ISSUE: 20160713 - Re Get rid of an incompetent Governor-General, etc & the constitution

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

There can be absolutely no question about it that I pre-warned all Members of the Federal
Parliament about the fact that the Appropriation/Taxation Bills must be passed before the
commencement of the 2016-2017 financial year as otherwise no DOUBLE DISSOLUTION
could be held, as no funding existed for any election on 20-7-2016 nor to pay public servants,
pensioners, etc. I understand from the Senate Hansard 4-5-2016 that the following regarding the
budget (Appropriation/Taxation Bills) is recorded:
3646 SENATE Wednesday, 4 May 2016
QUOTE Senator

LAMBIE

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (20:30): I rise on behalf of Tasmanians to participate in the 2016-17 Senate
budget debate. I
END QUOTE Senator LAMBIE

Wednesday, 4 May 2016 SENATE 3653

QUOTE Senator

LAMBIE

One of the most respected and admired builders of these 21st century jet-powered ships is Incat, a
Tasmanian business. Why aren't we supporting our own shipbuilders while investing in a Bass Strait sea
transport system designed to enhance our children's future? If the 21st century multihull vessels built in
Tasmania are good enough for the US military, Denmark, London, Japan, Sydney and Argentina, then
why aren't they good enough for the Tasmanian Liberal government? Bill Shorten, to his credit, has said
that if he wins the next election he will have no problem investing money in a feasibility study for the
fast cat, and I thank him dearly for that. Tasmanians deserve bettermore than any other Australians
because we live in an island state of an island nation. We know how important it is to have a modern,
efficient, affordable and reliable shipping industry.
Debate adjourned.
END QUOTE Senator LAMBIE

From this it appears to be clear that the Debate regarding the Appropriation/Taxation Bills was
adjourned.
This means that constitutionally the Governor-General was in no position to permit a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION for this also, as the Appropriation/Taxation Bills must be passed prior to the
commencement of the new financial year commencing on 1 July.
In my view Peter Cosgrove was appointed Governor-General to silence him as to the war crimes,
mass murder, crimes against humanity, etc, of unconstitutionally invading Iraq despite my 16
July 2002 correspondence warning him he would need to have a declaration of war published in
the Gazette by the Governor-General. No such DECLARATION OF WAR was then published
and hence any unilateral action to invade Iraq was unconstitutional and I view a violation of
s24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth), etc.
See also my document 20160712-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Pauline Hanson Re PH One
Nation An open letter to Senator Elect Pauline Hanson regarding constitutional issues.
The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/317978514/20160712-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Pauline-Hanson-Re-PHOne-Nation

p1
13-7-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

As I indicated in past writings the ABCC b ill was submitted for the Second time during the
February-March 2016 sitting and failed to pass.
QUOTE

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.
END QUOTE

Again and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it and this means if the Bill is adjourned then it
technically failed to be passed. Any adjournment for another session still means it and the
Senate rejects or fails to pass it then a DIOUBLE DISSOLUTION was possible.
The Framers of the Constitution embedded also a legal principle in the constitution that where
the Minister didnt resign upon a failure and there was no DOUBLE DISSOLUTION then it
would be taken that the Bill was not enough important for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and the
government would carry on and the bill would be dropped or the Minister will commence from
onset with the Bill, amended or not. As such there was no justification to recall parliament for 18
April 2016 as it was the 3rd time being equal to the first time and it would be not until 18 July
before the Bill could again be presented to the Senate, too late for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION.
In my view Peter Cosgrove is incompetent to be a Governor-General as instead of spending his
time (unconstitutionally also) in France, etc, he should have been on the job. The Framers of the
Constitution made clear that a Governor-General is within his powers within the confines of the
Commonwealth of Australia and once he/she leave the Commonwealth of Australia then he/she
must pay for another person (usually the longest serving Governor) to be acting GovernorGeneral. As such a Governor-General is a private citizen outside the Commonwealth of Australia
and has no official business outside the commonwealth of Australia.
The governor-General has a duty to consider the interest of the public at large and as the Framers
of the constitution made clear must act within the exercise of prerogative powers to the best
interest of the general public even if this is contrary to the advice of a Minister.
A Minister is a constitutional advisor and as such should be a CONSTITUTIONALIST. But
we find that in federal political elections usually not a single candidate is required neither
properly trained to be a CONSTITUTIONALIST and as result we have Ministers of the Crown
who simply havent a clue what is constitutionally appropriate.
HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
The resolutions conclude:
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.
What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.p2
13-7-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

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.
END QUOTE

In my view Bob Katter reportedly supporting Mr Malcolm Turnbull to pass supply bills I view
is aiding and abetting in constitutional criminality. I view the electors should have been advised
about the failure of passing supply bills (as they are commonly referred to) and that
constitutionally all monies for any Department, including salaries, pensions, etc, could not be
paid as from1 July 2016.
We have a constitution and as the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!
Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the expenditure
cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and powers given by the
Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to the Commonwealth.
Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?
Mr. BARTON: Yes.
END QUOTE

Where not even in time of war the parliament cannot alter the Appropriation Bills then clearly
not to have any at all shows the gross incompetence of the Governor-General Peter Cosgrove, the
CEO of the Commonwealth of Australia, Scott Morrison Treasurer and Mr Malcolm Turnbull
Prime Minister. Let us be clear about it that until the writs are returned the Prime Minister
remains within s64 of the constitution for up to 3 months Prime Minister, and so any Minister,
and as such no rush to have a newly commissioned executives (Government). It is however utter
and sheer nonsense as I understood Backdown Barnaby Joyce (I view infamous for backing
down of opposition to the Telstra sale in violation of s69 of the constitution)was on about that
with the Governor-General being outside the Commonwealth of Australia then one had to wait
for his return. There always must be a person being the Governor-General or acting GovernorGeneral and as such the acting Governor-General can swear in a Government.
I view the electors were deceived not having been notified that the 2 July 2016 federal DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION election was a CON JOB without any funding available and as such it must be
questioned who paid for the Federal DOUBLE DISSOLUTION election?
In my view any Member of Parliament elect who engaged in any deals (secret or otherwise) to
obtain special provisions/funding so Malcolm Turnbull can be Prime minister would in my view
be committing an offence within the Sale of Office Act (UK) that is applicable to the
Commonwealth of Australia.
QUOTE 21-3-2016 PRESS RELEASE

ISSUE How to prevent a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION & the constitution -etc

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

constitution and not major political partys goals.
I understood from news reports that Mr Malcolm Turnbull made clear not to play games, or
something to that effect. Well, in my view he is one of the most if not the most incompetent
Prime Minister we ever had. In past PRESS RELEASES I pointed out that if the
Appropriation/Taxation Bills are not passed the first time then constitutionally it requires a 3
submitted to the Senate. It means that with the revised budget date of 3 may 2016, even if the
Appropriation/Taxation Bills are submitted to the Senate on say 4 May 2016 then all the Senate
has to do is to reject the Appropriation/Taxation bills and effectively ass from 1 July 29016 (the
new financial year) not a single taxation can be drawn nor any Appropriation. It means that the
Governor-General only for emergencies can authorise funding, as to keep departments
p3
13-7-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

functioning and to pay social security payments. However, the Governor-General would be
incompetent art the very least if he were to accept the calling of a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION
without funding being available for any DOUBLE DISSOLUTION election after 1 July 2016.
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN (New South Wales).-I think there is a very simple way of looking at this question.
Surely the Senate would not reject a Bill, unless there was an important reason for doing so. I can
scarcely imagine the Senate rejecting a Bill which would put the finances into any difficulty-say, the usual
Bill for the expenses of the country. But, if the Senate did reject a Bill in calm judgment, is it not a farce
to think that under three months that judgment would be reversed? Surely it is only common sense that
there should be a reasonable interval for consideration? After the large amount of rhetoric on this subject
about delay, caution, and prudence, it seems ridiculous to talk about a delay of three months to give
consideration to a great question.
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-With great respect, I submit to those who are objecting to this provision that
they are fighting a shadow. If they meant anything when they said there must be two sessions they meant that
the House of Representatives should have some interval to reconsider its position. It is no use to say that the
Senate can delay it. Delay is not what is required as the ultimate end of a dissolution, but agreement, if
possible. It would be just as well to say that a measure should be twice considered in the same session, as that
there should be two sessions without an interval. I think that one session should be sufficient, but if there is
to be a second consideration it ought not to be possible for Parliament to be prorogued for a day, to
meet again in a state of heat and temper, and to pass the Bill without discussion. That is not the object
of providing two sessions, and I would submit to my honorable friends, who in the main agree with me,
that this is not a point worth fighting about. It is admitted generally that the Executive will allow some
reasonable time, probably not less than three months, but it is urged that there may be occasions when,
if a Bill is not carried, the whole of the finances of the Commonwealth will be thrown into confusion.
That could only happen on the rejection of an Appropriation Bill.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Which would mean revolution?
Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, and that is inconceivable. Delay in passing an important Taxation Bill might
embarrass the Executive very materially, but it could not cause such embarrassment as would throw the
whole of the finances of the country into confusion. If a Treasurer with a heavy deficit introduced a scheme
of taxation, with a view to meeting that deficit, it might be extremely important to him that he should get the
Bill passed, but if he did not he could go on for three months increasing the deficit. If the question of a
second session were before us I should argue against it, but as provision has been made for it, it [start page
2166] should be a second session such as we are accustomed to, with some reasonable interval. I would
strongly urge on my honorable friends the desirability of conceding where we can concede. That is what I
have always been urging on those who have been opposed to me, and I now make the appeal to those who
agree with me. This is a point we can concede without any serious danger. There may sometimes be
considerable inconvenience, but that will be all. I hope that the discussion of this matter will not occupy
much more time, but that we shall say that we are prepared to make concessions wherever we can, in order
that we may obtain reasonable concessions when we come to ask for them ourselves.
The CHAIRMAN.-Do I understand that Mr. Symon wishes to amend his amendment by making the
period specified three months instead of six?
Mr. SYMON.-Yes, sir.
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he
pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxation
including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill going outside the
ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be
imperatively required, in the discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage
of its existence.
END QUOTE

Constitutionally taxation legislation can only be valid for one financial year and unless for each
subsequent financial year re-enacted any taxation would be without warrant of law. When Joe
(smoking) Hockey failed to have his Taxation/Appropriation Bills passed he should have
resigned. It a treasurer is incompetent to allow sufficient time for 2 sessions to consider
Taxation/Appropriation Bills then he is in my view not worthy to be a treasurer.
p4
13-7-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Under current constitutional provisions the 3 months interval requires that at least before the last
3 months of the life of the Parliament the second submission of the Taxation/Appropriation bills
should have been to the Senate. If therefore the last date to call for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION
was to be so to say 11 May 2016 then the first time the Taxation/Appropriation bills should have
been submitted for consideration to the Senate would have been before say 10 February 2016.
That date is long gone. As such to call for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION without as from 1 July
2016 any funds to fund a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION would be totally irresponsible both of the
Prime Minister and for the Governor-General to authorise this. In my view if the Treasurer were
not to submit his Taxation/Appropriation Bills before say 1 of April 2016 into the Senate then I
view the Governor-General should withdraw his commission of Mr Malcolm Turnbull and the
Treasurer Morrison and appoint a person (for example myself) who understands and comprehend
the constitution and what is constitutionally required. In my view no governor-General can
permit a Prime Minister to terrorise the senate under treats of DOUBLE DISSOLUTUION where
by his own claims the budget (Taxation and Appropriation Bills) will not be submitted until 3
May 2016 or thereafter. Recalling the Parliament as a reported cost of $1 million a day for a
prank by Mr Malcolm Turnbull may underline is gross incompetence, this, as essentially it is too
late for calling a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION if the Senate blocks Taxation/Appropriation Bills
when first submitted to the Senate.
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-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

Here we have Mr Malcolm Turnbull reportedly supporting a bully program in schools when he
himself in my view demonstrates what a bully/terrorist is about.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.

Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

END QUOTE 21-3-2016 PRESS RELEASE

We seem to me to have a Prime Minister incompetent to understand/comprehend the true

meaning and application of the constitution, such as that in view of s57 of the constitution a
budget should be handed down to allow for the timeframe required by the constitution if the
appropriation/Taxation bills are defeated/fail for the second time in the Senate, and with it a
Governor-General to me more interested to bomb innocent people, including children then to
respect the true meaning and application of our constitution and seems to unable/incompetent to
act appropriately as a Governor-General when it comes to supply bills, etc.
In my view, again, no person should be accepted to stand as a candidate in a federal political
election unless passed a course in constitutional matters. That I view should be a minimum
requirement, and it may also root out the grossly incompetent persons we now end up with.
If I were a Governor-General I would make clear that any Minister must act within constitutional
powers and not despite of it!
.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.

Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

p5
13-7-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati