20140514-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission-Insulation Issues-Supplement 3b

Page 1
Page 1 14-5-2014 Submission Supplement 3b G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist)
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE
Ian Hanger, AM, QC, Royal Commissioner 14-5-2014
C/o Ms Petra Gartmann, Chief Executive Officer legal.homeinsulation@ag.gov.au
5
Ref; 20140514 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commission-insulation issues-Supplement 3b
Sir,
this submission-supplement 3b and the 6 February 2014 submission are not intended and
neither must be considered to be restricted for publication.
Due to my laptop having crashed and it hard-drive not accessible, I am going through past files 10
kept elsewhere and in the process come across material that may or may not be already submitted
to the commission.
I noted that after I forwarded my email dated 15-2-201q0 to Mr Kevin Rudd PM with a copy to
Mr Peter Garrett about the Ministers responsibility, etc, then subsequently on 19 February 2010
the insulation scheme was aborted. 15
Obviously, it appears to me that where I pointed out the minister could be sued personally
this might (but I do not know if this was so, have resulted that the insulation scheme was
aborted soon afterwards.
I suspect that had I not set this out then the insulation scheme might have continued, as
when one points out the legal liabilities then a Minister will try to save himself/herself for so 20
far this is possible, whereas otherwise they so I view, they cannot care less to the harm that
eventuates.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond 25
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.
END QUOTE 30
.
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: As a possible working out in time. I do admit that there is a great deal of force in the 35
suggestion that there are certain phases of constitutional development which, to a great extent, must be left to
the working-to that which express provisions will evolve from themselves, rather than to attempt to define
them too strictly at the outset; but I fail to see how the working of any such constitution as is likely to be
framed will result in a limited ministerial responsibility of that kind. I take it that we [start page 99] shall
be shut up to the choice of one of two things, the American system of dissociation of the executive, or the 40
adhering to that which we individually have found to work as well as anything else can work in the present
stage of political development, that is, the ordinary principle of constitutional government. In that respect
I think that, irrespective of any question of a referendum, which I have heard suggested, we shall find
ourselves safer in relying on the old lines of constitutional responsibility at the hands of one chamber,
although it may not take unto itself the whole of the representative principle, than we shall be by attempting 45
either to weld two chambers together for executive purposes-which I think would be a clumsy
expedient-or by venturing upon the dissociation of the executive from the representative body, the

Page 2
A 1
st
segregation of ministers from parliament, resulting, as we know it has resulted elsewhere, in a body of
ministers not possessing indeed the whole executive power, and whose working is hampered to this extent:
that, being individually amenable to a president, they are only in the very slightest degree animated by a
common policy so far as regards their common action. That is a state of things which I do not think would
conduce to good government, and I therefore think, notwithstanding the embodiment of the federal principle 5
in our second chamber, notwithstanding the embodiment of a proportion of the representation of the country
in it, we must give up the idea that we are to dissociate our executive from our parliament. We shall be much
safer in taking our stand upon the solid constitutional ground of responsibility to one house alone. And
there is a reason for it in this case to be found in this way: that the chamber to which it is proposed that
ministers should be responsible, is that chamber which is most charged with the conservation of the general 10
rights of which the executive is the exponent: that is to say, viewing the federal executive in its distinction
from the various executives of the provinces, the chamber which has most to do with the conservation of the
powers and functions of that executive, and within the lines of which it will oftenest act in its relation to the
individuals of the state, will be the house of representatives; and if we work upon that line, I think we shall
find it to be, perhaps, by no very great stretch of principle a decided gain in the working of our political 15
system, and we shall find it possible to conserve the principle of ministerial responsibility, and
responsibility to that house alone.
END QUOTE

It is my view that the Framers of the Constitution specifically provided for a responsible 20
Minister as ultimately one person has to be responsible. But, what responsibility did Mr Peter
Garrett as Minister really take? He retired with a huge pension (itself unconstitutional as a
Minister is in employment of the Crown and not the Commonwealth of Australia itself).
I do not accept that the taxpayers should be enduring up having to pay for the blatant disregard
Mr Peter Garrett did while the responsible Minister. As to allow this system to let taxpayers to 25
having to pay the cost means every responsible Minister will continue to disregard
constitutional limitations.
.
HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE 30
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE 35
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."
END QUOTE

In my view this Royal Commission may indicate that wanton usage of power without having 40
indicated within which constitutional provision the powers is to be exercised may soon or later
result to further loss of life in similar incidents, and hence Ministers must ensure and not merely
assume that they exercise powers within a specified constitutional power.
No one can bring back from the dead those who died, but at least let their deads not have been in
vain, and this Royal Commission will be beneficial for time to come. 45
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
It is just as important that the Federal Government shall have the care and management of the vehicles which
carry human beings and their goods as that it should have the care and [start page 769] management of 50
the vehicles or ways which carry letters and telegrams.
END QUOTE

(Writers note: Notice they even refer to management of the vehicles not just legislative
powers) 55

Page 3
A 1
st
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
If you give over the telegraph and postal business you thereby hand to the custody of the Federal Government
all the local appointments-the appointing of the postmasters, clerks, and other officers, who do not do 5
national, but the purest local business; and you at once raise up a large army of civil servants, the
influence of which we want to dissociate from our national life
END QUOTE

No one expects the Minister to run personally around checking every vehicle, etc, but the 10
Minister is ultimately responsible and as such must make sure that as the manager he
ensures that his Department operates appropriately. While I understand that Mr Peter
Garrett claims that he couldnt trust Public Servants/advisers, in the end then he should
not have proceeded with the insulation scheme. Blaming public servants/advisers isnt
going to change the fact that he was ultimately the responsible Minister. Public servants 15
only can act within what the Minister dictates. Advisers can only advise to what they are
knowledgeable in, and cannot dictate the Minister to act to their advice.
.
QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1
ALL ER 694 House of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant 20
consideration)
Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and painstaking
consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the consideration was sufficient
in law.
END QUOTE 25

The question is obviously also, did Mr Peter Garrett seek advice from those who had a
good understanding in insulation or merely asked public servants as if they are supposed to
know it all? If one doesnt seek the appropriate advice from competent advisers then the
Minister is at fault for this also. 30
As I understood it the insulation scheme was forced through in a far too short a time as to
be able to even sort out what could be relevant.
On doesnt go to a carpenter to be advised about how to cut meat from a cow. One doesnt
go to an electrician as to learn how to paint. At least not if one seeks expert advice.
Ultimately if a Minister ignores to seek to obtain appropriate advice then he/she can only 35
blame himself/herself.
It ought to have been obvious that to flood the insulation business with fast amounts of
monies then one can expect people wanting to make lots of monies to cut corners. And
while those who did so cannot be excused nevertheless the responsible Minister ought to
have been aware of this danger. 40
If every manager was to try to blamed whomever then why have managers? Likewise, why have
Ministers if they are not willing to be held accountable for their failures and that of their
Departments.
In my view unless those in the Department were experts in insulation matters, one cannot pin the
blame on those public servants. 45
In my view anyone in his/her right mind would be aware that rodents do at times bite into
electrical wiring
I find it sickening how often Ministers are blaming public servants for what I view their
own incompetence. What we have is people are appointed for political reasons to become
Ministers regardless if they have no proven experience in management, let alone a 50
Department.

Page 4
A 1
st
It doesnt mean that there are public servants who are doing the wrong thing, but lets not blame
them for everything that goes wrong, because some Minister isnt willing to bother to take
appropriate time to investigate and consider what is relevant to an elaborate insulation scheme.

Because Mr Peter Garrett discontinued the insulation scheme only a few days after I wrote 5
m y 15-2-2010 correspondence about his Ministerial responsibility and that I held the view
that constitutionally there was no power to engage in this kind of scheme, then I view again
I have to refer to the Framers of the Constitution that Ministers and their Officials can be
held accountable as any other person if they act outside their powers.
. 10
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one 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 15
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.
END QUOTE

I am aware that this royal commission isnt a court of law and so is not itself inflict punishment 20
upon anyone, but surely it ought to look at matters and set out its findings in such manner that it
may avoid ever again any Minister to act with blatant disregard to proper supervision and so
management.

Currently the system is too complicated as to seek to intervene with matters such as what I view 25
unconstitutional conduct. I know too well that the courts may take its time, even if not in the first
place refusing to accept an application for filing because of its own misconception, and then lives
can be lost even if the court finally comes around to hear a matter, which highly paid lawyers
acting for the government to try to railroad the case. I know this too well from experiences.
Therefore there should be a better system in place where citizens do not have to risk everything 30
while the person acting in the wrong can use tax-payers monies to have the most expensive
lawyers to railroad any case.
When I pursued an application to prevent an unconstitutional invasion into Iraq, the High Court
of Australia refused to accept the application for filing, even so it was presented as directed by
the Registrar. I pursued the matter on constitutional grounds. 35
When I pursued electors being denied to vote in the 2001 federal election being held in detention
centres the Commonwealth Ombudsman in 2002 refused to investigate. And the High Court of
Australia refused in 2003 my application for the same. Yet, in 2005 the Commonwealth
Ombudsman then on request of the federal government did investigate and it was found many
persons lawfully entitled to be in Australia were wrongly detained. 40
What therefore proved was that I was all along right but the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the
High Court of Australia assumed I was wrong without bothering to check the facts.
.
I state this as I urge this Royal Commission not to assume that the Commonwealth of Australia
had legislative powers regarding the insulation scheme. This as the Framers of the Constitution 45
made clear that environmental issues remained with the States.
.
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an 50
apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word
"exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the

Page 5
A 1
st
Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does
mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power
under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the
attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive
power arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties 5
being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph says-
But this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed
by the Parliament.
It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the
position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it [start page 255] 10
stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese.
Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately
on the establishment of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
15
Currently both the States and the commonwealth are legislating as to environment and clearly
this is unconstitutional. Either the States or the commonwealth but not both can legislate.
.
As the constitution was not amended to provide the commonwealth with legislative powers as to
environment then the Commonwealth cannot legislate validly as to environment and hence the 20
insulation scheme was and remained beyond constitutional powers for the Commonwealth.
.
Another matter is that unless Appropriation Bills are first passed by the Parliament the
Commonwealth, even in areas it has legislative powers, cannot provide funding,.
. 25
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure! 30
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. 35
END QUOTE

QUOTE 40
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the
funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
[start page 1773]

Page 6
A 1
st
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an 5
annual service.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from
special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which 10
we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.
Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place
expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a
service.
END QUOTE 15

Therefore, any monies that were to be used for the insulation scheme had to be first authorised by
Appropriation Bills. Therefore it was not that the Government somehow could decide, so to say
overnight to create a insulation scheme as it was bound to first seek the Parliament to approve
Appropriation Bill(s) for the monies intended to be used for this insulation scheme. 20
Where as I understand it this insulation scheme was basically worked out over the week-end then
obviously it was never appropriately approved by way of any Appropriation Bill(s). For this I
view it was also unconstitutional to engage in an insulation scheme without prior approval of the
Parliament, even if the Commonwealth had legislative powers for this insulation scheme (this is
not conceded by me). 25

There is a lot more to it and this Royal Commission being concerned about the 4 deaths
and the reported 200 odd house fires may hold it may be best to explore the constitutional
issues further, so that any hasty decision in future that may result to death of innocent
people can be avoided, where the process is to be and remain within the constitutional 30
framework that is applicable.

QUOTE 15-2-2010 EMAIL
Kevin Rudd PM
. 35
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Kevin,
With the issue about the death of several installers of foil the first issue is under which
constitutional powers is the commonwealth provision this funding? 40
.
After all, as the Framers of the Constitution stated:
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- 45
Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the

Page 7
A 1
st
Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. GORDON.- 5
The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 10
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-The court would not consider whether it was an oversight or not.
They would take the law and ask whether it complied with the Constitution. If it did
not, they would say that it was invalid. They would not go into the question of what
was in the minds of the Members of Parliament when the law was passed. That would 15
be a political question which it would be impossible for the court to determine.
END QUOTE
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I didnt detect any provisions that authorised the
Commonwealth to legislate as to environment! I invite you to point out where this is provided 20
for, just in case you can read something that doesnt exist in the copy of the constitution that is
for sale by the Government Printers?
.
Further, the question ought to be ask if there was culpability by Minister Peter Garret for the
death of installers. 25
.
.
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one 30
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. 35
END QUOTE
.
.
the issue first of all is if the minister acted within constitutional powers, and as I stated above I
view he didnt. 40
.
Also while a minister ordinary cannot be held legally liable for the conduct of private companies,
nevertheless he has a DUTY OF CARE that where he basically is flooding the market with
monies and he knew or should have known that this would create a shortage of qualified
installers, and as I understand it was notified of this also, then he should have stipulated that no 45

Page 8
A 1
st
Commonwealth funding could be claimed if the insulation was installed by a person not properly
trained and not qualified for the job.
.
In my view the Minister could reasonably be aware that by flooding the insulation business with
a lot of money there would be likely businesses who would seek to have short cuts in disregard 5
of the safety and wellbeing of installers.
.
In my view a Minister neither can disregard various criterias such as that in older homes, mice
and other rodents may have chewed through electrical wiring and as such placing foil on it will
create a danger zone not just for the installer but also for the people in the residence. Hence, any 10
funding should have been coupled with certain conditions that would ensure that only safe
installation practices were being used and that any installation into an older residence first had to
be having an assessment by an electrician if the conditions of the wiring of the residence were in
suitable condition.
. 15
While the usage of foil might be reasonable safe is appropriately installed with caution, it is
another matter where the conditions of the electrical wiring is such as to have decayed over time.
Further, with rodents and other animals liking the chew upon electrical wiring they then can use
the foil for nesting under neat of it and the foil creates a breeding ground for rodents and make it
more of a hazard then to eliminate any dangers. 20
.
When more then two years ago there was this solar panel business promoting to have the
government discount installation, upon closer inspection I discovered that it would be cutting
down on average a persons electricity bill bey a mere 25 percentage (And that if you had an all
day sun shine on the plates as otherwise it be far less!) and the installation itself would be 25
guaranteed for merely a bout 4 years. On that basis the huge cost out of my own pocket wasnt
even worth to undertake this, let alone the cost to the Federal government. My view is and was
all along that monies are being squandered left, right and centre.
.
I doubt if the Minister has any clue at all about what is to be addressed before installing any kind 30
of insulation material?
.
I used to be (more then 30 years ago) an insulation consultant and was too well aware that you
cannot install fibreglass in homes where over time the house is settling and then cracks appears
and the fibre glass will slowly get into cabinets containing food and clothing and then cause 35
problems to the people using this residence. As one person made known to me then they had to
move out of a house because the fibre glass was coming into all cabinets, etc. With an allergy
then the occupiers have no house at all to reside in. have you tried yourself to lay onto fibreglass
bats and see if you were getting a rash? Most people wouldnt have a clue about this danger until
after it is installed and then it is too late! 40
.
I found that the blow in type of insulation, provided it is quality material was generally the best
kind of material to be used as it deter also rodents and in case of a fire does at times prevent the
house to burn down because the blow-in type of insulation acts as a fire retarding material and
closing of the air to the fire. And for the record I have this all along in the roof also! The problem 45
might be that over time it settles and needs a so to say pop up which would be far lesser costly if
contractors doing this were to charge the appropriate cost involved. What we have however is
that many property owners are charged more then what it appropriate because with any roof one
has to deduct at least 10 percent due to the beams space usage, which is not being insulated! You

Page 9
A 1
st
find however that most companies are not deducting this 10 percent but in fact are calculating
more then the actual roof size is and so make huge profits, albeit fraudulently.
.
Also, with installing foil one should warn a property owner as to any problems that may arise
when an electrician has to work in the roof and having to locate wiring may have to rip away any 5
foil that might be covering electrical wiring.
.
There is so much more to it and yet it appears to me that Minister Peter Garret was more about
this astronomical handout of moneys of the taxpayers then to first make him self aware of all
technical and other issues associated with it all and to ensure that any funding used would be for 10
any WELL INFORMED property owner!
.
I seek you to place this correspondence in the hands of the Auditor-General so his office can
inspect how many federal government jobs were funded but never done, were over charged, were
not properly completed, etc. 15
.
In my view, those who lost their love ones should sue Minister peter Garret in private capacity
for having funded the project without lawful authority as the constitution doesnt provide for
such legislative powers regarding environment and also for failing in a DUTY OF CARE.
. 20
Gerrit
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
.
15-2-2010 25
END QUOTE 15-2-2010 EMAIL

QUOTE 19-2-2010 announcement re abolishment insulation scheme
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/6827578/garrett-to-suspend-insulation-scheme/
Garrett to suspend insulation scheme 30

Yahoo!7 February 19, 2010, 1:11 pm
The Federal Government's home insulation scheme and the solar hot water
rebate scheme have been scrapped, Environment Minister Peter Garrett has
announced. 35
They will be replaced by a new household renewable energy bonus scheme, Mr
Garrett said.
The changes follow accusations by the opposition that Mr Garrett has ignored
repeated warnings of safety problems with the insulation program, which offered
a rebate of $1200 to people who install thermal insulation in their homes. 40
Four insulation installers have died since the scheme was introduced 12 months
ago.

Page 10
Page 10 14-5-2014 Submission Supplement 3b G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
O.W.B.
A 1
st
The old insulation and rebate schemes will end at close of business today, Mr
Garrett said.
Installers were told of the decision before the announcement.
One installer said companies had began receiving messages from the
Government that the program would be put on ice. 5
END QUOTE 19-2-2010 announcement re abolishment insulation scheme

As Royal Commissions do cost the taxpayers lots of money from Consolidated Revenue
Funds (for which there ought to be an Appropriation Bills passed for this also(!) to finance
this, then let make it worthwhile for the taxpayers and those grieving that we get the 10
maximum out of it all.
.
I do have also a concern that we had this so called shadow cabinet and why did none of them or
for that any other member of parliament speak up about the failure of first having Parliament to
approve Appropriation bill(s) for the funding of the insulation scheme and if it was in the first 15
place constitutionally permissible.
.
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

QUOTE Mr. HOLDER.- 30
Surely there would be at least one representative out of the whole Senate and one member of the House
of Representatives, who would have individuality enough, and strength enough, to get up and challenge
the order of any particular measure which might be disorderly under this clause of the Constitution.
Mr. ISAACS.-They would not all sit on the same side of the House.
Mr. HOLDER.-I should think not. They would not all be Ministerialists, or all members of the Opposition, 35
or all members of any particular party; and I cannot believe that any Bill which contained anything
objectionable at all could pass through both Houses of the Federal Legislature without finding some one
member of either of the two Houses who would rise to a point of order, and have such a Bill laid aside of
necessity as being out of order under this provision.
END QUOTE 40
And
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-It is worth while considering the stages that a proposed law has
to go through, and the opportunity afforded to a member of either House or a member of the Executive to call 45
attention to any infraction or infringement of the Constitution. It does not require a majority of the members
of the House of Representatives to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed in the matter of procedure; it
only requires one solitary member to rise to a point of order, and the Speaker has to give a legal
interpretation of the rules of procedure. It only requires one member of the Senate to call the attention of

Page 11
Page 11 14-5-2014 Submission Supplement 3b G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
O.W.B.
A 1
st
the President to the fact that a Bill is introduced contrary to the Constitution for that proposed law to
be ruled out of order. It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the Constitution shall be
obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the Constitution. Neither House
could pass the standing order which would give the majority power to dissent from the Speaker's or
President's ruling. The standing orders only confer certain explicit power. They give no power to either House 5
to pass an order which would enable its members to amend the Constitution.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES: 10
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. 15
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 20
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.- 25
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
30
Well, 4 people died and I view this could have been avoided had not the responsible Minister
acted irresponsible to go along with the insulation scheme without proper consideration if this
was constitutionally permissible and following any constitutionally requirements such as
Appropriation Bill(s). The same could be stated about the sporting halls funding which I held
was also unconstitutional, but I will not now enter into details about that at this time. 35

Note: English is not my native language and neither did I have formal education in the English
language and so if despite of this I nevertheless can better understand/comprehend what is
constitutionally appropriate than consider my writings for this!
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit) 40
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
(Our name is our motto!)

20140514-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission-Insulation Issues-Supplement 3b

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

20140514-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission-Insulation Issues-Supplement 3b

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Page 1

Page 1 14-5-2014 Submission Supplement 3b G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai