20140504-g. h. schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to mr daniel andrews - cc-mr tony abbott

p1 4-5-2014

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, See also

Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Mr Daniel Andrews 4-5-2014

[email protected]

5

Cc Mt Tony Abbott

[email protected]

Premier D. Napthine [email protected] 10

20140504-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews - cc-Mr Tony Abbott

Daniel,

I understand that you propose to have municipal/shire council rates to be limited to CPI 15

increases unless the Minister decides otherwise.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have in the past written to premier D. Napthine and Mr Tony

Abbott PM about this issue.

As you may be aware the Federal Government in 2009 made pensions and other welfare

payments to be increased with the CPI. Previously, when standing as an INDEPENDENT 20

candidate in elections I promoted that because the Commonwealth had tied pensions and welfare

payments to the CPI then council rates must likewise be kept within this as otherwise it

conflicted with Commonwealth law.

25

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pu

bs/rp/BudgetReview200910/WelfarePensionReforms

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

http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview200910/WelfarePensionReforms

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview200910/WelfarePensionReforms

p2 4-5-2014





QUOTE

Welfare payments Reforms to pensions

Budget Review 2009-10 Index 5

Budget 2009 10: Welfare payments

Reforms to pensions Peter Yeend

The Government presented several substantive reforms to the provision of income support to the retired aged

(the age pension) and most other pension payment recipients in the 2009–10 Budget under the heading of 10 ‘Secure and Sustainable Pensions’.[1] These proposed measures are:

a one-off increase in the single rate of pension of $30 a week. The increase will apply to the Age

Pension, Disability Support Pension, Service Pension, Carer Payment, Wife Pension, Widow B Pension and Income

Support Supplement. The increase is not to be provided to Parenting Payment – Single (PPS) recipients

a new Pension Supplement which replaces the current Utilities Allowance,[2] Pharmaceutical 15 Allowance,[3] Telephone Allowance[4] and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) pension supplement.[5] The Pension

Supplement is to also be paid to recipients of Widow Allowance, Partner Allowance and other income support

payment recipients over Age Pension age

an increase in the pension income test taper rate, for income in excess of the income test free area,

from 40 cents in the dollar to 50 cents in the dollar 20

a new income test treatment of earned income from employment. Only half of the first $500 of

fortnightly employment income will be included in the income test. Pensioners can get a maximum benefit of

$125 per fortnight under this Work Bonus

the closure of the Pension Bonus Scheme

the upgrading of the indexation requirements for the pension from the current 25 per cent of Male Total 25 Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) to 27.7 per cent of MTAWE

an increase in the qualification age for the Age Pension from age 65 to age 67 to be phased in from

2017 to 2023

revised pension lump-sum advance payment arrangements allowing higher lump-sum payments

amounts and more than one advance in a year 30

a new seniors supplement payment for recipients of a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card[6] or Gold

Card combining both the current Seniors Concession Allowance (SCA)[7] and the Telephone Allowance, and

the development of the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI).[8]

Harmer review of pensions

There has been public agitation for increases in the rate of the pension, especially for age pensioners, for some 35 time. The Government announced a general review of the tax system on 13 May 2008.[9] As part of the review,

the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, announced that

the Secretary of her portfolio department, Dr Jeff Harmer, would undertake a review of the pension system. The

Pension Review (Harmer Review) undertook an investigation into measures to strengthen the financial security of

seniors, carers and people with disabilities. The Government released the findings of the Harmer Review on 12 40 May 2009.[10] The key findings of the Harmer Review addressed through the pension reforms announced in the

2009–10 Budget are:

single full rate pensioners should be a priority. The existing single rate of pension does not adequately

recognise the costs for those wholly reliant on the pension to support them

the relativity of the rate of pension for singles to that of couples is too low and should be in the range 45 of 64 to 67 per cent. Currently it is around 60 per cent



http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview200910

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview200910/WelfarePensionReforms#_edn1










p3 4-5-2014





the payment of existing supplements and allowances could be simplified by integrating them into either

a pension supplement or the base rate

pension payments should be tied to changes in the actual cost of living faced by pensioners and

there is scope to target pension increases to those who have little or no private means.

One-off increase in the single rate of pension of $30 per week 5

Finding number 3 of the Harmer Review stated:

The Review finds that, on the basis of its analysis of the outcomes achieved by pensioners, evidence provided in

the consultations and its analysis of relative needs, the relativity of the rate of pension for single people living by

themselves to that of couples is too low.[11]

There was no couple rate of pension from 1909 to 1961, just one rate paid to all persons who qualified. There 10 was then a split to a lower partnered rate recognising that two persons sharing the same accommodation

enjoyed some benefits and the costs were not double that of one person; for example, rates and the cost of

utilities could be shared.

The Harmer Review also commented on the pension rate and adequacy issue:

Finding 6: The Review finds that, taking into account the totality of the package of the current pension base 15 rates, supplements and the value of the Seniors Bonus, the rate of pension paid to couples appears to be

adequate for those pensioners living in their own homes or public rental housing, and without unusually high

costs of health or disability.[12]

The Harmer Review concluded that, in the main, the totality of assistance to coupled pensioners was adequate.

However, the Review’s analysis did identify an additional group for whom the current rates of total assistance do 20 not appear to be providing a basic acceptable standard of living, that is, pensioners who do not own their own

homes and rent privately:

Finding 7: The Review finds that there is strong evidence that many pensioners in private rental housing face

particularly high costs and have poor outcomes. Rent Assistance and social housing have complementary roles

to play in addressing the financial security of these pensioners. The Review notes that the government has 25 proposed an increased investment in social housing and considers that reforms to Rent Assistance would

complement this.[13]

There are thus two main reasons for the one-off increase in the rate of the single pension. Firstly, its relativity to

the combined partnered rate of pension. Secondly, the pension rate is inadequate for pensioners to live on

against the increasing cost of living, where the pension is their only means of support. The current rates of 30 pension from 20 March 2009 are $569.80 per fortnight (pf) for singles and $475.90 pf for each member of a

couple.[14] The one-off $30 per week increase plus the $2.49 Pension Supplement will bring the single rate of

pension to 66.3 per cent of the combined partnered rate of pension.

Pension rate increases against increases in the cost of living

As a matter of legislative requirement, pension rates are indexed twice a year to either Consumer Price Index 35 (CPI) increases or to 25 per cent of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE). Whichever factor provides the

greater increase is the factor used. Since 1997, when it was made a legislative requirement, it has been the

indexation to MTAWE that has in most cases provided for the pension rate increases, not the CPI increases. Prior

to that the previous Hawke and Keating governments maintained the pension rate at 25 per cent of MTAWE as a

matter of policy, providing for three separate one-off ad hoc increases above the CPI factor. 40







p4 4-5-2014





Table 1 tracks the relativity of pension rates to the CPI from March 2003 to March 2008.

Table 1: Increases to the single pension rate under actual and alternative scenarios, March 2003 to March 2008

Source: Department of Families, Housing, Community Service and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), Annual report

2007–08, Canberra 2008, p. 137, viewed 19 May 2009, 5 http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/corp

/Documents/2008%20Annual%20Report/default.htm

As can be seen, against cost of living increases (that is, the CPI) the pension rate has more than maintained its

adequacy. This is due to its indexation against 25 per cent of MTAWE. However, as the Harmer Review

suggested, those in the private rental market have done less well. The Government has claimed the proposed 10 single pension rate increase is to improve the financial security of pensioners.[15] It is aimed at addressing the

problem of those in private rental. Table 2 demonstrates that age pensioners in private rental have done less

well, in real terms, compared to those not in private rental.

Table 2: Maximum payments to recipients of pension: index of real pension rates, June 2003 to June 2008

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Age Pension—single 100.0 103.0 103.0 105.1 107.0 108.2

with Rent Assistance 100.0 102.5 102.5 104.2 105.8 106.8

Age Pension—couple 100.0 103.0 103.0 105.2 107.0 108.3

with Rent Assistance 100.0 102.7 102.7 104.6 106.3 107.4

Source: Department of Families, Housing, Community Service and Indigenous Affairs, Annual report 2007–08, 15 Canberra 2008, p. 135, viewed 19 May 2009, http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/corp/

Documents/2008%20Annual%20Report/default.htm

Other measures in the pension package are aimed at addressing the issue of the future maintenance of the rate

of pension. These are the proposed new indexation factor of 27.7 per cent of MTAWE and the new indexation

benchmark, the PBLCI. From September 2009, the rate of pension will be indexed to three factors: movements in 20



http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/corp/Documents/2008%20Annual%20Report/default.htm





p5 4-5-2014





the CPI, 25 per cent of MTAWE and the proposed new index for pensioners and beneficiaries, the PBLCI. There is

no indication yet as to what factors the PBLCI will consist of.

Pension Supplement

The pension changes presented in the 2009–10 Budget feature a collapsing of several supplementary pension

payments into a new Pension Supplement. The Pension Supplement will be $1462.76 a year for a single person 5 or $2199.60 for couples. For the 20 September 2009 rate increases, the Pension Supplement rate will increase

the amounts provided to single pensioners by $2.49 per week and $10.14 per week (combined), or $5.07 per

week each, for partnered rate recipients.

The new Pension Supplement replaces the current Utilities Allowance, Pharmaceutical Allowance (PhA),

Telephone Allowance and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) pension supplement. The Pension Supplement is to 10 be paid fortnightly from 20 September 2009 and from 1 July 2010 pensioners will have the choice to be paid

quarterly. The Pension Supplement is also to be accompanied by a Seniors Supplement which will combine both

the current Telephone Allowance and the Seniors Concession Allowance for CSHC holders.[16]

Pension Supplement income test

The Pension Supplement, unlike the payments it is replacing, can be reduced by income. Currently, the 15 supplement payments that are to be replaced are not income tested, with entitlement contingent only on a

person being entitled to a qualifying pension or benefit payment. With the proposed new Pension Supplement,

even were income reduces the qualifying pension or benefit payment to zero, the Pension Supplement can still

be paid and then reduced by income. The reduction rate will be at the same rate as the proposed new pension

income test taper rate, that is, 50 cents in the dollar for excess income over the free area. The Pension 20 Supplement can be reduced to $15.20 a week for a single or $22.90 a week for couples before it is also not

payable.

Comment

The Pension Supplement will enable the simplification and rationalisation of several different payments.

Currently the PhA and the GST pension supplement are part of the pension rate but the Utilities Allowance and 25 the Telephone Allowance are not part of the rate. For the first time, persons whose income exceeds the income

test cut-off point for the basic pension may still be entitled to some supplement payment in the form of the

Pension Supplement.

The pension rate increases and the Pension Supplement are not to be provided to recipients of the PPS. The PPS

originated in 1973 as the Supporting Mother’s Benefit, then later the Supporting Parent’s Benefit and later the 30 Sole Parent Pension. Since its inception, it has been paid at the pension rate of payment and using the pension

means testing arrangements. Not including the PPS with the other pension payments in relation to the one-off

$30 increase and the increased income test taper rate, will indirectly create a new tier of income support. The

PPS will be paid at a higher rate than the other allowance payments (such as Newstart Allowance) but at a lower

rate than the other pension rate payments. 35

The increased taper rate of 50 cents in the dollar of excess income returns the pensions’ income test taper rate

back to the rate it was before July 2000. This was when it was reduced to 40 cents in the dollar under the

compensation arrangements for the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax. A higher taper rate allows fewer

people with higher incomes access to a pension. Under the proposed new income test rules, the income test cut-

off limits will be reduced from $47,444 to $38,693 per annum and for couples, their combined income from 40 $72,423 to $59,228. This targets the pension to those on lower incomes and will realise savings.

Some pensioners will benefit from transitional arrangements that will apply to those currently on a part-rate

pension who would otherwise suffer a loss of payment rate under the new higher taper rate. Their rate will be




p6 4-5-2014





preserved in real terms and they will also get the benefit of the new Pension Supplement until they are better off

under the new rules. This is achieved by way of the pension rate increasing over time due to the indexation

arrangements—see ‘Pension rate increases against increases in the cost of living’ above. Around 70 per cent of

all existing pensioners will be immediately better off following the reforms and will move to the new system

immediately. This includes around 93 per cent of all single rate pensioners. 5

The separate and new income test (Work Bonus) for earned income has the benefit of encouraging employment.

However, it adds some complexity to the income test.

Change to nursing home daily care fee

One of the concerns expressed about any increase in the pension rate has been the resultant increase in the

daily care fee charged for persons in residential aged care. The Aged Care Act 1997 (ACA) stipulates that the 10 maximum amount of the daily care fee for a person in residential aged care is currently 85 per cent of the basic

single rate of pension. A raising of the single rate of pension by $30 per week would normally see 85 per cent of

this increase added to the fee. The Government has announced that it intends amending the ACA to reduce the

maximum fee amount down to 84 per cent of the basic single pension rate.[17]

Raising the age pension age to 67 15

The 2009–10 Budget includes a proposal to gradually raise the Age Pension access age to age 67, commencing

July 2017 and reaching age 67 from 2023. The Age Pension access age has been 65 since its inception in 1909.

In fact, in 1909 the access age was 65 for both men and women, but it reduced to age 60 for women in 1910.

The age pension access age for women has been incrementally raised from age 60 to 65 and this will be

completed in 2014. 20

Life expectancy at birth in 1901–10 for males was 55.2 years; and for females, 58.8 years.[18] Life expectancy at

birth in 2005–07 was for males, 79 years; and for females, 83.7 years.[19]

Other countries have recently announced increases in their age pension access age. In the United Kingdom (UK),

the Parliament is currently debating pension reforms presented in a 2006 White Paper. Reforms include taking

into account increasing longevity and encouraging extended working lives. It is proposed that the State Pension 25 age will rise gradually from age 65 (men and women) to age 68 by 2044. In the United States the access age is

being incrementally raised to age 67 by 2027. In Germany, between 2012 and 2029, the normal pensionable age

will rise from age 65 to age 67 with eligibility requiring at least 5 years contributions from employment income

into their personal pension fund amount. In Germany for persons born after 1964, the pensionable age is 67.

From 2012, the full pension is payable at 65 with at least 45 years contributions. 30

Table 3 outlines how the proposed Australian changes will affect different age groups.

Table 3: Proposed raising of the age pension age in Australia: who will be affected

Date New age pension age Affects people born

When group reaches new age pension age

1 July

2017

65 years & 6 months 1 July 1952 to

31 December 1953

1 January 2018 to

30 June 2019

1 July

2019

66 years 1 January 1954 to

30 June 1955

1 January 2020 to

30 June 2021

1 July 66 years & 6 months 1 July 1955 to 1 January 2022 to






p7 4-5-2014





2021 31 December 1956 30 June 2023

1 July

2023

67 years From 1 January 1957 From 1 January 2024

Source: J Macklin, (Minister for Families Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs), Secure and

sustainable pension reform: Age Pension age, media release, Canberra, 12 May 2009, viewed on 21 May 2009,

http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/

jennymacklin.nsf/content/age_pension_12may2009.htm

The Pensioner Beneficiary Living Cost Index 5

The establishment of a new and extra indexation factor for the pension rates, the PBLCI, was announced in the

Budget.[20] It will be interesting to see whether such a pensioner/beneficiary specific price index will realise a

different factor for indexation. The argument has been made that the basket of goods used for the CPI is not

representative of the spending of aged pensioners. This may equally be true for other population groups.

However, the ABS has constructed several population sub-group specific indices, the earliest going back to 1981 10 and latest covering the period 1998 to 2005.[21] All of this work has shown that these specific indices (and there

is one for aged pensioners) are changing at virtually the same rate as the overall CPI.

Using the latest example, over the period June 1998 to June 2005, the ABS’ aged pension household specific

index rose by 23 per cent while the All Groups CPI rose by 22.6 per cent. What this means is that the basket of

goods and services that aged pensioners are buying rises in price (inflates) at around the same rate as the basket 15 of goods used to calculate the All Groups CPI.

Cost of the age pension

The tables below set out the cost of the age pension since the 1996–97 Budget.

Table 4: Costs of the age pension 1996–97 to 2007–08 ($ billion)

Payment name 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99

(a)

1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Age pension 13.03 13.11 13.57 14.15 15.69 16.65

20

Payment name 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08

Age pension 17.77 19.02 19.88 20.67 22.83 24.67

(a) The 1998–99 Budget saw the change from cash accounting to accrual accounting. All amounts from the

1998–99 Budget onwards are accrual. All amounts up to the 1997-98 Budget are cash.

Source: Parliamentary Library—data compiled from Portfolio Budget Statements 1996–97 to 2007– 08.

The Age Pension cost estimates as presented in the 2009–10 Budget are outlined in Table 5, below:

Table 5: Budgeted expenses for income support for seniors 25



http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/jennymacklin.nsf/content/age_pension_12may2009.htm

http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/jennymacklin.nsf/content/age_pension_12may2009.htm



p8 4-5-2014





Source: Australian Government, Portfolio budget statements 2009-10: budget related paper no. 1.7: Families,

Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 12 May

2009, p. 91, viewed 19 May 2009, http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/corp/

BudgetPAES/budget09_10/Pages/PortfolioBudgetStatements2009-10.aspx 5

The Age Pension is the single biggest program item cost in the Federal Budget. The following points help to

place the proposed changes into some perspective.

cost of the Age Pension for 1996–97 was $13.03 billion which was 10 per cent of then total

Commonwealth outlays of $129.68 billion for that year

the estimated cost of the Age Pension for the 2009–10 year is $29.2 billion, which is 8.6 per cent of 10 estimated total Commonwealth outlays of $338.2 billion

the estimated cost of the Age Pension for 2012-13 is $36 billion, which is 9.6 per cent of estimated

total Commonwealth outlays of $375 billion for that year

the cost of providing the Age Pension at about $30 billion is a large amount for any single program,

especially when compared to the whole of the Defence budget, which in the 2009–10 year is estimated to be 15 $20.9 billion. Therefore, any Government is likely to proceed carefully with any policy decision to increase the

rate of the Age Pension, let alone all pensions. Despite the decline in Age Pension expenditure as a proportion of

total Commonwealth outlays, $30 billion remains a very large amount.

20

[1]. Australian Government, Budget measures, budget paper no. 2: 2009–10, Commonwealth of Australia,

Canberra, 2009, pp. 240-246, viewed 14 May 2009,

http://www.aph.gov.au/budget/2009-10/content/bp2/html/index.htm

[2]. Utilities Allowance is paid quarterly to a person on a qualifying income support payment being Age 25 Pension, Disability Support Pension, Carer Payment, Partner Allowance, Wife Pension, Widow B Pension,

Bereavement Allowance or Widow Allowance. From March 2009 Utilities Allowance is $259.40 per member of a

couple and $518.80 for a single annually.

[3]. Pharmaceutical Allowance (PhA) is paid fortnightly to a pension payment recipient, or an income support

allowance payment recipient during a period of temporary illness or is aged 60 or more. From March 2009 PhA is 30 $3.00 per week for a single or $3.00 per week for a couple combined.

[4]. Telephone Allowance is payable to a holder of a Pensioner Concession Card or a Commonwealth Seniors

Health Card. From March 2009 the quarterly rates of Telephone Allowance are $23.00 single or $11.50

partnered each. A higher rate of $34.60 single or $17.30 partnered each is payable where the recipient has an

Internet connection. 35 [5]. The pension GST supplement was introduced as part of the 1 July 2000 Tax Reform Package. It was

based upon 4 per cent of the then value of the basic rate of pension. After a deal with the Democrats, it was

aimed at ensuring pensioners were not disadvantaged by the price increases resulting from the GST. The GST



http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/corp/BudgetPAES/budget09_10/Pages/PortfolioBudgetStatements2009-10.aspx

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/corp/BudgetPAES/budget09_10/Pages/PortfolioBudgetStatements2009-10.aspx

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview200910/WelfarePensionReforms#_ednref1

http://www.aph.gov.au/budget/2009-10/content/bp2/html/index.htm





http://www.facs.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ss-aclist/ss_g.html#SS-GST

p9 4-5-2014





supplement is indexed to the CPI. From March 2009 the GST pension supplement is $19.50 single or $16.30

partnered each.

[6]. The CSHC is issued to persons over Age Pension age with annual adjusted taxable incomes of less than

$50,000 single or $80,000 combined.

[7]. The Seniors Concession Allowance (SCA) is payable to a holder of a CSHC. The annual rate of SCA at 20 5 September 2008 is $514.00 per year paid quarterly.

[8]. W Swan (Treasurer) and J Macklin (Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous

Affairs), Secure and Sustainable Pension Reform: A pension that keeps up with the cost of living, media release,

Canberra, 12 May 2009, viewed 21 May 2009, http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/

jennymacklin.nsf/content/pension_cost_living_12may2009.htm 10 [9]. W Swan (Treasurer), Australia’s future tax system, media release, Canberra, 13 May 2008, viewed 19 May

2009, http://www.treasurer.gov.au/

DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/ 2008/036.htm&page

ID=003&min=wms&Year=2008&DocType=0

[10]. Australian Government, Tax review report on the retirement income system, Commonwealth of Australia, 15 Canberra, 12 May 2009, viewed 19 May 2009,

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/corp/

budgetpaes/budget09_10/pension/pages/pensionreviewreport.aspx

[11]. Tax review report on the retirement income system, p. xiii.

[12]. Tax review report on the retirement income system, p. xiv. 20 [13]. Tax review report on the retirement income system, p. xiii.

[14]. These rates do not include PhA of $6.00 per fortnight single and $3.00 per fortnight partnered couple

each.

[15]. Budget paper no. 2: 2009–10, pp. 242-243.

[16] . Seniors Concession Allowance is paid quarterly to holders of a CSHC and from 20 March 2009 is 25 $129.70.

[17]. Budget paper no. 2: 2009–10, pp. 317-318.

[18]. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Australian Historical Population Statistics, 2008, cat. no.

3105.0.65.001, ABS, Canberra, 2008, viewed 20 May 2009,

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/ 30 DetailsPage/3105.0.65.0012008?OpenDocument

[19]. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Deaths, Australia, 2007, cat. no. 3302, ABS, Canberra, 2008, viewed

20 May 2009,

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/ProductsbyCatalogue/

C67A858BA00CB846CA2568A9001393C6?OpenDocument 35 [20]. W Swan (Treasurer) and J Macklin (Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous

Affairs), Secure and Sustainable Pension Reform: A pension that keeps up with the cost of living.

[21]. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Analytical Living Cost Indexes for Selected Australian Household

Types: Update to June 2005, cat. no. 1350.0, ABS, Canberra, 31 August 2005.

40

END QUOTE

In my view the Commonwealth should have taken charge of this issue and taken on

municipal/shire councils for acting in contravention of Commonwealth law.

It should be understood that the Commonwealth exercising this power (regarding the CPI) has an 45

incidental to its constitutional powers to provide for pensioners, etc.

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

Australasian Convention) 50 QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local

Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government

of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the






http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/jennymacklin.nsf/content/pension_cost_living_12may2009.htm

http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/jennymacklin.nsf/content/pension_cost_living_12may2009.htm


http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2008/036.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=2008&DocType=0




http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/corp/budgetpaes/budget09_10/pension/pages/pensionreviewreport.aspx

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/corp/budgetpaes/budget09_10/pension/pages/pensionreviewreport.aspx









http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3105.0.65.0012008?OpenDocument

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3105.0.65.0012008?OpenDocument


http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/ProductsbyCatalogue/C67A858BA00CB846CA2568A9001393C6?OpenDocument

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/ProductsbyCatalogue/C67A858BA00CB846CA2568A9001393C6?OpenDocument



p10 4-5-2014





Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their

own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except

that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. END QUOTE

5

It ought to be understood that the Commonwealth provide pensions on what it considers is

appropriate considering the cost of living by the CPI. Hence, for councils to act in violation to

this principle is in my view unacceptable.

I understand that Premier Dennis Napthine held that it was a “joke” but considering that the High

Court of Australia in the 1904 case of Sydney Council versus Commonwealth held that “rates” 10

are a delegated taxation power of the States. Hence, rather than Premier Napthine ignoring

matters I view he should himself have implemented this long ago.

While I understand ICAC has declined to investigate matters against Premier Napthine as to the

monies provided to his racing horse partner, I view that as the States are created within s106 of 15

the constitution (The commonwealth of Australia constitution Act 1900 (UK)) then the States are

bound to comply with the legal principles embedded in this constitution, for so far they are not

specifically against the Commonwealth only (such as s116).

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 20 Australasian Convention)

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local

Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government

of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the 25 Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their

own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except

that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. END QUOTE

30

Again: Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)

QUOTE

That the local Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and 35 good government of the community

END QUOTE

Contrary to the views of many the States (formally colonies) are also bound by laws for the

peace, order and good government. 40

We then have to consider was the reported 1.5 million dollars paid to the business partner of

Premier Napthine within this concept?

I do not think so.

45

It should be clear that any monies used from Consolidated Revenue Funds must be held

approved by an Appropriation Bill.

To give an example in the Commonwealth area: Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian 50 Convention)

QUOTE

Mr. HOLDER.-A measure would be valid while it was a Bill, and invalid when it became a law.



p11 4-5-2014





Mr. ISAACS.-That is a very terse and correct way of putting it, and it proves the absurdity of the provision.

We are, in my opinion, making the Senate too strong a body. To allow these matters to be carried into the

Supreme Court is to say that the Senate cannot protect itself, and that the states cannot protect themselves.

Surely that is not to be thought of for a moment. We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers'

Constitution. We shall be making the Supreme Court, not the master, but the tyrant of the Constitution, by 5 inserting a clause of this kind. I do strongly appeal to my honorable friends to alter the clause in some way.

My view is that we should put in the word "proposed." At all events, we should do something in this

direction, and we should at least make a distinct provision that if a Bill does not comply with this clause, the

invalidity should go no further than the additional matter. That could be worked out no doubt in an

Appropriation Bill, but you could not work it out in a Taxation Bill, because where two subjects were 10 dealt with you could not tell which was the additional matter. You might make such a provision with

regard to the additional matter in Appropriation Bills. The court could then say that certain items were

not for the annual services of the year. They would be invalid, and the remainder of the Bill would be valid,

but that would lead to the difficulty of the court having to determine what were the ordinary annual services

of the year. 15

Mr. BARTON.-Are not the annual services the annual expenditure proper to the public service?

Mr. ISAACS.-Supposing that some compensation were being paid to a discharged public servant.

That would not come within the ordinary annual services.[start page 2003] It would not be proper to the

public service of the Commonwealth. It would not be a payment for services rendered in the future, but for

services in the past. We all know that in connexion with the ordinary annual Appropriation Bills 20 questions arise that make it very difficult to say what is and what is not an ordinary annual service.

END QUOTE

As such the monies that were provided to the meat works not being one of ordinary annual would

therefore have required a special Appropriation Bill to be passed by the Parliament. 25

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he

pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxation 30 including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill going outside the

ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House of

Representatives and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be

imperatively required, in the discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage

of its existence. 35

END QUOTE

This quotation makes clear that any appropriation bills must be submitted together with the tax

Bills and no increases can eventuate during the financial year.

40 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?

Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the

funds of the Commonwealth under either of them. 45

[start page 1773]

END QUOTE



p12 4-5-2014





Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?

Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the 5 funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.

[start page 1773]

END QUOTE

Businesses are making contractual arrangements with manufactures and other suppliers and build 10

in their prices a certain overhead cost. With this they are bound to consider applicable taxation

laws and it is grotesque to expect businesses to have some kind of crystal ball as to somehow

know what some government might do after contracts to order goods to be supplied are already

made and legally binding.

15

At Commonwealth level I view the budget should be handed down prior to the New Year so that

in the event the Appropriation Bills/Taxation Bills are declines in the Upper House then after a 3

month interval they can be presented again. And failing then again a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION

and election can take place (taking another about 3 months) and if then the Appropriation

bills/Taxation Bills are declined again a Joint Sitting of the Houses is provided for. 20

Therefore to introduce the Appropriation Bills/Taxation Bills only weeks before the

commencement of the new financial year is upon the Upper House (Senate):

Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 25

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Yes; that is better than nothing. It may be insufficient, but at all events, it is

something. But now it is provided that without [start page 2164] dissolution, after both Houses have met-the

House which represents the people and the House which represents the states-and have solemnly passed this

constitutional decree, having performed the very functions for which they were created, which was to 30 exercise independent judgments, although the results might end in disagreement, we are actually to destroy

the authority of the Senate. How? By the very next day forcing them to meet again, and go through the same

form, without any interval sufficient for the public excitement to be allayed. You pretend you are doing

something when, of course, you know you are doing nothing. You call them together again next day to repeat

their disagreement, without a single circumstance having intervened, either from lapse of time, the expression 35 of public opinion, or anything else-to meet again, and straight off settle the question on which they disagreed

the day before. And if they do not agree, you bring in what Mr. Holder wanted to bring about, which is the

domination of Australia, and of the states of Australia, by a numerical majority.

Mr. REID.-No, if they fix such a short interregnum, you can make up for it by taking longer to deal

with the Bill a second time. 40

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Yes, if you are treated that way, you have the power in your own hands.

Mr. REID.-I do swear that the honorable member would take a long time.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I know that my right honorable friend, judging probably from the time I am taking

now, thinks that in such a case I would take a long time, if I were in the Senate. I admit that his surmise is

quite right in my case. I admit there are persons on whom this terrorism could not be practised, or on 45 whom, if practised, it would probably not be effective. But I am thinking of persons of weaker minds and

wills, and I say that, as far as this Constitution is concerned, it is absolutely necessary to put some provision



p13 4-5-2014





in this Bill which will strengthen the Senate and prevent it being intimidated in the way indicated. We have

been frittering away the first principles of the Federal Constitution long enough.

END QUOTE

We had this “Coco pop” tax that was rejected by the Senate and then overnight the Bill was again 5

presented to the Senate and then passed. Just that the Bill failed to be left for minimum 3 months

and hence never was constitutionally valid.

Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 10

Mr. MCMILLAN (New South Wales).-I think there is a very simple way of looking at this question.

Surely the Senate would not reject a Bill, unless there was an important reason for doing so. I can

scarcely imagine the Senate rejecting a Bill which would put the finances into any difficulty-say, the usual

Bill for the expenses of the country. But, if the Senate did reject a Bill in calm judgment, is it not a

farce to think that under three months that judgment would be reversed? Surely it is only common 15 sense that there should be a reasonable interval for consideration? After the large amount of rhetoric on this

subject about delay, caution, and prudence, it seems ridiculous to talk about a delay of three months to give

consideration to a great question.

Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-With great respect, I submit to those who are objecting to this provision

that they are fighting a shadow. If they meant anything when they said there must be two sessions they 20 meant that the House of Representatives should have some interval to reconsider its position. It is no use to

say that the Senate can delay it. Delay is not what is required as the ultimate end of a dissolution, but

agreement, if possible. It would be just as well to say that a measure should be twice considered in the same

session, as that there should be two sessions without an interval. I think that one session should be

sufficient, but if there is to be a second consideration it ought not to be possible for Parliament to be 25 prorogued for a day, to meet again in a state of heat and temper, and to pass the Bill without

discussion. That is not the object of providing two sessions, and I would submit to my honorable

friends, who in the main agree with me, that this is not a point worth fighting about. It is admitted

generally that the Executive will allow some reasonable time, probably not less than three months,

but it is urged that there may be occasions when, if a Bill is not carried, the whole of the finances of 30 the Commonwealth will be thrown into confusion. That could only happen on the rejection of an

Appropriation Bill.

Mr. MCMILLAN.-Which would mean revolution?

Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, and that is inconceivable. Delay in passing an important Taxation Bill might

embarrass the Executive very materially, but it could not cause such embarrassment as would throw the 35 whole of the finances of the country into confusion. If a Treasurer with a heavy deficit introduced a scheme

of taxation, with a view to meeting that deficit, it might be extremely important to him that he should get

the Bill passed, but if he did not he could go on for three months increasing the deficit. If the question of a

second session were before us I should argue against it, but as provision has been made for it, it [start page

2166] should be a second session such as we are accustomed to, with some reasonable interval. I would 40 strongly urge on my honorable friends the desirability of conceding where we can concede. That is what I

have always been urging on those who have been opposed to me, and I now make the appeal to those who

agree with me. This is a point we can concede without any serious danger. There may sometimes be

considerable inconvenience, but that will be all. I hope that the discussion of this matter will not occupy

much more time, but that we shall say that we are prepared to make concessions wherever we can, in order 45 that we may obtain reasonable concessions when we come to ask for them ourselves.

The CHAIRMAN.-Do I understand that Mr. Symon wishes to amend his amendment by making

the period specified three months instead of six?

Mr. SYMON.-Yes, sir.

END QUOTE 50



p14 4-5-2014





For the States the same principle must be deemed to apply. Again, we cannot wreck good

business management by irresponsible political decisions.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 5 QUOTE

Mr. 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 10 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. 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 15 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

While I am retired nevertheless I hold the view that unless we look after responsible business 20

management “We”, as a nation, are going down the gutter. Hence, politicians who are acting as

our “agents” must act responsible and given advance warning, not just weeks, to businesses so

they can calculate any additional taxes, duties, charges into their overhead cost.

When a business goes bankrupt then those employed with such a business will be without a job.

While bankruptcy will from time to time eventuate irrespective of government good intentions it 25

is nevertheless essential that our “agents” are acting honourable and with wisdom and not

recklessly destroy directly or indirectly businesses because of their irresponsible conduct.

HANSARD 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE 30 The Governor-General will call to his Council six or seven gentlemen whom he thinks capable of being

the first Ministers in the Commonwealth. He will certainly not choose all protectionists or all

freetraders, but strong, capable, and able politicians, representative of the views of all classes of the

community, and there will be no mandate of the people about it. END QUOTE 35

Meaning that our current system of just having people commissioned of one political party is

contrary to the spirit of the constitution. What should be understood is electors do not vote for a

government, not for who shall be Prime Minister/Premier. They vote for a representative and the

Governor-General/Governor then amongst those elected may commission then as an advisor to 40

the Governor-General/Governor.

Within the federal context the Governor-General, as he did when commissioning Edmund

Barton, can commission a person for up to 3 months not even being a Member of Parliament.

While it is some self-made (by political parties) convention that the Governor-General/Governor

commission a person upon the advice of the executive, the truth is that the Governor-45

General/Governor has the sole power to decide who shall be commissioned to form a

Government, even if the person happens not to be a Member of Parliament.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National


QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- 50

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



p15 4-5-2014





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

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE 5

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

END QUOTE

The legal principle embedded in the constitution is that no person can be paid an “allowance”

towards expenditure and loss of income unless the person is holding a seat in Parliament. Yet, we

have this huge fraud upon taxpayers that former members of parliament are nevertheless getting 15

all kinds of perks after having left the parliament.

Also, Ministers of the Crown are not employed other than by the British Crown. Hence, any

superannuation they seek to claim is between the British Crown and the minister but nothing to

do with the taxpayers. Also, any person who is not a Minister cannot receive any salary because

to receive this would offend the legal principle embedded in the constitution. 20


QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth

legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive. 25 END QUOTE


QUOTE

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will 30 nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.

Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,

remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be

all the more forced on the Commonwealth. 35 END QUOTE


QUOTE

Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an 40 apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word

"exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the

Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does

mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power

under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the 45 attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive



p16 4-5-2014





power arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties

being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph says-

But this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed

by the Parliament.

It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the 5 position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it [start page 255]

stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese.

Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately

on the establishment of the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE 10


QUOTE

Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises upon the

establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of legislation. The doubt seems to 15 be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may be

postponed until legislation takes place. But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the

competence of the local Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not in

contradiction of federal legislation?

Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point. 20

Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful whether the

exclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if it is possible that it may only

come into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still be said that on the passing of exclusive

legislation the power of the local Parliaments to legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of

concurrent legislation that power does not cease? 25

Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I think that enough has now been said on this subject by honorable

members both sides of the chamber, and I have only a very few remarks to offer. It appears that if the

sub-section remains where it is state laws will be valid until federal legislation, but the states will not be

able to alter or improve those laws during the possibly long interval between federation and federal

legislation. Under these circumstances, as we leave to the states for an indefinite time the power of 30 maintaining the laws they have, we should grant to them the power of improving those laws. It would

recommend the Constitution more to a large number of persons if we put the sub-section in clause 52,

thus enabling each state to legislate on this matter until the Federal Parliament comes in and legislates

for all.

END QUOTE 35

What this means is that the moment the Commonwealth commenced to enact the Land Tax

Office on 11 November 1910 then the States no longer could apply a land tax, and so neither

municipal/shire councils any delegated tax such as rates (effectively a tax on land, and not a tax

for services). While it has been argued that the Commonwealth abolished land taxes in 1956 and 40

so N.S.W. in 1956, and other states subsequently were having their land taxation legislative

powers returned to them, the point is that the constitution doesn’t provide for Commonwealth

law to be returned to the states. Once a Commonwealth law, even if repealed/abolished it

remains nevertheless an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power.

45

Let’s be clear:

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL

RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;



p17 4-5-2014





HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National


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. 5 END QUOTE


QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power? 10

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

state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.

As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole

constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry. 15 END QUOTE

Well, forget your political affiliation but consider your duties and obligations as an “agent” to

protect the rights of constituents.

And, I view, Premier Napthine ought to take head that it are generally the pensioners who created 20

the prosperity of what Australia is about. Politicians are the once creating financial havoc and a

financial mess. Therefore, protecting constituents from excessive rate increase beyond the CPI is

not a “joke” but in obligation of every politicians.

Hardship for pensioners, the disabled, and others is not and never should be considered to be

some kind of a “joke”. The pensioners have done their bit and should be able to be recognised for 25

this and provided with what they are entitled upon as the fruits of their labour. The disabled have

it hard enough in life that anyone who fails to understand the additional burden in life most able

body persons do not have then better learn what it is about and then see if it is a “joke” to provide

them with some kind of financial support that the Commonwealth assist with and have this then

unduly eroded by councils who are for example wasting monies on political campaigns for an ill-30

fated referendum, to hand out monies nothing to do with the peace, order and good government

of councils. Yes, they are bound by the same rules when exercising delegated powers of a State!

So, why should a councillor be able to give away $20,000 of rate payers for all kind of schemes

often nothing more but to promote themselves for re-election? And, many others who are

depending upon financial support of the Commonwealth, such as war widows/widowers surely 35

should not then have the little they receive been undermined by excessive spending by councils. I

recall how Banyule City Council wanted to build in partnership with land Lease a 40 million

dollar complex. They couldn’t even organise alternative parking for the parking areas that were

ripped up. As such its competence was in my view zero. I was the lone objector that the scheme

was unconstitutional and in the end it didn’t go ahead, but as the swimming pool was already 40

demolished a new one had to be build. Now, what needs to be considered is why on earth should

a land-lock council have an expensive swimming pool with a wave where a beach is not far

away? Pensioners, disabled and others are struggling to make end meet and then a council is

splurging on something like a Taj Majhal.

As a pensioner, to keep cost down, I do my own renovations so as to live within my budget while 45

council is giving to some private club many thousands of dollars toward building a new kitchen

only available to its members. This kind of expenditure to me is not legally justified nor

appropriate. In my view, all rate increases since 2009 that exceeded the CPI should be refunded

with interest. After all, if a pensioner, disabled person or other welfare recipients were to be too

late with paying rates then they are slugged interest and so likewise it should be visa versa. 50

.

Overpaid politicians who are inflicting a financial mess upon constituents surely may not

understand the hardship they inflict upon others. Time to wake up about reality.



p18 4-5-2014





There is a lot more to it all but for now this should do.

.

Are you a worthy “sentry”?

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit) 5

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)

