110317-submission - elections-part 2 of 2 parts

8/7/2019 110317-Submission - ELECTIONS-Part 2 of 2 Parts

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/110317-submission-elections-part-2-of-2-parts 1/79

WITHOUT PREJUDICE The Executive Officer Electoral matters Committee, 17-3-2011Parliament House, spring Street, East Melbourne, Vic 3002Email c/o [email protected] Ref; SUBMISSION – Part 2 of 2 Parts

(Continued from SUBMISSION Part 1)I also was provided with a correspondence that having advertised that I was giving out (as a cakeshop) mug’s, T-shirt, caps, Toto-bags, etc, constituted within the Electoral Act bribery. Iunderstand that during the State election on 27 November 20110 Liberal candidate ClemNewton-Brown in Prahran did give out bags, but it appears that when one is a member of apolitical party then somehow this is not to which the electoral Act seems to apply. Come on what

nonsense! Indeed, as I had left boxes with the goodies with the cake shop and so anyone,including overseas visitors, children, etc, who do not vote could collect items regardless of anypurchase. It seems to be extraordinary that where I provide items to a 24 hours coffee/cake shopfor it to give away items that I use in an election campaign, but have no control over who obtainsany items somehow is considered to be bribing electors where as specific distribution to electorsin Prahran to electors is not!But do not think that the VEC was going to leave it by this because there was plenty more.My “election material” for: Ivanhoe, Broadmeadows and Olympia Ward.

p1 17-3-2011 Submission Re elections (Part 2 of 2 Parts)

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid votingA book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS

B&W Book ISBN 978-0-9751760-3-0, Book-Colour ISBN 978-0-9751760-9-2, on CD ISBN 978-0-9751760-4-7

PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

5

10

15

20

5

10

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/








.

Dr John Myers for Bentleigh!.





5

5

10














5

10










.

Notice the banner as those I was using in the elections just the wording and photo (obvious) isdifferent?.

.





5

5

10










And car magnets:





5

10














5

5

10










I was instrumental to the design of INDEPENDENT candidate Mr John Myers in the BentleighDistrict 19 November 2010 election as after all I had prepared my Ivanhoe District How-to-voteCard already and ordered many in the lead up to the election and so merely altered some of thedetails to make them fitting to Dr John Myers. Dr John Myers provided the electronic samples inJPEG format but then was required to provide them in PDF format. Yet, when I provided myHow-to-vote Card in PDF format I was required to provide them in JPEG format. Now, even thisthe VEC couldn’t be consistent in. More over, as I had merely amended my How-to-vote Card tosuit Dr John Myers then obviously where his HTVC was approved one would hold that then thesame would apply to me for Ivanhoe. Forget it because the VEC rejected my format. And this

problem continued to exist with Broadmeadows by-election and also in Olympia Ward election.Meaning that with Ivanhoe I was limited to hand out How-to-vote cards because of the changesthe VEC insisted had to be made and by this I was unable to re-order sufficient numbers of How-to-vote cards for the Ivanhoe election.The absurdity of having shown on the How-to-vote card “Ivanhoe District” or “BroadmeadowsDistrict” or Olympia Ward” is also an issue because while I had to amend my samples and soprevented to use the cards I had pre-printed, I discovered that other candidates not having this ontheir How-to-vote cards had no problems with the VEC.Then we also have the issue of how should a How-to-vote card really be set up?

It seems that again everybody in the VEC makes it own decision and in the process somehow Icopped it where not the same was applicable to others.While the Candidate handbook indicates that if an elector number at least a certain number of squares then the ballot paper is still valid even if not all squares is numbered. This as the lastremaining square if not numbered will be deemed to be the last number if other squares areappropriately numbered, however in Region elections up to 5 numbers is merely required.

2010 Ivanhoe District State election.





5

10

15

20

25

30

5

10










2011 Olympia Ward by-election 2011 Broadmeadows District by-election

With the Broadmeadows District 2011 by-election there were 9 candidates and so the VECinsisted it had to show on the How-to-vote Card:.

“you must ensure to number all other candidate boxes from 2 to 6”





5

5

10










Ivanhoe district 27 November 2010 election.

“you must ensure to number all other candidate boxes from 2 to 9”Broadmeadows District 19 February By election 2011.

“you must ensure to number all other candidate boxes from 2 to 10”Olympia Ward 5 March 2011 by election ”.

The VEC refused to accept“you must ensure to number all other candidate boxes from 2 onwards”

.

So, here we had that I letterboxed my How-to-vote cards (unregistered) with“you must ensure to number all other candidate boxes from 2 onwards”

And electors were bringing them along to the voting centre to cast their vote and yet the samesomehow was not accepted for registration..

What we therefore had was a sheer waste of election material where I ended up with virtuallynothing for the Olympia Ward 2011 by-election to be handed out at the voting centres where as Ihad ample of election material left from previous elections which showed:

“you must ensure to number all other candidate boxes from 2 onwards”

.The absurdity also was that for the various elections the card had to be endorsed (Ivanhoe andBroadmeadows) “Registered with the Victorian Electoral Commission” whereas for OlympiaWard it was “Registered by the Returning Officer for Olympia Ward, Banyule City

Council” where in fact the Returning Officer then would seek approval from the VEC if a cardcould be registered. So why not just keep it all the same as to show “Registered by the

Victorian Electoral Commission”? Well that is if it should be on it in the first place..

So we have different versions pending registration or not such as.

For ordinary letter boxing:Footing:

“Authorised & printed by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, 107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084Victoria”

.

Ordinary letterboxing:Footing:

“Authorised by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, 107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084 Victoria.

Printed by Vistaprint, B.V. Hudsonweg 8, 5928 LW Venlo, The Netherlands”.

Ivanhoe election:.

HTVC marked:Heading:

“IN IVANHOE DISTRICT SMALL BALLOT PAPER ”Footing:


Printed by Vistaprint, B.V. Hudsonweg 8, 5928 LW Venlo, The Netherlands

Registered by the Victorian Electoral Commission”.

Or:HTVC marked:Heading:





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










“IN IVANHOE DISTRICT SMALL BALLOT PAPER ”Footing:

“Authorised & printed by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, 107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084

Victoria.


Broadmeadows election:

Heading:

“IN BROADMEADOWS DISTRICT SMALL BALLOT PAPER ”Footing:


Printed by Vistaprint, B.V. Hudsonweg 8, 5928 LW Venlo, The Netherlands”Registered by the Victorian Electoral Commission”

.


“IN BROADMEADOWS DISTRICT SMALL BALLOT PAPER ”Footing:

“Authorised & printed by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, 107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084Victoria.

Registered by the Victorian Electoral Commission”Or:Heading:

“IN BROADMEADOWS DISTRICT BY-ELECTION

Footing:“Authorised by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, 107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084 Victoria.


.


“IN BROADMEADOWS DISTRICT BY-ELECTION”Footing:


Victoria.


Or Heading:

“IN BROADMEADOWS DISTRICT”



.


“IN BROADMEADOWS DISTRICT ”Footing:





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10











Victoria.

Registered by the Victorian Electoral Commission”.Olympia Ward election

Heading:“IN OLYMPIA WARD BANYUKLE CITY COUNCIL”


Printed by Vistaprint, B.V. Hudsonweg 8, 5928 LW Venlo, The Netherlands”Registered by the Returning Officer for Olympia Ward, Banyule Council”

.


“IN OLYMPIA WARD BANYUKLE CITY COUNCIL”Footing:

“Authorised G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, 107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084 Victoria.

Registered by the Returning Officer for Olympia Ward, Banyule Council”.

Or HTVC marked:Heading:

(No heading).

Footing:“Authorised G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, 107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084 Victoria.

Registered by the Returning Officer for Olympia Ward, Banyule Council”.

And the various examples above do not even include the variation of addresses.

While the VEC accepted for the Ivanhoe election that my address was shown as “10 AndersonAvenue, Berriwillock, Victoria” when the same showed on the HTVC for Olympia Ward then Iwas directed to remove this. As such identical HTVC but different ruling, this even so bothaddresses are registered for municipal/shire council elections. As such, if I were to stand for anelection about Berriwillock then it should make no difference which address I use as both are myproperties I own. It is absurd that I would have to reprint at huge cost HTVC merely because oneday the VEC accepts a certain address and another day it doesn’t!.

In my view a card needs no more but to show, say: “GHSH-HTVC-01” this then indicates

the initials of the candidate and the recording of the How-to-vote card and the number it

used. Such a registration would then be sufficient for the VEC to check its records if in fact

there is such a card registered for a particular election..

It ought to be clear that where a candidate doesn’t use any preferences and neither displays anyballot paper on the HTVC then it makes not one iota difference for registration purposes if theHTVC is used in one election or another and as such the VEC conduct was nothing less then tomanipulate its power or to misuse and abuse its power or power it didn’t have but neverthelessused it well aware that by the time any proper solution can be found it be far too late for theelection as by then the election will have been all over..





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










.

As referred to in this submission the VEC blatant abuse of power to use all upper case letters ona ballot paper in conflict with the pre-registration and nomination clearly underlines that the VECis incapable to conduct an election according to law and the fact it has done so for so long (as LizWilliams argued) is like claiming to the police when caught speeding: “I have done it for so long

so why now bother about the speed?The truth is that unless the VEC acts itself within the framework of the law and not act uponwhat ever internal policy or convention it may use regardless of legal provisions then there is nofair and proper election and no democratic election either.Now consider the following correspondence (one of many);.

QUOTE 110125 CORRESPONDENCE OF COMPLAINTS. H. Tully 25-1-2011Victorian Electoral Commissioner Level 8, 505 Little Collins Street, Melbourne, VictoriaEmail: [email protected] * * * COMPLAINT * * *

.Cc: Liz.

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Sir,I will first mention another interference with my political campaign by Customs, who

withheld some 8 boxes of election material claiming I was to file documents to declare thecontent and pay GST over more then what it claimed to be $10,000.00 worth of printing material.I responded to DEMAND my goods immediately and provided a 40 page detailed complaints.Upon this Customs immediately released the boxes without any need for me to file a declarationand/or pay anything else. They just learned a lesson in law from me that you do not pursue





5

10

15

20

25

5

10













unlawfully forms of terrorism. Likewise it is time the VEC (Victorian electoral commission)stops it kind as I view it terrorism upon me.For the 2010 Victorian State Election I stood as a candidate for the seat of Ivanhoe and LisWilliams on the candidates information meeting on 7 November 2010 made clear that I couldn’tuse T-Shirts with my name on it outside polling centres because merely having my name on itwas within Electoral Act provisions a “notice”. This, despite that the electoral Act excludesclothing from her ruling. As result of her various rulings that day I was unable to use tens of thousands of dollars worth of election material, including drinking mugs, caps/hats, Toto bags ,etc. Rest assure I will make a details submission to the parliament about this. Well on 27November 2010 I noticed that the opponent ALP candidate supporters handing out flyers for ALP candidate Anthony Carbines all had a T-Shirt on with Anthony Carbines name on it in largeletters. As such, it appeared to me that Liz Williams was politically interfering with myconstitutional rights of “POLITICAL LIBERTY”. Again on 7 November 2010 she argued

her way and claiming it was based on the “law” where no such law existed and as such

undermined my election campaign. Worse, you even endorsed her decisions also.

.Now, I am no longer going to take this rot as unless it is proven in law by the VEC it has certainlegislative power it simply is bound to act within and not above or in conflict of legal provisions.

For the Ivanhoe election despite that I registered as “Schorel-Hlavka” and so was nominatedafterwards the VEC altered this despite of my complaints to “SCHOREL-HLAVKA” and by thisundermined again my election campaign as various electors made known to me that they didn’tsee my name, as they are used to have it as “Schorel-Hlavka”. On 24 January 2011 when Inominated for the by-election for Broadmeadows Liz Williams ruled that because my surnamewas used in the Ivanhoe election as “SCHOREL-HLAVKA” then it now had to be the same andthat by law this was required to be so. I requested her to provide me with the relevant legislativeprovision but this she refused. She simply stated for me to make a submission and she willconsider then if she will allow it to be different then in upper case.

Well, this is not how the law works. Unless the VEC can provide the relevant legislativeprovision it is the VEC and not myself who has to show lawful cause why it can interfere withmy usage of my surname. It is absurd that the VEC overruled my objections relating the Ivanhoe





5

10

15

20

25

30

5

10










election and now seeks to misuse/abuse this for the Broadmeadows by-election. I got news for you as I have about $70,000.00 worth of election material printed with the surname “Schorel-Hlavka” and any official who acts outside their legal powers can be held personally responsiblefor any direct and/or indirect damages. STOP THIS ROT!

I gave Liz Williams the opportunity to produce the relevant legislation and she was clearlyunable to do so and as such that should be the end of it. If the VEC feels it has a case it can takethe matter to court and obtain a court judgment, not that I concede a court will issue an order against me, but unless and until a court of law issue a court order that requires my surname to beused in all upper case letters there is no authority by the VEC to do so.

As such the VEC is deceiving potential candidates by claiming on its website “usually the

surname must be in UPPER CASE except in rare circumstances. You entered Schorel-

Hlavka. If this was intentional, click the Next button to continue.”..

Again: “A surname cannot be varied”In my view the changing of letters from lower case to upper case is in itself a variation of asurname. Liz Williams wanting to be so smart on 7 November 2010 that merely using a surnameof a candidate on a T-Shirt, mug, etc was a “notice” within the definition of the electoral Act(now she appears to have abandoned this kind of silly argument) somehow doesn’t seem to applythat the word “varied” implies any kind of variation and changing a letter type from lower case to

upper case is a variation of a surname. Indeed names such like McCann would be different iswritten as “MCCAN”. Likewise the pronunciation of many surnames is depending upon howthey are written.My 78 year wife is very much upset that her late husbands surname “Hlavka” now was interferedwith by the VEC as “HLAVKA” to which she gave no such authority either. The surnameHlavka is a Czech surname which for females then is used as Hlavkova. As the “ova” is acommon female style change of name and when one watch tennis you find many females havingthis addition to their surname. This then is a variation of surname that is dictated by the usage of the language in certain countries and as such lawful but for a male the surname remains the same.In any case what surname I use and in which manner is up to me and my wife and not up to theVEC. Its job is to ensure it doesn’t interfere in a political campaign

Section 25 of the Electoral Act gives the Commission power to refuse to include inappropriatenames on register. None of the listed provisions within Section 25 provides any rights to theElectoral commissioner to alter the name of the candidate/prospective candidate as its onlypower is to “refuse” the inclusion of a name that might be fictitious, frivolous or obscene. Or is aname by which the person is not usually known and/or not registered by the Registrar of Births,Deaths and marriages Registration act 1996, etc.As such, the power to :refuse” is not a power for the Electoral Commissioner to interfere withany persons surname to write it all in UPPER CASE contrary to the persons lawful usage of his/her surname. Therefore The Electoral Commissioner acted unlawful to nevertheless have,





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5

10










after registration and nomination was completed, to alter my surname from “Schorel-Hlavka” to“SCHOREL-HLAVKA”.The VEC not only must be acting without bias but also must be seen to act without bias and so itmust not unduly interfere whatsoever with any candidate’s political campaign.It is not relevant for legal purposes if the VEC has a policy to type surnames in capital (UPPER CASE) letters because as I indicated in previous correspondence it is irrelevant for a policeofficer having caught a driver to be speeding if this driver did so always because all he isconcerned about is that it is not in compliance with legislated provisions.Therefore, the VEC cannot impose its own kind of dictatorship upon any candidate and/or prospective candidate merely because it is used to do so as I couldn’t care less what the VECpolicies might be to anything as all I am concerned about is what is lawfully permissible withinthe constitutional framework and any valid legislation enacted within it. In section 214 it refers to“capital cities” and no other time is “capital” used in 02-23a030[1] Electoral Act as to indicate allcapital letters. Neither so in regard of “upper’ or “upper case” and as such I hold it very seriousthat once again assistant/deputy commissioner Liz Williams mislead me as to the “law” asclearly there is nothing in the Electoral Act to support her allegation/claims as such..

It is of concern to me that even as Electoral Commissioner you disregarded the limitations set byParliament that you can only :refuse” within Section 25 the usage of certain names and havedespite my previous extensive set out disregarded any proper consideration to what thelegislation actually permits you to do. In my view you and Lis Williams should reassignforthwith due to inappropriate political interference in my Ivanhoe election campaign and nowwith the Broadmeadows by-election campaign. Again the VC should not only be acti9ng withoutbias but also be seen to be acting without bias and this clearly cannot be held to be in currentcircumstances. Your support to vary/alter my surname from “Schorel-Hlavka” to “SCHOREL-HLAVKA” is in my view a total unacceptance political interference without legal justificationand uncalled for and indeed considering my extensive set out previously at the very least youshould have quoted to me on what “legal” basis you refused to use my lawful name as I had usefor registration and nomination! By your and Liz Williams conduct you have severely insulted

my wife and so her late husband (I am the executor of his estate and as such lawfully entitled toconvey this also) as now it appears to my wife that you have implied that the name “Hlavka” issomehow fictitious, frivolous, obscene or not a lawful usage.I now produce some screen shots of my computer of the VEC website!.





5

10

15

20

25

30

5

10














5

5

10










.

Now, stop this rot and make sure you remove from the VEC website that surnames must be inUPPER CASE because so far I have been able to detect the VEC has no such legal powers to doso. Again, I am sick and tired of the VEC referring to what is the “law” but not producing therelevant details as it is merely imaginary laws..

If you and Liz Williams think you got away with bullying me in the Ivanhoe election then yougot something coming because I will make an comprehensive report to the Parliament, about this





5

10

5

10










and other issues. The moment any political interference is permitted in a candidate’s electionthen there is no way knowing where it will stop.





5

10














5

10










.(Note after closure of nominations the number of candidates will be inserted on the already

printed election material, as this was not known at the time of printing.)

See next page





5

5

10










As shown on these samples, and already provided to the VEC at time of nomination (on 24January 2011) I use the statement:

“Don’t vote informal but ……… VOTE Schorel-Hlavka to record your opposition tocompulsory voting”. Or “Don’t vote informal but ……… VOTE 1 Schorel-Hlavka to record your opposition to

compulsory voting”.I noticed however that the VEC website makes known an elector can vote informal and thisclearly is in my view in defiance to the Electoral Act..It appears to me that the Electoral Commission (including yourself) have gone to go down somepath that ignores the rule of law as the website doesn’t give any notification to the elector thatinformal voting is unlawful.Now, next time the VEC seeks to argue against me about the “law” then would it be asked toomuch that the VEC first check what the actual legislation PERMITS?.It doesn’t matter if the VEC has policies/practices, etc, because if it ain’t without legal powers itmust be stopped immediately.It doesn’t matter of government Department habitually write surnames in UPPER CASE lettersbecause this is no excuse for the VEC to tamper unlawfully with the identity of a person. Ispecifically refused to accept for the Ivanhoe election the VEC to interfere with the writing of mysurname and you and Liz Williams clearly defied the rule of law. In my view both of you made it





5

10

15

20

5

10










untenable that you remain part of the Election Commission because how can anyone trust either of you in critical issues like elections where you refuse to follow the rule of law?With Ivanhoe the difference of how my surname was written could have made the difference towho was elected because again many electors claimed they couldn’t find my surname as Inormally have it used.Also, not able to be used tens of thousands worth of election material due to rulings only then todiscover that the same wasn’t enforced against the ALP candidate such as Anthony Carbines tome stink of political bias.My assistance to Dr John Myers in his Bentleigh election campaign contributed to a change of the seat from the ALP to the Liberals and so a change of Government. It wasn’t relevant howmany primary votes Dr John Myers obtained as what was relevant was his extensive campaignagainst the then sitting member resulting to the sitting member being defeated.Had however this not eventuated then Ivanhoe could have made the difference but due to theVEC political interference my election campaign was significantly undermined.Every vote in an election counts and the VEC itself claims this and so it must then not itself conduct a reign of terror against any candidate to undermine his/her election by whatever means.Democracy is based upon “POLITICAL LIBERTY” and that is enshrined in the constitutionand the VEC blatantly disregarded this by undue interference in my election campaign in

Ivanhoe and now is attempting to do the same with Broadmeadows by-election..I DEMAND that the VEC uses my surname “Schorel-Hlavka” on all its publications, includingelectoral rolls and ballot papers and Internet publications and if it desires to do otherwise well wedo have a democracy that permits for impartial judicial adjudication after both parties have beenheard and so the VEC can always seek to place matters before a court of law that then candetermine upon basis of law (including constitutionally embedded legal principles) what is justand proper., failing this the VEC is bound to show due and proper respect to the rule of law andMUST only use any references to my surname as being “Schorel-Hlavka’ unless it obtainsspecial permission on each occasions from me to do otherwise. (Not that I seek to indicate that Iwill consent to a different version/variation to be used).

.Elections are about electing representatives to the parliament and not some backdoor way as for the VEC to interfere with a persons “CIVIL RIGHTS” and “POLITICAL LIBERTIES” andthis the VEC should always keep in mind!.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

.

(Our name is our motto!)

.

.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

END QUOTE 110125 CORRESPONDENCE OF COMPLAINT

Getting back to the HTVC (How –to-vote Card) and the issue about the problems with whoprinted it and who registered it, and what address, more over, the same card if using;.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5

10










“you must ensure to number all other candidate boxes from 2 onwards”.could then be registered with every other election for which it is being used.As such, I could have used the same card for the Ivanhoe, Broadmeadows and Olympia wardelection without needing to print anything on it to which election it relates, as long as I onlyshow;

“Vote 1 Schorel-Hlavka”then clearly not referring to the numbering of other candidates avoid reprinting them in adifferent format..

It must be stated that the Candidates Handbook provides that the rear of the HTVC if printeddoesn’t at all be separately registered but merely shows an endorsement. As such the VECdisregarded this also as to make it extremely difficult to use HTVC which already were by thenprinted..

While one may argue that to print HTVC beforehand is a risk, the truth is that to print HTVCbeforehand according to legal provisions never should have any risk associated with it but whenthe VEC unilaterally decides matters in blatant disregard of legal provisions then and only thenthe HTVC are useless and as such the pre-printing cannot be an issue where previously the same

format was already approved for a previous election!.

There is another issue to this. In December 2010 I received a special discount offer for theChristmas period and obviously by then I was totally unaware as to the number of candidates thatwould nominate for the Broadmeadows district by-election and so had them printed with:

“To validate your VOTE 1 Schorel-Hlavka you must ensure to number all other

candidate boxes from 2 to ”.By this I left the last number blank and inserted it later with a black pen..

Clearly if the How-to-vote Cards had not required the wording “In Broadmeadows District” thenI could have used any left overs for Olympia Ward, that is if also the Registration was not

differently..

Because I do not give preferences at any election then clearly my How-to-vote Cards could havebeen all the same if it used;

“you must ensure to number all other candidate boxes from 2 onwards”.There is however more to the rot.The VEC insisted that I put on the cards the identity of the printer.I see no reason why this is required because some are printed by me for lodgement and so toapply for the registration it should show then;

“Printed by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, 107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084 Victoria”where others were printed wherever! Yes, “wherever” because I ordered my printing materialfrom Vistaprint” and this company albeit having its head office in The Netherlands then usessubcontractors in Victoria to print the material. Because I do not know which particular VictorianPrinter prints the election material, as it is spread around different printers as well as some itemsoverseas, it means that the best I can do is “Printed by Vistaprint, B.V. Hudsonweg 8, 5928 LWVenlo, The Netherlands” but because I change later the election material to add the number of candidates, as insisted by the VEC rather then to show “onwards” then technically Vistaprint nolonger is the printer either because it is changed afterwards. What I did have was numerouselectors complaining to me that I had my How-to-vote Cards printed in The Netherlands, and assuch this was causing considerable conflicts and totally uncalled for was it not for the insistence





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










of the VEC. And for the Olympia Ward How-to-vote Cards then it was not needed to show whowas the printer!Now, clearly there are a lot of different versions going around and this to me is an absurdity.Where possible the legislation should avoid causing election material to be wasted and so shouldallow a candidate to formulate his/her How-to-vote Cards that it can be used in more then oneelection if the candidate doesn’t use any preferences.Again all there is needed for each election is like “GHSH-HTVC-01” then all I needed to dowas to register it with the VEC for whatever election and nothing needs to be dumped/pulped. Itkeeps electioneering cost to a minimum also for candidates whop do not desire to givepreferences..All that is needed then is for a candidate who desires to use an old How-to-vote Card left over from a previous election to have it reregistered for the election this candidates stands now for.More over, using the term

“you must ensure to number all other candidate boxes from 2 onwards”Means that the How-to-vote Card placed in the letterboxes will be identical to those handed outwithin 400 metres of the voting centre and so will have them registered, even so not required.Now, a candidate can letter box unregistered How-to-vote Card and then use registered How-to-

vote Cards within 400 meters of a voting centre only an elector using the card received in theletterbox may not be aware that the candidate may have changed details such as preferences, etc.The current system therefore is in my view untrustworthy and open for deceptive conduct. Again,I saw people attending with the How-to-vote Card I had letterboxed and so know they do bringthem along. For a Voting Centre manager it then is confusing to try to sort out did an elector bring the unregistered How-to-vote Card from home or not. Where therefore a candidate uses anon preference How-to-vote Card and have this registered then this avoid also this confusion..Notice the VEC fiddling with the time of registration altering it from 9.30am to 10.25am?





5

10

15

20

25

5

10










“2 onwards” Front





5

10










Back

.





5

10










Ordinary Brochures used apart of elections!





5

10










.

.

Used for elections (2011 Broadmeadows district by-election):

.





5

5

10










.

Used for letter boxing 2010 Ivanhoe district, 2011 Broadmeadows District, 2011 Olympia

Ward (has “2 onwards”).





5

5

10










“2 onwards”

General HTVC used leaving “2 to ” but the problem is the “Broadmeadows” markings toprevent it being used in another election!





5

5

10










“2 onwards”

“2 to ”





5

5

10










Labels printed to overcome VEC problems (Re Olympia Ward):

.

Rubber Stamp to overcome VEC problems (Printed by Vistaprint)

Rubber Stamp to overcome VEC problems (Registered by VEC)

Rubber Stamp to overcome VEC problems (Authorised & Printed)

Rubber Stamp to overcome VEC problems (Re authorised)

Rubber Stamp to overcome VEC problems (Re Olympia Ward):





5

10

15

5

10










There were other Rubber stamps and labels ordered but one get the picture that this is utter andsheer nonsense to have this kind of purported system in place to add to mugs, such as the “I love

my constitutional rights & privileges” & “CONSTITUTIONALIST Mr G. H. Schorel-

Hlavka” to be dictated to have a sticker added to reveal the Authoriser, the printer andRegistered by the VEC and then when it all is obtained and added then the VEC refuses toregister upon the basis it doesn’t need to be registered..

Actually, when one look at the various registered HTVC for Olympia Ward then it is clear that

“IN OLYMPIA WARD” and “BANULE CITY COUNCIL” actually as such doesn’t appear but on my registered HTVC. So here I am forced to have it added to my HTVC only then todiscover from the rubbish left behind at the voting centres (after closure of voting) that HTVC of other candidates didn’t have this kind of precise wording on them! My book will include samplesI have kept from this..

While I haven’t even checked all of the left overs “election material” of the elections so far atleast I came across:

Estimated replacement value $1,350.00 (approximate $0.50 each)2700 Postcard HTVC “onwards” couldn’t be used for handing out at voting centres even so

neededEstimated replacement value $ 1,450.00 (approximate $0.50 each)2900 Postcard HTVC marked “Broadmeadows District” couldn’t be used for OlympiaWard election even so needed at voting centres.

Estimated replacement value $ 1,150.00 (approximate $1.00 each)1,150 oversize postcard HTVC couldn’t be used for Olympia Ward election even so neededat voting centres.

Estimated replacement value $ 1,800.00 (approximate $2.00 each)900 Flyers HTVC marked “Broadmeadows District” couldn’t be used for Olympia Ward

election even so needed at voting centres.

Estimated replacement value $ 2,500.00 (approximate $3.00 each)825 Brochures HTVC marked “Broadmeadows District” couldn’t be used for OlympiaWard election even so needed at voting centres.

Estimated Subtotal replacement value of HTVC that could have been used in Olympia Wardwas it not due to the different requirements: $11,100.00.

While ordinary every candidate will have certain amount of election material (as to HTVC) leftover it is however another issue when the header and footer prevent HTVC being used regardlessthat the content is identical in every aspect to other elections. Also, considering the quality of the

HTVC and so the cost of each of them this was a disastrous costly issue that clearly could havebeen avoided was it not for a HTVC being registered differently from election to electionregardless of the content otherwise being identical..

With the Olympia Ward election I ended up with a mere about 250 HTVC because others onorder didn’t arrive in time and the above 8,475 that were ordinary suitable for reuse couldn’t beused due to the special requirement of printing header and footer..

Estimated replacement value $ 450.00





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










450 oversize postcard (Ivanhoe) not suitable for other elections due to content relating tocouncil by-election needed

.

Again, if the registration merely had say “GHSH-HTVC-01” then I could have re-used everyHTVC and in the end it made no difference to the Registration. With Olympia Ward election theHTVC were not published on the VEC website and so anyone desiring to check the details of aHTVC cannot do so. Why indeed having different provisions, if that was at all applicable, butgoing on the claims of the returning officer, for elections when this is very confusing and

prevents simply electioneering because different rules makes it all unnecessarily complicated.With a “GHSH-HTVC-01” kind of marking all that would be needed for the VEC is to check if the HTVC was registered as such and if the content is as was registered. No need to cause undueupset to electors with an insistence where the material is printed, even so it turns out to beelsewhere, or what else because the registration purposes is for being able to check back and notas to cause interference with the election process as now ongoing eventuated..

Appendix 2 of the checklist shows:QUOTE

Correct wording for registration and correct Ward name on card. Both sides if applicable

END QUOTE

The problem with this is that it doesn’t indicate that this must be in the heading and so mostHTVC of other candidates had it somewhere buried in the text.The point is that with the by-election there was only one Ward election and so why havespecifically the ward shown on the HTVC when after all it cannot be confused with another non-existing election?Then we have APPENDIX 2QUOTE

Name and physical address of authoriser (not PO Box) on bottom of card. Both sides if card is printed

on both sides.

END QUOTE

I had brochures HTVC registered which were folded in three parts and as such appears to be onefront of the 3 front panels and one back of the 3 back panels when folded over. It is only when a

person unfolds it that the other 4 panels are viewed. As such the document should have beenregistered as one HTVC and was submitted as such for the 2011 Broadmeadows by-election andwas registered as such. However for the 2011 Olympia Ward by-election then the samesubmitted was required to be registered as two separate HTVC.Likewise, a Flyer HTVC that was like the brochure folded as to have 6 panels and yet this toowas required to be registered separately for both the 2011 Broadmeadows by-election and the2011 Olympia Ward by election.It may be stated that the Brochures, Flyers and oversize postcard HTVC’s that had been pre-printed for the 2010 Ivanhoe were not attempted to be registered (and not included in the abovecalculations of replacement cost) because they had been printed over a period of one year leadingup to the elections with showing “Authorised by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka. 10 Anderson Avenue,

Berriwillock ” as I understood was previously sufficient for publishing election material and bythe time it was discovered that the printers details needed to be shown and also “Registered byVictorian Electoral Commission” it was too late to have a stamp or stickers made up to change it.As such it undermined my election campaign also having requirements that really should never have any impact upon any election campaign.In my view the VEC conducting early voting at age care facilities soon after the nominations areclosed is also an issue that should be addressed. After all many candidates register on the last dayof closure of nominations and then when the next local newspaper comes out it may be thefollowing week Tuesday or Wednesday and the elderly may just want to consult their local





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










This, as without giving preferences it is immaterial then how many candidates do end upnominating. Also, as it is lawful to number one less square then the number of squares for thecandidates provided on the ballot paper provided the correct numbering is used otherwise toavoid it being informal then “2 onwards” in that case is actually appropriate. In fact “2 to 9” wasalso appropriate for the Olympia Ward HTVC where there were 10 candidates but this wasrejected by the returning officer when I had submitted HTVC which had “2 to 9” on it and hadbeen printed as such. (Correspondence about this will show this and this too was an issue andthey will be published in my book)..

When I could order over Christmas How-to-vote cards for say about 10% of the normal cost thenI would be so to say a complete idiot not to grab this opportunity. To rob a candidate of anopportunity of bargain basement charged of printing in my view is to deny a candidate of a fair and proper election because INDEPENDENT candidates in particular are generally fundingelection cost out of their own pocket and so need to be careful how they incur charges for printing. Because political parties are well aware of the average payment they receive for primary votes they then can spend in advance in huge amounts on radio and televisionadvertising whereas tan INDEPENDENT candidate doesn’t have such a luxury.In my view this payment per primary vote is unconstitutional (federal constitution from whichwithin s106 the States are created) because the Framers of the Constitution made clear that eventhe poor should be able to stand for Parliament. This clearly is denied also by the “deposit”which too I hold is unconstitutional. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear by being anelector that qualifies a person to be a candidate in an election for Parliament. As I am aCONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of there embedded legal principles..

And this brings me back again to the VEC as I used on my How-to-vote Cards the followingstatement:QUOTE

Did you know that State land taxes & co0mpulsory voting are unconstitutional?END QUOTE.

And

QUOTE“Don’t vote informal but…..

VOTE 1 Schorel-Hlavka

to record your opposition

to compulsory voting.”END QUOTE..

Contrary to this the VEC advertised that voting is compulsory, BUT ALLOW INFORMAL

VOTING IN ITS ELECTRONIC VOTING, CONTRARY TO LEGISLATIVE

PROVISIONS ! The truth is that while I am not opposed to voting I am opposed to the unconstitutional“compulsory” voting and the Commonwealth took me to court for two different elections for FAILING TO VOTE! After a 5 year epic legal battle I did comprehensively defeated theCommonwealth on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria.Again, I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and as such have considerable knowledge as to themeaning and application of constitutional provisions and hence as to show my opposition to theunconstitutional compulsory voting I refuse to vote.With some estimated 40% of electors apparently failing to vote in the Olympia Ward 2011 by-election it may then have to be asked did they do so because of my How-to-vote Card or not?.

EITHER COMPULSORY VOTING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR IT ISN’T.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










The Framers of the Constitution made clear that the moment a legal challenge is made therelevant provisions are ULTRA VIRES unless a court pronounces otherwise.It means that as I challenged very successfully indeed any compulsory voting then where thecourt upheld this then compulsory voting is out!.

Closure of the doors (at 6 pm) appropriate but electors more concern about being fined:

At the Banksia voting Centre the electoral Official closed the doors at 6 pm and people werestanding outside (I made photo’s of this also) arguing that their name should at least be marked

of that they attended. As such, their concern wasn’t about voting but about not wanting to incur afine. Clearly the VEC official acted appropriate to close the doors at 6 pm, and this would haveclearly been no issue if voting was not published by the VEC as being compulsory..

.

In my view the VEC should be IMPARTIAL and where it therefore was faced with that I madeclear that compulsory voting is unconstitutional and have a judgment of a court of law in myfavour then it should not have disregarded it but have sought a ruling of a court of competence asto if it could enforce compulsory voting or not. The problem with the VEC is however it is morea kind of DICTATORSHIP then to follow the RULE OF LAW.

.The Victorian Electoral Commission “Candidate Handbook Council elections” “Attendance By-election” at page 15 shows:QUOTE

Card Printed on both sides

The how-to-vote card must have the full endorsement (as above) on the front of the card. If the card has beenprinted on the back and only refers to electoral matter it must have ‘Authorised by… . printed on the reverse.

END QUOTE

In my view “electoral matter” is anything to do with the election including if it shows ‘VOTE 1Schorel-Hlavka”. However the VEC held that then it is a separate card and I had to have itregistered as a separate card and then had to add the details as to approve by, printed by,

registered by. Clearly the VEC after so long dealing with elections still hasn’t been able tounderstand what is required and so a candidate is so to say left to be mauled by them regardlesshow the VEC might be totally in the wrong. The result was that I had to get labels printed to tryto overcome the problems, as time to have additional other versions of How-to-vote Cardsprinted no longer was there due to the time it takes for printing, and transport, and so this“stuffing about” by the VEC caused considerable problems that for the Ivanhoe 2010 Stateelection I was virtually without any How-to-vote Cards on election day as the cards I had printedcould not be used as they were refused for registration, where they had printed on both sides, thiseven so within the provisions of the legislation the How-to-vote Cards should have beenaccepted.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5

10










This is a deliberate and unjustified interference in not just my election campaigns but also withmy CIVIL RIGHTS as it is ultimately up to me how I desire to use my name. There are peoplewho for example may use the surname “van der Veen” (A Dutch name) where as others may justput it together as “Vanderveen” It is ultimately up to the individual how they desire to spell their name for ordinary usage. If we however are going to tolerate the power abuse by electionofficials then no one could be secure by this. Next we might have an election official for politicalpurposes refusing some kind of text. Actually, this is precisely what eventuated with the Ivanhoeelection where the back of my How-to-vote Card was critical upon the VEC, and rightly so, andthen it was refused for registration. As such the VEC was bias in that somehow I was entitled tocriticise its illegal conduct. Fancy having a “democratic” election where I am denied my“democratic” right to criticise unlawful conduct of the VEC!.

As an official on 7 November 2010 then already made clear during the candidate meeting at LtCollins Street he would be going after me and this is precisely what eventuated. The VEC invarious ways obstructed my election campaign and unduly and indeed unlawfully interfered withmy rights of a fair and proper election..

How well the VEC manages elections also can be shown by the photographs I took during theBroadmeadows District 2011 by election (of which I did hand over some of them also to bob

Oldfield for Olympia Ward VEC official) showing that ALP signage was blowing up in the faceof electors. Other signage was all over the ground causing electors having to try to step over them to access the voting centre. Actually it was so dangerous that I even had photo’s of awoman who fell over a speed hump within the voting centre grounds!Also, as I reported to Bob Oldfield the Broadmeadows District 2011 by-election was onescandalous in conduct where electors had to worm themselves through a narrow opening andfaced to push through supporters of candidates who were basically pushing the How-to-votecards in the face of electors. As one elector commented to me looking towards the entrancesomething like; “There is an army of 48 of them how on earth am I going through that?”.

I have stood for elections as an INDEPENDENT since 1996 in federal, State and council

elections but never used How-to-vote Cards until the Ivanhoe 2010 State election and found itappalling what I discovered how this is rorted by the VEC to undermine any fair and proper election..

As for letterboxing, it is beyond me that the State government has not regulated that everyhouseholder shall have a minimum standard of letterbox and where appropriate a minimumstandard of receptacle for newspapers. When I went letterboxing I discovered many had no letter box at all, others were in parts without a top and others were having an opening that even astandard size postcard had to be folded to be able to be inserted. Many mailboxes had their mailsticking out, as the opening being to small to insert the mail, and as such easily allow for identitytheft is that is what a person desires. Also, many How-to-vote Cards that were letterboxed were

found to be littering the streets where due to the How-to-vote Card having been partly inserted ina mailbox and then gotten wet form the rain had fallen out and then littering the street. At someflats there were no newspapers receptacles and so piles of newspapers were dumped there,rotting away..

In my view the State government should legislate to have a minimum standard letterbox in

place so that at least standard mail can be inserted into letterboxes..

Some residents then had tubes fitted for newspapers but had it blocked of with wire mesh so thatnothing could be inserted.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










Identity theft is rife and I view that because of this also every resident/business must have a

minimum standard letterbox, failing this to be provided then municipal/shire councils can

at cost of the resident/business fit one..

Also, there must be a standard that a letterbox shall be clear of any other fencing material,flowers, hedges, etc, within about 20 centimetres. I found that some had a narrow slit in awooden fence and again not even an ordinary size postcard could fit in and clearly this kind of hidden facility is unacceptable. Some had their letterboxes meters from the property boundary,

and this too should be taboo..

As indicated above there was a problem as to where the banner VOTING CENTRE of the VECwas located. And as such one could find it at the entrance or more then one hundred metres awayon some fence. Broadmeadows district Graham Street Voting Centre had it on the outside fencewhile one then has to go through a car park then through a fence and then walk about another 100 meters before getting to the voting centre, where as Olympia Ward had one stuck onto thewindow of the opening to the building..

Also, the issue of safety, referred to above is of concern.

In one centre, during the Ivanhoe election a motor vehicle ended up rolling to the plantation

because the elderly driver had failed to put the hand brakes on. Now try to find an electionofficial (being myself a candidate wearing a HOW-TO-VOTE T-Shirt) is not easy and I gave upon it. The car in the meantime was blocking other drivers to a considerable manner.But then in the Ivanhoe 2010 election it was found that in York Street that an elderly couplearrived by car and asked me how they could cast their vote as they had phoned in and were toldthat they would have an official at hand for them.Well, I was wearing my How-to-vote T-shirt and obviously couldn’t enter the Voting Centre. Iasked Anthony Carbines if he could fetch the VEC official but he ignored me all together. So didothers. So I walked along the building until I saw an open window and then called out to an VECofficial that there was a couple in need of help. He then called the female manager and she cameoutside. I explained they were in the car. She went down and then came back and asked

candidates/supporters for their How-to-vote Card, albeit she didn’t ask me for any as I hadpreviously already given one to the driver at arrival. In my view it was not appropriate for theVEC manager to go around collecting How-to-vote Cards as she took them to the car and thentook both of the people their votes..

One obviously has to wonder why on earth there was no such thing as perhaps an electronic door bell fitted near the opening of the car park for invalid people to use to get an election official out,as after all it shouldn’t have been my task to organise electors to be able to cast a vote..

In Banyule Primary School (Ivanhoe election) we had that there was a book sale inside thegrounds where people were to cast their vote in the voting Centre and in Ivanhoe I noticed therewas a barbeque place near the entrance of the voting centre. Now surely something should havebeen done to ensure these is a clear separation of what is deemed to be a voting centre and whatcan be used for other purposes?.

Then we have the failure by many VEC election managers to bring the recycling bin the peoplehanding out How-to-vote Cards so they can recycle the cards.In Blair Street (Broadmeadows election) people were entering from an entrance and then facedwith a 30 centimetres high concrete step. No barricade was erected preventing people to use thisas to ensure they would walk down to the level where they could safely step up. And in Ivanhoe





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










there was another voting centre where those handing out How-to-vote Cards were virtuallystanding in the door opening. Some were actually standing in the door opening.As we also had that the VEC made known certain entrances to voting centres only to discover there might be several entrances this too indicates a disorganised conduct by the VEC. TheBanksia Voting Centre (Olympia Ward) was a clear example where the advertised entrance wasnearly not used at all and people would flock to the voting centres via other entrances. Somehowthe VEC has no proper organisation in that regard whatsoever and in the process place electors indanger because having many different entrances means an elector can be placed at risk to use anentrance that might not be suitable for their fragility/age.Criminal damage to my election material after ALP candidate and Banyule City Council

councilor Andrew Carbines complained about that I was littering because of handing out 3

how-to-vote cards, this even so his own supports are doing the same. Ivanhoe district





5

10

5

10










.With the issue of publishing banners/posters the VEC also got involved into this, obviouslywrongly, by claiming that candidates must observe local laws. Again, Hume City Council(Broadmeadows District) was involved in the removal of thousands of dollars worth of electionbanners/posters but as I obtained as photographic evidence they didn’t remove any other material





5

5

10










such as for sale signs, garage sale signs and ample of expired posters. As such the onlybanners/posters they were concerned about were my election banners/posters. Banyule CityCouncil with Ivanhoe District election also got involved against my election banners/posters butas shown in the Olympia Ward by election somehow any other candidate doing the same was notan issue. Again it was specifically targeting my election campaign. I have photographic evidenceto prove this also! This was obvious because I was campaigning that because the Commonwealthhad legislated to increase pensions and other welfare payment to the CPI (in 2009) then theStates and municipal/shire councils were bound to observe this principle and so municipal/shirecouncils couldn’t increase their rates above CPI (Consumer Price Index) for pensioners andwelfare recipients and likewise the state couldn’t increase public housing rent, driver licence,registration, etc, above CPI for pensioners and welfare recipients. As such, I was specificallytargeted by both Banyule City Council and Hume City Council because of the political campaignI was pursuing!And Metro (running the railways for the State government) then also got involved in rippingdown my banners!.

In my view it wasn’t so much the concern about that I might be elected but rather the fear thatmy message of unconstitutional rate and other state charges increases was to be realised by theelectors.Then we had that during the Ivanhoe District State election posters were ripped of poles and treeson a nightly basis and my wife and I in poring rain were replacing them night after night. Again,some photographic evidence is in my possession. Whatever, it should be clear that this was acomprehensive failure in holding fair and proper elections and while the VEC may perhapspretend otherwise in my view it is incompetent to conduct proper elections because it clearlyfails to manage numerous issues associated with electors attending to voting centres..

And in past complaints to the VEC I reported that I witnessed an election official to grab theballot papers I had refused to accept. I then saw he took them to his desk. I noticed he wassubsequently writing at that desk and later I observed him to deposit the ballot papers in theballot boxes and when I then confronted him about it he claimed he was entitled to do so. The

VEC with this complaint as like others never bothered to properly investigate this and hence itseems to cover up its wrongdoings and for this I view that there must be an independentsupervisory body that will deal instantly with complaints as well as supervise the VEC in itselection conduct. What we now have is the VEC being, so to say, judge and jury over its ownerrors and obviously it is bias in doing so..

While the How-to-vote Card that were registered with the Broadmeadows 2011 by-election werepublished on the VEC website when then I registered How-to-vote Card for the Olympia Ward2011 by election they were registered but refused to be published. Now, there are people who usethe Internet to look at the How-to-vote Cards, in particular if away from home, and now wereprevented to read up to this. Again the VEC seems to be disorganised not knowing what should

be done..

With the Ivanhoe election the election manager Michael King made known that any electionmaterial shown on the outside of the voting centre had to be removed for the night. I ended upthen using a wooden pallet tired with steel wire to a post on the nature strip but to me if it is avoting centre then the ground around it being part of the voting centre should be under thecontrol of the election manager and not as was claimed was outside his powers..

While the legislation requires a How-to-vote Card used within 400 metres to be registered thenwe had this man standing at the Blair Street voting Centre which I view was a harassment upon





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










electors making clear that his bother (the candidate) would be answering their phone calls, etc.and on and on he went to electors often for several minutes. No one of the VEC was there tosupervise the car parks and so neither to protect electors of any undue harassment. To me it wereappalling conditions that never should have eventuated..

When it comes to How-to-vote Cards and other material I letter boxed specific area’s in theBroadmeadows district and found that this resulted to about double the number of votes per voting centre versus area’s I had not letterboxed.

While there is a litany of banners and other signs around voting centres I found that watching theeyes of electors where they were looking at that few actually bothered to look as the banners..

The VEC neither seems to control how any election material is fitted onto fences as I noticed that(as referred to above) the ALP sign was dangerous blowing up in the face of electors(photographic evidence). Why doesn’t the legislation require a banner must be fitted at eachcorner? Or where round or of other shape in such manner that it cannot become a danger toothers. Basically electors had to get through an obstacle course before they could cast a vote..

Looking back at the three recent elections using How-to-vote Cards versus earlier elections usingno election material at all and basically just sitting home it is clear to me that I did far better

without How-to-vote Cards. Obviously I then had to ask were the How-to-vote Cards perhaps adeterrent? While some electors commented about having it printed outside Australia, and soobviously this was damaging, otherwise ample came up to me and made known they liked what Ihad stated on the How-to-vote Card and they voted for me 2nd after their party. Oops, they firstvote for their party..

The problem is also that the media doesn’t give any unbiased publicity, in fact it basicallypublish any nonsense about the political parties and generally doesn’t publish aboutINDEPENDENT candidates..

I recall and election in Swan Hill, where I was the first candidate to nominate and yet thenewspaper included even purported candidates who had not then nominated but I was not on the

list. Well, after the election the newspaper then listed me as having been a candidate. I asked for clarification and was given the understanding that because I didn’t advertise they didn’t see aneed to refer to me. To me this is dishonest because they deliberately omitted me even so I wasthe first candidate to nominate..

You find however that often people claim to be a candidate in an election but actually never donominate in the election and to me this means the wrong people are getting the attention.Councillor Yigit of Hume City Council is a clear example. He claimed to be the only realcandidate but never was!.

In my view legislation should prohibit anyone to claim to be a candidate unless they actually had

nominated as such in the relevant election. They can be prospective candidates but not acandidate if not having first nominated!.

Also, the media must be even handed in regard of elections and must give a balanced reporting.With only reporting about ALP, Liberals and Greens and leaving out others is interferes with therights of many to have a FAIR and PROPER election. More over many electors are duped intovoting for a political party in the deception they will get something in return.Again, the advertisement of Anthony Carbines leads electors to believe they would get fundingof about $750,000.00 for the Ivanhoe Library, etc, and yet nothing eventuated after he was





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










elected! To me that is bribery and deception as it induces an elector to vote to gain some benefitswhich actually never eventuated..

Anyone who claims we have democratic elections that are FAIR and PROPER obviously doesn’tknow what he/she is talking about!.

In the end considering the 3 recent elections I was really appalled how little most electors seemedto know who they actually had voted for. Many voting for their political party without knowing

who really the candidate was and what he/she stood for. Fo9r days after the election I was beingcontacted by people who were not happy to discover, for example, that ALP Anthony Carbineshad been elected with the support of the Australian Greens because they voted for the AustralianGreens to oppose a freeway and held they were swindled into voting for the Australian Greens asALP Anthony Carbines was in favour of the freeway through Banyule. For the record theAustralian Greens to my knowledge didn’t give any preferences but nevertheless many held theywere lied to..

With Friends of Banyule the president Marion made clear to me (prior to the election) she was nAustralian Green supporter and well now months after the election I have been given theunderstanding by some members of Friends of Banyule they feel Marion so to say was pushing

her political wheelbarrow rather then the true interest of Friends of Banyule.Likewise in the 2011 Broadmeadows district by-election for days after the election peoplecontacted me and gave me the understanding that they had not been aware about certain policiesof certain candidates, etc..

What appears to be that the newspapers in particular and so also aided by the television and theadvertisements of the political parties there is no longer an unbias informative election campaignreporting but rather that those earning from elections are pushing the policies of certain politicalcandidates and are so to say leaving for dead most INDEPENDENT candidates..

Indeed, even so in 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth that compulsory votingis unconstitutional nevertheless not a single media outlet ever reported this very significant court

decision! Likewise, the issue of the unconstitutional State land Taxes is basically unreported.

And likewise that the commonwealth legal policy to bind pensions and other welfare payments tothe CPI (Consumer Price Index) and so State governments and Municipal/shire councils cannotincrease State housing rental, driver’s licences, rates, etc for pensioners and other welfarerecipients above the CPI nevertheless remained unreported by the media. As such, newsworthyitems such as these and lot more were never reported because so to say the media has beenhijacked by the dollars of the political parties. That is why it should be also abolished that anycandidate receives payment per primary vote because it robs most other candidates in particular those not associated with a political party of a fair and proper election, because the politicalparties can spend up big time on advertising knowing that they may pocket $10 million or more

after the election to pay for the advertising..

QUOTE Candidate handbook page 33The following acts are prohibited within 3 metres of the entrance of, or within, the building used as a voting centre:

• canvassing for or soliciting votes:

• inducing any elector not to vote for any particular candidate, or not to vote at the election:

• exhibit any notice or sign (other than an official one) relating to the election:

• conducting an exist poll: or

• if the person is an election official or a scrutineer, wearing any badge or slogan of a candidate or politicalparty.

END QUOTE





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










.

Well, as I referred to above we had a polling official in Yoke Street voting centre coming outsideand collecting HTVC and then take them downstairs into the car park to conduct for two peopleto vote!.

Well, in the Early voting Centre in Greensborough (where also the Returning Officer of IvanhoeMark King and for Olympia Ward Bob Oldfield had their offices there were the candidatesand/or their supporters handing out How-to-vote Card inside the building where the porch was. I

was informed by the electoral officers that this was permissible because it was 3 metres from thedouble doors (inside the building) where electors voted. This even so the Candidate handbooksstates:.

QUOTEThe following acts are prohibited within 3 metres of the entrance of, or within, the building used as a votingcentre:

END QUOTE.

Despite that Banyule City Council has a by-law prohibiting the placement of items such as A-frames, etc within 1 metre of the building as to allow free access for pedestrians to get near thewindows and doors the following shows an “Early voting Centre in Bourgundy Street Heidelberg

for the 2010 Ivanhoe District election. Do notice the lack of clearance from the building!.

2010 Ivanhoe District Early voting Centre

The following are some pictures of the 2011 Broadmeadows District by-election and again do

notice the lack of clearance from the building!

2011 Broadmeadows District Early voting centre





5

10

15

20

25

5

10










And we come to 2011 Olympia Ward (Banyule City Council) by election and Banyule Citycouncil, as like Hume City council was so to say also on my back about putting my electionbanners/posters on poles, etc. Well let’s have a look at the following pictures and again do

notice the lack of clearance from the building!.

Candidate Karen Joy had her bag right under the VEC sign and Candidate Evan Mulholland(with tie) obviously felt nice at home near the VEC sign and close to the entrance of the building.And the Craig Langdon supporter also didn’t mind to be within 3 metres of the building handingout How-to-vote Cards!

Olympia Ward (Banyule City Council)

What I view should have been done is to have special election markers being used outside

every voting centre that marks the minimum distance for candidates and their supporters

to stay out of!





5

10

15

5

10










Did those in the VEC organising elections or otherwise

being responsible lack the intelligence to have such

markers in use before hand? What else did they lack

the intelligence for?

When millions are spend on election offices why nothave at least official VEC signs that shows where

elector’s car parking facilities are? Where official

entrances to access voting centres are? Surely some

lack indeed severe lack of intelligence is there within

the VEC that they cannot even manage this? Likewise

where there are obstacles on the road and the VEC is

well aware many elderly are to access voting centresthen surely it should have markers showing the safest

route to walk? What about having access to a voting

centre without as was in the 2011 Broadmeadows

District by-election electors of frail age having to walk

more then 100 meters to the voting centre! Surely

someone could have had some intelligence within theVEC to ensure that the aged and the frail and the

invalid could access a voting centre without having to

become a marathon walker?.

And my book:.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on TERRORISM IN THE IVANHOE DISTRICT ELECTION.

Subtitled:

A book on DVD about unlawful conduct in 2010/2011 Vic elections.

also will include after-the-event pictures how rubbish and other items were left behind. As suchthe VEC couldn’t even bother to ensure the place was cleaned up after wards before leaving thevoting centres, nor insist that candidates kept the area clean or cleaned up after the election!.

Mind you if this is a conduct of the VEC after being for so long involved in elections then onemay wonder what allowed this to eventuate for so long? Is the VEC a law onto its own? It isabove the law? Is it that no one ever noticed because they really were not concerned about it?.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5

10










This mug was prohibited to be used for the 2010 Ivanhoe District election as was made clear byLiz Williams (VEC) it has a “notice” on it and so must be registered. Yet, with the 2011Broadmeadows District by-election when I had organised special labels to be printed andattached them to the mug showing:



.

then the registration was refused upon the basis it didn’t need any registration! Why then therefusal for the 2010 Ivanhoe District election one must ask? Obviously as I had the labelsprinted (for the 2011 Broadmeadows District by-election) it could no longer be denied for registration, whereas for the Ivanhoe District election not having the labels ensured the VECcould manipulate its powers to prevent me from conducting my election as I had contemplated.The fact that it refused registration for the 2011 Broadmeadows District by-election upon thebasis it didn’t need any registration indicates that the VEC clearly deceived me in regard of theneed to have the mugs registered well knowing then I didn’t have any labels at hand to add therequired details. Liz Williams later tried to argue that she never made this demand aboutregistration but she did and in fact did so also about my T-shirt, cap, etc. Why on earth would Ihave made it an issue during the 2010 Ivanhoe District election if she never had made it an issuein the first place, and my correspondence clearly shows she claimed it were “notices” and as suchI couldn’t use the mugs, T-shirts, caps, Toto bags, etc..

.

But it didn’t have the labels first and when having them printed well as I stated above no use then.

Just look at the next mug:Front: Back:





5

10

15

20

25

5

10










.

Again, because it has the name of a candidate on it then technically (VEC Liz Williams) it is a“notice” within the meaning of the Electoral Act. Well, when having the labels printed so it couldbe stuck onto the mugs and so submitted to the VEC for registration (for the 2011Broadmeadows District by-election) the registration was refused as not being needed!

Well I wouldn’t trust the VEC on anything because it “stuffed” me about big time! Are they soincompetent to conduct an election that they haven’t learned by now how to appropriately applythe legislation and so they chop and change as they go along or was it simply a politicalcampaign against me, (remember the 7-11-2010 warning by the VEC to go after me?) becausemy political message to the electors simply was something they couldn’t heck and neither socouncils and others? How many candidates actually spend a huge amount of moneys to promotethe constitution and the RULE OF LAW?Excuse me, promoting the constitution? Well, isn’t that what a government is supposed to do?Well, just shows that I was doing the work for the government and the government well lets seewhat one of my banners was stating in that regard?.





5

10

15

5

10










Lets Look at the VEC about Bribery!

QUOTE 9-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE Re Bribery

S. H. Tully 9-2-2011Victorian Electoral Commissioner Level 8, 505 Little Collins Street, Melbourne, VictoriaEmail: [email protected] * * * COMPLAINT * * *.

Cc: Liz Williams. (VEC)AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Sir,lets stop the crap and be realistic.

On 7 November 2010 Liz Williams (VEC) then made clear that the mugs (cups) had to beregistered before they could be handed out as she claimed that because it included my "name"(being a candidate) it constituted a "notice" and hence the mugs had to be registered. These capshave been already given out and in considerable quantities in the Broadmeadows district by-election, as well as T-shirts, caps, Toto bags, magnet calendars, etc. Nothing to do with bribingas it is customary for such items to be handed out as business promotions, etc. MAY JUSTICE

ALWAYS PREVAIL® (my registered trademark and registered business) in fact have provided

caps and other items also..

As for bribes, why not then charge ALP Ivanhoe candidate and indeed the whole of the ALP for their promises to get elected? After all Anthony Carbines promised $750,000.00 for the IvanhoeLibrary if elected but didn’t hand it over! He promised more then 15 million for a study anddidn’t hand it over. And on and on it goes.There is no bribing in handing out promotional material as I do like mugs as people may like todrink from it. Further, registering the mugs means they can be handed out even after an elector has voted but still is within 400 metres of the polling centre. As I made clear to Bob Guest alsothere are polling stations who had an entrance and a different exist and people would then take





5

10

15

20

25

30

5

10













flyers/brochures home but obviously I couldn’t be at the exist and so handed them out at theentrance. As such I seek to comply with the spirit of the law..

The mugs with the wording “I love my constitutional rights & privileges” are in factpromoting consideration that there is a constitution and it is an awareness program at my owncost and not costing the government a cent! It is not asking people to vote for me and as such canhardly at all constitute to be a bribe merely because my name is on it. You may not like me or myperson but I couldn’t care less because I am promoting the proper application of constitutional

provisions and seek to make people aware of their constitutional rights and privileges. Likewisethe other mug will remind people that electricity and other prices keep going up. Again, LizWilliams (VEC) on 7 November 2010 made clear that the mugs and other items had to beregistered if handed out within 400 metres. As such, irrespective if the mugs are handed out uponan elector leaving the polling centre it still needs to be registered. As such, trying to make a casethat this is some form of bribery is to me utter and sheer nonsense because then the same can bestated of buttons, and other items. In my view Bribery is that you promise something in returnand not give something merely to alert a person to certain items. After all, political parties mayuse advertisement on televisions which then pays for the cost of certain programs, like monies,and you would hardly then claim that this is a bribery of electors to provide them with freeprograms because a political party may have directly or indirectly paid for it.Again, if you were to check the advertisement of Anthony Carbines what he promised if electedthen I would construe this as bribery. As a matter of fact any offer by the political partiesproviding any kind of benefits would then be a breach of the provisions of “bribery”..

QUOTE What went wrong - The silly game of election promisesWhat went wrong – The silly game of election promises..

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.

Anthony Carbine for the ALP was elected and his promises were in his page 13 Heidelberg leader November 2010pageQUOTE

5 reasons to vote for Anthony Carbines and Labor on 27 November

1. Building a world-class Cancer and Wellness Centre at our Austin Hospital.2. $15.4 million for a detailed Tunnel Study to fix congestion around Rosanna Rd.3. $750,000 for a brand new Ivanhoe Library.4. Extra funding to complete the new Charles La Trobe college and $1 million for an integrated Children’s

Centre.5. $500,000 to redevelop Cartledge Reserve.

END QUOTEAndQUOTE

With a strong economy, labor is building new hospitals, better schools

and putting 2,099 extra police on the beat.

END QUOTE.Ok Labor got kicked out and so Anthony Carbine promises clearly are now worthless in that respect but he still gotthe job.

END QUOTE What went wrong - The silly game of election promises.

Numerous other candidates were making all kinds of promises for electors to vote for thembecause of either child rebate (a financial inducement), tax deduction, etc. did you have AnthonyCarbines charged for bribery? I do not think so. Did you have anyone else that may financialinducement or other promises charged for bribery? I do not think so.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










So get of my back and accept that handing out mugs to alert people to their constitutional rightsis not anything as bribery. And handing out mugs to make them alert to the ever increasing cost,etc, neither is any bribery.On 7 November 2010 Liz Williams made clear that even if I handed out anything to any of supporters who were to be within 400 metres of a polling centre then it had to be registeredwhere it had my name on it. Well, that is precisely what I was doing even so the heart mugshardly van be deemed a how-to-vote card but nevertheless because of having my name on ittherefore must be registered somehow, strangely, as how-to-vote card.If you now claim that it is not a “notice” then you are by this making clear that Liz Williams lied!After all, she was the one making the claims that I couldn’t even hand it out to any supporter whowas handing out how-to-vote cards because it was still within 400 metres. As such, I hadspecifically some more then 1,000 labels printed to ensure they would be shown that items withthe label affixed were registered..

You cannot both be right that Liz Williams prevented me to use any items with my name on it(being a candidate) unless it was registered with the VEC if handed out within 400 metres of apolling centre, regardless if this was to give it to any supporters who were assisting me on theday and you then claiming it is not a “notice”..

Further, as I indicated previously Liz Williams also claimed that my T-shirts would be a how-to-vote card if issued to supporters and so I didn’t use them for the election only to discover theALP had supporters of Anthony Carbines wearing T-shirts with is name on it..

As such the VEC is political bias or appears to be political bias and therefore is not impartial tomake a proper informed decision..

The legislation requires any item (with my name on it) to be registered and I understand doesn’tdifferentiate if it is handed down on the way of an elector leaving the area or entering. As such,the handing out of mugs when a person is leaving could therefore not constitute bribery. Moreover, there are ample of persons who now have T-shirts, Toto bags, caps, etc, and they were

taking the times provided free of charge, IRRESPECTIVE if they were electors or not. They arebasically becoming human billboards when the walk around with a Toto bag, cap, T-shirt or whatever. As a matter of fact at no time have I stipulated and indeed am known for it to havehanded out items to persons who made known they were not eligible to vote, as such the handingout of items to persons who were not eligible to vote clearly underlines that it was not and cannotbe construed as a bribery. Indeed, even children were given items and where they were in their early teens it was obvious they were not entitled to vote but that made no difference to me asthey would advertise for me by using items I had handed out.Clearly “5 reasons to vote for Anthony Carbines and Labor on 27 November ”QUOTE

6. Building a world-class Cancer and Wellness Centre at our Austin Hospital.7. $15.4 million for a detailed Tunnel Study to fix congestion around Rosanna Rd.

8. $750,000 for a brand new Ivanhoe Library.9. Extra funding to complete the new Charles La Trobe college and $1 million for an integrated Children’s

Centre.10. $500,000 to redevelop Cartledge Reserve.

END QUOTE

can be construed as an inducement whereas my items do not provide such kind of financial or other inducement.If you and Liz Williams cannot agree to what really is when applicable then sort it out betweenyours but do not bother me with the nonsense.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










The truth is that bribery is rife in elections because the political parties are making all kinds of promises and then later recant them on the basis that there are different circumstances.While this may suit the political parties they should keep in mind that for their own egoisticinterest they are so to say “flushing down the toilet” the very democratic system they are seekingto rely upon to be a Member of Parliament or to be a councillor..

The apathy by electors in voting is that it makes no difference who they vote for because nomatter what after the election it will be all differently because they will lie their heads of to

justify why they don’t do what was promised during an election or simply will twist the meaningof their words to pretend otherwise. The No Carbon Tax policy by Julia Gillard is a clear example. That is why since 1996 I have campaigned that if 10% of the electors have a petition tochallenge the elected candidate for having dishonestly obtained a seat then the Courts should beable to declare vacant the seat and be able to order the cost of a by-election against this cheat.Also, where for example John Brumby resigned contrary to his promises prior to the election daythen there should be a random selection of a jury (12 people) of the particular constituency thathas to be subjected to a by-election to determine if the person who resigned should pay all or partof the cost of a by-election!The same with Anthony Carbines who I understood during the 2008 council elections indicatedhe would not pursue to stand for State government elections when asked so by Craig Langdonduring a public meeting (the question was then asked to all candidates) and yet in a short timeafter being re-elected he went to replace Craig Langdon. Why then should ratepayers have tofork out some estimated $60,000.00 on a by-election where Anthony Carbines as it appeared tome then, acted contrary to what he had stated? Also, why indeed, even if he had not made such astatement should ratepayers at all have to fork out for him or for that for any other councillor tovacate their elected position to take up a seat in the Parliament? For sure the Framers of theConstitution at the time of forming the constitution in their debates reflected that for example aMember of a State Parliament could stand for Federal Parliament and if being the successfulcandidate then could decide to either take up the federal seat and resign the State seat or to stayin the State held seat. After all, a person might be a Minister of State in a State and may desire to

become a Minister of State in the federation but then while succeeded to be elected finds that hisparticular political party may not have been so to say re-elected (a party is technically elected asonly candidates are) and then decide not to be willing to give up a position as being a Minister of State for a State merely to end up on the opposition in federal Parliament. Therefore, anylegislative limitation upon anyone even those not qualified to be in the parliament to stand for election is unconstitutional because the Framers of the Constitution made clear that it is not being“qualified” at the time an election is being held but to be “qualified” at the time the electedperson takes up the seat in the (respective) Parliament. They in fact pointed out the issue of aperson who was declared or subject to bankruptcy. As they made clear the person could bedeemed a bankrupt at the time the election was held but he could be a discharged bankrupt at thetime he is taking up the seat in the Parliament..

It is beyond me that despite the Parliament having been hugely infiltrated by lawyers somehownone of them seems to have any intelligence enough as to make clear that the qualification isonly relevant for actually taking up a seat in the Parliament and not for the election itself. Thefact that the parliaments themselves neither have woken up to this may also underline howterrible the lack of intelligence is within each parliament..

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I consider it very essential that matters are conductedappropriately within the framework of the constitution! Hence I have for years promoted theOFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t forget the hyphens!), a constitutional council that





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










advises the Government, the people, the Parliament and the Courts as to the meaning andapplication of the constitution..

To give an example, every State has amended its own State constitution since federation oftenwithout any State referendum to have it approved by the State electors and there is why the Stateconstitutions are all unconstitutional and for that ULTRA VIRES:.

HANSARD 18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution ,END QUOTE.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National AustralasianConvention)QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?

Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly

any law the citizen has his right.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:

One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally

immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary

legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for

the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of thewhole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federalconstitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of theseveral colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures , and theroyal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will bepractically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with thefull power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodiesthat will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each

assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey

again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority

conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of

such authority.

END QUOTE

.Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Sir GEORGE GREY: I beg to propose that the following resolution stand as resolution No. 5:-

The inhabitants of each of the states of federated Australasia ought to be allowed to choose, and if they seefit from time to time to vary, the form of state government under which they desire to live. Provision should

therefore be made in the federal constitution which will [start page 478] enable the people of each state

to adopt by the vote of the majority of voters, their own form of state constitution.

Question proposed.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5

10










Sir HENRY PARKES: I wish to raise a point of order upon this resolution, and I do it with the

utmost respect to the distinguished gentleman who has moved it. My point of order is that the

resolution goes beyond our instructions. We have been sent here for one object and one object only, and

that is, to prepare a scheme for the framing of a federal constitution. Anything outside of these

prescribed words cannot be dealt with under the commission in virtue of which we have come here.

END QUOTEAndHansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Dr. COCKBURN: I think we have nothing whatever to do with deciding the details of the state

constitutions. On the other hand, I think it appertains to the functions of this Convention to decide that thepower of framing a constitution shall be in the hands of the several states. At present the legislatures of the

various colonies can only be altered with the consent of the Imperial Government. Is it intended that thatshall remain? When we have a federated Australasia, in which we have state legislatures and a federallegislature, is it intended that the state legislatures shall have the power of altering their constitutions at will or not? From that point of view I think the proposition put forward by the hon. member, Sir George Grey, isdecidedly within the powers of the Convention, the power to lay down a general rule, without touching thedetails of any individual constitution, that the various states should have the power of framing their ownconstitutions according to the will of the majority of the people of those states.

END QUOTE.

Again (RE Section 123);Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY:

Provision should therefore be made in the federal constitution which will [start page 478] enable the

people of each state to adopt by the vote of the majority of voters, their own form of state constitution.

END QUOTE.


QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

The union of these colonies must take place in either one or two ways, namely, either by a unification under one all-powerful parliament, or by a federation which gives to the central federal parliament certain limitedpowers and reserves to the other parliaments all other powers. As I think we may be in danger of overlooking

some of the first principles connected with federation, I may be pardoned if I briefly define some of thecharacteristics of a federation. I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language.He says:

One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally

immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary

legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.

END QUOTE.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under

it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the

Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of

this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions , then by slow

degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the

guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, thecourt you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal aswill preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of

constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphereof the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5

10










Hansard 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SYMON:

It cannot possibly extend the operation of our laws generally one atom further than the constitutional

law will permit.

END QUOTE.


QUOTE

Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentarysovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw

parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present

are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the

power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary

sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the

power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the

parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in

one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed

with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary

which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter

of the constitution.

END QUOTE


QUOTE

The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to refutation if I amwrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but, indisputably, the great bulk of them, aresubjects on which no question of state rights and state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is,as the right hon. gentleman admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be leftfor all time to be determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those questions are notstate questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines, and by a national

referendum.

END QUOTE.


QUOTE

Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-It is worth while considering the stages that a proposed law hasto go through, and the opportunity afforded to a member of either House or a member of the Executive to callattention to any infraction or infringement of the Constitution. It does not require a majority of the membersof 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 legalinterpretation of the rules of procedure. It only requires one member of the Senate to call the attention of

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 Constitu t ion shall be

obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the Constitution. Neither Housecould 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 to pass an order which would enable its members to amend the Constitution.

END QUOTE.

Again:Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-They give no power to either House to pass an order which would enable its members to amend the

Constitution. END QUOTE.






5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5

10










QUOTEMr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I quite agree with Mr. Trenwith that the object of the provision is to

protect the [start page 2010] Senate from being coerced by the House which has the power of the purseprimarily. But the question between us is not whether you should take away that protection, but whether youshould allow the Senate itself to give up, whether by accident or design, on any particular occasion, theprotection which the Constitution has implanted there for its benefit. The protection of this Constitution isgiven, not for the Senate for the time being, but for the people of the states whom the Senate represents.

The question really is whether, for the purposes for which this provision is designed, that is to say, theprotection of the people of the states, as states, it is necessary that this provision should stand which makes a

Bill illegal if these provisions are not complied with, or whether it should be made merely a matter of parliamentary order between the two Houses?

.Mr. OCONNOR .-That is begging the question. Even under the circumstances mentioned by the honorable

and learned gentleman, if the rights we are giving under this Constitution to the House which represents thestates are to be of any value at all, we should not put it into the power of a majority in the House of

Representatives or in the Senate to bargain them away, or to give them away at their will.END QUOTEAndHansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR .-

But these difficulties can be overcome by the proper consideration of the terms of the Constitution. Isubmit that the question raised here is a very much more important one than it seems to be thought by somehonorable members. I think it is the very essence of the Constitution that we should preserve the form whichhas been adopted here, and that we should make the necessity of its adoption imperative upon theGovernment and the Parliament, subject to the liability of their acts being declared invalid by the SupremeCourt in the event of the directions of the Constitution not being followed.

END QUOTE

Again as was stated:HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN:

No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing

its constitution at its own will.

END QUOTE.

Therefore any purported amendments to create the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 remains to beunconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES. And so also the issue of “Australian citizenship” aspurportedly being a “nationality” as it is not and cannot be as the constitution didn’t provide for the 1988 Royal Commission to somehow amend the constitution by “assuming” that theconstitution provided legislative powers for the commonwealth to legislate as to “Australiancitizenship” to be a nationality rather then being a “political status” obtainedAUTOMATICALLY when a person obtained “State citizenship”..


QUOTE Mr. SYMON:

There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of the

common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot be justly applied here.

END QUOTE.

Therefore in that regard it is not relevant what a NWO (New World Order) or any other kind of UN (United Nations) treaty might amount to because we have a specific limited constitution andno amount of political jostling can interfere with this.What we now have is that all those members of parliament in the State/Territories andCommonwealth do not have a clue as to their own true nationality and then they are expected tolegislated to the benefit of others? Come on stop this rot! That is why an OFFICE-OF-THE-

GUARDIAN (Don’t forget the hyphens!) is so badly needed because when you lackl a level of





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5

10










intelligence to understand your own nationality then surely you cannot be deemed to be a personwho can represent the interest of others..


QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-

Surely every person who has the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-and who lives

within the Commonwealth, is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and entitled to all its privileges, including

the right to take part as the Commonwealth provides in the framing of the laws.

END QUOTE.

It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; “British subject”, “to make

persons subjects of the British Empire.”, “with the consent of the Imperial authority”, “What is meant is a

dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen

of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.”, “we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.” We havea High Court of Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constitution by stealth byendorsing a substitute Constitution! The question is if the judges of the High Court of Australia committedTREASON?.


QUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under theoperation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be acitizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of astate to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dualcitizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may

be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a

citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual

citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen

of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and thosewho say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do notexpect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, indealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this

Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precisionand clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want

to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it,

the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipatesuch a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.

END QUOTE.


QUOTEMr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike

subjects of the British Crown. END QUOTE.


QUOTEMr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government

END QUOTEAndHANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is

responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.END QUOTE





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5

10










AndHANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the

Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the

provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which

those principles are enforced , will all have been the work of Australians.END QUOTE.

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-

We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just

interpretation of the Constitution:

END QUOTE.

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-

Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of

justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE.


QUOTE

Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal

Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government.

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of

the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is , the

same circumstances remain in part; but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with themaintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it byParliament, then it is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected

weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether

consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which mightbe dangerous to the Constitution itself.

END QUOTE.

We find however that the High Court of Australia judgments are littered with sheer and utter nonsense because it swayed away from interpreting the intentions of the Framers of theConstitution to what may be more suitable to the judges concerned. Hence, we get judgesoverruling previous decisions because different judges have different views and this underlinesthey are not interpreting the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution but have been and stillare manipulating their powers to suit their own conventional views. The 14 November 2006 socalled WorkChoices judgment is but a clear example of this where the judges took out of context

certain statements of the Framers of the constitution and omitted to refer to relevant parts of thesame day of the transcript..

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at aposition in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that lawthat certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union,because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power,

until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue

for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5

10










state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has any-

and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be

inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should

say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not

be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.

END QUOTE.

Yet one find that for example with the purported 1986 legislation to refer legislative powers of the States to the Commonwealth (regarding children born out of wedlock) it still provides that

the governor can withdraw this reference. This too underlines that those drafting and those votingon the legislation had no clue what is constitutionally applicable..


QUOTEMr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the

Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in eachstate might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, fromthe Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the

Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate

provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be

amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this

provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers

of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to

occupy a few minutes in discussing it.

END QUOTE.

Yet, we find with the “Education Revolution” scheme to build the Taj Majhal’s of sportingcentres none of the States appeared to object to an unconstitutional use of Consolidated Revenuebecause their eagerness is blinded by their greed rather then common sense, as each member of aState parliament should have made clear “Stay out of our internal powers and concentrate onyour own powers” After all with more then 7,000 young invalids are left to lay in age carefacilities because the Federal government lacks to provide appropriate young invalid facilities theStates should have so to say jumped up and down insisting the Federal government attend to this

urgent need so that some 7,000 + age care beds become available and then some 7,000+ agepeople now awaiting a age care bed and using a hospital bed for the time being can free up morethen 7,000 hospital beds..


QUOTE Mr. BARTON.

If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to

Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass

legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,

to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal

Parliament."

END QUOTE


QUOTEClause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginalnatives shall not be counted.Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose in

some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be

debarred from voting.

Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal population

is too small to affect that in the least degree.

Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5

10










Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be

deducted.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.

Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up the

people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote.

END QUOTE.

Section 41 of the constitution all along protected the Franchise rights of Aboriginals and so the1967 referendum regarding the amendment of s51(xxvi) was one all mighty con-job that in fact

now resulted to not a single Aboriginal to be a “citizen”..

But to set this out is beyond the scope of this submission..

Safe to say that the Commonwealth and neither the states can interfere with the constitutionalconstruction of “citizenship” and as such the State of Victoria purportedly having legislated tothe terms of the “Australian citizenship Act” (Cth) it a constitutional utter sheer nonsense..


QUOTEMr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government

END QUOTE


QUOTEMr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is

responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.END QUOTEAndHANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the

Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the

provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which

those principles are enforced , will all have been the work of Australians.


QUOTEMr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an

Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,

therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.

END QUOTE.


QUOTEMr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten ,

END QUOTE


QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the

liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter of

liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good

government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.


QUOTE





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5

10










Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the

people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta

for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole

history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of

Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new

charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves .

END QUOTE.

When one consider the issue of the way the commonwealth purports to deal with environment

the question is where is its legislative power as the Framers of the Constitution specifically leftthis to the States? The Frankly (Tasmania) Dam case was in my view another nonsense of judicial decision disregarding totally that the internal structure of a State remains within theStates legislative powers where not specifically otherwise granted to the Commonwealth.Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

I take it that in the absence of a provision in the Constitution conferring that power upon the

Commonwealth it will be impossible for the Commonwealth to do so. For this reason I think we need

scarcely trouble ourselves to impose any restrictions. Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of

a power from the Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.

END QUOTE

“External Affairs” is not a specific legislative powers but as the Framers of the Constitutionmade clear was limited to the powers elsewhere provided to the commonwealth. As such theother headings within s.51!Hence the so to say “giving away” of monies to other countries by thefederal government is in fact the giving away of the monies the States are entitled upon! If aState desires to go in a political deadfall to squander monies then that the State electors can dealwith but for the Commonwealth to give away monies belonging to the States never should beaccepted.Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?

Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every memberof 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.

END QUOTE.

Then the question is where is every Member of State Parliament to stand up against the misuseand abuse of taxpayers monies by the Commonwealth and also the unconstitutional interferenceswith environmental issues, etc? Why indeed have an elected State Parliament if none of themhave together a bit of intelligence to understand what I am writing about to have stood up for thisto protect the rights and wellbeing of constituents?.

I might as well run the entire State on my own and be able to achieve a lot more then having a lotof lawyers, sport stars, etc, sitting at huge cost in the State Parliament with so to say not a grainof salt of intelligence to even understand the true legislative powers within the State of Victoria!.Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEDr. COCKBURN: We have to consider this matter simply as an ordinary landlord. The federal

authority will be the landlord of the site of the federal capital, and it is for us to consider what is the

best possible use to which the landlord can put the land. This does not necessarily touch the question of

land nationalisation or of methods of land tenure. Therefore I feel compelled to vote with Mr. Wise, and indoing that I do not admit that I agree with the hon. member in all his views. I vote for the amendment because





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










it establishes the general methods of a sound principle, which is applicable in the present instance, and will goa long way towards settling the question I have just alluded to.Mr. HOWE: This land question is really the basis of all public good. So fax as the land laws of each

individual State are concerned, I think they should be left entirely to the Parliament of that State.

END QUOTE.Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:

We must not, however, be unmindful of the fact that there can be no federal government without, to a large

extent, the sacrifice of some portion of state rights; and when the word "provinces" is used in this debate, Iignore its existence altogether. We have been, as it were, chaffed out of our very existence. Those of us whohave spoken within the walls of this building, or who have spoken out of doors to our constituents, and haveendeavoured, in discussing the federal question, to take a strong view of the position in regard to the defenceof the rights of New South Wales, have been pulled to pieces, and called provincialists. I object, in connectionwith the independent state of New South Wales-a state as independent as any in the world, even Englanditself, so far as the freedom of our position is concerned-to the word "province ." There may be something

more dignified in the use of the word "state." We are not going to become provinces. I do not think we

are going to give up the individual rights and liberties which we possess, and which those who have

gone before us have fought for, to become mere provinces under a federal form of government. We

may take the more dignified form of "states." Whilst we have endeavoured to put before the people of New South Wales, in these resolutions, a sort of opiate, something assuring to their minds that in joining afederal union we give up nothing of our territorial rights, words have been inserted in them which I shall domy utmost in Committee to strike out-

except in respect to such surrenders as may be agreed upon as necessary and incidental to the power andauthority of the national federal government.

I do not know the meaning of these words, and no hon. gentleman who has yet spoken has given any clear interpretation of them. It is sufficient for us, in enunciating a principle upon which the basis of a

constitution shall be prepared, to see that the territorial rights and privileges of each colony shall be

preserved to each state but when you come to consider the condition of a surrender, and the question of

the power of enforcing such surrender is placed in the hands of the federal government, then your

provinces or your states will be no party to the proceeding.

END QUOTE.

Again, what competence do all those lawyers in the Parliament really poses? Being a lawyer doesn’t mean the person is a bit qualified to be a CONSTITUTIONALIST as rather it is ahandicap being a lawyer to be a true CONSTITUTIONALIST because a lawyer will seek totwist and infringe upon the true meaning of the constitution as they are accustomed to for the saleof a client..


QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people

through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of

any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act

which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free

Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the

freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their

representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of

securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than

that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect

the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.

Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the

daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of

freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every

one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular

liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5

10










work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an

Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,

therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will

determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt

with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that

choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly ,

that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted , inasmuch as acourt appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its

provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of theConstitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but

it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the

Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the

Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of

this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow

degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the

guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,

the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a

tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of

constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the

sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done

well.

END QUOTE.


QUOTESir GEORGE TURNER: It would never do to allow in this Federal Parliament that those representatives

who are elected upon the most liberal franchise possible should be outvoted by those who would be electedby a very limited franchise indeed. As this may fairly be regarded as the National House, representing thepeople of the various States as a nation, we ought to have uniformity in the franchise. We must leave it to theFederal Parliament to say what the franchise should be. At the same time, as some colonies have given theright of voting to those who have not that right in other colonies, it would be unfair and inequitable to takefrom any who have the right, and therefore whatever uniformity is determined upon we shall have to

allow the innovation that no person, man or woman, who has the right to vote shall be deprived of

exercising that right, even so far as the elections to the Federal Parliament are concerned. I would go

the length of saying that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if they desire to exercise theirfranchise, should have the opportunity of doing so.

END QUOTE

“Desire” stands for “an expressed wish”, “option”, “choice”, “request”, etc, not beingcompulsory!.

Well, despite that on 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth in that“compulsory” voting is unconstitutional, and the State Attorney-Generals were all served with aNOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS this epic legal battle finished in that the courtruled in my favour and yet millions of people are still fined ongoing for FAILING TO VOTE.The lack of intelligence by those in Parliament is overwhelming because as the states are createdwithin s.106 of the (federal) constitution then this applies also to the states..That is why there is a problem with the VEC interference not to allow my registration of a HTVCwith the Ivanhoe election on the basis I criticised the VEC because it interfered with my CIVIL

RIGHTS to do so and to use my POLITICAL LIBERTY to expose the illegal conduct of theVEC, because now a political campaign will be scrutinised by the VEC as to if it is not justwithin the RULE OF LAW but if it is not politically adverse to the VEC itself. This thenunderlines that the VEC is not competent to conduct FAIR and PROPER elections because it isbias in its conduct and fails to show due and proper respect to the rights of a candidate to pursuea political campaign as he/she desires.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5

10










After all if there was any deformation in any material then surely the VEC could always pursuedeformation laws but it should never be the sole arbiter as to the content of a political campaignmerely because it doesn’t like the message, regardless how lawful it might be.As was shown with the UPPER CASE issue the VEC plays the position of judge and jury tomake decisions not within its powers merely because of having some policy to do so and thenafterwards try to argue about 120 nationalities, etc. as to excuse itself whereas Telstra Telephonedirectories deals with a lot more nationalities and has no problem with reflecting the proper writings (bar innocent misspellings) in its telephone directories. In my view Liz Williams andTully should be sacked as not to do so may be perceived to be the green light that they canunlawfully interfere with a persons CIVIL RIGHTS and POLITICAL LIBERTIES andafterwards will get away with it. We do have a constitution and it guarantees CIVIL RIGHTS

and POLITICAL LIBERTIES and hence only the proper enforcement of this can ensure thatwe retain fair and proper elections..


QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the

liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter of

liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good

government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.

END QUOTE.

Every time we allow a wrongdoing to be left off without appropriate punishment we allow afurther undermining of our constitution! No Member of parliament can permit to consent to thisand as such regardless of the political colour of any Member of Parliament I expect no less but itwill ensure to pursue appropriate charges against those who unlawfully interfered with myCIVIL RIGHTS and POLITICAL LIBERTIES and so that in future we will be able to benefitof true FAIR and PROPER elections and as a warning to those who contemplate to abuse andmisuse their powers that they will be held legally accountable..

With the UPPER CASE usage of my name there can be no question that this was not a mere

misunderstanding as the considerable effort I had placed in the writings to seek to address theissue was well far and beyond my obligations. It was simply that the VEC has its own conductirrespective if it is lawful or not and expect that the Parliament will sanction this. Well, even if the parliament were to sanction this or implied sanction it this can still never override myconstitutional rights as to CIVIL RIGHTS and POLITICAL LIBERTIES and as such theParliament and so every Member of Parliament as a “sentry” must ensure appropriate action ispursued against those who offended against my constitutional rights.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. CLARK .-

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

END QUOTE.

HANSARD 18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution ,END QUOTE.


QUOTE





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown

in prosecuting criminals are.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National AustralasianConvention)QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?

Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperlyany law the citizen has his right.

END QUOTE.


QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER .-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

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.

Well let the Parliament so to say show it has balls and can ensure appropriate action is takenagainst the offenders and we maintain the RULE OF LAW or it all becomes part of aundermining of the constitution and DICTATORSHIP will flourish..

I have omitted the set out regarding customs how it tried to get me to declare matters (regardingelectoral matters) and pay 10% GST which they overnight withdrew upon my 40 pagecomplaint! It therefore is obvious that from all directions my election campaign was beingundermined and some 50 printing orders are still to be completed for delivery! As such even theprinter failed to provide all election material in time but that is something that can be set out inmy book. However, it should be obvious that there is a hell of a lot wrong with how elections areconducted and I for one view we simply do not have FAIR and PROPER elections and neither

can one say that the monies spend on elections, such as the payment per primary vote, is for education purposes because really if one check all the advertisings by political parties, and do notforget the barking dogs add on television of the Australian Democrats in the federal electionbefore their demise, then one may ask how informed are electors at all and is there not a better way to use the monies now paid out to candidates to do a real non-political education to informthe electors..

While the legislation makes clear that informal voting is not permitted because one has to vote ina certain manner to fill in the ballot paper nevertheless the VEC on its website provides detailsthat when one does electronic voting one is given the option to vote informal if one desire to doso..

What the difference is with what I am on about is that while I pursue that “ compulsory” votingis unconstitutional nevertheless I do not advise anyone that they can vote “informal” as I viewthat if a person does vote then the appropriate legislation must be followed. We therefore havethat the VEC was taking me on that I was giving misleading information to electors where in factI was not while the VEC actually facilitates informal voting which is contrary to the legalprovisions of the Victorian parliament. Now this just underline the hypocrisy of the VEC!QUOTE





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10










U.S. hackers break into Washington electronic voting machines in just 36 hours!Saturday, 9 October, 2010 10:19 AM

From:

"Jim" <[email protected]>

To:

"Gerrit H." <[email protected]>

Remember this if the state or federal governments want to introduce electronic vote machinesinto Australia. They are virtually impossible to secure against tampering and interference whichhas been proven repeatedly in the U.S.

Jim

US: DC election officials invited hackers to test their electronic vote machines. Within 36

hours, the hackers were able to change votes, read secret ballots, discover passwords, and

put in a back door to control the machines in the future. [The only safe voting system is the

hand-counted paper ballot.]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8109

By Brad Friedman on 10/5/2010 10:29pmD.C. Internet Vote Scheme Hacker: 'Within 36 Hours We Had Total Control of Server, Ability to Change Votes,Reveal Secret Ballots'University of Michigan's J. Alex Halderman fesses up...

As we posited in our coverage yesterday of D.C.'s Internet Voting scheme which was hacked with the University of Michigan fight song just days after experts had warned against the entire scheme, J. Alex Halderman, asst. professor of electronic engineering and computer science at the university, was, indeed, at the heart of the hack.

He details tonight that he and a small team of students were happy to participate in the test that D.C. electionofficials had announced, with just three days notice, inviting hackers to try and penetrate the system they planned touse this November, as developed with the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation.

Halderman writes in his explanation of how they did it:

Within 36 hours of the system going live, our team had found and exploited a vulnerability that gave us almost totalcontrol of the server software, including the ability to change votes and reveal voters’ secret ballots.

And if you think that's chilling, Halderman goes on to note that all cast ballots on the system were modified andoverwritten with write-in votes, all passwords taken --- including the encryption key, which e-voting supportersconstantly suggest will keep such systems safe --- before they went on to install a back door to let them view anyvotes cast later, after their attack, along with the names of voters and whom they voted for...

• We collected crucial secret data stored on the server, including the database username and password as wellas the public key used to encrypt the ballots.

• We modified all the ballots that had already been cast to contain write-in votes for candidates we selected. (Although the system encrypts voted ballots, we simply discarded the encrypted files and replaced themwith different ones that we encrypted using the same key.) We also rigged the system to replace futurevotes in the same way.

• We installed a back door that let us view any ballots that voters cast after our attack. This modificationrecorded the votes, in unencrypted form, together with the names of the voters who cast them, violatingballot secrecy.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5

10








http://www.bradblog.com/?author=3






http://osdv.org/

http://osdv.org/

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/jhalderm/hacking-dc-internet-voting-pilot

http://www.cse.umich.edu/~jhalderm/pub/dc/evil_ballot.pdf
















http://osdv.org/

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/jhalderm/hacking-dc-internet-voting-pilot







• To show that we had control of the server, we left a “calling card” on the system's confirmation screen,which voters see after voting. After 15 seconds, the page plays the University of Michigan fight song.Here's a demonstration.

Halderman also notes what many of us have been trying to tell Internet Voting proponents for so many years: it'sincredibly difficult, if not impossible, to make the system secure...The specific vulnerability that we exploited is simple to fix, but it will be vastly more difficult to make the systemsecure. We've found a number of other problems in the system, and everything we've seen suggests that the design isbrittle: one small mistake can completely compromise its security. I described above how a small error in file-extension handling left the system open to exploitation. If this particular problem had not existed, I'm confident thatwe would have found another way to attack the system.Sounds like this Internet Voting thing for overseas and military voters, which has now been called off in D.C. as of last week's hack, is as brilliantly thought out and executed as the electronic voting and concealed vote counting thatnearly the entirety of the nation is currently saddled with at local polling places.Halderman, as we also noted yesterday, was also behind hacking Pac-Man onto a Sequoia touch-screen votingmachine last August, as well as on the Princeton team which initially hacked Diebold's touch screen system with avote-flipping virus back in 2006.[Hat-tip @rickstah on the Twitters.]

* * *

UPDATE 10/6/10, 11:49am PT: Livermore National Laboratories computer scientist Dr. David Jefferson, writingon behalf of VerifiedVoting.org comments on Halderman and Team's successful hack of the D.C. Internet Votingscheme today by pointing out, among other things, that "effective defense" against such attacks is "virtuallyimpossible"...It is now clear that Halderman and his team were able to completely subvert the entire DC Internet voting systemremotely, gaining complete control over it and substituting fake votes of their choice for the votes that were actuallycast by the test voters. What is worse, they did so without the officials even noticing for several days.Let there be no mistake about it: this is a major achievement, and supports in every detail the warnings that securitycommunity have been giving about Internet voting for over a decade now. After this there can be no doubt that theburden of proof in the argument over the security of Internet voting systems has definitely shifted to those who claimthat the systems can be made secure.Jefferson also notes, among several other points very well worth reading, this one...Most likely they [Halderman and his MI students] were the only team to even attempt to attack the system seriously;yet in a real election with something important at stake multiple teams might attack. The fact that the only team thateven tried succeeded so quickly is a demonstration lots of other groups from around the world could also have doneit.

...and this one...The attack was not detected by the officials for several days, despite the fact that they were looking for such attacks(having invited all comers to try) and despite the fact that the attackers left a “signature” by playing the MichiganFight song after every vote was cast! This successful demonstration of the danger of Internet voting is the real deal.Want something actually worth being angry about "Tea Partiers"? How about the fact that your Congress hasallocated millions of federal tax-dollars via the Military and Overseas Voting Empowerment (MOVE) Act to pay for these Internet Voting pilot project experiments which use real voters in real elections as guinea pigs to test thisunoverseeable technology.Want the self-governance guaranteed by our Constitution? Hint: When electronic, computerized systems are used toconceal vote casting and counting from public view --- as is the case in virtually every election in the U.S., using theInternet or not --- that ain't self-governance.

* * *

Please support The BRAD BLOG's fiercely independent, award-winning coverage of your electoral system, as

available from no other media outlet in the nation, with a donation to help us keep going (Snail mail, moreoptions here). If you like, we'll send you some great, award-winning election integrity documentary films in

return! Details right here...

END QUOTE.

And, let’s also consider the following:http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com/2007/03/vec-refuses-to-publish-submission.htmlQUOTE





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5

10

http://www.cse.umich.edu/~jhalderm/pub/dc/thanks/








http://twitter.com/rickstah/statuses/26522698094


http://blog.verifiedvoting.org/2010/10/06/975



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/us/politics/09voting.html?_r=1&sq=states%20move%20to%20allow%20overseas%20and%20military%20voters&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all

http://www.bradblog.com/

https://www.paypal.com/xclick/[email protected]&item_name=Support+for+The+BRAD+BLOG&item_number=2010





http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com/2007/03/vec-refuses-to-publish-submission.html





http://www.cse.umich.edu/~jhalderm/pub/dc/thanks/








http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/us/politics/09voting.html?_r=1&sq=states%20move%20to%20allow%20overseas%20and%20military%20voters&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all

http://www.bradblog.com/

https://www.paypal.com/xclick/[email protected]&item_name=Support+for+The+BRAD+BLOG&item_number=2010










Friday, March 02, 2007

VEC refuses to publish submission critical of its handling of the State election

Steve Tully brings the Local Government Review into disrepute

The Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to publish submissions made to the various Local

Government Electoral Representation Reviews. The submission is critical of the conduct of the

Victorian Electoral Commission's administration of the 2006 State Elections and its management of the

Local Government review.

A statement made by Ms Sue Lang, representing Steve Tully - Victoria's Chief Electoral

Commissioner, indicated that the VEC would not be publishing the submission.

The Victorian Electoral Commission's refusal to publish the submission has once again brought the

conduct of the Victorian Electoral Commission and the Victorian Local Government review into disrepute.

The submissions are similar to previous submissions that have been published by the Victorian

Electoral Commission except that the current submission includes a section that is critical of the

Victorian Electoral Commission's administration and management of the 2006 Victorian State

Election. Information that is relevant to the Local Government Electoral Representation Reviews.

Information obtained under Freedom of Information legislation has indicated that the software currently

used by the Victorian Electoral Commission in determining the results of the election has not been fully

certified.

The City of Melbourne in 2004 had paid the Victorian Electoral Commission over $100,000 for

software development. Presumably similar amounts have been paid by other Local Council's and the

State Government in what is a very expensive software development project . The fact that the software has

not been fully certified and there are a number of short falls in it's design and implementation raises

concerns in relation to exactly what has the Victorian Electoral Commission spent the money on.

The conduct of the November 2006 Victorian Legislative Council election had identified a number of

serious errors in the administration and counting of the ballot indicating that the system put in place by

the Victorian Electoral Commission were not fully tested and does not meet industry standards.

Problems associated with the conduct of the State election was further compounded by the refusal of

the Victorian Electoral Commissioner to publish detailed results of the State Election ( including the

number of postal and pre-polling votes issued and returned prior to November 25, recorded below-the-line

preference data and the Commission's refusal to published the detailed polling place results of the

Victorian Legislative Council).

The software used by the Victorian Electoral Commission in the conduct of the State Election is the same

software used for Local Council elections.

The Local Government Minister has yet to respond to the complaint.

Addendum notation

The Victorian Local Government Election Regulations clause 110 (4) states “Before calculating theresult, the returning officer must reconcile the electronic record of ballot papers with the total number of

ballot-papers received ".

This is something that was clearly missing from the November 2006 Victorian State Election and not

accounted for in the software used to determine the re4ulst of the State Election.

Had the VEC reconciled the electronic record of ballot papers with the total number of ballot-papers

received the significant number of errors in the conduct of the election count would not have occurred.

A complete lack of due diligence on behalf of the Victorian Electoral Commission

END QUOTE.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5

10



http://melbcity.topcities.com/reprev.htm







http://melbcity.topcities.com/reprev.htm






So much more about it all but considering the number of pages of this submission and alreadyhaving to limit quoting correspondence as there is a lot more, I will see what this submission willresult to as if the Parliament will deal with it appropriately or just so to say places it in a too harda basket and ignore the blatant invasion into peoples CIVIL RIGHTS and POLITICAL

LIBERTY until one day perhaps they themselves find being subject to abuse of powers?.

Ironically the VEC itself in its submission stated (8/72 Re Kororoit By election):QUOTE

Require the Returning Officer to uphold the law as a mandatory responsibility not a discretionaryresponsibility!

END QUOTE

(See also Julius V Lord Bishop Of Oxford (1850) 5 App Cass and Municipal Electoral

Tribunal: Derek Balogh V Victorian Electoral Commission, Municipal Electoral TribunalT02952116 see pages 17-21). In my view an Returning Officer cannot on his own accord ignorethe RULE OF LAW as we have court to determine matters on basis of law and it should alwaysbe mandatory for the VEC to follow the RULE OF LAW as this is obviously fails to do sooften! It should be understood that the VEC interference into how a surname is writing in allUPPER CASE letter or not has absolutely nothing to do with the election process itself. Wecannot have that the VEC is abusing and misusing its powers to conduct elections then for

interfering with essential CIVIL RIGHTS of a person. Neither can in my view the Parliamentsanction this kind of conduct as it is beyond the powers of the Parliament to do so. Again, whereTelstra proved to be able to write surnames in the manner a customer submits it and this involvesmillions upon millions of names then surely the VEC dealing with a mere few thousands couldmanage the same. What really has been occurring in both Federal and State level is that theElection Commission is so to say swindling the Parliament to alter electoral Laws to suit theElection Commission even to the disadvantage of electors and so candidates alike. The HTVCdebacle is a clear example of this and likewise many other issues. The Parliament should simplymake it clear to the VEC that it is no more but a tool to conduct elections and the interest of electors/candidates must come first and the VEC simply has to learn to manage matters mostsuitable to the constituents/candidates. We might then even actually manage to get FAIR and

PROPER elections!.

For the record the mugs I handed in for registration and requested them to be returned to me stillhave not been returned! (2 sets of 2 each!)For the record a set of “election material” that was used fin regard of the 2010 Ivanhoe Stateelection was submitted to the Victorian Library..

How I dispose of “election material” that is no longer useful because of wear and tear or past byuse date.





5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5

10










.

With the 2010 Ivanhoe district election I personally went around to immediately remove all andany “election material” I could locate and with the 2011 Broadmeadows by-election I did so

likewise by 8.25 pm (on the date of the poll having been held) and with the 2011 Olympia Wardby-election I had removed all “election material” I had placed around by about 7.45pm. Assuch, I made sure on each occasion that any “election material” was collected as soon asreasonably practicable. However, I have extensive photo material to show that other candidatesleft all kind of material behind. Even the Australian Greens failed to clean up after themselves!Yet, I was the one being targeted and not other candidates!.

As I stated above, I intend to publish a book about it all under the title;.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on TERRORISM IN THE IVANHOE DISTRICT ELECTION

.

Subtitled:A book on DVD about unlawful conduct in 2010/2011 Vic elections

.which will also canvas extensively relevant details including a comprehensive folio of photographs to prove matters. As to do so in this submission would make the electronic versionfar too large to submit..

This Part 2 of 2 submission and/or the complete submission parts 1 & 2 are not intended

and neither must be perceived to include all relevant matters/details and neither refers to

matters as to any priority/importance..

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®.

(Our name is our motto!)

.

.Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka





5

10

15

20

25

30

5

10








110317-submission - elections-part 2 of 2 parts

Documents