20140612-g. h .schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to mr geoff shaw-persistently-etc

8/12/2019 20140612-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Geoff Shaw-PERSISTENTLY-etc

1/14

p1 12-6-2014INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1 st 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, See alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

WITH OUT PREJUDICEMr Geoff Shaw MP [email protected]

5Cc: Christine Fyffe, Speaker [email protected]

Daniel Andrews leader ALP [email protected] Michael OBrien [email protected] Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria [email protected] Johnston [email protected] Hurley [email protected] Mr Ken Smith [email protected] Williams [email protected]

20140612-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Geoff Shaw-PERSISTENTLY -etc15Geoff ,

I have been bombarded by people asking me about how on earth the parliament could havesovereign rights and even be able to imprison a person who causes a disturbance to theParliament, and so I have quoted what the Framers of the Constitution stated so they are aware Iam not making it up by myself, as I have no need for this.20

As shown in the quotationQUOTE

The effect of the decision of the Privy Council to which my hon. friend has alluded must be read inconnection with the Constitutions of the several colonies ,25

END QUOTE

As the States were created within s106 ( subject to this constitutio n) of the Commonwealth ofAu stral ia Constitu tion A ct 1900 (UK) then the constitution of Victoria must be read with thelegal principles embedded in the Federal constitution.30

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVILRIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention )35QUOTE Mr. CLARK .-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled toclaim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.

END QUOTE40

The issue therefore is were the proceedings correctly pursued?

As the speaker Christine Fyffe named you within 125 of the Standing Orders then I view t hiswas defective e and the decision of the Parliament cannot stand..45As we saw with the hysteria of the alleged Weapons of mass Destruction against Iraq, those whoare obsesses with seeking to pursue some action against a person then tend to disregard the realfacts.
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:George%20Williamsmailto:George%20Williamsmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:George%20Williamsmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


2/14



.As I understood that you were named within 1q225 of standing orders, at least this was

broadcasted on television, then one must consider what 125 stands for..QUOTE Standing orders 125 (4) 5

Persistently and wilfully refusing to conform to any standing order, rule or practice of the House; or END QUOTE

It appears to me that the only part the Speaker possibly could have relied upon was this part.10

The word persistently must relate to an ongoing conduct in defiance of the ruling of theSpeaker and not an ongoing conduct of what may have happened with the usage of the vehicle

before the matter was raised in parliament. As such it is irrelevant in my view if you allegedlymisused the vehicle on 1 or 10 times because this has no bearing upon persistently unless in

between the Speaker warned you ab out the alleged misuse of the vehicle,. 15

I have never been in a Parliament, as I simply had no interest to witness this childish conductgoing on but sufficient to say that when parliament proceedings are broad casted on televisionone can notice a speaker warning the member. As such, unless the Speaker warned you aboutthe alleged misuse of the vehicle I view the Speaker could not have r named you.20

After all, if the naming were to succeed aga inst you then from now on a Speaker of the houseor the President of the House could ignored to warn a Member of Parliament and simplyimmediately name the Member.Fro this I view that you and your lawyers may have to consider if the naming by the S peaker25was following proper House protocols as per Standing orders..Again, as I understood Mr Ken Smith correctly pointed out you do not want to set a precedentthat could unduly harm a Member of Parliament who may have acted innocently, and yet itappears to med he as a former speaker ought to have been aware that naming a Member without30

prior warning may be inappropriate. .Over the decades I have assisted numerous parties in their litigation and as such very much awarethat the Court handed down numerous decision as to for example what constitutes STALKING(S21 of the Cr im es Act (Victoria). It cannot be of the one event nor be about various occurrences35in the one event but must be so to say separate incidents.One cannot for example hold that a PERSON looking through a window and then throughanother window is STALKING. But if he looks through one window, leaves and then at a latertime returns and then again look through a window, for unlawful purposes then it may constitutestalking.40

Hence, in your case I would apply this principle that if you had allegedly misused the motorvehicle and then was warned by the speaker and then nevertheless did so again then theSpeaker would be entitled to name you in that this then may constitute persistently.

QUOTE45From: [email protected]

To: [email protected] Cc:

Date: Friday, June 06, 2014 03:59 pm Subject: Correspondence dated 5 and 6 June 2014

Attachments: Text version of this message. (1KB)
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/viewmail.exe?id=001d705fe5b36cc04a361f95d27526a5fc34&threadid=H530802890855520&download=0http://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/viewmail.exe?id=001d705fe5b36cc04a361f95d27526a5fc34&threadid=H530802890855520&download=0http://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/viewmail.exe?id=001d705fe5b36cc04a361f95d27526a5fc34&threadid=H530802890855520&download=0http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


3/14



Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka

I confirm receipt of your letters of 5 and 6 June 2014 and note your insights.

Thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns with me.

Kind regards Hon Christine Fyffe MP Speaker, Legislative Assembly State Member for Evelyn

Legislative Assembly, Parliament House, East Melbourne, VIC 3002 T: 96518580 F:96514444 E:[email protected]

///////************************************************************/////////////// Parliament ofVictoria . Important Disclaimer Notice: The information contained in this email including any attachments, may beconfidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete it from yoursystem. Any unauthorised disclosure, copying or dissemination of all or part of this email, including anyattachments, is not permitted. This email, including any attachments, should be dealt with in accordance withcopyright and privacy legislation. Except where otherwise stated, views expressed are those of the individual

sender.

END QUOTE

In my view the Speaker would have done well had she appropriately considered what I wrote about.5

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing-aamps-sessional-ordersrules/standing-orders/755 QUOTE 125 Naming a member

A member may be named by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker for:

(1) Persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House; or

(2) Being guilty of disorderly conduct; or

(3) Using offensive words, and refusing to withdraw or apologise; or

(4) Persistently and wilfully refusing to conform to any standing order, rule or practice of the

House; or

(5) Persistently and wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair; or

(6) Refusing to immediately follow an order to withdraw under SO 124.

126 Procedure following naming

(1) After naming a member, the Deputy Speaker must immediately interrupt proceedings andadvise the Speaker of the naming.
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing-aamps-sessional-ordersrules/standing-orders/755http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing-aamps-sessional-ordersrules/standing-orders/755http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing-aamps-sessional-ordersrules/standing-orders/755http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing-aamps-sessional-ordersrules/standing-orders/755http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing-aamps-sessional-ordersrules/standing-orders/755http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


4/14



(2) Following the naming of a member and a motion being moved 'That the member besuspended from the service of the House during the remainder of that day's sitting (or forsuch period as the House may think fit)', the Speaker must put the question immediatelywithout amendment, adjournment or debate.

127 Suspension of member following naming

(1) A member suspended under SO 126 must immediately withdraw from the House and mustnot re-enter the Chamber during the period of the suspension.

(2) This Standing Order does not deprive the House of any other powers it may have toproceed against a member.

128 Directions to Serjeant-at-Arms

In all matters of contempt or misconduct, the Serjeant at Arms will act on the direction of theSpeaker.

129 Grave disorder

In the case of grave disorder, the Speaker may adjourn the House without putting a question, orsuspend any sitting for a time to be determined by the Speaker.

130 Contempt

Any person who disobeys an order of the House, or any person other than a member who wilfullyinterrupts the sitting of the House, may be declared guilty of contempt.

END QUOTE

It appears to me that Mr Daniel Andrews pursuing to have you expelled may never have botheredto consider what standing order 125 actually stood for. And this while I understood he was a5former constitutional advisor to the Governor as a Minister of the Crown.Likewise it appears to me that n either premier Denis Napthine and his Deputy Premier Ryan

bothered to check out what Standing order 125 actually stood for, nor Mr Ken Smith and in particular Speaker Christine Fyffe..10In my view Speaker Christine Fyfe should immediately withdraw her decision to suspend youand provide an apology on behalf of the House ab out the gross injustice inflicted upon you.

.It always is within the powers of a judicial officer/Speaker/President to withdraw a decisionwhich was made without jurisdiction.15.I may also comment that all those constitutional experts who seemed to provide advice to thevarious Leaders of political parties and also the clerk of the Legislative assembly would havedone better to have considered my writings to have the matter placed before the Supreme Courtof Victoria and/or the High Court of Australia for its advise as to the matter.20As when I logged in onto the Internet and checked the legislation of the Queensland Electoralact and within mere minutes discovered why Pauline Hanson was wrongly convicted and after I

published my book INSPECTOR-RIKATI ON CITIZENSHIP the court of Appeal
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


5/14



subsequently overturned her convictions, it seems to me that the very people in the Parliamentwho are to provide rules for citizens by way of legislation somehow have a implosion of theirminds when it comes to conducting their own affairs..If all those Members of Parliaments and their armies of legal advisors/constitutional experts5never even understood that persistently must relate not to the usage of the vehicle bu t to theruling of the speaker then what kind of moronic system is in place..Granted, as I was not having English as my native language and neither had any formaleducation in the English language I have my self- professed crummy English but it seems to me10that all those so to say highly educated people in the English language cannotunderstand/comprehend a simple wording like persistently that I with my crummy Englishcan. This is also why I often defeated opposing lawyers when representing a party as aProfessional Advocate because time and time again they misread or merely assumed somemeaning without bothering to check the real meaning.15One incident was where a opponent lawyer sought to have the material I had prepared to bestruck out for failing to be 6 mm between the lines. You may be aware lawyer s generally doublespac

e their typing of documents for court filing whereas I never did s\o. Well here we had thisargument and as I explained to the trail judge that if lines were based upon words on a sentence20then pending one would write in the next sentence one word, hoom or moon the lines would

be jumping all over the pages, whereas if one apply 6y mm between the lines as being the baseline to base line (consider 6 mm lined paper) then it would be constant. The trail judge ruled (in1986) that I was correct..25UI have cross-examined expert witnesses in fields I really had no clued about, such as medical

practitioners and yet using common sense was able to expose how wrong their assessments were.Opponents lawyers often under estimated what I was about and by this were defeated. Evenwhen I represented lawyers they wondered where on earth I got all this knowledge when they

after decades of practices never had known about it. Well, my trademark (yes registered) is30MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL , it remains a trademark despite former AttorneyGeneral Robert Hull warning me he was going to take me before the Supreme Court of Victoriafor using the word JUSTICE as it belongs (so he claimed) to the Victorian Government(Consider Department of Justice). Well, in reality there is little JUSTICE going on in theVictorian Government, its P arliament or the courts. Well, he didnt get anywhere because the35Victorian Government cannot interfere with a Commonwealth of Australia approved trademarkregistration.

Yes I am well accustomed of lawyers and others to make so to say complete idiots of themselvesand it should be kept in mind that law degrees do not provide for intelligence.40

And, all those Members of Parliament who failed to understand the application of the wordpersistently holding law degrees I views should be ashamed of themselves. .While Mr Daniel Andrews so much was going on and on about your alleged conduct with the45

parliament in my view he was the instigator for a criminal case and failed. He was the instigatorfor expulsion of the parliament and failed. He now may discover that the suspension was in

breach of the Standing Orders and so must fail..


6/14



Again, I view the speaker must act honourably and immediately withdraw the suspension as itwas ill conceived and without power. And, as you reportedly didnt participate in the voting thenit cannot be argued that implied or otherwise you consented to it..In my view while there were reportedly members of parliament who were so to say after your5hide they might now find they themselves may be the but of jokes, that they cannot even manageto understand and comprehend standing order 125..It also may place in question the competence of speaker Christine Fyffe because I view she hadan obligation to ensure that any Standing orders she relied upon she understood how they10applied. One may ask how often has she otherwise failed to appropriately apply Standing orders.

As with the judiciary likewise one can legitimately criticise or comment upon Members ofParliament, the Speaker/President of a House;.15Ambard v Att Gen for T ri nidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335QUOTE

The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right ofeveryone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.

END QUOTE20 No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:LORD ATKIN in AM BARD v ATTORNEY-GENE RAL for TRI NI DAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335QUOTE

But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned,25no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in goodfaith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, thewrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing impropermotives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism,and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a30cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments ofordinary man

END QUOTE .The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:35THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J ., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING NEWS (1880) N.S.W.LR 211 AT 239.:QUOTE

The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice ofsitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day,40would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to berigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.

END QUOTE .As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;45

(a) R v F OSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368(b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59(c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537(d) SOLI CITOR-GENERAL v RADI O AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31

.50In my view an injunction ought to be applied for if the Speaker fails to set aside her own decisionto suspended you, and I view this would show to your constituents that not you but theParliament and those attacking you were in the wrong.

As I noted of one of your constituents, you provided assistance where he wrote to you, within 1455days of his writing the complaint was resolve and he valued you very much as a member ofParliament. It is always easy to try to pick out something against a person but often we forget to


7/14



mention the good things. This is when I am in a store and like the way staff conduct themselves Iactually tell them I am pleased with their conduct. Perhaps more constituents ought to do thesame with their parliamentarian representatives as this man did about you.

https://au-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=18m1unv033g1n 5QUOTE

Shaw suspended but vows to run again GEOFF Shaw has been thrown out of Parliament until September, but inanother insult to hardworking Victorians, plans to spend any enforced absencefrom Parliament campaigning for his own re-election .

END QUOTE

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/rogue-frankston-mp-geoff-shaw-suspended-from-victorian- parliament/story-fni0fiyv-1226950670789?sv=19007dc6114bbcef1e389b23c539e983 QUOTE

News10

HS Top News Rogue Frankston MP Geoff Shaw suspended from Victorian Parliament

by: Matthew Johnston and Michelle Ainsworth From: Herald Sun June 12, 2014 8:23AM15

Victorian MP Shaw suspended from parliament 0:59
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttps://au-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=18m1unv033g1nhttps://au-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=18m1unv033g1nhttp://click.e.heraldsun.com.au/?qs=c685c103beca706358c50a78c7859d1f15ea02c7e04998c67612887021d0e592d5ef7a65fb28dd24http://click.e.heraldsun.com.au/?qs=c685c103beca706358c50a78c7859d1f15ea02c7e04998c67612887021d0e592d5ef7a65fb28dd24http://click.e.heraldsun.com.au/?qs=c685c103beca70635b5341deaf0b46a5233ce538dfa4253784877779459a0e96c6db1ea9b5ac3eb4http://click.e.heraldsun.com.au/?qs=c685c103beca70635b5341deaf0b46a5233ce538dfa4253784877779459a0e96c6db1ea9b5ac3eb4http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/rogue-frankston-mp-geoff-shaw-suspended-from-victorian-parliament/story-fni0fiyv-1226950670789?sv=19007dc6114bbcef1e389b23c539e983http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/rogue-frankston-mp-geoff-shaw-suspended-from-victorian-parliament/story-fni0fiyv-1226950670789?sv=19007dc6114bbcef1e389b23c539e983http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/rogue-frankston-mp-geoff-shaw-suspended-from-victorian-parliament/story-fni0fiyv-1226950670789?sv=19007dc6114bbcef1e389b23c539e983http://www.heraldsun.com.au/newshttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/newshttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/newshttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/rogue-frankston-mp-geoff-shaw-suspended-from-victorian-parliament/story-fni0fiyv-1226950670789?sv=19007dc6114bbcef1e389b23c539e983http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/rogue-frankston-mp-geoff-shaw-suspended-from-victorian-parliament/story-fni0fiyv-1226950670789?sv=19007dc6114bbcef1e389b23c539e983http://click.e.heraldsun.com.au/?qs=c685c103beca70635b5341deaf0b46a5233ce538dfa4253784877779459a0e96c6db1ea9b5ac3eb4http://click.e.heraldsun.com.au/?qs=c685c103beca70636f78d3c65d0bd05c8e422b343294b3727072f062e4869895fb750416e9de65c5http://click.e.heraldsun.com.au/?qs=c685c103beca706358c50a78c7859d1f15ea02c7e04998c67612887021d0e592d5ef7a65fb28dd24https://au-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=18m1unv033g1nhttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


8/14



Victorian balance-of-power MP Geoff Shaw has been suspended from parliament for 11 sittingdays.

Victorian MP Shaw suspended from parliament

Victorian balance-of-power MP Geoff Shaw has been suspended from parliament for 11 sittingdays.5

Sky News

11 Jun 2014

ROGUE Frankston independent Geoff Shaw has been thrown out of Parliament untilSeptember, with MPs slamming him for trashing the house and being a rorter.

But in another insult to hardworking Victorians, Mr Shaw intends to spend any enforced absence10from Parliament campaigning for his own re-election.

While doing so he would live off a healthy six-figure treasure chest of publicly fundedentitlements he would have lost had he been expelled.

After a day that saw abuse hurled across the Legislative Assembly as MPs debated Mr Shawsfuture, Premier Denis Napthine eventually won his bid to suspend the renegade member at158.30pm last night.

Labor lost its bid to expel Mr Shaw after former speaker Ken Smith who had previously pledged I want him out refused to cross the floor, instead sticking with his Liberalcolleagues.

Under the suspension until September 2, Mr Shaw will be stripped of 11 days pay, banned from20taxpayer-funded travel and forced to apologise.

Opposition MPs described the suspension as weak, as soft as fairy floss and purelymotivated by a desperation to avoid a damaging by-election.


9/14



Geoff Shaws seat remained empty during the furore and vote over his Parliamentary rorts.Picture: Jay Town

Mr Shaw was slammed as a rorter several times during four hours of mudslinging.

But the tired-looking Frankston MP failed to enter the Lower House during the debate and didnot even vote on his own future.5

Coalition sources now say they do not expect him to apologise, which would result in hisexpulsion in three months anyway.

Deputy Premier Peter Ryan last night claimed success, saying the Government had achieved itstwo goals this week, passing the Budget and dealing with Mr Shaw.

The ball is now very squarely with Mr Shaw, the Parliament has made its decisions and Mr10Shaw is well aware that come the second of September he faces the prospect of more direconsequences than those that have been case upon him no w, he said.

Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews said Dr Napthine had decided not to punish Mr Shaw but to protect him.

15

Premier Denis Napthine following the vote. Picture: Jay Town

Make no mistake he is a rorter, he is protected by Denis Napthine, that is the great sadness oftonight, he said.

During the debate, avowed Shaw enemy Mr Smith, who investigated the M Ps rorting after theSunday Herald Sun revealed he had misused his taxpayer funded fuel card and car for his20hardware business, said he had spoken to several whistleblowers.


10/14



The member for Frankston has trashed the reputation of this Parliament over the past 3.5 years,Mr Smith said.

He said however, the suspension which would allow Mr Shaw back if he apologised and paidhis $6838 fine would avoid a by-election that could cost taxpayers about $350,000.

Mr Shaw told the Herald Sun that he believed he was misled by Dr Napthine about potential5 punishment he faced.

Last week before I went on radio he (Dr Napthine) said he would not bring this motion on thisweek or the following sitting week, he said.

Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews following the vote on Geoff Shaw. Picture: Jay Town10

I said its not good enough that you cant guarantee that Frankston (will) be represented. I lostconfidence in him.

Sources close to the MP have indicated he is likely to campaign while on suspension, as hewould not be banned from working in his electorate.

Mr Andrews said Mr Shaws behaviour was why we (MPs) are regarded as for the public purse,15instead of the public good.

Mr Andrews yesterday peppered Dr Napthine with questions inferring Mr Shaw would receivedup to $163,000 in salary and entitlements while suspended.

He said this was not a golden handshake but a golden bear hug.

But Dr Napthine said for each of the 11 days Mr Shaw would be suspended, he would lose $38620of income.


11/14



Mr Ryan said Mr Shaw had been cleared of any crime, so it would be difficult to sack him on thespot.

ON THE ROAD TO NOWHERE

VICTORIAS Lower House will be politically deadlocked until at least September, casting doubton any controversial new laws put forward by the Government.5

Labor and the Coalition will have 43 votes each on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, afterGeoff Shaws suspensio n last night until September 2.

For new laws opposed by the Opposition to get through the Assembly, Speaker Christine Fyffewould have to use her casting vote to support the Government.

It is not clear how she would vote, as backing the Government would defy convention but would10not be unprecedented at state or federal level.

However, if any Coalition MP were missing from the chamber, Labor could defeat the

Government at a vote.

Last night Deputy Premier Peter Ryan called on Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews to co -operate with us in the running of Parliament in the interests of all Victorians. 15

There was still 171 days until the election, he said.

In the interim we intend to run a full program of legislation through the Parliament, but to dothat it would assist if we did have the cooperation of Mr Andrews and the Labor Party, and I callon them now to provide that cooperation, he said.

It is only when they choose to play the game that issues arise. 20

The precarious situation also may limit the ability of the Speaker to control the Assembly, because she would find it difficult to name MPs to punish them with suspension.

Mr Shaw had been the balance-of-power MP, supporting the minority Government by providingconfidence and supply, and guaranteeing that key Bills involving money would be passed.

Government sources have dismissed concerns about the running of Parliament, pointing to the25Hamer administration in the late 1970s and early 80s when the Speaker was sometimes forced tovote with the government on Bills.

Former premier Jeff Kennett said he would be surprised if Labor caused chaos, and expected thatif Mr Shaw returned he would mostly back the Government after what Labors done.

He is fundamentally a small businessman and a conservative, he said. 30

Mr Kennett anticipated Labor would get back to what matters.

ITS A NUMBERS GAME

The Legislative Assembly without Geoff Shaw


12/14



*Total: 88 seats

*Labor: 43 MPs

*Coalition: 44 MPs

*Absent: 1 (Shaw)

Voting on new laws and other matter s5

*Total: 86 votes on the floor

*Labor: 43 votes

*Coalition: 43 votes

*Speaker: Independent so only votes when result is tied to break a deadlock

[email protected] 10

END QUOTE

Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

QUOTE15

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I am not particular about that, but I think at all events the Federal Parliamentought to have power to make its own standing orders for the purpose of preventing disorder. When I say this Ido not suppose the Commonwealth Parliament would attempt to exercise control with regard to people out ofits own doors. But within our own dominion we ought to be absolute. If we summon a witness in any of ou rlocal Parliaments to the bar of the House, he can decline to give evidence, laugh at us, and walk away. The20case I have just mentioned shows the necessity of Parliament having control over any disorder.

Mr. TRENWITH: Anything to stop them throwing stones at labor members.

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In Victoria they took the matter in a wholesale manner, and passed an Act ofParliament declaring that the Victorian Legislature had all the powers, privileges, and immunities of theHouse of Commons. There was no mincing of matters there, and it was in consequence of the Parliament of25Victoria having arrested a man, and it having been decided that they had no power to do so, that theyimmediately declared they had all of the powers of the House of Commons. The man, I think, was connectedwith Goldsbrough's Company, and named Glass. He did something, and the Parliament arrested him, brought

him to the bar of the House, and it was declared that they had no power to do so. In all the decisions of thePrivy Council in reference to the powers of Parliament, the Privy Council has invariably declared that30Parliament has no power outside the very words of the Constitution Act. In the own of Hampton andFenton, I think, in Tasmania they had the audacity to tell a great colony like Tasmania that so far as it wasconcerned it had no greater powers than a municipality.

Mr. BARTON: The Speaker only had the power of a chairman of a public meeting.

Mr. DOUGLAS: Regarding the case alluded to by the hon. member, I happened to be present when the35decision was given. The Privy Council did not declare that the colony had no power, but that any colonialGovernment, being under a Statute, would have no power beyond that Statute. The result was that theTasmanian Parliament passed a law giving the powers to which the hon. member has made reference.
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


13/14



Sir EDWARD BRADDON: I think that the amendment which the hon. member has proposed must beconsidered in connection with clause 8, page 4 of the Bill, which provides:

The privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives respectively, andof the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared bythe Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United5Kingdom, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, at the establishment of theCommonwealth.

If the hon. member's amendment is to include the power of punishment it will scarcely be necessary. Theeffect of the decision of the Privy Council to which my hon. friend has alluded must be read inconnection with the Constitutions of the several colonies , which were affected at the time of the10

pronouncement of these decisions. In New South Wales, and I think in Tasmania, what exists at the presenttime is a Legislature as distinct from a Parliament. A Sovereign Parliament has punishing power. ALegislature which is created by Act of Parliament, and with the equivalent powers conferred upon it, as theyare conferred by section 8, has, in the case of New South Wales and Tasmania, no power except such as canbe gathered from the necessary implication of the words of the Constitution. In the present instance we15have passed a clause which states that the [start page 758] privileges, immunities, and powers of the FederalParliament shall be those declared by the Parliament, and until a declaratory Act is passed the privileges,immunities, and powers of the House of Commons will be accepted. The power of punishment exists in theHouse of Commons, and the same power would exist in the Parliament of the Commonwealth under clause 8.An outrage committed within the walls of the Federal Parliament could be punished in the same way as in the20House of Commons. If a man ventured to throw a stone into the Imperial Parliament, though unfortunatelythe thrower is not always caught, it would be contempt of Parliament, and that would be a matter to be dealtwith by the Commons according to the powers, privileges, and immunities it possesses.

Sir GEORGE TURNER: Has not the House of Commons power to make Standing Orders?

Mr. BARTON: Yes.25

Sir GEORGE TURNER: Then where is the necessity for this clause?

Mr. BARTON: The necessity for it does not arise out of the powers of the Standing Orders, which aremerely regulations for the conduct of the business within the House, but out of the power of punishment incases where contempt is exercised by persons within the walls of Parliament. If, for instance, a person throwsa stone and the Sergeant-at-Arms can catch him he can be brought before the Parliament and can be30imprisoned or dealt with otherwise for contempt. Under the operation of the clause similar action can betaken by the Federal Parliament, and that goes far enough. It does not require Standing Orders to deal withthe powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament. They exist, and if you made Standing Orders youwould really only limit them. Under the Bill we have taken the powers, privileges, and immunities possessed

by the House of Commons.35

Sir JOSEPH ABBOT: Then why do you want clause 49?

Mr. BARTON: I have already explained that, but I will return to it if my hon. friend wishes. I say in themeantime you have already taken the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons, and

there is no necessity to pass Standing Orders with reference to them. They do not need definition in theStanding Orders; they are not the subject of definition in the Standing Orders; they are totally different in40their whole circuit to the Standing Orders which relate to the conduct of the business of each House and itstransactions with the other House. That is not a question of the powers, privileges, and immunities of theHouse of Commons, which exist independently of the Standing Orders. They have a historical applicationin the House of Commons, and they can be applied to the Federal Parliament.

Mr. TRENWITH: Could they not make Standing Orders?45

Mr. BARTON: The Federal Parliament, of course, will have power to make Standing Orders for theregulation of its internal business.


14/14



Mr. TRENWITH: If we adopt clause 49 do we not restrict the power of the Federal Parliament withregard to any Standing Orders they may make?

Mr. BARTON: No. You do not restrict them because you have the clause in the most general terms. Myhon. friend wishes the clause to read:

The Senate and the House of Representatives may each of them from time to time adopt Standing Orders as5they or each may deem to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have he force of law.

That is altogether too wide, as the Standing Orders would then have the effect of law outside the House.

Mr. PEACOCK: Hear, hear. That is the point.

Mr. BARTON: It is the point to which I think the hon. member was anxious to come. What we have doneis to adopt a clause giving the Federal Parliament power to pass Standing Orders for the con- [start page10759] duct of their business, and so that there should be no doubt the power has been taken in the widestpossible words. The House of Commons does not make its Standing Orders by reason of its powers,privileges, and immunities, but by virtue of its inherent powers as a sovereign Parliament . TheStanding Orders are for the internal regulation of the House of Commons , but my friend would like tosay that the Federal Houses may make Standing Orders for any matter it may deem necessary. This would15have the effect of passing laws without the royal assent. I ask my friend if the clause as it stands is not

sufficient.

END QUOTE

From this is must be clear that a part of the House being able to deal with the conduct of theHouse it also has the power to deal with a person who enters the Parliament and causes a20disturbance which may or may not result to interference of the proceedings in as House of theParliament.

One may also wonder if the Speaker should have relied at all on Standing Order 125 whichI view rather is for in House matters. The Parliament has clearly powers to deal with an25alleged contemptor, and this without invoking standing orders.And again as I canvassed in previous correspondences, and so no need to go into all detailsagain, the Parliament cannot retain power to deal with a matter where it referred thematter to the police who ordinary has no investigative powers without the authority of theParliament, as to act on its behalf. What an utter mess and for what? It has cost millions of30dollars from the public purse and in the end we find that the P arliament doesnt evenunderstand and comprehend its own Standing Orders.In my view the Speaker should act dignified and set aside her own orders of suspension,etc, as they clearly were made in breach of standing orders and set a very dangerousprecedent for others to follow.35In my view the wording in standing orders must be deemed to have the same meaning inthe same standing order unless specifically staged otherwise. Hence the wording"persistently" used in Standing order 125 must be applied in a consistent manner.This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to be legal advice andmay not be the same were factual details be different than those understood to be by the40writer.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto! )45

20140612-g. h .schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to mr geoff shaw-persistently-etc

Documents