1

10

21-9-2011 Select committee jscacefl@aph.gov.au . Re: CARBO TAX E VIRO ME T -etc Sir/Madam, as a CO STITUTIO ALIST I consider it essential that our parliamentarian processes are not subjected to any form of terrorism. What is terrorism you may ask and well let us see what the Framers of the Constitution held constituted terrorism, as shown below, which indicates that any pressure upon the Senate to limit its time for consideration of any bill would be constituting terrorism.
.

15

20

25

Something that also seems to be misconceived is that the general belief is that only for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and interval of three months is required but the truth is that for example the Cocopop Tax was defeated/rejected by the Senate and then purportedly passed the following day, failing to allow for the minimum period required of 3 months (by s57 or otherwise) as that periods of time does in fact apply to any Bill placed before the Senate a second time, not just those that might be used for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION. Therefore, regardless if the Prime Minister were merely allow 6 days for the joint select committee or any other committee to consider matters it cannot be enforced against the Senate. As indicated in my 21-9-2011 submission that any Member of Parliament can object to the constitutional validity of the Bill and then the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the president of the Senate must have the constitutional validity clarified before the Bill can be used for debates.
.

30

QUOTE Duncan v Queensland (1916) 22 CLR 556, 582 (per Griffith C.J.) That case (a previous decision of the High Court, Foggit, Jones & Co v SW (1915) 21 CLR 357) was very briefly, and I regret to say, insufficiently argued and considered on the last day of the Sydney sitting..... The arguments which now commend themselves to me as conclusive did not find entrance to my mind. In my judgment that case was wrongly decided, and should be overruled. E D QUOTE

35

40

45

The High Court of Australia may very well hold that the Bill is constitutional valid and the Bill may be passed by both Houses and be given royal assent and then a person like myself may then challenge the legislation and the High Court of Australia may then in the end that by hindsight the legislation is unconstitutional, as the arguments now presented were not considered previously. Therefore, besides any time purportedly allowed for the committee to consider matters it should be clear that the Senate can take all its time it desires and as I have written in my past published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues, that when a Bill fails to be passed in a session then it is deemed to have been rejected by the Senate. As such any Carbon Tax Bill or related Bill that is not passed within the same session it was introduced is deemed to have been rejected. And no Bill rejected/defeated by the senate can be submitted to the Senate during the same session of Parliament unless a minimum period of three months has lapsed. Below I have quoted some parts that underline to some extend what I have stated but obviously there are more quotations I can provide if requested.
QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278 22-9-2011 SUBMISSIO Supplement Re CARBO TAX issues Page 1 PLEASE OTE: 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 Free downloading of documents from my blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

2
The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law' Our sworn duty is to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all. If, then, we find the law to be plainly in conflict with what we or any of our predecessors errornously thought it to be, we have, as I conceive no right to choose between giving effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It is not, in my opinion, better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimately right.. Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here to consider the principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at least emerges as is undoubtedly beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly wrong, and there are no circumstances countervailing the primary duty of giving effect to the law as the court finds it, the real opinion of the court should be expressed. E D QUOTE And QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278 In my opinion, where the prior decision is manifestly wrong, then, irrespective of the consequences, it is the paramount and sworn duty of this court to declare the law truly.... E D QUOTE

10

15

20

QUOTE Part of s57 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) 57 Disagreement between the Houses
If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

25

30

35

END QUOTE
.

Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Convention) QUOTE

ational

40

45

Mr. TRE WITH (Victoria).-I submit there is some justification for the suggestion that there should be some specified time. The object of requiring two sessions clearly is that there shall be an interval, but it is extremely desirable that the interval should be a reasonable one, because we may assume that before a dispute has arrived at an acute stage there has been some time and trouble taken over the proposed legislation. It would not be proposed unless in, the opinion of one or both Chambers it was necessary. Therefore we must be careful that we do not have undue delay in connexion with necessary legislation. If Mr. Symon would do what is frequently done in Victoria in connexion with measures in which it is proposed there should be an interval before they are submitted and voted on, fix six weeks instead of six months, you might be assured. that there will be substantial delay. You would be secured against an unfair rush. Mr. SYMO .-That is all we want. Mr. TRE WITH.-I understand that.

50

Mr. MCMILLA .-Supposing a measure was sprung very suddenly upon the Parliament, and suddenly rejected, it would not come under the consideration of the public at all. Mr. TRE WITH.-I respectfully submit that a measure passed very suddenly, and suddenly rejected, would not be likely to be a measure about which this part of the Constitution would be brought into execution. Measures of importance, such as will create disputes between the two Houses, are sure to be measures discussed at considerable length in both Houses, and, as Mr. Deakin points out, the Senate is not coerced into dealing with them. The Senate can take its time, even though the House of Representatives sends up a 22-9-2011 SUBMISSIO Supplement Re CARBO TAX issues Page 2 PLEASE OTE: 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 Free downloading of documents from my blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

55

3
measure. It is not bound to deal with it the day it receives it. Therefore, I submit there is justification for the proposal, and we should concede it, even it it is distasteful to us. Mr. SYMO .-Will the honorable member allow me to point out the necessity for a longer interval than is given in Victoria? This is a Commonwealth matter, and you have the whole of Australasia to consider, and not one colony, if you we to get an expression of opinion. Mr. TRE WITH.-Of course, I am very anxious that we should in this connexion carry a proposal, if possible, nearly unanimously. Mr. SYMO .-Make it three months.

10

Mr. TRE WITH.-Personally, I rose to point out that six months is too long; but perhaps three months would be a reasonable interval in view of the fact that such an extensive area has to be considered. I am reminded that in parts of Western Australia a letter takes three weeks for delivery. Therefore, we should require more time in Western Australia than in Victoria or New South Wales. However, if the honorable member will accept three months, I will support him. Mr. OCO OR (New South Wales).-I hope the amendment will be passed as proposed. For such a matter as three months, is it worth while to, make a provision in the Constitution? The necessary steps to be taken by the Government itself will at least insure that delay, and, on the other hand, it may be very important to put the thing through in the public interests with so much rapidity that it would be impossible to allow the exact time in the Constitution. After all, it is not worth troubling about. Sir JOH FORREST (Western Australia).-Mr. O'Connor overlooks the fact that the Senate may not put it through; there is a little safeguard there. But it seems to me that the words proposed by Mr. Barton, if they mean anything, mean another ordinary session. That is the [start page 2160] intention of the honorable member moving it; but the way, in which it will be done will be to make a special session, as was done in South Australia, where I believe that was done in order to get over this very difficulty. A new session was summoned three days after the termination of the other session. If that is the object of the honorable member-to try and rush the thing through by summoning another session immediately-I am sure it cannot be the intention of Mr. Barton. I am sure that, in his mind, another session meant another ordinary session; but seeing that the object of the mover can be frustrated, surely some reasonable interval should be made. I think three months a reasonable time, and it is certainly little enough. The honorable member (Mr. O'Connor) seems to forget that although you can take a horse to the water you cannot make him drink. Therefore, the sending of a Bill up to the Senate does not make the Senate pass it. Mr. OCO OR.-That will give you all the more time.

15

20

25

30

35

Sir JOH FORREST.-I know that it will, but, at the same time, I think some interval should elapse, because if it is proposed to have another session it does not mean a manufactured session for the purpose, but an ordinary session. END QUOTE . Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Convention) QUOTE

ational

40

Mr. REID.- o, if they fix such a short interregnum, you can make up for it by taking longer to deal with the Bill a second time. Sir JOH DOW ER.-Yes, if you are treated that way, you have the power in your own hands. Mr. REID.-I do swear that the honorable member would take a long time.

45

50

Sir JOH DOW ER.-I know that my right honorable friend, judging probably from the time I am taking now, thinks that in such a case I would take a long time, if I were in the Senate. I admit that his surmise is quite right in my case. I admit there are persons on whom this terrorism could not be practised, or on whom, if practised, it would probably not be effective. But I am thinking of persons of weaker minds and wills, and I say that, as far as this Constitution is concerned, it is absolutely necessary to put some provision in this Bill which will strengthen the Senate and prevent it being intimidated in the way indicated. We have been frittering away the first principles of the Federal Constitution long enough. END QUOTE 22-9-2011 SUBMISSIO Supplement Re CARBO TAX issues Page 3 PLEASE OTE: 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 Free downloading of documents from my blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

4
.

10

15

While the Senate, as like the House of Representatives, can and does have its own standing orders nevertheless neither one can overrule the constitution and so neither the embedded legal principles that one member can object against a Bill on constitutional grounds and that so to say stop the Bill in its tracks to be debated unless and until its constitutional validity has been ascertained. . For this, if the Carbon Tax Bill or any related Bill is defeated (rejected) that is not passed in the same session that it was introduced into the Senate/House of Representatives then is deemed to be defeated (rejected) and cannot be introduced to the Senate/House of Representatives until the minimum period has lapsed being it 3 months or the next session or following session. . While I am aware the High Court of Australia held that all defeated bills can be used for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION the truth is that the framers of the Constitution made clear that if the Government didnt bother to call for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION then the Bill was considered to be disregarded and nothing prevented the bill in an amended form to be reintroduced into the Parliament (both houses at the time) as if it had never been before the parliament previously. So much more to it but for now at least an indication to the committee that the Senate cannot be forced to vote on a Bill it doesnt want to vote on and again a mere one member as such Senator can object upon constitutional grounds and than it is anyones guess how quickly that constitutional issue might be resolved. .

20

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

25 . (

Our name is our motto!)

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

22-9-2011 SUBMISSIO Supplement Re CARBO TAX issues Page 4 PLEASE OTE: 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 Free downloading of documents from my blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati