Professional Documents
Culture Documents
That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has
described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This
Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to
this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or
rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and
it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to
understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole
time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is
commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be
appreciated by the people.
END QUOTE
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
"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the
text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive
interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It
means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a social group
with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE
Therefore, we are bound by the legal principles the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the
constitution and we therefore must consider the following quotations also:
Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
END QUOTE
And
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
END QUOTE
.
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE
It is therefore in my view very clear that the commonwealth has no legislative powers to apply a
special tax to certain banks but not the same to other banks.
https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/big-bank-levy-set-to-pass-parliament-this-week/news-
story/63794df083e8b7c41521edf0eea17fbb
Turnbull Government’s $6.2b big bank levy passes Parliament
JUNE 20, 2017 7:31AM
QUOTE
Treasurer Scott Morrison has refused to back down however as the levy is a key plank of the Government’s
plan to return the Budget to surplus by 2021.
Liberal senator Ian Macdonald raised some concerns about the tax last night, saying he “despaired”
that the Coalition government was taxing some companies differently.
“I’m uncomfortable about that and I know that many in my party are,” he told parliament.
END QUOTE
https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/big-bank-levy-set-to-pass-parliament-this-week/news-
story/63794df083e8b7c41521edf0eea17fbb
p5 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
QUOTE
Treasurer Scott Morrison has refused to back down as the levy is a key plank of the Government’s plan to
return the budget to surplus by 2021. Picture: AAP Source: AAP
Crossbench senator Nick Xenophon tried, but failed, to amend the legislation to ensure the levy would
apply to foreign banks with significant assets such as HSBC or BNP Paribas, arguing the levy unfairly
disadvantaged Australian banks. Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said the levy would apply to
foreign banks if they were ever to meet the threshold but at present, none fit the “major bank”
category.
One Nation’s Brian Burston described the levy as a “lazy, ugly, cheap solution” that would hit
shareholders and superannuation savings without fixing any of the real problems within the banking
sector.
“It’s as if you call the cops to deal with a thug demanding protection money and instead of arresting
the thug, the policeman just puts out his hand to take his cut,” he told parliament.
END QUOTE
Turnbull government offered to exclude big banks from company tax cut for
One Nation support
The Sydney Morning Herald ·
The Turnbull government offered to exclude banks from business tax cuts in a
bid to get One Nation's support
The Turnbull government offered to exclude banks from business tax ...
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/company-tax-cuts-big-banks-senate-failure-one-nati...
2 days ago - The Turnbull government looks set to lose a second signature policy within 24 hours
with attempts to find crossbench support for its company ...
Federal budget 2017: How the new bank tax will work - Federal ... - ABC
www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-2017/...bank-tax.../8513264
May 9, 2017 - The new bank tax aims to raise $1.5 billion a year for the next four years, so who is
... The new tax — or levy — is a tax on each banks' liabilities and is ... Turnbull quite good at tidying
up old messes, writes Annabel Crabb ...
It ought to be clear that the now as I understand it the newly commissioned Prime Minister Scott
Morrison was as Treasurer who engineered this rot. I view that my wife as shareholder has every
right to have bank executives to protect her rightful entitlements as a shareholder and take on the
federal government that it cannot inappropriately slug the 4 major Australian Banks while doing
so in violation of the constitution not doing the same with other banks.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that all taxation must be uniform. While the
Commonwealth may apply a sliding scale such as it does with income tax it cannot however
apply different taxation to banks which have the same level of turnover, etc.
In my submission to the Royal Commission I exposed what I held the wrongdoing of AMP way
back in 2008 and coincidental or not reportedly 5 directors resigned the following day.
p6 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
I have promoted that directors should be legally accountable and not so to say punish the
shareholders who may really be the innocent shareholder victims.
While I am (now) a retired Professional Advocate the fact that I was able to defeat the
Commonwealth in li9tigation may underline that if the bank(s) were to employ a competent
lawyer who actually has competence in constitutional issues then the banks may have the
unconstitutional tax already paid refunded.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear any unconstitutional taxation must be refunded.
Surely the banks could afford to litigate this matter with competent lawyers considering that I
without any team of lawyers was able to do it and succeed time and time again because of using
the true meaning and application of the constitution.
The bank can change its management as much as it likes and those directors can have reams
paper of titles but in the end it is all useless if they fail to know what they need to know to
appropriately represent the shareholders interest.
As I understand it Anna Bligh was previously Premier of the State of Queensland but to me
obviously neither understand or comprehend what true the constitutional taxation powers are.
Because the States are created within section 106 of the constitution SUBJECT TO THIS
CONSTITUTION all legal principles embedded in this constitution applies also to the States
unless otherwise indicated.
As no email address could be located I intend to post it via Australia Post while in the meantime
publishing a copy on my blog, hence my wife’s private details are not included and I view are
not needed as the bank has its records.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.