raping me. So, I discovered he was not just
heterosexual but also appeared to be bi-sexual.
* Well doesn’t that happen to many?

20
**#** That is not yet the end of it either. He had an accident aboard a ship, that he had a fall and
then subsequently had a sex change and even married a bloke, became a widow (by natural
causes I am told) and from there on I don’t know. So, he had a bit of everything.
When my mother died and my father was moved to a home my former second eldest brother
25 (“it) then robbed my parents place empty. His lawyers claiming that my mother had died leaving
only debts.
* Did she?
30 **#** Of course not.
* How did you know?
**#** Because “it” lawyers were making clear that if I did not assign my rights over they would
35 take me to Court. I made clear that if there was no money why then take me to Court? In any
event I refused to sign any document, despite all kind of demands by the lawyers.
* What happened?
40 **#** I never heard of it again. “It” went then travelling around the world, and I have little doubt
that my parents monies were being used as the Court, had given him executive powers. My
mothers body was dumped in a poor grave.
Years later, when my father died, “it” again was appointed by the Court as executive and again
“it” had arranged for my fathers body to be dumped in a poor grave. Just that I phoned the
45 undertaker in Europe and directed him to burry my father in a special private grave, and my wife
and I would pay for it.
* Did you?
50 **#** Of course I did. At the very least this is the honour my dad was entitled upon. None of the
other sibling paid towards the grave! Still my wife and I do not regret this at all. Because the
grave is in Europe my eldest sister has been given part ownership of the grave so she can
maintain the grave. Now, here we had my experience with “it” and the general conduct of
26-1-2010 Page 64
thievery and immoral conduct and anyone who is to say that it is in his gene’s may have his/her
head read.
With MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®, a special lifeline service since 1982, I have
5 been dealing with many persons who were having their sexual orientations and also who saw
nothing wrong in sexual abusing children and their general position was what was their right.
The same with those gay couples, it is all about their rights. Who gives a darn about the right of
the children forced to live in their conditions? Who give a darn about the right of children to have
a natural environment? Many gay people argue that they can be better parents then heterosexual
10 are, well I can say that I might be a better car owner then my neighbour does this mean I can take
his car? Certainly not!
Some 25 years ago, a friend of my had her sister in law being a lesbian. I gave her a 24 gold
bracelet as a present, as it didn’t worry me what her lifestyle was, she was just a very nice
person. She and her lesbian girlfriend made clear that they were in it for the rest of their life. A
15 few years later I heard that she had given birth to a baby since she had become married to her
husband. I was informed that she had given up being a lesbian and now only desired to be a
heterosexual, not bi-sexual. Now, if it was in a persons gene’s or whatever to be gay then hardly
could they just like that give it up. Yet I experienced time and again both woman and men to do
so.
20
I have been dealing with gay people for some 25 years, with the special lifeline service, and do
not seek to cast judgment upon them, but it is another thing when we have them demanding the
rights that goes with marriage.
So what if other judges take their wives on trips paid for by the taxpayers, at least they are
25 lawfully married, and so entitled to do so within constitutional principles.
If two men between themselves can create a child then they may constitute a natural family and
if two women between themselves can create a child then the same applies, but if they can’t then
that is the end of it.
30
* What about a man and a woman who cannot have a baby?
**#** Well, my wife, being retired long ago, hardly would be able to conceive but in a natural
way a man and a woman can conceive. Sure, at times both partners in the marriage may have a
35 certain problem preventing any pregnancy but that does not make them any less to be a family
and being entitled to be married. We neither can demand that a woman should have a baby as
that is the choice of the woman if she desires to conceive or not.
* So you do not tow the line with Bill Heffernan?

40
**#** Well, last time I saw Julia Gillard on television she certainly did look to be a woman. I
cannot see why her capabilities in the Parliament or otherwise in government would be
handicapped because she doesn’t have a child. Considering the antics of Kirsty Marshall, I rather
prefer a woman in Parliament who can concentrate on what she is elected for to do.
45 Anyhow, getting back to “marriage” powers this is clearly a prohibition against same-sex couples
as at the time of the creation of the Constitution the Framers didn’t contemplate to deal with so
called same sex couples.
If you are crazy enough to argue that “marriage” in the Constitution does not deny specifically
same sex couples to marry, then you have to also argue it does not deny as such a human and an
50 animal to get married. The true application of the Constitution however is in the Hansard records
of the Constitution Convention Debates, as the Framers themselves made that clear.
Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
26-1-2010 Page 65
Mr. BARTON.-
this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government
5 And
Mr. BARTON.-
We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that
guarantee.
10 And
Mr. BARTON.-
Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in
effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies,
15 and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been
the work of Australians.
And
Mr. BARTON.-
Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive
20 which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution;
and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
Mr. DEAKIN.-
25 And
Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
30 a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
whom it will embrace and unite.
And
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of
35 Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna
Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of
greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question
upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter
was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be
40 given by the people of Australia to themselves.
And
Mr. BARTON.-
We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of
the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is
45 above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are
the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-
shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to
serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind,
enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by
50 slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away
in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be
maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the
final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular
26-1-2010 Page 66
liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth.
5 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
* The last quotation makes you point very clear about the purported Australia Act 1986, doesn’t
it?
10 **#** Yes, it does. Hence if the Commonwealth of Australia does not have any legislative
powers to pas any Constitution then what is the purported Australia Act 1986 about? And, as I
have already extensively canvassed in my recent published books, the judges neither had any
constitutional powers to declare such a purported legislation to be constitutional valid. And there
is a lot more to it.
15
* I gather from this that you hold the Remunerations Tribunal is acting in breach of the
Constitution, do they?
**#** If they intended to refer to gay couples having the rights of a married couple then it would
20 be. they same as setting the salaries for Ministers of the crown, which it has no powers to do so
as the Constitution stipulates that it must be paid to the British Crown. And, there are maximum
7 minister allowed in a Government!
* How is that?
25
**#** Because that is embedded in the Constitution, and Barton in fact refused to appoint more
because of this! That is why two members of the federal executive were without portfolio in
1901. As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I pursue to make it my business to research this kind of
material.
30
* From what you have stated and what is to follow I take it we are not having a nationality of
“Australian citizenship” but are still “British nationals””
**#** You are correct, and just read what follows, and do not forget to read also the following
35 mentioned Chapters at the very least;
Chapter 000D 3+ (3) To have every blue-eyed baby killed (9761 Characters)
Chapter 001 19 (19) CREATION OF THE CONSTITUTION (60605 Characters)
Chapter 002 5+ (5) OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN (15263 Characters)
Chapter 003 30+ (30) LEGAL FICTION - persona designata (113744 Characters)
40 Chapter 004 28 Is our Constitution Safe
Chapter 005 6+ (6) The Westminster Act is ULTRA VIRES (19366 Characters)
Chapter 006 36&a,b,c The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE
Chapter 007A 7 (7) The Great Deception (22133 Characters)
Chapter 007B 23 PEACE-ORDER AND GOOD GOVERNMENT
45
Do keep in mind that whatever judges may have stated since Federation it makes not one iota of
difference where it is in conflict with constitutional provisions and limitations. I have for long
pursued that what needs to be created is the OFICIE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional
council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to
50 constitutional powers and limitations. If this had occurred then we never would have had the
purported “Australian Citizenship Act 1948, the purported Australia Act 1986, the Heather Hill
saga, the Phill Cleary saga, the Vivian Alvarez Solon disgraceful incident and likewise
numerous others as then we all would have been alerted to what is constitutionally appropriate.
26-1-2010 Page 67
Indeed, we would have neither have had gay people unconstitutionally claiming for their
companions travel, as it would not be permitted in the first place. Now, it appears the
Remunerations Tribunal is placing itself above the Constitution, and that is very dangerous as
where will it stop you may ask?
5
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-The honorable member who has just sat down has assumed
a possible difficulty that I cannot conceive is likely to occur. He assumes that unless we
10 define clearly what we mean by citizenship, the Federal Parliament may take such action
as will infringe some liberties which we now possess, and which we ought to possess.
When we remember that we have provided in the Constitution that both Houses of
Parliament shall be elected on the broadest possible franchise, it seems to me to be utterly
impossible to conceive that such a Parliament will proceed to infringe any of the liberties of
15 the citizens.
And
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I only wish to say a word or two about this proposal. I
think that Dr. Quick will probably see that his amendment may be raising a very serious
difficulty on the one hand, or else that it is unnecessary on the other. I quite agree with him
20 as to the necessity under some circumstances of giving some definition as to what shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, but underlying the whole of that is this fundamental
principle: That the citizens of the states are the citizens of the Commonwealth. That is
the fundamental principle we must have regard to, and I ask my honorable friend to
say whether a citizen of the Commonwealth is not a citizen of the state?
25 And
Mr. SYMON.-Mr. Trenwith has said he was not at first inclined to support this
amendment, and I think that if he gives it further consideration he will feel that it is utterly
unnecessary to do so, and that it is unwise to put into the hands of the Commonwealth
Parliament a power which might be likely to be exercised, as my honorable and learned
30 friend (Mr. Wise) has said, for the purpose of outlawing citizens of the state who are
citizens of the Commonwealth. Of course the Federal Parliament would not do such a thing
as [start page 1763] that, and, therefore, it seems to me that it is unnecessary to put in such
a power. Is there any person whom the Federal Parliament, by virtue of this provision,
could make a citizen of the Commonwealth who would not already be a citizen of a state?
35 You cannot do it. There is nothing to which this can possibly apply. You have given the
Federal Parliament power to deal with the question of aliens, immigration, and so on, to
prevent the introduction of undesirable races. Under that provision you enable the Federal
Parliament to legislate within certain limits, and in a certain direction. Under that they
may, within those limits, take away, or they may restrict, the rights of citizenship in a
40 particular case. That is what we intend them to do. I am not going to give carte blanche to
the Federal Parliament to say who shall and who shall not be citizens. The object of all
who are represented here is that the Union of these states is of itself to confer upon the
citizens of the states the rights of citizens of the Commonwealth.
Mr. HIGGINS.-You may depend upon it that the states will see that this is kept up.
45 Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the
Commonwealth will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of
the Commonwealth which will enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it
will be merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen of the Commonwealth who is not already a
citizen of the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue of it he is entitled to the
50 citizenship of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow different
26-1-2010 Page 68
people to come in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they become
naturalized, and thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they
come here.
5 Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of
the states, and it is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens
of the Commonwealth. Are you going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens
of the Commonwealth?
Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.
10 Mr. SYMON.-Then I think they ought to. The whole object of legislating for aliens is
that there should be uniformity.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They would not have that in the Federal Council.
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will
come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who
15 would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for
such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists,
but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but
20 one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship
meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say,
I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the
dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce
this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who
25 say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one
which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is
much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly,
can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude
anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a
30 citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want
to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be
prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an
argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen
35 of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
40 shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over
our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the
amendment will not be accepted.
45 And
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
26-1-2010 Page 69
So far the right of citizenship, if there is a right of citizenship under the empire, is
defined in the Constitution. Now, each citizen of a state is, without definition, a citizen
of the Commonwealth if there is such a term as citizenship to be applied to a subject
of the empire.
5 And
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but the term has since disappeared, and it disappeared owing to
objections from members of the Convention. I am inclined to think that the Convention is
right in not applying [start page 1765] the term "citizens" to subjects residing in the
Commonwealth or in the states, but in leaving them to their ordinary definition as subjects
10 of the Crown. If, however, we make an amendment of this character, inasmuch as citizens
of the state must be citizens of the Commonwealth by the very terms of the Constitution,
we shall simply be enabling the Commonwealth to deal with the political rights of the
citizens of the states. The one thing follows from the other. If you once admit that a
citizen or subject of the state is a citizen or subject of the Commonwealth, the power
15 conferred in these wide terms would enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the
political rights of subjects of the states. I do not think the honorable member intends
to go so far as that, but his amendment is open to that misconception.
And
Mr. BARTON.-If the honorable member's exclamation means more than I have
20 explained, then the best thing to do is to confide to the Commonwealth the right of dealing
with the lives, liberty, and property of all the persons residing in the Commonwealth,
independently of any law of any state. That is not intended, but that is what the expression
"Trust the Federal Parliament" would mean unless it was limited by the consideration I
have laid down. I am sure Dr. Quick will see that he is using a word that has not a
25 definition in English constitutional law, and which is not otherwise defined in this
Constitution. He will be giving to the Commonwealth Parliament a power, not only of
dealing with the rights of citizenship, but of defining those rights even within the very
narrowest limits, so that the citizenship of a state might be worth nothing; or of
extending them in one direction, and narrowing them in another, so that a subject
30 living in one of the states would scarcely know whether he was on his head or his
heels. Under the Constitution we give subjects political rights to enable the Parliament to
legislate with regard to the suffrage, and pending that legislation we give the qualification
of electors. It is that qualification of electors which is really the sum and substance of
political liberty, and we have defined that. If we are going to give the Federal Parliament
35 power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having
defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really
defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play
ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
40 Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons subjects of
the British Empire. Have we not done enough? We allow them to naturalize aliens. That
is a power which, with the consent of the Imperial authority, has been carried into
legislation by the various colonies, and, of course, we cannot do less for the
45 Commonwealth than we have done for the colonies.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Such legislation is only good within the limits of each state.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and
protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be
26-1-2010 Page 70
recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not
among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page
1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states.
And
5 Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the
Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the clause.
I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of the
British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in
10 defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the
scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony,
or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I see
therefore nothing unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British subjects, in
15 proposing to place power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament to deal with
the question of federal citizenship. An objection has been raised in various quarters-as by
the honorable and learned members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the effect that we
ought to define federal citizenship in the Constitution itself. I have considered this matter
very carefully, and it has seemed to me that it would be most difficult and invidious, if not
20 almost impossible, to frame a satisfactory definition. There is in the Constitution of the
United States of America a cast-iron definition of citizenship, which has been found to
be absolutely unworkable, because, among other things, it says that a citizen of the
United States shall be a natural-born or naturalized citizen within the jurisdiction of
the United States, and it has been found that that excludes the children of citizens
25 born outside the limits of this jurisdiction. That shows the danger of attempting
definitions, and although I have placed a proposed clause defining federal citizenship
upon the notice-paper, the subject, seems to me surrounded with the greatest
difficulty, and no doubt the honorable and learned members (Mr. Wise, Mr.
O'Connor, and Mr. Symon) would be the first to attack any definition, and would be
30 able to perforate it. In my opinion, it would be undesirable to implant a cast-iron
definition of citizenship in the Constitution, because it would be better to leave the
question more elastic, more open to consideration, and more yielding to the advancing
changes and requirements of the times.
Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the
35 Commonwealth will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of
the Commonwealth which will enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it
will be merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen of the Commonwealth who is not already a
citizen of the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue of it he is entitled to the
citizenship of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow different
40 people to come in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they become
naturalized, and thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they
come here.
Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of
45 the states, and it is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens
of the Commonwealth. Are you going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens
of the Commonwealth?
Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.
26-1-2010 Page 71
Mr. WALKER.-Is not a citizen of the state, ipso facto, a citizen of the
Commonwealth?
Dr. QUICK.-It required the 14th amendment to place that beyond doubt in the American
Constitution. In the [start page 1767] proposition which I have put before the Convention I
5 do not desire at all to interfere with state citizenship. I leave that entirely to the states. In
my opinion, it is in no way desirable to trench upon state citizenship. But I think we are
entitled to place in the Constitution a provision empowering the Federal Parliament to deal
with the incidence of Commonwealth citizenship, its mode of acquisition, the status it
confers, and the manner in which it may be lost. It has been suggested by, I think, the
10 honorable and learned member (Mr. Glynn), that a definition of citizenship should be
accompanied by something in the nature of inter-state citizenship, that is, that the
citizens of one state should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the
citizens of another state. But I would point out that such a provision would be
inconsistent with an amendment already placed in the Constitution. We have already
15 eliminated interstate citizenship, upon the ground that it might interfere with the
right of each state to impose disabilities and disqualifications upon certain races. I am
sure that the Federal Parliament would not be able, under the provision which I wish to
insert, to legislate in regard to state citizenship or to in any way enlarge the
Commonwealth rights or privileges at the expense of the rights of the states. The power of
20 the Federal Parliament could only be exercised in regard to the privileges and rights
contemplated by the Constitution itself. I may point out roughly some of the rights which
are contemplated by the Constitution. There is the right to assert any claim which a citizen
might have upon the Government, the right to transact any business he might have, the right
to seek the protection of the Government, to share its offices, to engage in its administrative
25 functions, to have free access to the ports of the Commonwealth and to its public offices
and courts of justice, to use its navigable waters, and to all the privileges and benefits
secured by the Commonwealth for its citizens by treaties with foreign nations. In my
earlier remarks I did not enumerate more than the last of these rights. When the
Federal Government is negotiating with foreign nations, say for treaties of commerce,
30 and certain rights and privileges are obtained thereby for the citizens of the
Commonwealth, it ought to be able to point to a definition of Commonwealth citizenship.
I am amazed at the force and the consistency with which technical objections are being
raised against every proposal calculated to improve and popularize the Constitution. One
would imagine that this was to be a mere lawyers Constitution, and that everything that
35 seems to go beyond mere legal literalism must be rejected. Again, I ask are we to have a
Commonwealth citizenship? If we are, why is it not to be implanted in the Constitution?
Why is it to be merely a legal inference? It is all nonsense to say that the Commonwealth
Parliament is going to cut down and reduce the state citizenship. It will only deal with
federal citizenship. Why should not the Federal Parliament be able to deprive any person
40 who broke the Commonwealth laws of the Commonwealth citizenship? Would not that be
within the functions and jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Parliament? I think that it
would be strictly within its functions. If we are not to provide for this Commonwealth
citizenship, what will be the position of those residing in territories which may
hereafter be created? The honorable member (Mr. Walker), among others, is desirous
45 that a certain portion of territory shall be set apart as within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Commonwealth for a federal capital. That is a view which I share with him. But
I ask what will be the civic status of the inhabitants of the federal territory? I hope
that the provision which I have brought forward will be dealt with by the Convention,
not from a strictly legal aspect, but from the broad and [start page 1768]
50 comprehensive point of view from which we have been accustomed to deal with it
when upon the public platform we have informed our people that by federation they
26-1-2010 Page 72
will be placed upon a higher plane of citizenship. I would ask is a provision of this
kind to be rejected merely upon technical grounds?
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think we ought to protest against its being suggested
that any of us are opposing this provision upon technical grounds. This is a very much
5 larger question, and it is a question deserving of all the earnestness and energy which the
honorable member (Dr. Quick) has thrown into its discussion. But when he submits as a
reason for carrying the provision that it should not be dealt with as a lawyers' question, and
one dealing with the rigid legal interpretation of the Constitution, I venture, with great
respect and emphasis, to dissent from his position. This is a matter which goes to the very
10 foundation of the Constitution which we are framing. At the very root of the proposed
Union is the invitation to the citizens of the states to join the Federation, and to obtain, as
their reward, citizenship of the Commonwealth. My honorable and learned friend has
enumerated a number of things which might or might not be done under this provision.
Will he tell me whether it is not a fact that the Federal Parliament could, under this
15 provision, take away the citizenship which might be obtained by joining the Union?
Mr. ISAACS.-Under other clauses of the Constitution, the Federal Parliament could take
away the franchise from any one.
Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the
20 power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned
member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is
asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not,
of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining
the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of
25 the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution,
and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a
question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the
Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or
diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am
30 willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading
inducement for joining the Union.
Question-That the proposed new sub-section (31A) be inserted-put.

The committee divided-
35 Ayes ... ... ... 15
Noes ... ... ... 21
Majority against Dr. Quick's
amendment ... ... 6
JAMES ANDREW McGINTY AND OTHERS v THE STATE OF WESTERN

40 AUSTRALIA F.C. 96/001
COURT
BRENNAN CJ(1), DAWSON(2), TOOHEY(3), GAUDRON(4), McHUGH(5) AND
GUMMOW(6) JJ
45 HRNG
26-1-2010 Page 73
CANBERRA, 12-14 September 1995
JUDGE1 BRENNAN CJ.

6. The plaintiffs submit that disparities in voting power are inconsistent with the principle
5 of representative democracy as that principle is understood at the present time.
Representative democracy, so the argument runs, requires that (a) every legally capable
adult has the vote; and (b) each person's vote be equal to the vote of every other person. Of
course, the term "legally capable adult" assumes without defining the scope of the
franchise. In this century, the age of legal adulthood has been reduced from 21 to 18 and
10 the legal incapacity of women to vote has been removed. Aborigines, who were once
constitutionally disqualified from the franchise, are no longer so disqualified.
22. In Nationwide News(48), there is a dictum by Deane and Toohey JJ(49) that tends in
favour of the plaintiffs' argument: "While one can point to qualifications and exceptions,
15 such as those concerned with the protection of the position of the less populous States(50),
the general effect of the Constitution is, at least since the adoption of full adult suffrage by
all the States, that all citizens of the Commonwealth who are not under some special
disability are entitled to share equally in the exercise of those ultimate powers of
governmental control".
20
JUDGE2 DAWSON J.
10. Sections 1, 7, 8, 16, 24 and 30 of the Constitution provide for the minimum
requirements of representative government but do not purport to go significantly further.
The Constitution also provides for the maintenance of equal representation of the Original
25 States in the Senate and a minimum number of senators for each Original State (s 7), the
rotation of senators (s 13), the filling of casual Senate vacancies (s 15), the disqualification
of members (s 44), disputed elections (s 47) and certain other matters of machinery. It
further provides in s 41 that no adult person who has or acquires a right to vote for the more
numerous House of Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by
30 any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament
of the Commonwealth.
JUDGE4 GAUDRON J
9. As already indicated, reference was made in McKinlay to a number of matters which
35 indicate that the Constitution tolerates some disparity in voting strength. There is of course
the consideration that, subject to the requirement in ss 8(260) and 30(261), the Constitution
expressly allowed for State laws to determine the qualification of electors until the
Parliament of the Commonwealth should otherwise provide, and did so in a context where
the franchise was far from uniform(262) and full adult suffrage existed only in South
40 Australia(263). There is also the consideration that, despite population differences between
the States, s 7 requires an equal number of senators for each of the Original States(264)
while s 24 directs that, notwithstanding its requirement that "(t)he number of members
chosen in the several States (for the House of Representatives) shall be in proportion to the
respective numbers of their people", five members at least are to be chosen in each Original
45 State(265).
JUDGE5 McHUGH J
58. These differences in the franchise show that, although the original States were to be
represented in the House of Representatives, proportionately to their populations, the
50 Constitution laid down no requirements apart from s 41 as to which members of the
population of a State were to elect its representatives. That being so, it seems unlikely that s
24 was concerned with equal representation for equal numbers of voters in each State. Thus
s 30 confirms the view that equality of voting power for the adult people of Australia is not
26-1-2010 Page 74
a constitutional requirement. The refusal of the Convention delegates to provide for
universal suffrage in the Constitution is itself eloquent evidence that such matters as the
franchise and the size of electoral divisions were matters for the States until the Parliament
legislated.
5
60. In so far as any notion of equality is present in the Constitution, it applies only to the
Original States in respect of representatives for those States in the House of Representatives
and not to individual electorates which may constitutionally consist of an entire State or of
electorates whose size and population are determined by the federal Parliament from time
10 to time or, in the absence of legislation, by the parliaments of the respective States. The
plain meaning of the Constitution is that it was for the States to determine the size of
divisions within the States until the federal Parliament decided to legislate on the question.
If and when the federal Parliament decided to legislate, ss 29, 30 and 31 gave it the power
to determine the size and nature of the electoral divisions in each State and the nature of
15 the franchise as well as other matters(346).
JUDGE6
GUMMOW J
93. The existence of female franchise in South Australia and Western Australia was, at the
20 federal level, protected by s 41 of the Constitution. The effect of s 41 was that no adult
person who, before the establishment of the federal franchise, had acquired a right to vote
at a State election was to be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at
elections for either house of the federal Parliament(472). Further, until the qualification of
electors of members of the House of Representatives became uniform throughout the
25 Commonwealth (by reason of the adult franchise conferred by s 3 of the Commonwealth
Franchise Act 1902 (Cth)), s 128 provided that in any State with adult suffrage only one-
half of electors voting for or against a referendum were to be counted.
94. However, the Constitution did not entrench the secret ballot, compulsory voting,
30 preferential or proportional voting, nor any universal adult franchise. Nor did the
Constitution prescribe any authority or body to determine from time to time the electoral
divisions in each State. 95. Compulsory enrolment for federal elections and for
referendums was introduced by s 8 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1911 (Cth) and
compulsory voting at referendums was introduced by the Compulsory Voting Act 1915
35 (Cth). Compulsory voting in elections was introduced by s 2 of the Commonwealth
ElectoralAct 1924 (Cth) and the validity of that law was upheld in Judd v McKeon(473).
Professor Crisp wrote that both major parties were in favour of the 1924 legislation though
neither wished to take overt responsibility for it; hence it was introduced as a private
member's bill on which no Minister spoke and no division was called in either House(474).
40 The Commonwealth ElectoralAct 1918 provided (s 124) for the introduction of
preferential voting for House of Representatives elections and this was achieved for the
Senate by s 7 of the Commonwealth Act 1919 (Cth). Finally, proportional representation in
the Senate was introduced by s 3 of the Commonwealth Act 1948 (Cth)(475).
45 346 Section 41 of the Constitution provided however: " No adult person who has or
acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a
State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from
voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth." Because at
federation women were entitled to vote in South Australia and Western Australia, s 41 gave
50 women in those two States a right to vote in federal elections which was denied to women
in other States. This discrimination was abolished by s 3 of the Franchise Act 1902 (Cth).
But it is further evidence that it was the federal Parliament and not the Constitution that
concerned itself with the equality of individual voters. The operation of s 41 is now spent.
26-1-2010 Page 75
This Court has held that the "right to vote" in s 41 is the right (if any) that was possessed
under State law when the federal franchise was established and that s 41 does not confer a
right to vote in a federal election on any person who from time to time has the right to vote
at a State election: R v Pearson; Ex parte Sipka (1983) 152 CLR 254.
5
THE QUEEN v. PEARSON; Ex parte SIPKA (1983) 152 CLR 254

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

person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous
House of the Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be
prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at Commonwealth
elections. The section appears to be framed on the assumption that an adult
20 person who has or acquires (i.e. has at the date of the Constitution or
acquires thereafter) a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House
of the Parliament of a State would be entitled to vote at Commonwealth
elections unless a law of the Commonwealth prevented it; the section, on that
assumption, forbids the Commonwealth Parliament from passing any law which
25 would have the effect of depriving any such person of his right to vote at
Commonwealth elections while his right to vote at State elections continues.
If this were not the correct construction of the section, the use of the words
"be prevented" would be quite inapt. The section prevents the Commonwealth
Parliament from taking away a right to vote; it does not create an entitlement
30 which does not otherwise exist. Under the Constitution, persons qualified as
electors for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State were
qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives,
but only until the Parliament otherwise provided: see s. 30 of the
Constitution. By s. 8 of the Constitution, a person qualified to vote for the
35 election of members of the House of Representatives is also qualified to vote
for the election of Senators. The Parliament has power to make laws with
respect to matters in respect of which the Constitution makes provision until
the Parliament otherwise provides (s. 51(xxxvi)) and thus has power to
establish the franchise for electors of members of the House of
40 Representatives and Senators. A law dealing with the franchise may be
complete, so that it excludes for the future all reference to State law, or it
may deal only with some aspects, leaving other aspects to be dealt with by
State law. Once a law of the Commonwealth has completely provided the
qualifications for electors for Commonwealth elections (as in fact
45 Commonwealth laws have done since the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 was
passed) no elector thereafter could acquire a qualification to vote at
Commonwealth elections under ss. 30 and 8 of the Constitution. By virtue of s.
41, the Commonwealth law which first established the franchise could not have
prevented any person who then had a right to vote at elections for the more
50 numerous House of the Parliament of a State from voting at elections for
either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. But once a Commonwealth
law had been passed completely establishing the franchise, no person, not
already qualified to vote at Commonwealth elections, could become so qualified
26-1-2010 Page 76
by virtue of the Constitution alone. No future law could be said to prevent
such persons from voting, since there was nothing in the Constitution or in
the law that gave them a right to vote. This construction, which requires that
the right to vote to which s. 41 refers must have been acquired by the persons
5 concerned before the federal franchise was established, gives a narrow effect
to s. 41. However, this construction of the section is supported not only by
obvious considerations of policy, but also by the history of the section. If
the section gave a right to vote at Commonwealth elections to any person who,
after the Commonwealth franchise was established, became entitled to vote by
10 virtue of amendments to the State laws, the result would be that the uniform
franchise established under ss. 30 and 51 (xxxvi) of the Constitution would be
subject to amendment by the laws of the various States. The Commonwealth law
could in effect be amended by any State law which conferred a more liberal
franchise. In other words, any State could, unilaterally, alter the
15 Commonwealth franchise in a way which discriminated in favour of its own
citizens. It is impossible to suppose that results of this kind were intended.
The provisions of s. 128 of the Contitution, which require a law for an
alteration to the Constitution to be passed, inter alia, by a majority of
electors, and which also provides that "until the qualification of electors of
20 members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the
Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed
law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails" is opposed
to any such construction. But in any case it is apparent that it was intended
by s. 30 that once the Commonwealth Parliament had made provision for the
25 qualification of electors such enactment would prevail over any conflicting
State law subject to the protection of existing rights afforded by s. 41. As a
matter of historical fact, the object intended by the framers of the
Constitution to be achieved by s. 41 is quite clear. It is unnecessary, for
the present purposes, to consider the extent to which debates at the
30 Constitutional Conventions may be regarded in the construction of the
Constitution. It was, however, accepted in the early case of Municipal Council
of Sydney v. The Commonwealth (1904) 1 CLR 208, at pp 213-214 by Griffith C.J.
that it is permissible to have regard to such debates "for the purpose of
seeing . . . what was the evil to be remedied". The Convention debates, whose
35 effect is summarized in Quick and Garran, Annotated Constitution of the
Australian Commonwealth, pp. 483-487, show that the apprehended mischief which
s. 41 was designed to prevent was that the women of South Australia might be
deprived of the federal franchise by the Commonwealth Parliament. At the time
of the debates women were entitled to vote only in South Australia; in the
40 other colonies the suffrage was restricted to males, although by the time the
Constitution came into operation the women of Western Australia were also
enfranchised. (at p262)
6. It was recognized by the most eminent constitutional lawyers at the time

45 the Constitution was enacted that it was not intended that s. 41 should have
such a sweeping effect as the prosecutors' argument would attribute to it.
Professor Harrison Moore, in The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia
(1902), pp. 108- 109, inclined to the view that s. 41 refers only to persons
entitled to vote under State law at the establishment of the Commonwealth.
50 Quick and Garran, writing in 1900, suggested (op. cit., p. 486) three possible
interpretations -
"(1) That the right may be acquired at any time, under a State law passed
26-1-2010 Page 77
at any time.
(2) That the right may be acquired at any time, but only under a State law
passed before a federal franchise is fixed.
(3) That the right must be acquired by the 'adult person' concerned before
5 the federal franchise is fixed."
Their own conclusion, expressed at p. 487, was that "it is not to be presumed
that it was intended that the State Parliament should be able, after the
Federal Parliament had legislated, to confer by fresh legislation any further
10 right of voting at federal elections". For the reasons that we have given we
consider that the third of the interpretations suggested by Quick and Garran
is the correct one. (at p262)
7. On behalf of the prosecutors, reference was made to two decisions of this

15 Court, which, it was submitted, must have proceeded on the view that s. 41 had
the first of the constructions suggested by Quick and Garran. The first of
these cases was Muramats v. Commonwealth Electoral Officer (W.A.) (1923) 32
CLR 500 . That was an application to review a decision of a magistrate who had
rejected a claim by Muramats to have his name enrolled on the Commonwealth
20 electoral roll. Muramats was a Japanese born in Japan and the magistrate held
that he was an aboriginal native of Asia or the Pacific Islands within the
meaning of s. 39(5) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1922, that
therefore he was not entitled to be enrolled or to vote unless he was
protected by s. 41 of the Constitution, and that that section did not protect
25 him because, although his name was on the electoral roll of the State of
Western Australia, he was disqualified from voting by the Electoral Act 1907
(W.A.) by reason of his being an aboriginal native of Asia or the Pacific
Islands. Having regard to the fact that Muramats was not entitled to vote at
an election for the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, the appeal was
30 on any view hopeless and the respondent was not called upon to argue. Since
the appellant in that case could not possibly come within the protection
afforded by s. 41, it was unnecessary for the Court to discuss the possible
effect of that section and it did not do so. The majority, who dismissed the
appeal in a few lines, did not refer to the section and Higgins J., who dealt
35 at length with other aspects of the matter, did not discuss the difficulties
and possible meanings of the section (1923) 32 CLR, at pp 503-505 . In King v.
Jones (1972) 128 CLR 221 the question for decision was whether persons under
the age of twenty-one were adult persons within the meaning of s. 41. It was
held that they were not. The reasons given for the decision are quite
40 inconsistent with the claim by Miss Walters in the present case, but in the
view that we take of the section it is unnecessary to pursue that question
further. The Court addressed itself to the primary argument which was advanced
to it, namely that a person over the age of eighteen was an adult person, and
was prepared to assume, without deciding, that s. 41 applied to an adult
45 person who at any time, by amendment of State electoral legislation, acquired
a right to vote at relevant State elections (1972) 128 CLR, at pp 229, 251,
257-259, 267 . Only Menzies J. expressed a view which provides any support for
the argument of the prosecutors; he said that the character of s. 41 is "that
of a permanent constitutional provision" and that it "applies to a person,
50 who, in 1901, had or who, in the future, acquires particular voting rights by
the law of a State" (1972) 128 CLR, at p 246 . No other member of the Court
expressed a final view on the question. Neither of the two cases upon which
the prosecutors relied decides the present question and they provide no
26-1-2010 Page 78
authority in favour of the prosecutors' contentions. (at p264)
8. On the other hand, Cameron v. Fysh (1904) 1 CLR 314 is opposed to the
submission of the prosecutors. In that case, the votes of two men were refused
5 because their names were on the State roll, not the Commonwealth roll (1904) 1
CLR, at p 319 . The number of votes in question was in any case not enough to
have affected the election, but Griffith C.J. did say (1904) 1 CLR, at p 319 :
"As to the objection that voters on the State roll, and not on the
10 Commonwealth roll, were not allowed to vote, I am not inclined to
encourage the idea that they had any right to vote."
The Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 was at that time in force. It does not
appear whether Griffith C.J. accepted the view of s. 41 advanced by Professor
15 Harrison Moore, or the third of the interpretations suggested by Quick and
Garran, but he obviously held that a person who had a right to vote at a State
election was not necessarily entitled to vote at a Commonwealth election. (at
p264)
20 9. The conclusion that we have reached is expressed in an opinion given by

Sir Robert Garran in 1914, as Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department;
it is, of course, no authority, but it conveniently states our view. Sir
Robert Garran said (Opinions of Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth of
Australia, vol. 1, p. 695, no. 542):
25
". . . the intention of section 41 is that an elector, who under the
provisional franchise established by section 30, has (at the establishment
of the Commonwealth) or acquires (before the Parliament passes a Franchise
Act) a right to vote at Commonwealth elections by virtue of his State
30 right, that right shall not be taken away by any law of the Commonwealth.
That is to say, the right to vote at State elections which is referred
to in section 41 means a right to vote at State elections which is by
section 30 made effective for Federal elections; a man who is a Federal
elector by virtue of section 30 cannot, while his State right continues,
35 be disfranchised by Commonwealth Law." (The emphasis is that of Sir Robert
Garran.) (at p264)
10. For the reasons we have given we hold that s. 41 preserves only those
rights which were in existence before the passing of the Commonwealth
40 Franchise Act 1902. It follows that none of the prosecutors can succeed in the
present case. None of them had acquired any right to vote at a State election
before the federal franchise was established. None, therefore, is prevented
from voting, within the meaning of s. 41, by the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Section 41 is also open to the interpretation that it is directed to the
45 franchise and not to the machinery for voting. The Parliament of the
Commonwealth has power to make laws relating to elections for members of the
House of Representatives and of the Senate: see ss. 9, 31 and 51(xxxvi).
Section 45(a) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act is a law of that kind. There
is much to be said for the view that to give effect to all the relevant
50 sections of the Constitution it would be necessary to hold that any
entitlement to vote given by s. 41 should be exercised in accordance with the
provisions of a law for the conduct of elections validly made under the
provisions of ss. 9, 31 and 51(xxxvi). It could not be suggested that s. 45(a)
26-1-2010 Page 79
was other than a reasonable and bona fide exercise of constitutional power.
However, it is unnecessary to discuss further this aspect of the matter. (at
p265)
5 11. In our opinion none of the prosecutors is entitled to vote at the

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

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

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

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

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

Evans (WA, ALP) - $50,348 (Vic, ALP) - $1435
30
Peter Lindsay MP_ (QLD, Lib Resource Minister Martin
- $45,107 Ferguson (Vic, ALP) - $963
Communication Minister * Commercial flights.

35 Stephen Conroy – (Vic, ALP) Does not include Prime Minister
$41,512 Kevin Rudd, who flies RAAF
END QUOTE
.
What I view should be considered is that this doesn’t include all transport cost such as hire car
40 and other services.
.
Many of the trips are made for (political) UNION business of Parliamentarians engaging in
political UNION matters and not related to specifically Parliamentarian duties. Hence, I view
they should be reimbursed out of the pocket of the relevant members.
45 Members of Parliament are serving in the parliament to represent the electors and while they may
hold a certain political party connection it should be deemed irrelevant to their duties.
If two employees are working for a company and one is a UNION member and the other not
then hardly would the employer accept that the UNION member would cause the company to
incur additional cost that might be more then being his ordinary salary whereas the non UNION
50 member may have no such cost.
In my view, the same should be considered with regard of Members of Parliament and not that
taxpayers are so to say robbed blind.
.
26-1-2010 Page 80
The following quoted article also appeared on page 37 of the 5-12-2008 Herald Sun under the
heading MPs flying high on the taxpayers.
.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24752559-662,00.html
5 Most MPs too lazy to save taxpayer money with flyer points.doc
QUOTE
Ben Packham
10
FEDERAL politicians could save taxpayers $4 million a year by using frequent-flyer
points for official travel - but most are too lazy.
Victorian MP Bill Shorten has set the gold standard for loyalty point use, saving more than
$9000 in just six months.
15 But just 10 other MPs used their frequent flyers, offsetting a combined $21,000 worth of
travel costs from January 1 to June 30.
Travel reports released yesterday also revealed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd clocked up
more than $600,000 in overseas travel costs in the first half of this year.
The bill was more than twice that clocked up by former prime minister John Howard
20 throughout 2007.
Mr Howard, who is reportedly taking driving lessons, cost taxpayers about $50,000 in his
first six months out of office. The bill included $48,200 worth of Comcar travel, but no
private-plated vehicle expenses.
The next biggest Comcar user was Malcolm Fraser, who ran up a $14,000 bill.
25 There is nothing stopping the 215 MPs who failed to use frequent-flyer points for official
travel from using them for private use.
However, the number using their points was an improvement on previous years, and
follows an edict from Special Minister of State John Faulkner.
Senator Faulkner was among those offsetting their travel, saving taxpayers more than
30 $2000.
The now retired Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja, who left Parliament in June,
saved taxpayers $2973 by using her points.
If every MP followed Mr Shorten's example, they would save more than $4,096,000 in
travel costs a year.
35 Mr Shorten's office said the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities had criss-crossed the
nation meeting more than 500 disabilities groups.
Most of the points he used would have been accumulated before he entered Parliament,
through his work as a union official.
26-1-2010 Page 81
All up, MPs spent about $4.1 million on domestic travel in six months, and about $3.5
million on overseas trips.
Travel by former parliamentarians and holders of the coveted Gold Pass cost about
$500,000.
5 Among the big spenders was former Labor leader Kim Beazley, who took $24,000 in
domestic flights.
END QUOTE
.
AGAIN;
10 QUOTE
Mr Howard, who is reportedly taking driving lessons, cost taxpayers about $50,000 in his
first six months out of office. The bill included $48,200 worth of Comcar travel, but no
private-plated vehicle expenses.
END QUOTE
15 .
This is the man who pursued WorkChoices against ordinary workers and now is as I view it
defrauding Consolidated Revenue, so the taxpayers, of about $50,000 in the first six months out
of office.
.
20 THIS MUST BE STOPPED!
.
No increase for pensioners but ample of money to splurge around for ex politicians and ex-
Governor-Generals it appears!
.
25 What we need is to amend the Constitution to make clear that no former
.
Again;
30 .
What we need is to amend the Constitution to make clear that no former
.
35 Consider the following also;
QUOTE
The next biggest Comcar user was Malcolm Fraser, who ran up a $14,000 bill
END QUOTE
.
40 Now this doesn’t include even the about $100,000 or so cost for his Melbourne office, etc, this
even so he was in employment of the Queen and should draw his benefits from Her Majesty and
not from Consolidated Revenue.
.
With the fact that it was also reported that Alexander Downer in regard of his 11-day US study
45 trip incurring $47,000 but did not file any report due by September, Opposition Health
spokesman failed to file his report by April regarding his $15,000 trip to Turkey and
QUOTE
WA MP Mal Washer’s report on his $33,000 trip to Africa, South America and the US was
among the most expansive and bizarre, including references to sunset drinks and, in
50 Botswana, a large sign of a gentleman playing with himself.
26-1-2010 Page 82
END QUOTE
surely questions the proper usage of taxpayers monies. Indeed, those failing to provide an
appropriate report should AUTOMATICALLY be required to reimburse the entire cost.
.
5 In my view it is utter and sheer nonsense to use the Remuneration Tribunal as to set the “salary”
of Federal Members of Parliament because Federal members of parliament are not employed as
such and only entitled to be provided with an ALLOWANCE, that reimburse them also for cost
incurred.
If we were to return to the fold of the Constitution then we would find that billions of dollars, I
10 mean billions of dollars now squandered by federal politicians could easily provide for a payrise
of pensioners, etc.
If Federal Members of Parliament were caused to fund their trips from their own
“ALLOWANCES” then no doubt their traveling will be drastically reduces to be next to
nothing.
15 If Federal Members of Parliament were caused to fund accommodation from their
“ALLOWANCES” then I have no doubt that they will find suddenly a lot cheaper
accommodation and less likely are to stay overnight at expensive hotels.
As I understood it from media reports that Wilson Tuckey MP stated that if you pay peanuts then
you can expect monkeys. Well, I for one do not regard the about million dollar cost per Federal
20 Member of Parliament – and counting – to be regarded as “peanuts”. Still we do get more
monkey business in the Federal Parliament.
I neither view that paying more to Federal Members of Parliament somehow is going to get
better quality of politicians, rather the system more then likely will be more corrupt.
.
25 To pay more to Federal Members of Parliament only will ensure that political parties are going to
get more of their members to be elected and less likely an average non political union member
will has no chance at all to get elected. More over, unlikely will the best and brightest be elected
but more likely political parties will have candidates that might be sporting figures and others
who may lack any competence in constitutional and other relevant matters and so more then
30 likely will follow the leader of the political party what his desires are and forget about what is
constitutionally permissible and appropriate.
.
Many a Member of Parliament seeks to boost about having law degrees as if that is any
indication of their competence in constitutional matters. If they cannot grasp what is
35 constitutionally appropriate then how on earth are they voting by way of INFORMED
DECISIONS?
.
What we need is to amend the Constitution to make clear that any Federal Member of
Parliament maximum yearly benefits payable as ALLOWANCE is not to exceed the
40 average weekly income taken on a yearly basis.
.
As this refers to Federal Member of Parliament and not to a Minister of the Crown, it means that
it will not curtail those who are appointed as Ministers to perform their duties, it will however cut
down the squandering of public monies by other federal Members of Parliament.
45 When Federal Members of Parliament are given a maximum of annual average weekly earnings
then they will quick smart avoid a lot of traveling and going into expensive hotels and start to
live like those they are representing! They may even learn what real life is about!
.
No one then can prevent the Federal Member of Parliament to use op his/her entire
50 ALLOWANCE for trips such as a sign of a man playing with himself or other such nonsense as
after all no longer will taxpayers be stung by such cost. The Federal Member of Parliament then
can change his/her letterhead day after day but knowing he/she will have to pay for it and no
longer the taxpayer.
26-1-2010 Page 83
.
The Framers of the Constitution recognized that being “poor” could be the result of conduct by
others beyond once control. They held that a person could still be competent otherwise. And as
such, WE, THE PEOPLE, may just do better to kick out of parliament a lot of leaches(so to
5 say) and get in people who have learned what real life and hardship is about and they might for a
lot less do a lot better!
.
Get the elderly in the Federal Parliament and unlikely will ever again there be a scandal of
neglect of the elderly regarding dental care!
10 .
Get a destitute person into the Federal Parliament and quickly this person will present ways how
to deal with those problems relating to being destitute.
.
To me it is utter and total nonsense to argue that you need to pay more to get better politicians as
15 reality is that it is all about elections and the person no matter how intelligent he might be simply
will unlikely succeed where the might of the financial political UNIONS are against him in
elections.
The more pay the more likely the political UNIONS will get a hold on the positions. The less pay
the more likely non political party (UNION) members may get a better opportunity to be elected.
20 .
When one look at today’s economical crises where Members of the Board of large companies
were paid tens of millions of dollars in salaries and those companies are no more then it should
be very obvious that even paying tens of millions of dollars isn’t a guarantee you do not get those
who ultimately will wreck a company.
25 .
“INTELLIGENCE” IS NOT FOR SALE AS IF IT CAN BE PURCHASED OF THE
SHELF.
.
Being it law degrees or other degrees doesn’t mean it gives you more intelligence just more
30 know how but pending on the intelligence of the person it can be useful or is idle.
Many a person without having completed even primary school ended up heading multi-million
dollar companies because their INTELLIGENCE enabled them to do so where as those with
university degrees are working for them.
Unlikely would even a single Federal Member of Parliament have such comprehensive
35 knowledge as how the Constitution is to be applied and its limitations then which I poses, yet
they are by far overpaid and I do it all for FREE, because to me it is fun and enjoyable!
.
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
40 provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the
people.
.
45 And this is what it really is about to get Federal Members of Parliament who wish to be the
AGENT of the people to represent the electors for the HONOUR and not just have dollar signs
in his/her eyes and give any crap to electors to make it to the Federal parliament.
I have no doubt that if the Constitution was to be amended to limit the yearly “ALLOWANCE”
in totality to be maximum of the yearly “average weekly earnings” then many a current politician
50 would do us a favour and vacate his/her seat in the Parliament, probably in droves, and we could
finally get true representation in the Parliament by those who do care about what is required of
them.
26-1-2010 Page 84
We might no longer have the silly complain about a $7 piece of meat because we might get new
Federal Members of Parliament who would value the true meal presented to them knowing how
hard it is when one cannot afford any ordinary.
.
5 Herald Sun 5 December 2008 page 9
QUOTE
With many cash strapped, MPs have endorsed a report saying they are underpaid by up to
$100,00.
END QUOTE
10 .
Well I for one and no doubt many others are very willing to take their seats in the Federal
parliament without nagging about being underpaid where they are paid an ALLOWANCE
beyond what the Framers of the Constitution ever intended.
If Federal MPs are unable to manage their private lives in such a manner that they can live of the
15 huge ALLOWANCE now being paid, then why does it take the government a long running
inquiry to deal with the plight of pensioners and others if they should get a increase in payments
where they might just get about $14,144 for as single pensioner (and about $22,100 for a couple
on a pension) when again they receive;
.
20 HeraldSun Friday December 5, 2008
QUOTE
How much they earn
Backbencher $127.060
25 Prime Minister $330,456
Cashier $ 28,392
Hairdresser $ 28,860
Nurse $ 50,100
30 Police officer $ 58,867
Teacher $ 63,312
Aneasthetist $101,764
Engineering manager $136,700
END QUOTE
35 .
Again, Federal Politicians would do better to spend their time to understand and comprehend
what the Framers of the Constitution intended as to “ALLOWANCE” payable to them and they
might just realize they better shut up as they are by far overpaid!
.
40 For the above and also already canvassed extensively in my various published books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series I would rather urge that the Constitution is amended as follows;
From;
45 member of the House of Representatives shall receive an
.
To;
50 48 Allowance to members
Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, subject to that such
allowance shall be calculated to include in totality, including postage, traveling, stationary,
26-1-2010 Page 85
overnight accommodation to no more but the maximum of the average weekly earnings on a
yearly basis, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat, and shall continue only for
the duration of time until the seat is vacated and no longer.
.
5 Gerrit
.
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
.
5-12-2008
10 END QUOTE Chapter AMEND THE CONSTITUTION…
.
QUOTE 21-1-2010 correspondence regarding Governor-General’s payments, etc
Mrs Q. Bryce 21-1-2010
Office of the Governor-General governor-general@gg.gov.au
15 .
.
The issue of legal position of the Governor-General, etc
.
20 Madam,
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST it is of concern to me that there appear to be a
considerable misconception as to the powers, functions, duties and rights, etc associated with the
Office of the Governor-General. This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to
set out all relevant issues as my published books set out matters in far greater details.
25 As a CONSTITUTIONALIST, I expose the real application of the constitution, and as set out
below the Constitution Commission 1988 Report “assumed” certain legislative powers even so
none as such were included in the constitution for this!
.
30 QUOTE
unwritten,
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
40 .
This correspondence will also be published by me in my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI®
series on certain constitutional and other legal issues and as such have included at times lengthy
quotations so that besides you the reader can become familiar with what the Framers of the
Constitution debated.
45 .
Some basic are that constitutionally there is a provision for a Governor-General, and the
Governor-General is the appointed representative, under whatever title, of Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth the Second of the British Empire also now referred to of the United Kingdom, etc.
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-
26-1-2010 Page 86
We have no right, in this Constitution, to dictate to Her Majesty to who shall be her
agent. Her Majesty has a right to pick such agent as she thinks fit in any part of the
colony, and we have no right to say-"You shall not do so and so."
END QUOTE
5 .
Mr. HACKETT: I observe that the last line and a half is a virtual adoption of part of a
clause in the American Constitution; but the President there is practically never absent from
the seat of government. This clause, however, would allow the governor-general to draw
10 his full salary during a year's leave of absence; and I would point out that that leave of
absence rests with the authorities in Downing-street. The clause, therefore, would allow
the Colonial Office to arrange that the governor-general should draw his full salary during a
year's absence, when an administrator would have to be appointed in his place, who would
have to be paid a large salary for doing the work. Who would pay him?
15 An HON. MEMBER: The governor-general!
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
.
The Framers of the Constitution made it abundantly clear that the Governor-General has only
prerogative powers within the Commonwealth of Australia and not beyond. As such, the moment
20 the Governor-General travels outside the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Australia then
he/she must have appointed a deputy who for the time of the absenteeism executes all duties and
obligations ordinary associated with the Office of the Governor-General and is for this paid for
by the Governor-General. The constitution does not permit for the payment of two or more
Governor-Generals, under whatever title he/she might be known.
25 It also means that the Governor-General leaving the boundaries of the Commonwealth of
Australia cannot draw any expenses associated with that travel because the deputy in the seat to
conduct the affairs of the Governor-General would instead incur the expenses associated with
official business.
.
30 HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. HOLDER:
To the State everything that is local and relating to one State, to the Federal power
everything that is national and of inter-State importance. I pass from these two general
principles to a discussion of the only other preliminary I shall have to touch, and that is the
35 question of the appointment of the representative of the British Crown in the person of the
Governor-General. I do not take it that the words of the Enabling Act requiring us to frame
a Constitution for a Federation "under the Crown" bind us in the matter of whether or not
we shall elect our own Governor-General, because I take it that the legal bonds which
bind us to the mother-country, to the great British Empire,
40 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
45 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended
50 there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going
to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is
expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
26-1-2010 Page 87
be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
"Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. HOLDER: Yes, of course; the Commission from Her Majesty lies dormant until it
is actually called into existence by the absence of the Governor; but we can at this moment,
if the necessity arises, appoint a new occupant to the Supreme Court Bench, and that would
10 qualify him to fill the office of Acting-Governor if need required it. Therefore I think it is
clear that to that extent it lessens the argument that the main link that binds us to the
mother-country is the appointment of the Governor, and shows that it is an argument which
has not half so much weight as some of the speakers would have us believe. But I take a
very strong position against the election of the Governor-General by the Federation, not
15 because I believe it would mean losing a link which binds us to England, but that we should
have a man of such power and authority, derived directly from the people, that he would
certainly clash with the other powers and authorities we propose to set up under this
Constitution.
END QUOTE
20 .
QUOTE Mr. LYNE:
First of all, he raised the question of the appointment of the Governor-General for the
Federal Executive. Now, I think there is no desire on the part of any large section of
25 this community to take what I may term the first step towards a severance from the
mother-country, but the first step would be in the election of the Governor-General
instead of allowing his appointment to be made by the Home Government. It is but a
small connecting link between the Australasian colonies-between a Federated
Australia and the mother-country-to allow the appointment to be made by the Home
30 Government; and I should like to know what power that Government would have
over any Governor-General elected in the manner desired.
END QUOTE
.
35 QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-I am not prepared to answer that question, but when we look at clause 52
we find these governing words on the very forefront of that clause-
That Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power
and authority to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
40 Commonwealth.
We see there that the Commonwealth is named as distinguished from the states.
END QUOTE
.
45 QUOTE
parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we
no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but
50 constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of
26-1-2010 Page 88
instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate
bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all
5 that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with,
sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
QUOTE
10 .
Because The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is the platform upon
which the Commonwealth of Australia was build there is no power to change this, being it by
smart talking lawyers and/or politicians because they like to use a purported backdoor way to
turn the Commonwealth of Australia into some REPUBLIC.
15 .
It should be understood that neither can the Commonwealth of Australia apply a de facto
constitution purporting to be identical to The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) because the moment one accept that the Federal parliament can create an alternative
constitution (identical or not) then it means the Federal parliament likewise can remove s.128
20 referendum powers and amend this purported constitution as it desires. It would then turn the
democratic Commonwealth of Australia, a POLITICAL UNION (see below) into a
dictatorship.
.
It should be understood that for politicians there is much to gain to try to turn the Commonwealth
25 of Australia from a “POLITICAL UNION” into a republic, even if it is deceptively claimed to
be under the Queen of Australia. After all if the Federal parliament can turn the “POLITICAL
UNION” into some purported monarchy then why not then the next step a REPUBLIC? After
all, those who accept a purported monarchy cannot then complain if it is instead turned into a
REPUBLIC. As they say what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. Whereas Ministers
30 in the British government have unlimited powers within their portfolio a Minister in the
Commonwealth of Australia can exercise only powers “peace, order and good government”
and not beyond. It is therefore abundantly clear in that regard also that politicians want to do
whatever to broaden their powers and in whatever unconstitutional manner.
On 19 July 2006, after a 5-year epic legal battle I defeated the Commonwealth of Australia
35 comprehensively on all submissions based on constitutional matters, including those stated in the
2 December 2002 filed NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and did so
comprehensively without challenge and in fact the Commonwealth of Australia consented for the
Court to unconditionally uphold both of my cases. As such, I have the courts adjudication against
the Commonwealth of Australia to support my views.
40 .
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
45 Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the
The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his
50 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
26-1-2010 Page 89
5 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
10 Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the
Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament
year.
END QUOTE
15 .
The difference being that the Governor-General and the Ministers are employed by the Crown
whereas Members of both houses of Parliament are not, their “ALLOWANCES” (Not salaries,
as they are not employed) as such is directly payable from Consolidated Revenue Funds where as
Ministers and the Governor-General are in employ of the British Crown and Her majesty may
20 very well re-deploy a Governor-General to another colony/federation, etc. As Sir Grey made
known he had been after having been governor-General of South Africa. After all, one would not
want a Governor-General retiring with a life pension from the Commonwealth of Australia and
then being appointed as governor-General to Canada and claim another life pension and then as
retired governor-General of new Zealand collect yet another pension and on and on. Clearly, the
25 term of payments for a Governor-General rest with the period in office and even during
absenteeism then as set out below also the governor-General had to pay for his Deputy taking
care of his duties and functions and not that the taxpayers are paying for two or more governor-
Generals.
.
30 Indeed, the whole set up with the Senate was extensively debated that Senator-elect could not
draw an “ALLOWANCE” until the day he actually took up the seat for which he was elected as
otherwise there would be more senators in position of one seat then permitted. Hence, a Senator
can only draw an ALLOWANCE for the time actually holding the seat and no longer. Upon
retirement it is the end of payments. The same with Members of the House of Representatives.
35 .
QUOTE Governor-General Act 1974
The annual sum payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the salary of the
Governor-General shall be $394,000.
40 END QUOTE
.
It must be clear that this section is ULTRA VIRES, because by this the Federal Parliament has
interfered with the provisions of section 3.
.
45 QUOTE
50 otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds.
The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his
END QUOTE
.
26-1-2010 Page 90
If the Governor-General draws directly from the Consolidated Revenue Funds any salary then
the Governor-General is not representing the Crown and as such cannot be deemed to exercise
any prerogative powers, which is needed to maintain the link with the Crown for providing
validly royal assent to Bills for them to become legislative provisions.
5 .
Her Majesty may very well decide that the functions and duties the Governor-General exercises
in regard of the Commonwealth of Australia may suit better to combine with the duties and
obligations as Governor-General for New Zealand and so provide a certain salary that is well and
above that of what is paid to her majesty from the Consolidated Revenue Funds of the
10 Commonwealth of Australia. If this were to be so then Her majesty as the principle employer has
every right to determine the level of total salary payable irrespective of what the Commonwealth
of Australia may deem relevant to the functions and duties relating to the commonwealth of
Australia only.
.
15 Below another abnormality where somehow the Commonwealth of Australia seeks to intrude
upon the prerogative powers of the Queen in a remarkable idiotic manner.
Somehow the Commonwealth provided that from Consolidated Revenue Funds (upon the death
of the Governor-General )“as the deceased person’s husband or wife or partner on a
permanent and bona fide domestic basis” “leaving more than one spouse” “to a spouse of the
20 deceased person under this Act among the spouses”
.
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
QUOTE
43 Principles to be applied by courts
25
The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this
Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act shall,
in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to:
(a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as
30 the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others
voluntarily entered into for life;
(b) the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to
the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society,
particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of
35 dependent children;
END QUOTE
.
Whereas in British legislation a newer act automatically overrides all previous conflicting
legislative provisions, other then any constitutional act, and likewise so any European Union
40 legislation automatically overrides any British legislation other then constitutional acts
.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Constitution Act and
as such considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v
English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments -
45 Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for
judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003]
EWCA Civ 168
It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is
50 complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) is.
Legislation therefore includes all laws inhered from the United Kingdom, including the Magna
Carta, the Bill of Rights and other legislation. More over, it includes also that the legal provision
26-1-2010 Page 91
that the British Parliament can always amend its own laws remains applicable. Therefore the
United Kingdom by signing the European Union treaty and so its acceptance of its Constitution,
in effect has ensured that the right of the British Parliament to compliment The Commonwealth
of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was never extinguished.
5 The right of any Parliament to amend its own legislation, including seeking/proposing an
amendment of a constitution subject to s.128 referendum, provisions can only be limited by the
provisions of the constitution, but the right to provide complimentary legislation, such as the The
European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(“the ECHR”) is clearly not avoided, as any legislation applicable to British law automatically
10 applies to all British law, with the exception that constitutional law cannot be interfered with by
implied amendments.
The purpose of the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) is not to undermine the The Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) but rather is complimentary to the provisions of the
15 Constitution.
.
Therefore, in regard of the Commonwealth of Australia the provisions of the amended
Governor-General Act 1974 there is no such kind of automatically amendment to the Family
Law Act 1975.
20 Therefore for the Commonwealth proviing that from Consolidated Revenue Funds (upon the
death of the Governor-General )“as the deceased person’s husband or wife or partner on a
permanent and bona fide domestic basis” “leaving more than one spouse” “to a spouse of the
deceased person under this Act among the spouses” is a non legal enforceable provisions as it is
ULTRA VIRES.
25 .
Without seeking to select any particular religion, consider that some person married to five or
more wives was to be appointed governor-General and then claim for his entire harem of wives
and the dozens of children payments! It is a total absurdity and not at all what the Framers of the
Constitution contemplated.
30 .
It must be clear the Governor-General is to be employed by the British Crown and the
constitution provides for salaries payable to the Queen and no others. If Her Majesty then were to
appoint a person who has a harem and countless children then her majesty can feed the bill but
the Commonwealth of Australia would only be obligated to pay for the Governor-General a
35 salary and no more.
.
Another issue is that if I employ a contractor then it doesn’t matter how many subcontractors that
contractor engages in performing the job as ultimately I only pay the contractor regardless if he
pays his subcontractors or not. The contract is with the Contractor. Any subcontractor would
40 have no claim against me but against the contractor.
Likewise so the Governor-General, he/she must obtain any payments for m the Queen and cannot
so to say put his/her fingers in the till to steal monies from it as payment. A Cashier cannot put
her fingers in the till as to obtain wages but must await the employer to pay her wages.
Therefore, the Governor-General can only obtain payments through Her Majesty Queen
45 Elizabeth of the British Crown (as set out further below) and if the Governor-General purports to
serve a Queen of Australia then there is no constitutional provision for payments because the
queen of Australia is a fictitious name of a non existing monarchy.
.
As quotations below clearly refers to “British crown” “British Empire” and not “Australian
50 crown” or “Australian empire” it must therefore be obvious that a Governor-General can only
legitimately represent the Queen and draw salary from the Queen provided she is appointed upon
recommendation of the Home Office (not the Commonwealth of Australia) by the British Crown.
.
26-1-2010 Page 92
.
QUOTE
Governor-General Act 1974

5 Act No. 16 of 1974 as amended
This compilation was prepared on 1 January 2009

taking into account amendments up to Act No. 134 of 2008
END QUOTE
And
10 QUOTE
An Act to make provision in relation to the Salary of the
Governor-General, and the Payment of Allowances to persons, and
to the spouses of persons, who have held the office of
Governor-General, to establish the office of Official Secretary to the
15 Governor-General, to provide for the employment of staff of the
Governor-General, and for related purposes
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
20 (3)For the purpose of subsection (2), a person is to be regarded as ordinarily living with a deceased
person as the deceased person’s husband or wife or partner on a permanent and bona
fide domestic basis at a particular time only if:
END QUOTE
And
25 QUOTE
The annual sum payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the salary of the
Governor-General shall be $394,000.
30 END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
4 Allowances
(1) Subject to subsection (4), where, after the commencement of this Act, a person ceases to hold
35 office as Governor-General, an allowance is payable under this section to him or her during
his or her life-time at such rate as is from time to time payable under paragraph (3)(a).
END QUOTE
And
40 QUOTE
4A Allowance payable when there is more than one spouse

(1) If a person who held office or had held office as the Governor-General (deceased person)
dies leaving more than one spouse, the Commissioner must allocate any allowance payable
to a spouse of the deceased person under this Act among the spouses.
26-1-2010 Page 93
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
5 Appropriation
5 An allowance under section 4 is payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is
appropriated accordingly.
END QUOTE
.
As I indicated the Commonwealth of Australia cannot interfere with the prerogative powers of
10 the Crown as exercisable by the Governor-General, however the Commonwealth of Australia can
provide for the additional powers to proclaim other matters, such as to what date an Act may
become applicable, provided it is on or past the date of it being Gazetted by the Governor-
General.
.
15 QUOTE
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 SECT 40 40 Jurisdiction of Family Court
(1)
The jurisdiction of the Family Court under this Act shall not be exercised
except in accordance with Proclamations under this section.
20 (2)
The Governor-General may, by Proclamation, fix a date as the date on and after
which the jurisdiction of the Family Court under this Act may be exercised in
respect of all proceedings, or a class of proceedings, in such States and
Territories as are specified in the Proclamation.
25 END QUOTE
.
Likewise the Federal Parliament can provide other non-prerogative powers to the Governor-
General. It should however be understood that the Commonwealth of Australia and so the
federal parliament cannot interfere with the British Crown and how this applies to the
30 constitution and the High Court of Australia has judicial powers to adjudicate but cannot either
interfere or otherwise wise the true meaning and application of the constitution which as the
Framers of the Constitution made clear was “-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland”.
.
35 Below I have extensively canvassed therefore also this issue.
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-

40 I wish to clear away the misconception in the first place that I have any objection whatever
to the word "Commonwealth," or to the use of the word "Commonwealth," in this Bill. I
have no objection to that where it is confined to the expression of the political Union. In the
preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
indissoluble Federal Commonwealth-that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
45 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby
there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going
to create under that Union. The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is
50 expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
26-1-2010 Page 94
.
Safe to state that the Commonwealth of Australia is a POLITICAL UNION existing by the
5 legal provisions and referendums of the (then) colonies!
Further, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that there are no constitutional powers to turn
the Commonwealth of Australia into a Republic! As like the EUROPEAN UNION there is no
monarchy, republic, empire, etc, just a “POLITICAL UNION”
Those Frenchmen, Dutch, Germans, British, etc, are not now claiming their nationality is
10 “EUROPEAN UNION” as each retained their own nationality. Likewise Australians natural
born or naturalized, as set out below, also retained their British nationality albeit commonly
referred to as Australians.
.
“Australian Citizenship” is not and neither can be constitutionally a nationality as it is a political
15 status obtained AUTOMATICALLY when a person obtains “State citizenship”, this too has
been set out below to some extend.
.
QUOTE
20 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that
we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
END QUOTE
.
25 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be
proud of that position. I have no desire to weaken a single link binding us to that
empire, whether as regards the appointment of a governor-general or anything else. I
desire to hold those links sacred, and if possible to strengthen them, and I am satisfied
30 that in making his proposal the hon. member is not consulting the feelings of the
people of Australia.
END QUOTE
.
35 QUOTE
shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
40 with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so
on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over our
birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the
amendment will not be accepted.
END QUOTE
45 .
QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
The only difference between the position before the institution of the Commonwealth and
afterwards is that, so far as there are additional political powers given to any subject or
50 citizen, be has the right to exercise these, and the method of exercising them is defined. So
far the right of citizenship, if there is a right of citizenship under the empire, is
26-1-2010 Page 95
defined in the Constitution. Now, each citizen of a state is, without definition, a citizen
of the Commonwealth if there is such a term as citizenship to be applied to a subject
of the empire.
END QUOTE
5 .
While the High Court of Australia in its 1996 Sue v Hill decision declared that somehow Heather
Hill was excluded from being a Member of Parliament (Senate) the truth is that it was a
fabrication of a non-existing Queen of Australia.
When I naturalised in 1994 I understood to be under the British Crown, and somehow in
10 1996 it is being claimed that retrospectively it is not the British Crown at all but a non-
existing Australian crown?
.
QUOTE
15 Mr. ISAACS.-It compels everybody who has obeyed the decision of the higher courts to
act, or refrain from acting. That is a position which none of us would willingly get into,
and the retrospective action is wrong.
END QUOTE
And
20 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
Unless the honorable member is willing to amend his clause in that respect, we should only
complicate matters, and if retrospective operation were given to it we should be lending
ourselves to what would be, quite unintentionally on the part of the honorable
member, a gross injustice.
25 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us,
30 I am happy to say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the
book which he was good enough to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form:
That it is desirable there should be a union of the Australian colonies. That is one of
the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments. Second, that such union
should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in order that
35 the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under
the Crown. Now, I am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with
which we have to deal-that the union that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown.
Fourth, that it should be under one legislative and executive government. That also is
laid down by our various parliaments.
40 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
There can be nothing unsavoury in a title which means, according to the best
45 authority, "the nation, state, realm, the commonwealth"-the word being interposed
between "realm" and "republic," showing that it is used to signify the common good
and that it has that signification whether under a queen or a republic. "Nation, state,
realm, commonwealth, republic, commonweal, nationality." The words used by Roget as
synonymous are among others "national" and "public." If these are the expressions
50 associated by the highest authorities with the word commonwealth, why seek better? Shall
we take confederation or federation? I will not give all the words which are stated as
synonymous, because some of them express almost too much; but we find these, "league,
alliance, coalition, confederacy, confederation." These are not altogether what we wish to
26-1-2010 Page 96
express, because we know that although we have, embodied the operation of federal action
in this commonwealth, still we seek to constitute a national government for national
purposes. Our purposes of government may be national while we preserve the utmost
loyalty to the monarch whom the constitution sets over us. As the hon. member, Sir
5 George Grey, has expressed it, we have constituted the Queen a member, and the highest
member, of our parliament. The association of the Queen with the action of the
commonwealth is distinct, and is firmly embedded in the whole bill. If that is done,
there can be no association of the idea of republicanism with this bill.
END QUOTE
10 .
Again;
QUOTE
If that is done, there can be no association of the idea of republicanism with this bill.
END QUOTE
15 .
And again;
QUOTE
If that is done, there can be no association of the idea of republicanism with this bill.
END QUOTE
20 .
QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
So long as we remain in our present position as individual colonies, we are imperially
federated, and we can be imperially federated in no stronger manner than in
25 connection with our relation to the mother country.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
30 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
I wish to clear away the misconception in the first place that I have any objection whatever
to the word "Commonwealth," or to the use of the word "Commonwealth," in this Bill. I
have no objection to that where it is confined to the expression of the political Union. In the
preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
35 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth-that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby
there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going
40 to create under that Union. The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is
expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
45 END QUOTE
.
Safe to state that the Commonwealth of Australia is a POLITICAL UNION existing by the
legal provisions and referendums of the (then) colonies!
Further, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that there are no constitutional powers to turn
50 the Commonwealth of Australia into a Republic!

QUOTE
26-1-2010 Page 97
The Right Hon. G.H. REID: That is the point. Under this constitution, with the
leading principle in it that it is not to go beyond what is in it, no principle or subject
which is not expressed within its pages can be dealt with by the federal parliament.
Looking that in the face, I say it is possible to distinguish between the questions in which
5 the voice of the nation must be supreme, and questions in which the voice of the states must
be represented.
END QUOTE
.
What we have therefore is that the Governor-General can only be validly appointed upon
10 recommendation of the Home Office (10 Downing Street) any the Queen and any salary is
payable to the queen and the Governor-General simply has to sort out with the queen what salary
he/she is receiving from the Queen.
Fancy the Queen to appoint Prince Charles and then he is Governor-General and retires with a
lifetime pension only then to become King! Likewise so with Prince William!
15 The following quotations show that the Framers of the Constitution extensively debated the
appointment of a Governor-General and held that if a Governor-General was not appointed upon
the recommendation of the Home office by Her majesty then there was no legal link with the
Crown. What this means that effectively all and any purported royal assent given never was valid
as constitutionally the British crown only can give royal assent and not the queen of The
20 Netherlands, the Queen of Denmark, the Queen of any other nation but only the British Crown.
The delegates clearly opposed any appointment through the Commonwealth of Australia
government as it also feared that the Governor-General might then become a political instrument
for the government. Also it opposed an elected Governor-General as to avoid a power struggle.
.
25 It should be understood that the governor-General apart of ceremonial duties has in fact a very
important role to play. If there is a double dissolution and a battle for power then the Governor-
General, as at the time of federation, may very well as the CEO have to deal with matters,
including the payment of monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds to ensure that the entire
administration is not grinding to a halt. And there are numerous other roles to play but I do not
30 intend to refer to them in this document.
.
It also should be understood that constitutionally the Governor-General is the representatives of
the Queen in Her Majesty’s absenteeism and hence there is no such thing as some member of the
royal family coming to the Commonwealth of Australia to act on behalf of the Queen because
35 not only would this be an insult to the governor-General but also would be in conflict with the
constitution!
.
QUOTE
40 Application of provisions relating to Governor-General.
4. The provision of this Constitution relating to the Governor-General extend and apply to
the Governor-General for the time being or other the Chief Executive Officer or
Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth,
by whatever title he is designated.
45 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
50 clause in the American Constitution; but the President there is practically never absent from
his full salary during a year's leave of absence; and I would point out that that leave of
absence rests with the authorities in Downing-street. The clause, therefore, would allow
26-1-2010 Page 98
An HON. MEMBER: The governor-general!
5 Clause, as amended, agreed to.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
10 Mr. PLAYFORD: But the Queen has the power to refuse it!
Dr. COCKBURN: If the governor-general by letters patent is instructed to exercise

that power, he will do so. Unless something is definitely stated on this point, I imagine the
letters patent to the governor-general will be in this particular no different from the letters
patent to ,the governors of the different colonies; and I wish to ask the hon. member, Sir
15 Samuel Griffith, whether it is his intention, in connection with the commonwealth, with all
the presume which it will have, that an important matter such as the dissolution of
parliament, which is purely a local matter, should not be vested in those ministers who are
directly responsible on the spot to the people of the colonies?
Sir GEORGE GREY: I am afraid I shall lose my chance of moving an amendment to
20 this clause if I do not do it at this stage. I move:
That the words "The Queen may, from time to time, appoint," lines 1 and 2, be omitted
with a view to the insertion of the words "There shall be."
The intention is that the governor may be elected. I feel that in bringing this subject under
the notice of the Convention I am entering upon very delicate and very debatable grounds
25 But I feel that, in point of fact, the future of vast multitudes of persons will depend upon the
manner in which this question is dealt with. This is a question of the interests of nearly
4,000,000 persons at the present moment who look to us; and it appears to me extremely
inexpedient that the power of appointing the governor-general to rule so vast a confederacy
should be left in the hands of any minister of the day in Great Britain. The terms used are
30 "the Queen shall appoint"; but we all know perfectly well that that means that the
minister for the time-being shall appoint such person as he pleases, whilst such
appointment might be absolutely obnoxious to her Majesty herself. The meaning of
the thing is that a friend or any other person chosen by the minister may be appointed
without the people of this great confederacy being in any way consulted. I understand
35 that the reason usually alleged for that by persons who support the appointment being
made by the Queen is that a social appointment is to be made. That is the term usually
applied-it is a social question, and not a political question. I contend that the question is
twofold, and those two things cannot be separated. The governor has political functions
to exercise and he has social functions to exercise, and in either case I hold that a
40 person so appointed is much less fitted to exercise those functions than a governor-
general chosen by the people of the country would be. I do not understand how it can
be said that any social ends whatever, or, at all events, of [start page 562] any
magnitude, are attained by the appointment of the governor-general by the Crown;
but I do hold that social ties and social questions of the strongest possible kind require
45 that the governor-general should be elected by the people of the confederacy. Take the
case of a widowed mother, herself well educated, perhaps brought up as a teacher in
one of your public schools, and possessing great ability; imagine her with her
orphaned children, deprived of a father, night after night teaching those children,
with a hope that the highest offices of the state of every kind may be open to them all.
26-1-2010 Page 99
Is not that a social question-a social gathering of the highest and noblest kind? And
hundreds, I may say thousands, of such social gatherings would be witnessed every
night in this great commonwealth, if all the highest offices of state were filled by
election by the people. If you follow it out, you will find that in all social relations of
5 the family-fathers, mothers, children, brothers, sisters-this question is intimately
concerned as being something which binds the whole family together for common
objects, and opens paths of distinction to every one of them, if they prove themselves
great and deserving men. Why should you say to all these 4,000,000 of people, "No
one of you, nor any one of the other millions who are to occupy this country, shall
10 have the slightest chance of ever attaining to an honor of that kind"-that it shall
always be open, as it certainly, or almost certainly would be, to distant persons with
no claim whatever upon the inhabitants of this country, all of whom would be shut out
from so great an opening as that of which I speak? It is more materially necessary that
we should consider this point now, and that we should come to a just decision upon it,
15 because I will show hereafter, as the discussion on the bill proceeds, that in every instance
all hope is shut out from the great masses of the colony to succeed to any one of the
important posts which under this bill will be open to the people of Australia. I say that,
looking to our duty to our Sovereign, we owe it to her to select the worthiest man we
know to represent her here-to be certain that the man so chosen is worthy to represent
20 her; and in no other way than by his being chosen by ourselves from people whom we
know can we be certain that the worthiest man will be chosen to represent the Queen
within the limits of the great confederacy which we are about to constitute.
Considering the openings that would be given to every inhabitant of Australasia
under such a system as I propose, with so many families, as will necessarily do it,
25 directing their every exertion and effort to raise up children worthy of the great
opportunities laid open to them, I ask whether this is not to us a greater social
question than a few balls and dinners given at Government House, at which none but
those in the immediate vicinity can be present? I ask what comparison is there
between these two things-one great and far-reaching, extending to millions, the other
30 a mere sham, as it were, representing what passes in another place, as if one were
looking through the wrong end of a telescope at some procession that was going on?
All matters connected with Government House are diminished here as compared with
Great Britain and the influence exercised there. There it is the influence of an
hereditary monarch descended from a long line of ancestors. There it is the influence
35 belonging to certain professions-the army and navy-who look to receiving honor from
the hands of such a sovereign. Here there are no ties whatever of that kind; and yet
for a mere imaginary show, or what is called the performance of social duties-
entertaining strangers and also citizens immediately surrounding the vice-regal court,
which are the only benefits that are abso- [start page 563] lutely gained-all those
40 benefits that I speak of are lost. Let us look at it in another way, which is also worthy
of our consideration. What is the necessary consequence of having a governor-general
of this kind, with an enormous salary, and vast expenditure upon various subjects-a
salary more than adequate to the duties to be performed? You will find set down in
this bill a salary of £10,000 a year.
45 The VICE CHAIRMAN: I ask the hon. member not to discuss that matter, as the
question of salary is dealt with in the next clause.
Sir GEORGE GREY: I find a difficulty in separating the two questions. They may be
separated in clauses; but the one argument will hardly carry the full meaning of what it is
necessary for me to say so that the matter maybe understood. I hardly see how it is possible
50 for me to divide the subject, because if I admit that the governor-general should be
appointed by the Crown, what is the use of my afterwards arguing about the salary? If,
26 -1-2010 Page 100
whilst I am arguing upon what must follow upon the appointment of governor-general, I
cannot refer to the salary, how can I make the matter thoroughly understood? I would
submit, sir, that this is a case in which clearly it is impossible to separate the two.
Mr. FYSH: Go on!
5 Sir GEORGE GREY: Well, I can allude generally to the subject of powers and
functions. Limiting myself, then, to the use of the term large, salary, may I say, without
naming the exact amount, that the President of the United States, until but lately, received
£6,000 a year for his salary for ruling 40,000,000 people, and at the present time I believe
his salary is £10,000 a year for ruling 60,000,000 people, and daily augmenting in number.
10 Here we are expected to pay at least as large a salary as is paid to the President of the
United States for ruling 60,000,000 people, and to pay a governor-general nominated by the
Crown. I ask is it just whilst so many poor people have to be taxed to pay their share
of that salary, to deprive them of the honor, and, I may say of the just pride, of
themselves electing some worthy man, known throughout so great an extent of
15 country as Australia, to occupy that honorable post, with the certainty that such an
example will operate upon every individual of the community, stirring noble faculties
in many men, giving hope, perhaps, to some thousand or more of the people that they
may possibly attain to such an honor? Is it right to make the people pay such sums of
money, and to deprive them of honors to which they ought justly and rightly to look?
20 And when, as I shall prove by-and-by, as we go on with the bill, each office is closed
by some restriction or other to all chance of fair competition in the country, let us, at
the very first, indicate in this clause that this great office shall be open at all times to
that man in Australia who is deemed the greatest, and worthiest, and fittest to hold so
noble a post, and to satisfy his fellow-citizens that they have wisely chosen one who
25 will be an honor to the whole community. Can any of us believe that if at the time of the
disturbances in the United States in regard to slavery a man had to be chosen by the British
ministry of the day in London, there was the slightest hope that such a man as Lincoln
would have come to the front to achieve the great and noble objects which he
accomplished? I am sure the universal admission must be that there would have been no
30 hope of such a thing. Yet from the forests of the United States there came one who had
been a mere splitter of timber, worthy justly and rightly to exercise the highest power for a
time in the United States and to accomplish the great ends at which he aimed. Are we in
Australia to be told that also can find no man worthy to succeed to a post of that
kind? Are we to be told that we must [start page 564] forego the chance of selecting a
35 man of that sort, and that some thousands a year must be expended unnecessarily,
when the money might be applied to great and good objects? And if it should be so
expended will it be for the benefit of the people? No. I say it will be to their detriment,
by depriving them of such just objects of ambition-objects just in themselves, find
which would soon be dear to the hearts of all. To my mind, to subject the people of
40 this new federation to a rule of this kind is to degrade, and not to ennoble; is to lower
them in their own estimation, instead of raising them in their own estimation; is to say
that they are not worthy to compete with their fellow-men in other parts of the world.
As far as it rests with myself, I know that I am venturing upon dangerous ground. I
know that I must raise enmity in many minds by what I am doing.
45 Hon. MEMBERS: No!
Sir GEORGE GREY: But I feel it my duty to run this risk in order to tell what I
believe to be impregnable truths, and to try to lead this Convention to do that which I
am confident will stamp greatness upon every man who assists in obtaining that
benefit for his country. I believe that those who force this clause into this bill, instead
50 of not having done good to Australia, will virtually have conferred a great benefit
26 -1-2010 Page 101
upon the country by creating a necessity for a discussion of this question. If, now that
the question has been raised, it is decided in favour of the people of Australasia-if they
are told that this great boon is open to them; if this night we send a thrill from one
part of the country to the other with the news that this great object has been attained,
5 I say it will have been for all those who have aided in it one of the happiest days in
their lives, and that they will be benefactors to countless generations yet to come in
having obtained so great and good an object for them. And further than that, I say
that to attain this object, to gain this principle will be to ensure for a long period of
time the love of Australasia for England; to remove to a greater distance all chances of
10 separation between the two countries, and to lead me, and I believe many others, to
rest assured that a step of the strongest kind has been taken to strengthen the great
union of Australasia for yet centuries to come, instead of endangering it, as I am
certain will be the case, by blocking that union with the disastrous admission that we
must take from Great Britain such governor-generals as she may please to send out,
15 and that none of the citizens of this country may hope to obtain that great and, shall I
call it, magnificent office. Actuated by these sentiments, I have felt it my duty to raise
this question, and I trust that I shall have some support, if not a majority of the
Convention, ill favour of that which I ask for.
Amendment proposed.
20 Mr. MUNRO: I am rather surprised at the hon. member, Sir George Grey, bringing this
question forward at the present time.
Dr. COCKBURN: He mentioned it in the former debate!
Mr. MUNRO: The hon. gentleman was a member of the committee which drafted the
bill. Was not the matter thrashed out by the committee?
25 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: We are not bound by the report!
Mr. MUNRO: I do not say we are; but the hon. gentleman told us that the arguments
made use of in the committee were sufficient to convince him that he was wrong, and I
thought the same course might have been followed on the present occasion, because if he
was wrong in his views then most assuredly he is wrong now. The hon. member tells us
30 that one of the great effects of electing our own governor-general would be to put him in
the position of Abraham Lincoln-to give him similar [start page 565] powers and a similar
position. Under our form of government that position is occupied by the Prime
Minister, and no matter whether the governor-general were elected or not, he could
not under constitutional government exercise the functions which Abraham Lincoln
35 exercised. No governor-general could undertake that responsibility, whether
appointed by the Crown or not. If the hon. member's argument were carried out to its
legitimate issue the people of England ought to elect their sovereign. That is really
what it means. The governor-general is to appear here as the representative of the
Queen. Under our constitution the Queen is to be in some sense present among us.
40 The only way in which we can have her present is through her representative, and if
her representative is to be elected by us, and not by herself, he will be not her
representative, but ours. To carry the hon. member's argument to its legitimate issue,
therefore, he ought to say that the people of the empire should elect their own
monarch. That is what it means. If the hon. member is not prepared to say that, he
45 ought not to go to the extent to which he wishes to go. I do not think, however, that
this is a matter to which we ought to devote much time at this stage; because, since we
have already agreed-and we have done so that we are to have a form of constitutional
government under the Crown, we must allow the Crown the power of being
26 -1-2010 Page 102

represented in the union. If we carry out the proposal of the hon. member, the result
would be that we must abandon the proposed union, and have a union in a different
direction, certainly not under the Crown. The hon. member said the result of his
proposal would be to strengthen the union with England; but I think few persons will
5 agree with him in that respect. I think the people of Australia will agree with me that
the result of his proposal would be to weaken the union. We should, in fact, begin to
ask why we were connected with England at all. If we could appoint our own
governor-general, if we could carry, on all our legislation, and do the whole of our
business, the question would soon be asked what we had to do with England, and then
10 where would the connection be? I do not see the necessity for considering the hon.
member's proposal at the present time. I am proud of being a citizen of the great
British empire, and shall never fail to be proud of that position. I have no desire to
weaken a single link binding us to that empire, whether as regards the appointment of
a governor-general or anything else. I desire to hold those links sacred, and if possible
15 to strengthen them, and I am satisfied that in making his proposal the hon. member is
not consulting the feelings of the people of Australia.
Sir GEORGE GREY: I wish to answer a few of the arguments raised by the hon.
member. I understood him to say that Abraham Lincoln would not be wanted here.
Mr. MUNRO: I did not say that. I said that our governor-general could not do what
20 Abraham Lincoln did in America!
Sir GEORGE GREY: And that in that way he would have been unnecessary.
Mr. MUNRO: That be would be unable to do what Abraham Lincoln did!

END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER: Listening as I do, with the greatest pleasure to everything
that falls from the hon. member, Sir George Grey, I should be anxious in every way to
agree with him if I could by any means bring myself to concur in his views. If the hon.
30 gentleman had commenced his argument by asking what was the necessity for a
governor-general, or for a governor at all, he might have appealed to the sympathies
of a good many of us, because, as Mr. Deakin said, the office both of governor-general
and of the local governors must in the nature of things be so much of the character of
ceremonials, and have so little substantial authority, [start page 572] that had the hon.
35 gentleman suggested that we should dispense with these-as some persons might consider
them-baubles, there might have been a good deal to be said in favour of the proposition.
But when the hon. gentleman, who I think generally believes in the British Constitution, at
the same time advocates with such earnestness, eloquence, and seriousness the appointment
from amongst ourselves, and from our own population of the gentlemen occupying the
40 position of governor-general, I would ask him in what position will the governor-
general be when he is elected? If he is elected by the voice of the people, does the hon.
gentleman assume that history will not repeat itself, and that the governor-general
will not assume a position something like that of the President of the United States, so
that the cry amongst political parties will be, "Who is for the president, and who is
45 against him?" If what we want to do is to get rid of the authority of the Queen, and to
make the real substantial authority of the realm the person in the position of
governor-general, the way to do it is to appoint the governor-general in the way the
hon. gentleman suggests; but if we want to retain the authority in the people-apart
from the question whether it is to be in the senate or in the house of representatives,
26 -1-2010 Page 103
or in both co-ordinately-subject to the authority of the Sovereign, it would be inviting
at once an interference with that authority to put at the head of the government a
person elected by the people, and who, from the very nature of his election, would
speak with authority, and assume a dominion over the commonwealth, which we are
5 certainly not prepared to concede. I think the hon. gentleman must not attribute to any
one of us the slightest disrespect, or feel hurt because we do not arrive at the same
conclusions as be has arrived at, because, although, as the hon. member, Mr. Deakin, said,
as a general principle, we think that all authority should come from the people, and that all
officers should be elected by the people, we are not prepared to interfere with the cardinal
10 principle of our constitution, and that is, that the nominal head of the government should be
only the nominal head of the executive, and not become a real, substantial, legislative force
in the community.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Clause 3. The annual salary of the governor-general shall be fixed by the Parliament from
time to time, but shall not be less than ten thousand pounds, and the same shall be
payable to the Queen out of the consolidated revenue fund of the commonwealth. The
20 salary of a governor-general shall not be diminished during his continuance in office.
Mr. BARTON: I propose to omit the words "the same" as being quite unnecessary. The
alteration will, I think, improve the bill.
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: I should like to see all the words after "from time to time"
omitted, for I do not see why we should fix the amount at £10,000. I therefore move:
25 That the words "but shall not be less than ten thousand pounds" be omitted.
Mr. GILLIES: I should like to know from the hon. member the object of omitting the
words. Is it that there shall be no salary at all?
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: No; it is that the federal parliament shall be left perfectly free
to deal with the question of salary itself.
30 An HON. MEMBER: I suppose the hon. member would do the same with the
ministers?
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: I should do exactly the same with the ministers!
Mr. MUNRO: I feel that the hon. member, Sir Harry Atkinson, cannot have considered
what he proposes to do. The governor-general must be appointed before the parliament is
35 called into existence, and does the hon. member think that any one will take the office
without some assurance that he will get a salary of some sort? Surely the governor-general
ought to know Something about the office be is to fill and the emolument attached to, the
position! If the amendment be made the result will be that the appointment will be made
without any assurance as to the emolument which the holder is to receive. The hon.
40 member says he will make a similar proposal with regard to the ministers of the Crown. I
venture to say that the two proposals are really unwise, and that we ought now to attach
some decent salary to the office giving power to the parliament to vary it, but not to reduce
it during the term of office of the gentleman appointed afterwards. My conviction is that a
salary of £10,000 is altogether inadequate for the office. My feeling is that the gentleman to
45 be appointed ought [start page 579] to be equal to the gentleman appointed as governor-
general of India. He ought to be a gentleman capable of being a cabinet minister in
26 -1-2010 Page 104
England, and for that purpose the salary ought to be very much larger than what is
proposed. I do not think it is to the advantage of the colonies to hawk this position about in
such a way that no man of good standing or position will take it. When the Constitution of
Victoria was agreed to many years ago, I think the population of the colony was about only
5 250,000, and yet they fixed the governor's salary at £10,000, with an allowance of £5,000,
making it £15,000 in all. Since then it has been reduced to £10,000 a year, but a house is
provided furnished, so that practically the emolument comes to £15,000 a year now. Now,
this Convention, representing the whole of Australia, is going to give the governor-general
a salary equal to what is given to the Governor of Victoria at the present time.
10 Mr. CLARK: You will reduce yours!
Mr. MUNRO: No, we do not intend to reduce ours. We think the Governor of Victoria is
entitled to the salary, and perhaps more, if we could afford it. At any rate, I think that
instead of striking out these words, and making the amount indefinite-in fact, making no
provision at all-the words ought to be struck out with the view of increasing the amount
15 very considerably.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Another reason why the words should not be struck out is
not only the importance of the first governor-general knowing how much be is to get-a very
important consideration in choosing him-but that the federal parliament might simply by
reducing the salary cut the connection with Great Britain altogether. Supposing that it were
20 to reduce the salary to £100 or £1,000 a year! That is the reason why in all the constitution
acts there has been the reservation of a fixed sum, which is made payable to her Majesty,
so that she has always money to pay her governor-general, and therefore can always
secure the appointment in the country of her representative with an adequate salary. I
agree with the hon. member, Mr. Munro, that the salary is too small, having regard to the
25 salary given to the Governor of Victoria.
Sir JOHN BRAY: I think it is desirable to fix the salary of the first governor-general.
The clause says that the salary shall not be less than £10,000. It is very possible, I think,
that that expression may lead to very serious misunderstanding. It is an intimation to the
governor-general that he shall get £10,000 a year, and probably a good deal more than that.
30 He ought to know when appointed what his salary is to be, and I think, therefore, that the
salary of the first governor-general should be fixed in the bill. The words "but shall not be
less than" should therefore be omitted.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That would enable the federal parliament to reduce the
salary to £1,000!
35 Sir JOHN BRAY: No, because the clause provides that the salary shall not be
diminished during the governor's continuance in office. But I am astonished to hear it
suggested that the federal parliament would be so supremely ridiculous as to fix a
nominal salary for a governor-general. It is to my mind utterly out of the question to
imagine that such would be the case. If we leave the clause as it stands we say to the federal
40 parliament, "We cannot trust you to fix the salary; we will fix it at not less than £10,000,
whatever the circumstances of the federal government may be." Surely if we give the
federal government the powers which it is proposed to give them we can trust them to see
that proper provision is made for the salary of the governor-general. I think we should fix
the salary, of the first [start page 580] governor-general at £10,000, leaving it to the federal
45 government to fix the salary subsequently.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The hon. member, Sir John Bray, surely could not have
heard my argument. Does he suggest that the framers of the constitutions of the various
26 -1-2010 Page 105

colonies did not understand their business? This reservation in regard to the salary of
governors is made in the whole of the acts.
Sir JOHN BRAY: But there is power to alter the act!
Mr. GILLIES: Only by a certain majority!

5 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The salary cannot be diminished unless by an amendment of
the act, and that is the object of the reservation. The idea is to secure the means of
providing a representative of the Queen in the colony with an adequate salary. I will put
this illustration. If you give to the federal parliament absolute power to reduce the salary,
some persons may be constantly endeavouring to earn a little cheap popularity by
10 proposing reductions. You will have continual agitations for the reduction of the salary to
£8,000, or £6,000 or less. It would, perhaps, be regarded as a very popular move on the part
of some persons.
Dr. COCKBURN: Is that not rather a serious reflection upon public opinion?
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I have heard of persons who, in order to gain a little cheap
15 popularity have been capable of that sort of thing. I think the proposed amendment would
be a great mistake. The salary of course could be altered as part of the constitution; but then
it would be only by the deliberate action of a majority of both houses, and with the
approval of the states.
Sir JOHN BRAY: Why not leave the salary to the federal parliament?
20 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It might then be determined by an accidental majority
perhaps at the end of the session.
I understood the hon. member to suggest that the salary should not be either increased or
diminished during the governor's tenure of office, and to argue that if the words "but shall
not be less than" were retained, the governor would perhaps expect more than £10,000. I
25 hope, for the reasons I have given, that the Committee will not omit the words.
Mr. DEAKIN: There is another contingency possible, if the hon. member, Sir John Bray,
feels that there is force-and there is force-in the remarks of Sir Samuel Griffith as to the
necessity for protecting the salary of the governor-general against hasty reduction, allowing
it to be reduced only by the machinery provided for an amendment of the constitution. The
30 hon. member can yet press-and very properly-an amendment omitting the words "not less
than," because while this renders it impossible to diminish the salary without altering the
constitution, it leaves it perfectly possible to increase it by means of an ordinary bill.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is as the clause stands now!

Mr. DEAKIN: If it were desired to provide £12,000 or £15,000, the extra amount could
35 be appropriated by an ordinary act of parliament, because it would not alter the
constitution. I think, therefore, that the hon. member, Sir John Bray, is justified in pressing
his amendment to the point of rendering it necessary to alter the constitution, if it be wished
to raise or diminish the salary of the governor-general.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Why for the purpose of raising it?

40 Sir GEORGE GREY: I entirely differ from the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, in
thinking that the power of reduction would be exercised for the sake of popularity. It is to
suppose that a majority of the federal parliament would make an alteration from an
unworthy motive. It might [start page 581] be thought that the salary was much too large,
26 -1-2010 Page 106
and that it was injurious to the interests of the colony to pay such a large salary. The salary
of the governor-general should be reduced whenever Parliament so desires, and should be
increased at any time parliament may see fit to increase it. I think parliament ought to have
the fullest power in fixing the salary.
5 Sir JOHN BRAY: I understand that if the amendment of the hon. member, Sir Harry
Atkinson, is put, and it is determined that the words shall stand, the amendment I desire to
move cannot be put.
The CHAIRMAN: That is the case.
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to
10 withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir JOHN BRAY: I move:
That the words "but shall not be less than," line 3, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu
thereof the words "and until so fixed shall be."
15 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is exactly the same amendment; it strikes out the
minimum!
Sir JOHN BRAY: It is not the same. My proposal is that the salary of the governor-
general shall be £10,000 until it is fixed by the federal parliament. Surely we ought to
intrust the federal parliament with the power of making proper provision for the salary of
20 the governor-general, and ought not to make it necessary to alter the constitution act in
order to alter the salary paid to that official. If we have any faith whatever in the federal
parliament, we ought not to hesitate to empower them to either reduce or increase the salary
as may appear to them to be necessary.
Mr. GILLIES: I should have been pleased if the hon. member, Sir John Bray, had
25 replied to the statements made on the other side by the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, in
reference to what has been the universal practice. The hon. member must surely know that
the salaries of judges and other high officials are fixed by act so that they may be generally
known: but this does not prevent parliament from altering them. If the proposed words are
inserted the federal parliament may consider it its duty, as soon as it met, to consider the
30 whole question of salary. If we are to have a suitable person to occupy the position of
governor-general both he and we ought to know what salary he is to receive.
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: It will be fixed permanently for his term of office!
Mr. GILLIES: I beg pardon; we have not yet gone far enough in the clause to decide
that question. The proper thing for us to do is to adhere to the practice in all constitutional
35 colonies by which the salary of the governor is fixed. It can be altered by parliament, as has
been done in Victoria, in the proper way, provided by the constitution. As my hon.
colleague, Mr. Munro, has said, it was fixed at £10,000 a year, and £5,000 a year for
allowances. But the salary could not be altered except in the way provided by the
constitution. That is the case not only with the salary of the governor, but with the salaries
40 of other high officials, such as the judges. That is a rational proceeding. This course is not
proposed because there is any fear or doubt as to the honor or uprightness of the federal
parliament. It is only proposed because it is desirable in the public interest that every
person who is called upon to occupy a very high position in the state should know what his
salary and emoluments are. If it is found desirable afterwards in the public interest to
45 reduce or increase that salary it can be done by the legislature; but it must be done in
26 -1-2010 Page 107
the way provided by the constitution. If we pass the clause including the words which
prevent the salary from being altered so long as the gentleman who first fills it occupies the
position, but leaving it open to the parlia- [start page 582] ment to resolve that the salary
shall be reduced immediately he ceases to hold that position, I venture to think that what
5 the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, has indicated might happen. There might be a
gentleman extremely anxious to be popular, or who might honestly believe that the salary
could be reduced without disadvantage, and he might take steps to reduce the salary
forthwith. Why should we not leave this question to be dealt with by the federal parliament,
but make it necessary to carry out the alteration in the same way as other important
10 alterations in the constitution have to be made? Why should we leave it to a chance vote of
the legislature to decide this question? I believe that it would be a mistake to do so-not
because I have any fear of the federal parliament, but because I think we should adhere to
the practice hitherto followed in constitutional colonies. If it is desired to alter this
provision, let it be altered in the same way as other fundamental provisions of the
15 constitution are altered.
Mr. KINGSTON: I understand that the contention of the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, is
this: that if in future there is a desire to alter the salary of the governor-general it should be
passed in the mode prescribed in the last part of the bill that is, a convention should be
called to consider the question, and there should be no power whatever to give effect to the
20 desire of the federal parliament, unless by a reference to conventions of the various states
its action was approved. I utterly fail to see the necessity for the course suggested. I am in
sympathy with the amendment proposed by the hon. member, Sir John Bray, to give power
to the federal parliament to deal with this matter as from time to time they may think fit. In
the first instance, the amount has to be fixed some how or other, and I have no objection to
25 the amount now proposed, and it is also rendered impossible to alter the salary which is
payable to a governor-general during his tenure of office. Something has been said with
regard to the practice that obtains in other colonies with reference to the alteration of
salaries of this description. So far as Canada is concerned, it appears to me that section 105
of the British North America Act gives to the Canadian Parliament the power to do what is
30 proposed by the hon. member, Sir John Bray. The provision is:
Unless altered by the Parliament of Canada, the salary of the Governor-General shall be
£10,000 sterling.
Dr. COCKBURN: And they did alter it-they reduced it!

Mr. KINGSTON: With regard to Canada, hon. members who have referred to the
35 practice of other colonies will find from the passage I have quoted that they are not
consistent in their contention. Similarly, with reference to our own little colony, no doubt
we have a provision that certain clauses in our Constitution Act cannot be altered unless the
bills for the alteration are assented to by specified majorities. So far as South Australia is
concerned, this restriction of the powers of the legislature only applies to alterations in the
40 constitution of the two houses, and we have the fullest power by any act of Parliament-
subject, of course, to the royal veto-to deal with this question of the salary payable to the
governor in such manner as we think fit. It appears to me that the precedents referred to
support the contention of the hon. member, Sir John Bray. Why, then, should we proceed to
tie the hands of the federal parliament and prevent them from dealing with this question as
45 they may think fit? I am not going to take exception to the amount of salary proposed. I
have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments which have been advanced on
the subject of the position of the governor-general, and a late division in this Committee
[start page 583] proves that a very large majority of the Convention are impressed with the
idea so eloquently urged by various delegates, that the position of governor-general is
50 utterly unfit for, and unworthy of acceptance by, every citizen of the Australian
26 -1-2010 Page 108
commonwealth. Under these circumstances, there is reasonable ground for doubting
whether or not we are not erring on the side of excessive liberality in fixing the amount to
be paid to the first occupant of the office at £10,000 per annum. There is no fair ground
either in precedent, or point of principle, for insisting on the necessity of tying the hands of
5 the federal parliament in fixing the salary to be paid to the governor-general. There are
much more important questions with respect to which they have a free hand. It is
inconsistent to give them the fullest power to deal with those important questions while we
refuse to do so with regard to this question of the salary of the governor-general. Subject to
the qualifications that the amount in the first instance shall be specified, and that it shall not
10 be altered during the continuance in office of any governor-general, I shall do my utmost to
give the fullest power to the federal parliament to deal from time to time with the salary.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I would call the attention of the hon. member, Mr.
Kingston, to this consideration-does he or does he not intend to make the Queen a
permanent part of this parliament? Does he intend that the commonwealth of
15 Australia is to be presided over by the Queen? If he does, I ask, does he intend to
provide that distinctly by the constitution, and does be wish it to be a real connection,
or that it may, by a passing whim of the parliament, be made merely a nominal one?
This guarantee of £10,000 a year is the only thing reserved to the Queen under this
constitution. We say that the Queen is part of the-parliament, that she is the head of
20 the commonwealth. We wish her to exercise this function in the commonwealth; but
we leave it entirely to the parliament to say whether we shall give her any allowance
for doing so. I maintain that that is wrong in principle. If the Queen is to be part of
the parliament, and to exercise authority in the commonwealth, we must have a
deputy, and we are bound to say that we intend to make provision for the payment of
25 his salary. That must be part of the constitution, otherwise there need be no salary,
and the governor-general may be a mere shadow.
Mr. KINGSTON: I decline to recognise the connection between Australia and the
mother country as resting on such a slender thread as the payment or non-payment of a sum
of £10,000 as the salary of a governor-general; and I say, with all respect to the hon. and
30 learned member, that it is unfair to put the position in a contrary light. The maintenance of
the connection with the mother country was not in the slightest degree endangered by the
provision which we find in the Constitution of Canada.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Yes!

Mr. KINGSTON: I have quoted the clause.
35 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I believe they tried to reduce the salary, and the act was
disallowed!
Mr. KINGSTON: The connection was not in the slightest degree endangered by the
insertion in the Canadian Constitution of the provision which we seek to have embodied in
this bill. Sir John Bray's amendment seeks to give effect to the same principle, and the
40 power reserved to her Majesty to assent or withhold her assent to Canadian acts, will
apply equally to acts passed by the federal parliament of Australia.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Has the hon. member considered what a serious thing that is-
disallowance?
[start page 584]
45 Mr. KINGSTON: No doubt it is a serious thing, and it would be a serious thing if the
federal parliament were likely to disregard the obligation to provide a suitable sum for the
26 -1-2010 Page 109
gentleman selected for the office of governor-general. But I say we have no right to
consider it probable that they would disregard that obligation. We have had no experience
which will warrant such a supposition. We have no experience to warrant the suggestion
that they will lightly disregard the obligations imposed on them. We have had power in our
5 colony to make any regulations on the subject which we might think fit, and I am sure that
the discretion observed in that colony, as in other places where similar laws prevail, will be
sufficient to rebut the suggestion that the power is likely to be abused by a legislature
which should be trusted with it.
Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause-put. The
10 Committee divided:
Ayes, 24; noes, 12; majority, 12.

END QUOTE
.
It is “EMBEDDED” within the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK);
QUOTE Mr. MOORE:
I feel that this is a question pretty easy of solution. There is no doubt that the command of
the federal forces should be vested in the governor-general of the federated dominion. The
whole of the forces should, of course, be under the federal government
20 END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. ADYE DOUGLAS:
But here the words used are, "as shall be appointed." Appointed by whom? It can only be
25 by the governor-general, because I suppose no one here entertains the idea that the
governor-general should be the appointee of the people at large, or of the federal parliament
or any portion of that parliament. The governor-general must be the representative of
the Queen by direct appointment from her Majesty, and that being the case, the
government will be carried on in federated Australia in the way usually adopted now in the
30 different colonies.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
35 The governor-general is to appear here as the representative of the Queen. Under our
constitution the Queen is to be in some sense present among us. The only way in which
we can have her present is through her representative, and if her representative is to
be elected by us, and not by herself, he will be not her representative, but ours.
END QUOTE
40 .
Again;
QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
and if her representative is to be elected by us, and not by herself, he will be not her
45 representative, but ours.
END QUOTE
.
The Queen herself could not even alter this, as it is “EMBEDDED” in the Constitution, and it
would therefore require a REFERENDUM to approve the amendment of the Constitution to
50 have a Governor-General appointed any other way.
26 -1-2010 Page 110

It would be absurd to hold that the Queen could somehow ignore constitutional provisions,
enacted by the British Parliament, merely upon what the Australian Parliament may desire and so
erode the very security “EMBEDDED” in the Constitution. Now, we do not want an “elected”
Governor-General (or whatever other name of title he may us) to go in a political battle with an
5 unelected Prime minister and then claim the moral high grounds, etc. Neither do we desire a
unelected Governor-General who is appointed by an unelected Prime Minister, so that the
electors themselves have absolutely no control over the two men who are wielding power.
.
10 QUOTE Mr. FITZGERALD:
Another case I understood the hon. member, Sir George Grey, to put was that be
favoured the appointment of the governor-general of the future dominion of Australia
being a colonial appointment. But as long as this country is united to the Crown of
England-and I hope that it is a very long day off indeed when it shall cease to be so-I
15 maintain that the governor-general of the future dominion of Australia must be the
appointee of her Majesty the Queen, our sovereign, who is the apex of that structure,
and whose name we revere and respect in this colony equally as in any other [start
page 165] part of her Majesty's dominions.
END QUOTE
20 .
See also Chapter 534 Kerr wrong when sacking Withlam
.
QUOTE
The Queen is the umpire and can withdraw her commission of a Governor-General if she holds
25 this required. The Governor-General can withdraw his commission to the Prime Minister if this
is deemed required. John Kerr proved to do so but did it in an unconstitutional manner to appoint
Malcolm Fraser and allow him to pass a bill through the Senate and then call an election. That
was not the system embedded in the constitution. The system provides that the Governor-
General, when intervening he does so to call a double dissolution!
30 .
* Excuse me but what then if there is no money to pay for the ordinary cost of Government like
salaries, paying pensions, pay for the hospitals, to fund an election, etc because the Supply Bills
(Appropriation Bills) have not been passed?
.
35 **#** There is an embedded constitutional power that the Governor-General can draw from the
Consolidated Revenue any funds required in case of such an emergency and the new parliament
then later approves this. Actually, this was the very basis upon which the federation was formed,
because there was no Parliament existing when the federation commenced as no elections were
then held. It was the then Governor-General who authorized all expenditure in accordance as the
40 Framers of the constitution already had contemplated he would. As such, John Kerr could at the
time of the Withlam crisis have simply withdrawn his commission for Gough Withlam and any
other Ministers and proclaimed for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and have held elections while
authorizing funds to be drawn in the mean time from the consolidated Revenue.
It is a constitutional powers that exist and was used from the federation until the first parliament
45 passed its Appropriation bills but was ignored by John Kerr and neither seem to have been raised
by others as an existing power.
.
For example, after federation had commenced there was an executive but no Parliament. The
Minister had to provide for a federal election and funds for this had to come from somewhere. As
50 such the Governor-General provided the funds by his authority to draw against the Consolidated
Revenue. Now you may ask where did this money come from. Well, for example Department
transferred to the Commonwealth, which were listed in Section 69 of the Constitution, would be
using moneys and as such incurring expenditure as well as receiving monies. As such, monies
26 -1-2010 Page 111
were being spend and raised even so no specific commonwealth legislation had been established
since federation because the time to hold elections, and have the first sitting of Parliament means
that for the time being the Commonwealth operated using state legislative provisions until it was
able to have its own legislation in place.
5 .
As such, the Governor-General has the constitutional powers to draw monies from Consolidated
Revenue provided that subsequently the monies are accounted for in appropriation bills by the
subsequent parliament. Also, monies must be for annual expenditure of the Commonwealth and
cannot be simply because a Governor-General fancy purchasing himself some elaborate and
10 expensive retreat to reside in.
.
If the popular branch of the legislature is not satisfied with ministers, it expresses that
in very clear and unmistakable language; and if that is not sufficient for ministers-if
they want a little more-what the house does is to address the governor, and inform his
15 Excellency that ministers do not possess the confidence of Parliament.
.
As such you cannot have a Minister who is part of the Senate as a Member of the Senate
(Senator) is not accountable to the House of Representatives. It is sheer and utter nonsense that a
Senator, representing State interest is placed in a conflict of interest to be a Minister of State for
20 the Federal Government as a Federal Executive. The Framers of the Constitution embedded in
the constitution that a Minister should be accountable to the House of Representatives and could
be voted upon to be ousted as Minister, and this would not be applicable with a Minister being a
Senator. The House of Representatives has no power to vote about a Senator and neither visa
versa! Hence all Senators appointed by the Governor-General as Ministers are unconstitutionally
25 appointed!
The Federal Executive must be drawn from the federal elected representative of the House of
Representatives and not from a narrowly elected State representative of the Senate!
.
In immediately starting the business of the commonwealth, it is provided that certain
30 powers may be taken over at once by the executive government of the commonwealth,
namely, as to customs, excise, posts and telegraphs, military and naval defence, ocean
beacons and buoys and ocean lighthouses and lightships, and quarantine. Other
matters are left to be dealt with by the federal legislature from time to time as they
may think fit.
35 .
The meaning of this statement relates to Section 69 of the Constitution which placed these
Department under control of the Federal executive without the need of legislation where as other
provisions within Section 51 of the Constitution are legislative powers, not executive powers,
and as such can only be accessed by the Federal Executive upon legislation providing this power.
40 Indeed this was also the issue of Debate in 1898 when it was then pointed out by a Delegate that
Section 51 provides for executive powers but not legislative powers.
.
It also means that the Federal Executive cannot unlimited exercise powers merely because a
subject is within Section 51 of the constitution but can only exercise such powers as are
45 permitted by legislation within that section and then the Minister can only be provided executive
powers within limited legislation by the Parliament for the “peace, order and good
government” and not beyond.
.
Hence, a Minister has no executive powers to just legislative powers for anything that is not for
50 the “peace, order, and good government. This as any legislation that purports to be beyond the
powers to legislate for the “peace, order and good government” is ULTRA VIRES, and as such
cannot be relied upon by the Minister as giving him executive powers. This issue has also been
canvassed in other previous mentioned Chapters.
26 -1-2010 Page 112
.
Sir JOHN BRAY: I quite agree with Sir Samuel Griffith, that if we are not to overlook
this question entirely it ought to be settled somewhere in this clause, and if the hon.
5 gentleman sees no strong objection to such a course I shall move the insertion at the
beginning of the second paragraph of the words "for the purposes of this section." It would
be manifestly absurd in regard to the first election of senators to say that if a man is elected
in September or October the term of his service shall begin from the preceding January, and
that he shall be entitled to all the privileges of a senator from that date. It is quite possible
10 that this may not be the best amendment that can ultimately be made, but it seems to me
clear that the second paragraph was drawn with the idea, that it applied to this section only
and not to other portions of the bill. I beg, therefore, to move as an amendment:
.
What is clear is , as was later adopted, that you cannot have a person benefiting from
15 “allowance” or other parliamentarian benefits before having taken up a seat in the Parliament.
Yet, we saw that since the 2007 federal elections elected persons but not having taken up their
seat in parliament somehow then were provided with “allowances” the Constitution only permits
for sitting members of Parliament!
.
Clause 58. When the governor-general assents to a law in the Queen's name he shall by
the first convenient opportunity send an authentic copy to the Queen, and if the Queen-in-
Council within two years after receipt thereof thinks fit to disallow the law, such
disallowance being made known by the governor-general, by speech or message, to each of
25 the houses of the parliament, or by proclamation, shall annul the law from and after the day
when the disallowance is so made known.
Dr. COCKBURN: I think the period of disallowance is larger than is necessary. It was
all very well many years ago, when the communication with England was long and tedious;
but now we have such rapid means of communication that I think two years is too long. I
30 think it might very well be reduced by one-half or one-fourth. Six months or a year would
be quite sufficient. There is nothing more vexatious than uncertainty in these matters. I
think we should also lay down upon what subjects the power of veto is to be exercised. We
shall all agree that in questions of domestic legislation-
Mr. GILLIES: We are not all agreed on the question of the establishment of a
35 republic!
Dr. COCKBURN: There is no question of that. We want to establish such a

commonwealth as will exist with the least strained relations with the mother country.
Nothing gives rise to such vexation as a veto upon questions of domestic legislation. Take
the case of Canada.
40 Mr. MUNRO: Two years is the period fixed under their Constitution!
.
QUOTE 14-5-2005 CORRESPONDENCE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The Bulletin 14-5-2005
45 C/o Gary Linnell, Editor.
54 Park Street, Sydney 2000
Fax 02 9267 4359
26 -1-2010 Page 113

Gary,
I read both you Editor note and the article of Jennifer Burney, both lacking to even
remotely produce a real picture of Hollingworth as Governor-General and the real reason
Hollingworth may have resigned, but kept secret!
5 Even if you ignore the entire sexual abuse issue scandal, Peter Hollingworth had to go, as I view
he was but the most incompetent Governor-General!
As author of various books under the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® trademark, such as;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
10 A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X
This book in fact then set out the legal issues why Pauline Hanson was wrongly convicted, and
5 weeks later (November 2003) the Court of Appeal used those very grounds to overturn her
15 convictions!
And not to forget what I have set out in;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and the BANANA REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA

Dictatorship & deaths by stealth. Preliminary book on CD edition.
20 ISBN 0-9580569-3-5 Published October 2002
And
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & There is no Government to go to war
A book on CD About Legal Issues Confronting Australia

ISBN 0-9580569-5-1 Published March 2003
25
And due to publish;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS

For the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on CD
30 ISBN 0-9580569-4-3
I noted the comment on page 22 of The bulletin 187 may 2005;

“No, I am not a politician. I didn’t think the role [of governor-general] was going to be
political, and I was naïve.”
35
Few people would understand certain constitutional issues as extensive as I do, and I wish to
make it very clear that the Framers of the Constitution (Constitution Convention Bill 1898)
likely never would have proceeded with Federation had they been expecting the tyranny
Hollingworth would allow.
40
Firstly, Hollingworth himself accepted a POLITICAL appointment by John Howard, totally
unconstitutional, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that a Governor-General was to
be appointed by the Monarch upon recommendation of the Home Office at Downing Street!
The debated and rejected for the Prime Minister of Australia to be involved in any appointment
45 of a Governor-General as they feared, and rightly so, that it would be a political appointment.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that if there was some jack-in-office, then a
Governor-General was to be without political bias and act upon what was in the best interest of
the general public, even if this was to reject the advise of his Minister. Therefore, when John
Howard, through Robert Hill wanted a war against Iraq, Hollingworth seemingly refused to
26 -1-2010 Page 114
gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR. Hence, there was no constitutional power for Robert Hill,
as minister of Defence, to deploy any Australian troops in regard of a armed murderous invasion
into the sovereign nation Iraq. Still, John Howard, without having any constitutional position to
do so, declared to invade Iraq. Hollignworth there and then ought to have removed his
5 commission for John Howard, Robert Hill and others to act as Federal Executives and replaced
them, and indeed ought to have them charged for TREASON, this Hollingworth failed to do.
Likewise, he failed to stop the unconstitutional federal election on 10 November 2001, when I
complained about its validity. As Governor-General he was to first publish in the Gazette the
Proclamation for the prorogue of the Parliament and the dissolution of the House of
10 Representatives before any writs could be constitutionally issued. However, writs were issued on
8 October 2001, where as the Proclamation was not published until 9 October 2001 (Canberra)
and as late as 22 October 2001 in Tasmania. Hollingworth was made aware of problems, but he
decided to ignore those issues.
15 I took the matter before the Courts, such as on 7 November 2001 but the case was railroaded by
Marshall J of the Federal Court of Australia, and subsequently by the High Court of Australia on
3 October 2003, and also the High Court of Australia on 18 February 2003 and again on 18
march 2003 (a day before the invasion commenced) refused to hear my Section 75(v) of the
Constitution applications.
20
Mr Peter Hanks QC, for the Australian Electoral Commission, the Government (and later also
for Peter Hollingworth- as Governor-General), made false and misleading statement to the Court
as to pervert the course of justice.
While I had my case outstanding against the then governor-General Peter Hollingworth before
25 the High Court of Australia, I discovered that all judges had a visit to the residence of the
Governor-General. Clearly highly inappropriate for judges to have some get together with one of
the parties of a case before them. No wonder my case was railroaded subsequently!
In my view, Peter Hollingworth made the Office of the Governor-General political by siding
30 with John Howard with his unconstitutional conduct, rather then to fulfil his duties as a
Governor-General.
When Governor Green was appointed as acting Governor-General (Administrator)
constitutionally it was for Peter Hollingworth to pay the salary of the acting Governor-General
Green!
35
Neither is it constitutionally permissible for a former Governor-General to take superannuation
from the Consolidated Revenue in regard of his past position as Governor-General!
While many people are wondering why Mark Latham, returning from holidays in 2004 suddenly
40 announced to cut down superannuation for politicians, and John Howard soon afterwards
followed suit without discussing this with the members of his party, the truth is that they sought
to protect their own hide, because they knew from my December 2003 submission that it is
unconstitutional for any Federal parliamentarian and so any Minister of the Crown also to have a
superannuation scheme from Consolidated Revenue in relation to being in Parliament.
45
For a Minister of the Crown, and for this a Governor-General, wants a superannuation then it is
for the Monarch (the queen) to provide for this, nothing to do with the Commonwealth of
Australia as they are not and were not in employ with the Commonwealth of Australia. Likewise,
Members of parliament are not employed by the Commonwealth of Australia, and are only
50 entitled to an “allowance” in relation to loss of income while engaged in parliamentarian duties.
26 -1-2010 Page 115

Perhaps, Jennifer Byrne and yourself ought to be less “bleeding hearths”, so to say, for Peter
Hollingworth and do some real journalistic reporting that shows the reality of Peter
Hollingworth.
Because of deformation laws, I have to be very careful to not make deliberate allegations that
5 may tarnish a person unduly, hence, I do my homework and then make the claims based upon
evidence.
Don’t you think that Mr Peter Hanks QC by now would have sued my but off, so to say, if I
was to make claims he made false and misleading statement to the Court if this was untrue?
10 Unlike your organization having millions behind you to pay for any deformation claim, I do not
have this, hence, need to make sure that whatever I claim is backed up as to avoid , so to say,
having my shirt taken of my back. Yet, somehow The Bulletin seems to lack proper journalism
as to show if the politicising of the Office of the Governor-General was because Peter
Hollingworth himself may have been guilty of doing so!
15
For the record, I never had any formal education in the English language and neither was it my
native language and I did not attend to any journalistic education facility but I view that when it
comes to providing an article you and Jennifer Byrne may still be able to learn a lot from me as
to how get all relevant facts for a story as to avoid it being bias.
20 When did The Bulletin ever address appropriately the constitutional validity of invading Iraq,
such as I placed before the Courts? Sure, the Courts may have prevented matters to be heard
upon their MERITS, but that did not and does not defeat my constitutional challenges against
Hollingworth, Howard, Hill and others.
25 Come to think of it, you may unlikely have Australian citizenship, albeit may be an Australian
national, but that is another story. Citizenship is State legislative powers and ”naturalization” is
Commonwealth legislative powers. Natural born nationals do not fall under either State of
commonwealth legislative powers, as they are inherently entitled to Australian nationality, such
as children born to refugees. Then again, that was one of the constitutional issues I was
30 challenging before the Courts, and clearly undesirable for the Court to rule upon. Hence my
cases were railroaded for this also. Would it not be good if The Bulletin could produce some real
journalistic reporting about those issues? It might even make my membership worthwhile!
See also http://www.schorel-hlavka.com.
35 Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

END QUOTE 14-5-2005 CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. DEAKIN.-
40
As the Framers made clear, the Constitution had to be interpreted as to what was debated during
the Constitution Convention Debates.
When is a proclamation published?

45
Mr. BARTON.-
If we make it read that it shall take place on the date of the proclamation by the Governor-
50 General it will only take place when the Governor-General will take that action by
publishing a proclamation. Then it would follow the action of the Commonwealth.
Again; will take that action by publishing a proclamation
It shows; “Then it would follow the action of the Commonwealth”!
26 -1-2010 Page 116

Re: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL EQUITY PTY. LTD. And: ROGER DAVID BARNARD
BEALE, SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND
COMMUNICATIONS; ROBERT LINDSAY COLLINS, MINISTER OF STATE FOR
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS and THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
5 No. WA G14 of 1993 FED No. 141 Legislation (1993) 114 ALR 50 (1993) 41 FCR 242 (1993)
30 ALD 849 (extract)
His Honour concluded that in the case before him the publication of the
instrument was essential to the valid exercise of the power and that no
distinction could be drawn between the publication of the notice and the
10 exercise of the power.

The question has been asked whether the Parliament cannot make laws affecting the
prerogative. The answer is-"Yes" and "No." The Parliament can make laws affecting
15 the prerogative in respect of any matter in which it has express power of legislation or
a power necessarily implied. It cannot make laws affecting the prerogative in matters
with respect to which it has no power to make laws.
Mr. FRASER.-Can it not get authority?
Mr. BARTON.-Not unless it gets the power in this Act.
20 By this, where the Federal parliament has legislative powers to provide for elections, then the
manner in which a Proclamation is to be deemed to be published is within its legislative powers
provided it does not interfere with the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution that a
Proclamation only comes into effect when published in the Gazette.
As such, the old version of the Act Interpretation Act 1901, as it was previously was
25 constitutionally valid, and the new version is not where it purport that no publication in the
Gazette is required.
As such, Act Interpretation Act 1901, as it was,
17 Constitutional and official definitions [see Note 2]
In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
30 (j) Proclamation shall mean Proclamation by the Governor-General

published in the Gazette;
Was in accordance with constitutional requirements.

The new version is now;
35 Acts Interpretation Act 1901

Act No. 2 of 1901 as amended
This compilation was prepared on 28 February 2005
taking into account amendments up to Act No. 8 of 2005
40 (j) Proclamation shall mean Proclamation by the Governor-General that is

published in the Gazette or entered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments
established under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003;
Now, this means if any Proclamation is not Gazetted then it is and remains unconstitutional and
45 so ULTRA VIRES, because the Federal parliament posses no constitutional powers to override
the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution (Delegates of the Constitution Convention)! In
fact, the Framers made clear that not even action could be taken upon any Proclamation of the
Queen until it was published!
50 WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374;
BARWICK C.J.
26 -1-2010 Page 117
To bind the citizen by a law, the terms
of which he has no means of knowing,
would be a mark of tyranny.
5 How on earth would anyone know when a document is on a Federal Register, where today I was
unable for about 2½ hours (4.30 am till 7 am) to access it via the Internet. And, in any event
Federal Register or not, it cannot overcome the constitutional requirement that it must be
published in the Gazette before it has any legal force! Therefore the wording “or entered” is
deceptive and misleading and may result that Proclamations are registered on the Federal
10 Register of legislative Instruments and then are found to be ULTRA VIRES because of the
failure to appropriately according to constitutional requirement to publish it in the Gazette and
make it available over the counter when required.
Did you ever look at what is shown on the Gazettes? Have you noticed that it states; “Published
15 by the Commonwealth of Australia”?
Now, lets have a look at what the Act Interpretation Act 1901 states;
17A Paper or document purporting to be printed by Government Printer

For the purposes of an Act in which reference is made to a paper or document purporting to
be printed by the Government Printer, the words “Government Printer of the
20 Commonwealth”, “Government Printer of the Commonwealth of Australia”,
“Commonwealth Government Printer” or “Government Printer of Australia” appearing on a
paper or document shall be deemed to refer to the Government Printer.
As I am a registered Publisher, I know too well that “Publishing” and “Printing” are two different
25 things. Anyone can be a “Printer” by just printing something out of a computer, to print a picture,
etc. However, to be a “Published” means that for example in book publishing you required to act
in a certain legal manner. For example obtain a ISBN number for whatever he publishes. Printers
may print “pictures” with floral design or other items on them but simply then hand them over to
the customer without being a “Publisher”. CanPrint, who is a “Printer”, therefore is not
30 necessarily the “publisher” of certain material they print, if all they do is to print and forward it
to others who then publish it. For example, the “Printer” sending it of in the past to InfoShop to
publish Gazettes, (that was until that system was vandalised by the government) and as such
InfoShop were the actual publishers, as they were the one selling the Gazette’s. Therefore,
constitutionally, it is not when the “Printer’ prints Gazettes but when the “Publisher” actually
35 makes the Gazette available for sale that it is deemed to be Published. If the Publisher, simply
put the Gazette’s in a cellar and withhold it from the general public then it cannot be deemed to
have been “Published”.
The Commonwealth of Australia, so its Parliament has no constitutional powers to undermine the
intentions of the Framers, and they made it very clear;
40
it will only take place when the Governor-General
will take that action by publishing a proclamation.
As such, any recording on some Federal register will not have any effect upon it being published.
45 As such, the term “or entered” is deceptive, false and misleading and ought to be amended to
“and may be entered” which would mean that it is optional but not relevant to the exercise of the
prerogative power.
I …. Do swear that I will be faithful and bear true alliance to Her Majesty Queen
50 Elizabeth the second, Her heirs and successors according to laws. SO HELP ME
GOD.”
26 -1-2010 Page 118
Therefore, the governor-General is bound by the oath of his office to fulfil duties within the
boundaries of relevant legislative provisions.
CLAYTON v. HEFFRON (1960) 105 CLR 214
5 The reasoning of Fullagar J in Clayton v. Heffron (supra) in relation to the provisions of s
5B of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) is material in this context:
"A manner and form are prescribed by section 5B, and that manner and form must be
observed if a valid law is to be produced. Any prescription of manner and form may be
repealed or amended, but, while it stands, the process prescribed by it must be followed.
10 That was decided Trethowan's case and I think that the whole of what is prescribed by
section 5B relates to manner and form. It does not seem to me to be possible to say that
some of the requirements of the section are matters of manner and form while others are
not. The section describes one entire process - a series of steps, one following on another -
and only the completion of the entire process can produce a valid law." (Supra at 262)
15 A Governor-General only can be but appointed by the Queen, as the intentions was of the
Framers of the Constitution, and anything else will be unconstitutional.
QUOTE
.
Yet again:
QUOTE
Application of provisions relating to Governor-General.
4. The provision of this Constitution relating to the Governor-General extend and apply to
the Governor-General for the time being or other the Chief Executive Officer or
25 Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth,
by whatever title he is designated.
END QUOTE
.
30 QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
We know that the Governor is the chief executive officer,
END QUOTE

35 QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia).-
Of course, if it is said that there are no persons in the community, and are not likely to be
any, who are competent or suitable for this high office temporarily, it would be a very good
argument, and one having force with me; but unless that is the case-and I do not think it
40 will be the case and as we are not making this Constitution for to-day or to-morrow,
but for all time, it will be much better to keep altogether separate the judicial and
administrative parts of the Government.
END QUOTE
45 And
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
. It will therefore be altogether a wrong thing to put it in the power of the
50 Government to appoint to any office in which be will be brought into contact with the
Executive Government a high officer who may be called upon at any time to decide
such questions. The difference between the two positions is so strong that it appears to
me to be only necessary to point it out. I can see that there may be inconvenience in
26 -1-2010 Page 119
following this course, but it is much better that inconvenience should occur in the
selection of persons to fill this appointment than that it should be within the power
neither of a judicial officer or of the Executive Government at any time to put the
Judiciary in a false position in regard to the Commonwealth. Because, as has been
5 said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice
should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of
suspicion; and it would be impossible that a high judicial officer who had to decide
these questions, which may at any time become political questions, should also be in
the relation of having to be advised by the Executive Government-perhaps advised to
10 grant a dissolution of both Houses of Parliament in regard to a dispute which may
have arisen in relation to the validity of a statute; or be might have to decide a
question arising as between state and Commonwealth. On these grounds, I hope that
the essential difference between the Governor-General of this Commonwealth and the
Governor of the states will be recognised, and will prevent the committee from
15 altering the clause from its present form.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
20 Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-
We have no right, in this Constitution, to dictate to Her Majesty to who shall be her
agent. Her Majesty has a right to pick such agent as she thinks fit in any part of the
colony, and we have no right to say-"You shall not do so and so."
END QUOTE
25 And
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-
From that point of view, we appoint a protector of the Constitution; that is, the
30 Supreme Court, which is to be in a calm ether of its own-removed from party strife
and political passion.
END QUOTE
.
35 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I do not say that; but I have an impression that he would. The words are-
"No person holding any judicial office."
Mr. SYMON.-Any person in active service.
40
Mr. BARTON.-Yes, as my friend says, any person in active service-any Judge who is
not a retired Judge.
An HONORABLE MEMBER.-That would exclude a justice of the peace.
45
Mr. BARTON.-No, I do not think it would. Primarily a justice of the peace was a
ministerial officer who inquired into indictable offences, and committed or not, as there
might be a prima facie case. But a justice of the peace has since been invested by statute
with summary jurisdiction. I question whether that makes the office of justice of the peace
50 a "judicial office."
END QUOTE
The following quotation makes also very clear that 10 Downing Street decides if a
Governor-General is to stand aside, vacate his office, etc. It means that Governor-Generals
55 not appointed by the Queen of the British Crown are and not upon recommendation of the Home
26 -1-2010 Page 120
Office at Downing Street are not duly and properly elected and therefore any Proclamation
issued by them or any writs issued by them are NULL AND VOID (ultra vires).
.
5 QUOTE
clause in the American Constitution; but the President there is practically never absent from
his full salary during a year's leave of absence; and I would point out that that leave of
10 absence rests with the authorities in Downing-street. The clause, therefore, would allow
An HON. MEMBER: The governor-general!
15 Clause, as amended, agreed to.
END QUOTE
.
This apparently did not occur when Governor Green was acting Governor-General!
.
20 We also have to consider that if the High Court of Australia were to be followed (Sue v Hill)
that anyone of the British Crown was ousted by s.44 of the constitution then we would have an
acting Governor-General Like Governor-Green was at the time who was not under the so called
Queen of Australia but under the British Crown as Governor and somehow at the same time as
acting Governor-General deemed to serve the Queen of Australia. Surely no one in his/her right
25 mind can accept this kind of reasoning to be correct. Yet as the can be demonstrated in the
Crown v Josepha van Rooy case His Honour Wood J (see below quotation) made clearly a
distinction between the Crown of the Commonwealth of Australia and that of the State of
Victoria. The Queen of Australia (a political union) is not the same as the British Crown and the
Queen of Australia couldn’t be the Queen of the State of Victoria as this is the British Crown and
30 so likewise for Tasmania where I understood Governor Green came from.
.
As a subject of the British Crown I do not accept that a judgment of the High Court of Australia
can somehow alter my constitutional status and rob me of my British nationality and indeed the
Calvin's Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 also makes clear that this cannot be done towards any of
35 my natural born children who were born within the commonwealth of Australia. And, again the
constitution Committee 1988 report indicated that it merely “assumed” legislative powers and as
such obviously never bothered to check what the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution
actually was and what legal principles there were embedded in the constitution!
.
QUOTE
45 shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship
END QUOTE
.
(Note; Citizenship governs the political rights of a person and has constitutionally nothing to do
with Australian nationality!)
50 And
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
26 -1-2010 Page 121

and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute
freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that
which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions
to protect the citizen from interference.
5
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-
10 He lays down in express terms the principle which Judge Shipman used as the basis of his
judgment in the case I cited yesterday from 22 Blatchford, 131, that is to say, if a state
passes a law the effect of which is to injure the territory or property of persons outside the
state-that may not be the intention, but if the direct effect is to inflict injury upon the
territory or property of citizens in another state-then that law, although in so far as it only
15 affects citizens within the state that passes it, it is intra vires of the Constitution, it becomes
ultra vires in so far as it inflicts injury on the inhabitants of another state. That, I believe,
was the intention, although I feel some diffidence in insisting upon it. This was the view
which formed the basis of the judgment of Mr. Justice Shipman.
END QUOTE
20
Therefore legislative provisions are ULTRA VIRES for so far it trespasses upon the
constitutional limitations of legislative powers. Also, while in the above it was referred to about
the High Court of Australia declaring something to
be ULTRA VIRES, and this was in the HCA 27 of 1999 Wakim case regarding the purported
25 Cross Vesting Act, this was no more then but an official declaration but the parties were before
the Courts already and if the Cross Vesting Act was to be deemed only INTRA VIRES from
when the High Court of Australia made its declaration then it would have been to little avail for
the party seeking this declaration. Clearly, it was ULTRA VIRES from onset.
.
QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it
leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised.
END QUOTE
35 .
Quick & Garran's "Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia" more accurately
and more meaningfully says that;
QUOTE
"A law in excess of the authority conferred by the Constitution is no law; it is wholly
40 void and inoperative; it confers no rights, it imposes no duties; it affords no
protection.".
END QUOTE
.
Therefore, once a person makes a constitutional based objection then that is the end of it.
45 More over, the Sue v Hill decision by the High Court of Australia is in total conflict with
http://www.geocities.com/englishreports/77ER377.html Calvin's Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77
ER at 396,
QUOTE
“And the usual and right pleading of an alien born doth lively and truly describe and
50 express what be 1s. And therein two things are to be observed. 1. That the most usual and
best pleading in this case, is, both exclusive and inclusive, viz. extra ligeantiam domini
Regis, &c. et infra ligeantiam alterius Regis, as it appeareth in (a) 9 Ed. 4. 7. b. Book of
Entries, fol. 244, &c. which cannot possibly be pleaded in this case, for two causes. 1. For
26 -1-2010 Page 122
that one King is sovereign of both kingdoms. 2. One ligeance is due by both to one
sovereign; and in case of an alien there must of necessity be several Kings and several
ligeances.”
END QUOTE
5 And
QUOTE 7 Coke Report 18 b, 77 ER p399
subdito dato, of a donaison: for that is the right name, so called, because his legitimation is
given unto him; for if you derive denizen from deins nee, one born within the obedience
or ligeance of the King, then such a one should be all one with a naturalborn subject.
10 And it appeareth before out of the laws of King W. 1. of what antiquity the making of
denizens by the King of England hath been.
3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That
the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be
within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he
15 cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of
another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other.
END QUOTE
As the material of the UNREPRESENTED Defendant (Josepha van Rooy) did set out that
Heather Hill was born within the real of the British Crown, and the Commonwealth of Australia
20 is a “POLITICAL UNION” and never was a monarchy, dominion, republic, etc, then the title of
“Queen of Australia” is a fictitious title and cannot have any legal application.
END QUOTE
.
Again, my children natural born within the realm of the queen cannot be somehow transformed
25 to a non-existing Australian citizenship nationality that is not even constitutionally permissible
and neither was with their consent.
Likewise, lawyers (so also judges) who were admitted to the bar under oath to the British Crown
somehow now would be serving a FICTIONAL Queen of Australia. It means that the current
Governor-General Q Bryce as a lawyer likely was admitted to the Bar under the British Crown
30 and natural born so and now without any change of oath somehow now is serving the purported
Queen of Australia!
His Honour Wood J County court of Victoria in the 6-2-2008 reason of judgment stated;
QUOTE
35 The sovereign power is Her Majesty the Queen in
right in the State of Victoria rather than Her Majesty the
Queen in right of the Commonwealth of Australia.
END QUOTE
.
40 QUOTE
As such, His Honour held that not the Queen of Australia but that it was the British Crown
itself
which provided sovereign powers. However, the colonial powers were provided by the
British Crown and the Federal Constitution, The Commonwealth of Australia Act
45 1900(UK) also was the British Crown. With the High Court of Australia however having
declared that since 1986 the “Queen of Australia” applies then it cannot be that laws
enacted by the State of Victoria are continuing under the British crown while the laws
enacted under the Commonwealth of Australia since 1986 are under the Queen of
Australia.
50 Indeed, where in Sue v Hill the High Court of Australia made clear that Heather Hill was a
“alien” being born under the British Crown then it cannot be that Commonwealth law
provides for Australian citizenship under the Queen of Australia and then the State using
the British Crown enforces this Australian citizenship to appoint police, judges, Members
26 -1-2010 Page 123
of State Parliament, etc, as then the police, judges, Members of State Parliament all have
sworn alliance to the Queen of Australia and not having sworn alliance to the British
Crown in which name it seeks to enforce legislation in the name of the British Crown.
The UNREPRESENTED Defendant has also included on the CD filed on 15 November
5 2006 in the “Folder 41 other relevant material” the subfolder”78B 021204” which included
the document
“Form 69-78B-2.doc” being the Section 78B that was before the County Court of Victoria
and used by Mr. G. H. Schorel0-Hlavka in his successful appeals on 19 July 2006 which in
paragraph 17 refers to the Supreme Court Moller decision regarding the oath, etc.
10 While His Honour Wood J did not seem to understand and/or comprehend how critical the
federal issues were to the defence of the UNREPRESENTED Defendant, it was not for His
Honour Wood to assume because of Authorities, no matter how misconceived they were,
that therefore there was jurisdiction without canvasses in details the considerable set out the
UNREPRESENTED Defendant had placed before the Court in her submissions and upon
15 which His Honour Gullaci J based his 15 November 2006 orders.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
* So what was the Moller decision about?
20 .
**#** Well let quote a part of the judgment;
Moller v Board of Examiners for Legal Practitioners [1999] VSCA 116 (30 July 1999)
QUOTE
Sometime during 1992 or 1993 the appellant made inquiries about becoming an
25 Australian citizen.
He then learned that it would be necessary for him to swear an oath of allegiance to Her
Majesty The Queen. The appellant is, however, a staunch republican and did not then
pursue his application to become an Australian citizen, believing that any oath of
allegiance should be to Australia rather than to the Queen.
30 END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
On 24 January 1994 the procedure for obtaining Australian citizenship changed so that
applicants were no longer required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen but were
35 instead required to make a pledge to Australia. Accordingly, in February 1995, the
applicant became an Australian citizen.
END QUOTE
.
The latter assumes that Moller became an Australian citizens as a NATIONALITY even so it is
40 not a nationality at all!

QUOTE
Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-I shall also support the amendment of Dr. Quick,
45 and I trust that it will be carried. I cannot conceive that in the adoption of legislation on this
subject Parliament would do aught else than make the definition uniform and of general
application. If there was any necessity for making that clear, the insertion of the words
"uniform citizenship of the Commonwealth" would accomplish that, but I hardly think it is
necessary. I am impressed with the importance of taking power as occasion arises to
50 define what shall constitute citizenship of the Commonwealth; and the Bill at present
is altogether deficient in regard to giving any power to the Commonwealth Parliament
to legislate on this subject. It seems to me it is a very difficult matter, and one with which
26 -1-2010 Page 124

we should not attempt to deal here, but rather should refer it to those who, when necessity
arises to adopt some legislation on the subject, will have all the facts before them, and may
reasonably be supposed to be able to make the best provision for the purpose in connexion
with the subject. My honorable friend (Mr. Glynn) referred to the principle which he said
5 obtained, I think, in Germany, where only native-born Germans, or those who are
naturalized in the empire, are admitted to the privileges of citizenship. I asked in the course
of his remarks how would that apply to citizens of the Commonwealth. It is a very difficult
thing to deal with. If you provide that only those shall be citizens of the Commonwealth
who were born in it or have been naturalized, you will undoubtedly be putting too strict a
10 limitation on citizenship. It would be simply monstrous that those who are born in
England should in any way be subjected to the slightest disabilities. It is impossible to
contemplate the exclusion of natural-born subjects of this character; but, on the other
hand, we must not forget, that there are other native-born British subjects whom we
are far from desiring to see come here in any considerable numbers. For instance, I
15 may refer to Hong Kong Chinamen. They are born within the realm of Her Majesty, and
are therefore native-born British subjects.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Are British treaty ports British territory?
Mr. KINGSTON.-Hong Kong is undoubtedly a British possession, and a Hong Kong

Chinaman is undoubtedly a native-born British subject. Thus, honorable members will see
20 what difficulties might arise if the privileges of citizenship of the Commonwealth were
extended to all British subjects. If that were done, we should be landed in a difficulty
against which it is well to provide. I think the very best, thing under all the circumstances is
to do-what is recommended by Dr. Quick, and give to the Federal Parliament power to,
legislate on this subject as occasion arises. I have no fear whatever but that they will make
25 wise provisions on the subject-provisions uniform throughout the Commonwealth-for
extending to all British subjects those privileges which they ought to possess, while at the
same time safeguarding the rights of the Commonwealth.
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I would like to point out to Dr. Quick that he
proposes to give a power to the Commonwealth to legislate in regard to a matter which is
30 not mentioned from the beginning to the end of the Constitution. The word "citizen" is not
used from beginning to end in this Constitution, and it is now proposed to give power to
legislate regarding citizenship.
[start page 1761]

END QUOTE
35 .
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I only wish to say a word or two about this proposal. I
think that Dr. Quick will probably see that his amendment may be raising a very serious
40 difficulty on the one hand, or else that it is unnecessary on the other. I quite agree with him
as to the necessity under some circumstances of giving some definition as to what shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, but underlying the whole of that is this fundamental
principle: That the citizens of the states are the citizens of the Commonwealth. That is
the fundamental principle we must have regard to, and I ask my honorable friend to
45 say whether a citizen of the Commonwealth is not a citizen of the state?
END QUOTE
.
It should be clear that the citizenship issue is totally misconceived both by the judges of the High
Court of Australia, the judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria, politicians all around, etc. etc.
26 -1-2010 Page 125

.
“CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC”
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?

5 A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1
QUOTE
FORM 69
10
NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTION MATTER O 73 r 1 High Court Rules
UNDER SECTION 78B of the JUDICIARY ACT 1903

MAGISTRATES COURT AT HEIDELBERG
15 No. of 2002
GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA Defendant
and
20
AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION Plaintiff
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER

25
1. The Defendant GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA gives notice that the
proceedings involves a matter arising under the constitution or involving its interpretation
within the meaning of section 78B of the judiciary Act 1903.
30 2. That the Defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court at Heidelberg to
hear the matters arising of the proceedings instituted by the applicant in regard of matters
relating to the PURPORTED Federal general election on 10 November 2001.
3. The said Magistrates’ Court adjourned matter, on 16 September 2002, for hearing of the
35 question of “legal jurisdiction” to be heard on 4 December 2002.
4. The outline of the case at hand and is as follows;

(a) The Defendant was born on 7 June 1947 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands of
parents being Dutch nationals and as such, the Defendant by birth was a Dutch
40 national.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
45 5. That I seek this Court to adjourn these proceedings and to place before the HIGH
COURT OF AUSTRALIA a CASE STATED as to have the High Court of Australia to
first determine the following matters;
(i) Can a person obtain “Australian citizenship” without first obtaining “State
50 citizenship” (Quasi States being Territories included)? If so, then by which
constitutional valid manner?
26 -1-2010 Page 126

(ii) Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to define “citizenship”? If
so;
(a) under which provision? And
(b) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or
5 (c) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born
within Australia?
(iii) Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to declare and/or grant
citizenship? If so,
10 (d) under which provision? And
(e) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or
(f) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born
within Australia?
15 (iv) Does the Commonwealth have the constitutional powers to determine the rights of
a resident in a State to obtain citizenship of such State? If so, by which
constitutional powers?
(v) If the adaptation by the State of Victoria of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948
20 were to be deemed valid, then has the Commonwealth by this the legislative
powers to determine the political rights of the citizens of the State of Victoria,
where purportedly they have no State citizenship. If yes, would then the
Commonwealth be able to dictate who shall be electors by what conditions and
override any Constitution provision that may exist within the Victorian
25 Constitution?
(vi) Where the Constitution of Victoria purports to adapt the Australian Citizenship
Act 1948, is then that part of the Victorian Constitution Federal law and can only
be amended or otherwise altered by Commonwealth legislation?
30
(vii) If the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is ULTRA VIRES for so far it deals with
granting “citizenship” to any particular person, can then the adaptation of this part
by State nevertheless be held legally enforceable?
35 (viii) If the purported granting of Australian citizenship within the Australian

Citizenship Act 1948 is ULTRA VIRES, then is any State qualification based
upon the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 definition of Australian citizenship also
ULTRA VIRES?
40 (ix) Where the Defendant was not a State citizen at the time of election being held,
then was the Defendant nevertheless a qualified State elector, where the purported
Australian citizenship granted to the Defendant on 28 March 1994 was ULTRA
VIRES.
45 (x) Where the Defendant was not a State citizen at the time of election being held,
then was the Defendant nevertheless a qualified Commonwealth elector, where
the purported Australian citizenship granted to the Defendant on 28 March 1994
was ULTRA VIRES.
END QUOTE
50 And
QUOTE
(xxxi) Where the framers held that political rights are obtained “arise by virtue his being a
citizen of a state” there is “dual citizenship” being both “State citizenship” and
26 -1-2010 Page 127
“Australian citizenship”, then can the Commonwealth, for so far this is deemed to be
within its legislative powers grant any person Australian citizenship and so political
rights of voting (See section 41 Commonwealth Constitution) in Commonwealth
elections? If such voting rights in Commonwealth elections can’t be given is that then
5 a bar to granting Australian citizenship?
(xxxii) Does a person upon obtaining State citizenship AUTOMATICALLY obtain

“Australian citizenship”? If not, why not?
END QUOTE
10 .
Neither the Commonwealth of Australia, albeit submitting on 4 December 2002 to have the
matter transferred to the High Court of Australia, which with my consent was so ordered, albeit
then the Commonwealth of Australia (as Prosecutor) failed to proceed with this, or the Attorney-
Generals of the States/Territories in any way whatsoever challenged my numerous submissions
15 and as referred to above finally on 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria made orders to the
effect to uphold my cases, without any reservations, including that constitutionally the
Commonwealth of Australia cannot force anyone to vote, as the Framers of the Constitution on
15-4-1897 specifically refused to give such legislative powers to the Commonwealth of
Australia.
20 .
There simply is no constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare
citizenship! And the Framers of the Constitution specifically defeated Dr Quick’s amendment to
provide such legislative powers!
.
QUOTE
The CHAIRMAN.-I do not think I can rule this proposed amendment out of order.
Every clause, or nearly every clause, in a Bill in some way qualifies the preceding
clauses. They extend the operation of those clauses, and, in some instances they limit
30 the operation of the clauses. This is not a distinct negative, and I think it would be unduly
curtailing the power of the committee to arrive at such a conclusion as they may think fit if
I ruled this out of order.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
The union of these colonies must take place in either one or two ways, namely, either by a
unification under one all-powerful parliament, or by a federation which gives to the central
federal parliament certain limited powers and reserves to the other parliaments all other
40 powers. As I think we may be in danger of overlooking some of the first principles
connected with federation, I may be pardoned if I briefly define some of the characteristics
of a federation. I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its
language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be
45 either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority
above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state
legislatures, existing under the constitution.
END QUOTE
And
26 -1-2010 Page 128

QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting
privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They
are the complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so.
5 From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are
proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several
colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures,
and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of
their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the
10 states, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them
that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently
the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly, each
legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst
15 within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and
unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority.
END QUOTE
.
Therefore the constitution cannot be amended by the Parliaments and/or the judges!
20 As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that if the High Court of Australia was to declare a
law to be INTRA VIRES then it was not because the High Court of Australia enlarged the
Constitution but merely declared what the constitution already all along provided for! Anything
else would be to amend the constitution in wording and/or application and this was beyond the
powers of the High Court of Australia to do so. Therefore any judicial decision of the High Court
25 of Australia has to be confined within what the Framers of the Constitution intended at the time
of federation and anything like a progressive change to independence not only never was
contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution but in fact made clear the constitution didn’t
permit and was prohibited by the way the Constitution was framed!
.
QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us,
I am happy to say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the
book which he was good enough to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form:
35 That it is desirable there should be a union of the Australian colonies. That is one of
the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments. Second, that such union
should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in order that
the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under
the Crown. Now, I am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with
40 which we have to deal-that the union that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown.
Fourth, that it should be under one legislative and executive government. That also is
laid down by our various parliaments.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position
which Mr. Barton has described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the
common law of England. This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to
50 be handed over not to a Convention similar to this, not to a small select body of
legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or rejection. It is
26 -1-2010 Page 129
the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it,
and it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people,
who have to understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for
weal or woe during the whole time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot
5 have on the platform, when this Constitution is commended to the people, lawyers on
both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be appreciated by the
people.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able
to understand.
15 END QUOTE
.
Fancy having 7 judges in the High Court of Australia still not being able to agree (Sue v Hill)
with each other what the constitution stands for and this after more then 100-years of federation!
This is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution sought to prevent! They tried to make it a
20 very simple constitution but lawyers as they are like to twist to infringe upon the constitution!
.
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution
25 should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we
consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any
alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly
have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the
people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident
30 that too much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
35 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs)
is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672]
one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the
provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting
together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material
40 they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be
incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least
degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these
provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable;
and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be
45 very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no
word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in
time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and
an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which
we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now
50 contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every
clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
END QUOTE
26 -1-2010 Page 130
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with
5 regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the
Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted
elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is
not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
END QUOTE
10 .
QUOTE
Mr. KINGSTON.-How would you define the word "citizen"?
Mr. SYMON.-I do not think that it is necessary to frame a definition of "citizen." A
15 citizen is one who is entitled to the immunities of citizenship. In short, a citizen is a
citizen. I do not think you require a definition, of "citizen" any more than you require
a definition of "man" or "subject."
Mr. ISAACS.-Would you include a corporation in the term "citizen"?
Mr. SYMON.-Why not?
20 Mr. ISAACS.-Well, in America they do not.
Mr. SYMON.-I do not see why a corporation existing in one colony should not have the
rights of a corporation in another colony. Otherwise you defeat the objects of this
Constitution.
[start page 1783]
25 Mr. ISAACS.-I agree that that ought to be so, but the word "citizen" will not include a
corporation.
Mr. SYMON.-Well, in my opinion it should. I
END QUOTE
.
30 Once again:
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that
we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
35 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been
40 made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but
not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it
embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all
have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
45 And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
50 provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the
people.
END QUOTE
26 -1-2010 Page 131
.
QUOTE
5 unwritten,
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
10 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
whom it will embrace and unite.
15 END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about
20 to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about
to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
25 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
30 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
35 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
40 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
45 .
The politics is that the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament is very limited in its legislative
powers as being a POLITICAL UNION by the colonies (now States) and so trying to achieve
independence is that the politicians can exercise more powers like those in the British parliament.
Hence, their aim for so called independence is more for more power. When therefore the British
50 government declared that Australians were foreigners the Australian politicians grabbed the
opportunity to pretend that from now on Australians would be Australian nationals. The
nationalization act later was renamed nationalization act and citizenship act and later to
citizenship act. The fact that the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied the
26 -1-2010 Page 132
Commonwealth of Australia to declare/define citizenship was of no concern to the ever power
hungry politicians.
But in brief, "Australian citizenship" is a term coined by the Framers of the Constitution (as
such prior to federation) and referred to the status of a person to reside in Australia irrespective
5 of his/her nationality. At that time Colonies used to nationalise aliens to become British subjects
(British nationals) but those who didn't naturalise were still colonial citizens and so Australian
citizens. After Federation state citizens would automatically be Australian citizens, and again
nothing to do with nationality. Within the Subsection 51(xix) of the constitution the British
Parliament allowed the Commonwealth of Australia to naturalise aliens to become British
10 nationals, and this never was amended and as such remains in place. The Framers of the
Constitution specifically stated they were permitted to do so on behalf of the British
Government. “British subject”, “to make persons subjects of the British Empire.”, “with the
consent of the Imperial authority”,
For example, the Framers of the Constitution promised the Chinese, for example, that if they
15 voted for federation they still would retain their franchise (even so they were of Chinese
nationality. As such, at the time Chinese nationals who were Colonial citizens upon federation
became State citizens and so Australian citizens even so not being nationalised.
.
What therefore should be clear that the states with their internal legislative powers and the
20 Commonwealth with its external legislative powers could not abrogate the principles embedded
in the constitution to be a POLITICAL UNION under the British Crown. The judges of the
High Court of Australia may have fancied themselves to exercise judicial powers but the truth is
they didn’t. The Sue v Hill case is a NULLITY without legal force as it was not within the
judicial powers of the judges to determine matters in defiance of their judicial constrains to act
25 within the ambit of the constitution. The judges only can act as interpreters as to what the
intention of the Framers of the Constitution was and not how they fancy themselves to twist its
meanings.
.
30 .
This is why the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t forget the hyphens!) is so vital, this as
it is intended to set up education facilities so when judges in future are to adjudicate on
constitutional issues they at least have some appropriate training as to constitutional matters and
never again a judge abstain from handing down a judgment on basis not knowing the
35 constitutional issues litigated before the Court. The nonsense of having the constitution amended
pending perhaps what kind of political background or association a judge may have never should
have been permitted to occur.
.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia
40 Act 1900 (UK) didn’t provide any option for a republic and it should therefore be clear that the
con-job of the High Court of Australia in the Sue v Hill case is one I view is a very serious
matter of TREASON.
.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
45 the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
Constitution,
END QUOTE
50 People have a right to know their true nationality and not being conned into a misconception. It
may very well be that the nationality issue could be very critical when a child is orphaned and
then the nationality can determine who can exercise judicial powers as to the future of the child
and also as to the immediately care to be provided to a child. Likewise so with when an
26 -1-2010 Page 133
Australian is abroad and is in difficulties. Australians are Australians not because they reside in
the Commonwealth of Australia but because they reside in the continent of Australia. (If one can
call it a continent rather then landmass). Australians are not defined by their nationality as such
because as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that if (as was at the time an issue)
5 Queensland did not join the federation it didn’t then stop them being Australians. As such, being
an Australian has and had nothing to do with federation! It is not a nationality but merely
identifies a person to the place of residence.
.
Again in 1982 the High Court of Australia approved the deportation of Mr Pochi on the
10 basis he didn’t have “Australian citizenship” and this clearly was before the purported
Australian Act 1986 (Cth & UK) existed! Hence, it is utter and sheer nonsense to claim that
somehow the Australia Act 1986 gave us a nationality or independence, etc, because it was
and still is an elaborate con-job as Australians born in the Commonwealth of Australia or
naturalized are and remain to be British nationals. There is a lot more to it but I think you got
15 the picture.
.
Australian Government
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
20 ONE NATIONAL CIRCUIT
BARTON
Reference: c09/54418
25 Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
107 Graham Road
VIEWBANK VICTORIA 3084
Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
30
Thank you for your email of 24 October 2009 to the Prime Minister regarding the
Commonwealth’s power to legislate over citizenship. I have been asked to reply on the
Prime Minister’s behalf. I apologise for the delay in doing so.
35 ‘Australian citizenship’ is defined in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Ordinarily, the
Government does not disclose its legal advice, including on constitutional issues, I refer
you, however, to the following passage from paragraph 4,179 of the Final Report of the
Constitutional Commission, 1988:
40 While the Federal Parliament has not been granted an express power to make laws
with respect to nationality and citizenship, it has been assumed that the Parliament
does have such a power. The power is either implied in section 51(xix) [of the
Constitution] or is one of the implied national powers. Its exercise by the Federal
Parliament, by enactment of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948… has certainly not
45 been called into question in any case before the High Court of Australia.
Yours sincerely
Brendan MacDowell
A/g Assistant Secretary
50 Legal Policy Branch
7 January 2010
.
26 -1-2010 Page 134
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded
the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has
5 enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one
citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship.
That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again.
We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be
recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution.
10 END QUOTE
.
In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey
(at p 926 of HLC (p 725 of ER)):
QUOTE
15 (T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons
natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTES
“What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a
citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual
citizenship.”, “we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.”
25 END QUOTES
.
The USA kind of citizenship is different then that of the Commonwealth of Australia and as such
do not confuse those. Like it or not, and regardless if the British Parliament and the
Commonwealth of Australia agree with it or not we are still British nationals! As such the
30 purported Australia Act 1986 (Cth & UK) did have no change into this because the
Commonwealth was already pretending there was an “Australian citizenship” as a nationality and
the High Court of Australia in the Pochi case of 1982 already then upheld the deportation (albeit
I view wrongly – but that is another issue) referring to Australian Citizenship being a nationality.
This was clearly 4-years before the introduction of the purported Australia Act 1986 (Cth & UK)
35 and as such people seeking to argue that because of the Australia act they now have a nationality
obviously do not comprehend they have been conned.
.
QUOTE
40 Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the
power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned
member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is
asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not,
45 of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining
the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of
the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution,
and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a
question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the
50 Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or
diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am
willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
26 -1-2010 Page 135
not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading
inducement for joining the Union.
END QUOTE
.
5 Now, take for example the judges who were presiding over the Sue v Hill cases. They all were to
my knowledge born before 1986 and also lawyers having pledged their alliance to the British
Crown. I am not aware that any of those judges in the Sue v Hill case renounced their alliance to
the British Crown, and in fact were sitting as judges under the British Crown. Then to me it was
TREASON for them to hand down the decision as they did against Heather Hill. The issue of
10 judicial powers also is that none of the judges exercise judicial powers within the provisions of
the constitution to declare the British Crown to be alien as they were bound to adjudicate within
the provisions of the Constitution and nothing in it gives any judicial officer powers to amend or
otherwise interfere with the application of the constitution. The argument that over passing of
time the Commonwealth of Australia became an independent country is sheer and utter nonsense.
15 The Commonwealth of Australia
.
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
20 Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with
the view of inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to
25 any citizen within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too
hastily when I said that every citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the
Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power to determine who is a citizen. I
do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a definition of
citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
30 decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an
inherent right to determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its
borders.
35 Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
.
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject
of the Queen is co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in
America. The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses
40 his rights.
Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
END QUOTE
.
45 QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-There is no man in Australia who is more profoundly versed in
constitutional law than Mr. Isaacs, and he knows that every point and every question has
been the subject of more or less debate and discussion, and will be until the end of time.
The words "subject," "person," and "citizen" can be made subjects of controversy at
50 all times if occasion requires it. At the same time, it does not affect the principle that
there should be a definition of "citizen," either in the form suggested by Dr. Quick or
by Mr. Barton. I will be quite content. The principle is what I am contending for: The
26 -1-2010 Page 136

principle that our labours will be incomplete unless we make the rights of citizens or
subjects in one state to extend to the citizens of another state who may go from one state
to another. There ought to be no possibility of any state imposing a disqualification on a
person in the holding of property, or in the enjoyment of any civil right, simply
5 because be happens to belong to another state. That would not give us the uniformity of
citizenship we all desire, and therefore I am willing that the word "citizenship" should be
defined as Dr. Quick suggests, with perhaps some modification. I also support the
suggestion from the Chair that the two propositions might be considered together. The
clause would do something to meet the difficulty, not perhaps finally or conclusively, as
10 Mr. Isaacs, said, but at any rate to a large extent and almost completely.
[start page 1788]
END QUOTE
.
We find that while an Attorney-General is supposed to advise a Governor-General as to the
15 constitutional validity of proposed legislation submitted for royal assent the reality is that the
Attorney-General generally hasn’t got a clue as he doesn’t even know his own nationality!
Likewise despite the High Court of Australia 14-11-2006 WorkChoices decision reality is fast
different.
.
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: I have raised this point at every opportunity. I do not wish to take up
the time of the Convention, but I certainly shall move-an amendment, because the clause is
not in accordance with the general provisions of Federation. The States composing the
25 Federation should have full power to deal with local affairs. Essentially, all external
relations are taken out of their jurisdiction. I do think they ought to have the power
themselves to say what the Constitution under which they live shall be.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Of course, the absolute control by a state of everything within its own
borders is retained by this Constitution, except in respect to such matters as are
expressly handed over to the Commonwealth.
35 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving
40 that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy
from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts
through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people
having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any
one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of
45 the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is
no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a
different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your
Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under
50 this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution
he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily
determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the
guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us
26 -1-2010 Page 137
have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work
can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the
critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for
them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
5 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have
provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this
Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal
Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
10 choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our
Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people,
which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall
any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their
own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
15 provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as
the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no
citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those
who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are
20 bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this
kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions,
then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so
whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people
will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here,
25 which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext
of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states
from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things,
I think this Convention has done well.
30 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one
35 step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the
legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the
Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials
shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any
private person would be.
40 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
45 Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
50 The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative
power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is
necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE
26 -1-2010 Page 138
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable
5 member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to
point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid
if they had another motive.
END QUOTE
.
10 HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitutional Convention
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria)
There will, of course, be no funds in the commonwealth at that stage; but I apprehend
that the governor-general will act in the hope of being recouped any expenses
afterwards to which he may be put.
15 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. GLYNN:
It is felt in the forms in our courts of justice, in the language of our Statutes, in the
20 oath that binds the sovereign to the observance of oar liberties, in the recognition of
the Sabbath, in the rubrics of our guilds and social orders, in the anthem through
which on every public occasion we invocate a blessing on our executive head, in our
domestic observances, in the offices of courtesy at our meetings and partings, and in
the time-honored motto of the nation.
25 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST:
We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of
30 our own race, born in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming
senators until they have been resident in the commonwealth for a certain period? No
such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old country. Any
Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member
of the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman
35 coming to these colonies should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the
legislature of one of the colonies desired his appointment.
END QUOTE
.
40 QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that
the only laws which can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of
the commonwealth.
END QUOTE
45 .
Legislation such as the purported “Governor-General Act 1974” as to the conduct of the
Governor-General and those engaged by the governor-General within prerogative powers of the
Crown cannot be deemed “for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth”, as it is in my view an attempt to interfere with the Governor-General’s right to
50 manage his/her office as may be desirable.
.
26 -1-2010 Page 139
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education
question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the
Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because
5 we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy
for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no
one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the
Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies
10 may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the
people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal
has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a
few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE
15 .
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other
power?
20 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal
law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent
of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every
man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency
behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
25 END QUOTE
.
Thu, 31 Oct 2002
QUOTE
Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
30 Thank you for your letter.
There is no bias, any more than there would be for a woman judge sitting in a case
involving women or a male judge in a rape case.
Your views on the Constitution appear to have overlooked s 51(xxxvii) of the
Constitution. If that power were not enough, and none of the other heads of power
35 sufficed, it is true that an amendment of the Constitution might be required.
Alternatively, there are cooperative schemes for parallel legislation. Ours is a
cooperative federation, as the Constitution itself envisaged.
Sincerely, Michael Kirby
END QUOTE
40 .
Week it seems to me that the Governor-Generals Act 1974 so to say is up the creek and that
without a referendum the commonwealth of Australia (so the Federal parliament) lacks certain
legislative powers and cannot interfere with what is essential a prerogative power of Her Majesty
the Queen to employ a person as she desires.
45
There are obviously numerous other issues, not related specifically to the office of the
Governor-General albeit the governor-General seems to provide purported royal assent where
none should be given to unconstitutional legislation such as in regard of the following:
The Constitution Convention Debates makes clear that WATER that falls on a property belongs
50 to the owner of that property. However, the usage of the WATER must be in such manner that it
does not interfere with the rights of others. More over, that by federation. it means that riparian
26 -1-2010 Page 140
rights are applicable. I understand that the Commonwealth with agreement of the States has
discontinued the Inter-State Commission, but no such powers existed for the Commonwealth and
the State to do so and hence the Commonwealth of Australia itself is clearly at fault in that regard
also, as are the States. The Governor-General as CEO should address this issues also!
5 QUOTE
Commission obligatory.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
10 Mr. HIGGINS.-But the Inter-State Commission must be absolutely independent of
Parliament.
END QUOTE
.
While the Governor-General purportedly gave royal assent to legislation containing the terms;
15 “as the deceased person’s husband or wife or partner on a permanent and bona fide
domestic basis” “leaving more than one spouse” “to a spouse of the deceased person under this
Act among the spouses” reality is that the Federal Parliament cannot legislate as to the terms of
conditions how the Monarch appoints (That is in a valid manner according to the legal principles
embedded in the Constitution and not otherwise) as it is a prerogative power not subject to
20 legislation other then the amount of salary for the Governor-General while in office and not
beyond. I view it appalling that the term “leaving more than one spouse” even was considered
in the first place as making out that a governor-General now needs to have more then one
husband as if the Governor-General (at least implied as I view it) is some sex maniac. Surely we
can do without such inferences?
25 I have for long pursue that what is need is that under the Governor-General (not under the
Government as to avoid political interference) there must be funding for the OFFICE-OF-THE-
GUARDIAN (Don’t forget the hyphens!) so that finally the governor-General is able to obtain
non-political clouded advice what really is constitutionally applicable and prohibited, and also
how really the office of the governor-General exercises its powers, duties, etc.
30 .
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
END QUOTE 21-1-2010 correspondence regarding Governor-General’s payments, etc
35 .
In all fairness you (and so others also) had ample of time to address the issues but failed to do so
and it is now well overdue that finally you do put in train appropriate action to stop robbing the
taxpayers. Providing me with the material above then may assist me also that were the
Commonwealth of Australia to my view take appropriate action to recover monies
40 unconstitutionally paid out and/or fail to stop continuation of such unconstitutional payments
then to take whatever legal action I may deem required to ensure the unconstitutional conduct is
appropriately addressed.
.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

45
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
26 -1-2010 Page 141


Kevin Rudd PM - Unconstitutional Payments - Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kevin Rudd PM - Unconstitutional Payments - Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kevin Rudd PM 26-1-2010

10 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

QUOTE Sir PHILIP FYSH:

15 John Howard $908,551

J. Howard written reply as I understand it was:

April 17, 2009 12:00am

QUOTE 30-4-2009 submission

67 Appointment of civil servants

There shall be payable to the Queen

for the salaries of the Ministers of State

and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

10 officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth

35 Report Number 1 of 2006 (17-10-2006)

15 Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

* What about allowances for parliamentarians?

**#** That is another problem.

45 Hansard 21-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

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

15 [start page 994]

10 QUOTE (HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION)

December 05, 2008 12:00am

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

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

5 Mr Tuckey said he had long believed MPs were underpaid.

END QUOTE Herald Sun 5-12-2008

December 05, 2008 12:00am

QUOTE ( HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION)

END QUOTE (HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION)

JAMES ANDREW McGINTY AND OTHERS v THE

15 JUDGE1 BRENNAN CJ.

QUOTE (PRICES IN AUSTRALIA AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE 20th

28.7 Wages and price - 1901 and 2000

1901 prices 2000

Gold (1oz) 8.50 425.00 460.00

Source: See references.

Australian Bureau of Statistics:

5  Average Weekly Earnings, States and Australia (6302.0).

Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics:

Sydney Morning Herald 1901, various issues.

15 The Age 1901, various issues.

The Advertiser 1901, Adelaide, various issues.

This page last updated 3 October 2007

The Right Hon. Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr. GORDON: I move:

Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!

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

Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

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

That the words "for his services" be omitted.

Mr. MUNRO: Oh, nonsense!

Mr. REID: Oh, no.

Sir GEORGE TURNER: More, I should think.

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

Mr. TRENWITH: They do not pay hotel bills.

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

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

Mr. BARTON: I think it would.

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

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

35 Mr. ISAACS: Why is not the contrary correct?

Mr. HIGGINS: When did Hamilton write that?

10 Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

Mr. GORDON: I move:

# That is another problem.

# To me that was an act of TREASON.

# Well, let me explain.

30 # Of course not.