Page 1

1
2
3 Attorney-General Michelle Rowland 24-8-2025
4 Email [email protected],
5
6 Cc: Service Australian CUSTOMER.COMMENTS <[email protected]>
7 Centrelink Ref 301 602 799V Reply Paid 7800, CANBERRA BC ACT 2610
8
Minister for Health and Ageing The Hon Mark Butler MP
Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme The Hon Mark Butler MP
(Deputy Leader of the House)
Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Senator the Hon Jenny McAllister
Minister for Aged Care and Seniors The Hon Sam Rae MP
9 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
10 Re 20250824-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland
11 -COMPLAINT -details information
12 Michelle,
13 while you as a first law officer I view your obligations/duties is to ensure that
14 Departments, etc, such as the AEC (Commonwealth Electoral Commission) are confined to
15 operate within the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
16 Act 1900 (UK)! You may consider the material that was before the court regarding my
17 successful appeal (in which I represented myself) on 19 July 2006 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka!
18
19 I in past years did notify the AEC that not the issue of the writs but the return of the writs are
20 critical as to the 3-year period calculation governing elections of the House of Representatives.
21 I also complained to the AEC that the conduct by any candidate/party to pretend a federal
22 election to be as to electing a Prime Minister/Government is a gross deception of electors.
23 I also highlighter that no Member of Parliament can use a parliamentarian officer to promote an
24 election campaign. Further, that no Minister while travelling as a Minister or executing
25 duties/obligations as a Minister can use this promote any political goals and/or deceive electors
26 as to make claims for future government as to what it may or will do, this as any Minister must
27 remain to be impartial when executing the duties/obligations as a Minister (including prime
28 Minister).
29
30 I understand that a (prime) Minister during past election campaigns would pretend to present
31 government policies, etc, while on an election campaign trial and by this charge taxpayers for
32 cost of travelling, overnight accommodation, pamphlet and other election material, etc,
33
34 Also, I understand that candidates are provided by the AEC with payment per primary vote
35 which I view is unconstitutional in various ways also and again which in my view violate S44 of
36 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and by this any person doing so by
37 Section 45 is AUTOMATICALLY disqualified from participating in a pollical election as well
38 as holding a seat in the Parliament.
39
40 I understand that ordinary ANNUAL Appropriation Acts can only provide for the ordinary
41 annual expenditure of each Department (including cost of annual cost of entities contracted by
42 the Government) and any non-ANNUAL cost such as any federal election expenditure for

24-8-2025 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 2

1 holding a federal election, etc, only can be authorized by way of Special Appropriation Acts
2 specifically for the particular non-ANNUAL expenditure, this includes the cost of staff engaged
3 in holding a particular Federal election and/or by-election.
4
5 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
6 Convention)
7 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
8 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the
9 observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of
10 misconception.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
14 QUOTE
15 Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be
16 part of an annual service.
17 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?
18 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.
19 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we
20 distinguish from special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have
21 got rid of the phraseology to which we are accustomed, and instead of the words
22 Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.
23 Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal
24 to place expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual,
25 and it would not be a service.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 It must be very clear that any non-ANNUAL expenditure must be approved by Special
29 Appropriation Act!
30
31 In my view elections are not held as to election any political party into Government but rather
32 that political candidate (with or without political affiliation) can be elected subject to Section 44
33 of the Constitution. All Members of Parliament are equal to each other and entitled to the same
34 parliamentarian privileges for that purpose unless they hold a special position as a Speaker of the
35 House, President of the Senate and/or are a Minister exercising a special portfolio commissioned
36 by the Governor-General. Only one Member of Parliament can be commissioned to be the
37 “RESPONSIBLE Minister” for a department and as such there can be no “assisting Minister” or
38 Shadow Minister” position. Also, a prime minister cannot exercise any powers other then
39 regarding the commission provided for within S51 and/or s52 of the constitution. A leader of a
40 political party during any election cannot lay claims as to what to do after an election, even if
41 ending up in government, this because no party leader can dictate or imply that he/she will have
42 exclusive powers to override the voting on Bills before the Parliament.
43
44 As I proved in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka on 19 July 2006 that compulsory voting is
45 unconstitutional! Hence, the AEC pursuing electors to be fined for allegedly failing to vote I
46 view is not just a criminal offence interfering with the right of each and every elector to vote or
47 not to vote but also TREASON!
48
49 As a clarification the Parliament while having members that may be associated with a political
50 party, that cannot and never should give any Member more rights in the Parliament then any
51 Member not associate with a political party. The federal government has no constitutional
52 Authority to dictate privileges pending the number of Members of Parliament belonging to a
53 particular political party this as the Parliament cannot be controlled by any government. Despite
54 any rules in the House of Representatives and/or Senate a government minister or backbencher
24-8-2025 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 3

1 cannot dictate the procedures of the House of Representatives/Senate this as it would undermine
2 the “SEPARATION OF POWERS” where instead the government of the day operates within
3 the legal framework of the Parliament now it dictates the Parliament unconstitutionally. It is
4 totally irrelevant what convention(s) might be relied upon this as a “convention” cannot interfere
5 with the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution!
6
7 Service Australia/Centrelink in early April 2025 first invalidated my Pension concession card
8 and then the following day suspend my Age pension (I am 78-years-old) and then in a letter
9 dated 25 June 2025 notified me that my Age pension was cancelled and it was then it made
10 known my Pension concession card was invalidated way back from 8 April 2025.
11 It must be noted that Service Australia/Centrelink failed to follow proper legal procedures and
12 invalidation my Pension concession card inflicted considerable financial harm to me, and then
13 suspending later cancelling the Age Pension denied me to use Age Pension payment to purchase
14 food, pay for medical services, pay for medication, pay for fuel and other household bills.
15 Despite my elaborate writing including to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in March 2025 as
16 such prior to the invalidating/suspension/cancelation to the Attorney General and numerous
17 copies forwarded to federal and state politicians nothing came from this, even so I ended up
18 being admitted to hospital die to heart problems, including not having medication. This may
19 underline the callousness of politicians and others, in particular where already, in 2024, I
20 requested a “REVIEW” and/or details/information regarding Service Australia/Centrelink
21 conduct to falsify amounts in its 10 August 2024 correspondence to me claiming to relate to the
22 death of my (now Late) wife Olga Hlavka-Schorel with claiming fraudulently amounts
23 allegedly relating to 8 August 2024 (the day my wife died), etc.
24
25 Clearly, Service Australia/Centrelink refusal/failure to provide relevant details/information
26 regarding the fraudulent claims it may in its 10 August 2024 and later also about an alleged
27 $553.49 ANNUAL income may underline that as I stated “This may underline the callousness
28 of politicians and others”. After all if everything was above board then why not provide
29 relevant details/information how Service Australia/Centrelink claimed the alleged amounts iyt
30 used against me? Why indeed is there no management in action to hold those wrongdoers
31 accountable, or is it that this is a deliberate terrorism against me where other previously failed for
32 daring to expose the wrongdoing of Government officials, etc?
33
34 I may state I am not aware that Service Australia/Centrelink exercised a legal option to place
35 matters in dispute before a competent court of jurisdiction to obtain judicial approval to take
36 action(s) against my person and as such this may underline that Service Australia/Centrelink
37 violate the “SEPARATION OF POWERS” by taking the law into its own hands.
38
39 QUOTE In R v Hall (Warwick & Asizes, 1-4-1845. Maule J.) (1845)
40 Be it so; yet you had no right to take the law into your own hands, I will tell you what you
41 ought to have done, and if you did know, I will tell you that the law conclusively presumes
42 that you did.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 The legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur action” denies any remedy to a litigant
46 (including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.
47 If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with “Dirty Hands”
48 best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
49
50 https://www.westernjournal.com/state-supreme-court-overrules-hands-big-win-
51 voters/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=newsletter-CT&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=conservative-tribune
52 State Supreme Court Overrules Itself and Hands a Big Win to Voters
53 QUOTE
54 Chief Justice Paul Newby said the court had overstepped the bounds of its authority to rule on alleged
55 gerrymandering.
24-8-2025 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 4

1 “The will of the people is achieved when each branch of government performs its assigned duties,”
2 Newby wrote in an opinion. “When, however, one branch grasps a task of another, that action violates
3 separation of powers.”
4 Later in the opinion, Newby noted, “Our constitution expressly assigns the redistricting authority to the
5 General Assembly subject to explicit limitations in the text. Those limitations do not address partisan
6 gerrymandering.”
7 “Policy decisions belong to the legislative branch, not the judiciary,” he added.
8 Ultimately, Newby viewed the decision as reining in judicial overreach and ensuring the branches of
9 government operate as intended.
10 “This case is not about partisan politics but rather about realigning the proper roles of the judicial and
11 legislative branches,” Newby wrote. “Today we begin to correct course, returning the judiciary to its
12 designated lane.”
13 END QUOTE
14
15 If Service Australia/Centrelink had any “evidence” that I am alleged to be in violation to legal
16 provisions then again it could petition a court of competent jurisdiction to hear both sides before
17 handing down a judgment, however Service Australia/Centrelink has clearly violated this
18 “SEPARATION OF POWERS” and in the process prevented me to use the Age Pension
19 payments to purchase medication, pay for medical services, food, etc.
20
21 I now require you to provide me within 14days of the date of this correspondence with all
22 relevant details/information regarding all and any expenditure paid for out of Consolidated
23 Revenue Funds since 2000 regarding the above issues referred to including how each payment
24 was within each particular ANNUAL Appropriation Act and/or Special Appropriation Act
25 including the dates and time of each expenditure incurred as well as the same for when paid, as
26 well as what if any action was undertaken to recover any monies and what was done against any
27 person involved to hold him/her legally accountable. Failing to provide the requested
28 details/information leave me no alternative but to lodge a formal criminal complaint with the
29 AFP (Australian Federal Police), as after all the rule of law must be upheld regardless of the
30 position of the person(s).
31
32 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
33 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
34 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
35 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
36 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
37 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
38 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 As I stated “This may underline the callousness of politicians and others” and I view all must
42 be held legally accountable also as a warning to others not to act similarly in an unconstitutional/
43 unlawful manner!
44
45 This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all relevant issues
46 and neither are issues referred to in any order of importance.
47
48 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
49
50 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
51 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

52 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

53 (Our name is our motto!)
24-8-2025 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati