110310 Urgent Julia Gillard Land Taxes

8/7/2019 110310 Urgent Julia Gillard Land Taxes

1/40

10-3-2011 Page 1 Re unconstitutional State/Territorian Land TaxesPLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website

Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. [email protected]

Julia Gillard PM 10-3-2011C/o [email protected]. Ref: URGENT Unconstitutional State land taxes issue5Cc: Mr Robert Pincevic [email protected]

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

.Julia,

having lived for some time in Berriwillock (A small rural town in the Mallee Victoria) I10became aware of the financial plight upon many farmers and others. When then Mr RobertPincevic on 31 August 2010 contacted me about being slugged State land Taxes I immediately

that day contacted NSW Premier Kristine Keneally about that in my view State land Taxes wasunconstitutional upon which I received the following response:QUOTE 31 August 2010 correspondence15

CMU10-1694013 September 2010

Mr Gerrit [email protected]

20Dear Mr Schorel-HlavkaI write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax.

As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the HonEric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention.

You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration.25Yours sincerelyDavid Swainfor Director General

END QUOTE.30Then after I complaint I still had not received any proper response I received another respo0nse Iwould be provided with a response and finally received this on 8 March 2011 which response hasbeen reproduced below..I refer to it being URGENT because despite that copies of correspondences were also forwarded35to both the then premier John Brumby and now Premier Ted Bailliue neither one of them seemedto have bothered to address the issue either.Many farmers and other land holders are in the meantime dragged through the courts forenforcement of State Land Taxes even so the governments should be aware that they have noconstitutional validity in doing so. Lawyers representing land holders (and earning huge amounts40of moneys in the process) obviously neither are competent to appropriately deal with matters andhence the need to have the OFFICE-OF-THE0-GUARDIAN to address issues like thisurgently. The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARD being a constitutional council to advise theGovernment, the People, the Parliament and the courts as to constitutional meaning andapplications. We cannot have that politicians knowingly and deliberately maintain45unconstitutional taxes and in the process ruin landholders by relying on that the government canuse consolidated revenue to thwart any attempt to pursue justice through the courts by engaging

highly paid lawyers. THIS MUST STOP!The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARD needs to be urgently part of Australias check and balances!


2/40



This response took them more then 6 months to come to? Surely a total disregard to the plight of

all landholders!5


3/40



As you may be aware the High court of australia made a ruling that Income tax is a exclusivelegislative powers of the Commonwealth and the States no longer can raise income tax oncethe commonwealth commenced to raise income tax. The same is with land tax the momentthe commonwealth commenced to legislate for land tax in 1910 then the States no longer coulddo so.5.As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have extensively researched constitutional powers and willreproduce come material previously forwarded to Premier Kristine Keneally (below) as toindicate that the appalling 2 March 2011 response was disregarding any details I provided..10Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

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 member

of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a15sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be asentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.

END QUOTE

Well, you and others are also sentries and cannot disregard your duties and obligations in thatregard.20You too should be deemed legally liable to have permitted this unconstitutional land taxessystem to continue under your watch as you have an obligation to act for the People to stop sucha rot.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE25Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government

END QUOTEAnd

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE30

Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution isresponsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.

END QUOTEAnd

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates35QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by theParliament 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 whichthose principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians .40

END QUOTEAnd

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an45Executive 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

Again there are numerous landholders who are struggling financially, and so also those affectedby recent floods even more, and yet it appears you have been so to say sitting on your hand to50permit this injustice to continue rather then to take action and deal with this.This is not a matter for the courts to resolve because to take this opposition is TYRANNY wherethe government becomes the oppressor! This is a matter that never should have eventuated in thefirst place as clearly there are currently no check and balances to avoid this and hence the needfor the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARD being a constitutional council to advise the Government,55

the People, the Parliament and the courts as to constitutional meaning and applications.


4/40



It is not for the ordinary citizen to prove he doesnt have to pay certain taxes rather it is up for therespective government to prove he (the citizens) should pay certain taxes..

What is clearly wrong with the States position is that it assumes that somehow Commonwealthexclusive legislative powers was returned to the States. Constitutionally no such thing can5eventuate. Once it becomes Commonwealth legislative powers it becomes exclusiveCommonwealth legislative powers and the fact that the Commonwealth may not exercise anylonger the exclusive legislative powers is of no impact as the constitution doesnt permit any

return of exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers back to the States.At most the Commonwealth could permit states to collect taxes on its behalf but then only if this10is uniform, this clearly never eventuated as each State had its own kind of State land taxes levy.Neither can retrospective legislation be applied as the Framers of the Constitution made clear youcannot turn a honest man into a criminal by retrospective legislation, and as such you cannotmake a person to be liable for Commonwealth taxation that were not applicable since theCommonwealth abolished land taxes in 1952.15.

Obviously one has to question the competence of the numerous lawyers who earned a lot ofmoney from their clients in regard of State land taxes cases and yet none seemed tounderstand/comprehend that State land taxes were unconstitutional.

This matter is very URGENT because each day that is passing numerous landholders are20wrongly dispossessed of their properties in regard of State land taxes, etc, when this should neverbe allowed to eventuate.Clearly there is no check and balances and where we now have any government to act asTERRORIST to persist no matter how unconstitutional to maintain its TERRORISM uponcitizens rather then to accept that the RULE OF LAW (the federation and so its constitution)25should prevail!.

In my view the Federal Attorney-General should immediately seek to intervene in all and anycourt cases that are before the Courts regarding State land taxes so that no one in the meantime issuffering further harm because the judges so neither understand/comprehend the30

unconstitutionality and so the illegality of State land Taxes..Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond35the 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 theCrown 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 QUOTE40Lets hold those who defied the constitution accountable because this is the only way we can beassured that we will have a proper representation in the Parliaments. We cannot sit by and allowlandholders so to say being slaughtered because politicians find it more suitable for them to so tosay stretch matters as long as they can and in the mean time reap the benefits of their illegality soperhaps they can succeed in a upcoming election. THIS MUST STOP!45We, the people, demand that you and others act as agents for the People and immediatelycomply with the duties and obligations as a sentry to ensure that any unconstitutional Stateland tax is aborted immediately.While I estimate this may involve perhaps a $35 billion or more concerning all States this to meis not relevant because as the Framers of the Constitution made clear any unconstitutional taxes50raised MUST be refunded to the taxpayers. If we allow for States to deliberately maximize theirunconstitutional conduct then we have anarchy and no democracy and the constitution is nomore. Likewise then we have no proper representative government because they are all turned

into dictatorship and tyrants!.55QUOTE 31-8-2010 correspondence to NSW Premier Kristine Keneally


5/40



Premier Kristina Keneally 31-8-2010.

Cc: * Mr John Brumby, Premier, [email protected]* Mr Ted Baillieu Leader of Her Majesty Opposition [email protected]* Mr Rob Hulls [email protected]* Prof David de Kretser, Governor of Victoria

C/o [email protected]

* Mr Robert Pincevic.10Re: State Land tax - etc

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.Kristina,

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series15on certain constitutional and other legal issues my issue is foremost what is constitutionallyappropriate and for this direct myself to you..

I do point out that I am not in any capacity acting for Mr Robert Pincevic but he is aware that I

am writing to you and reveals his identity.20I was contacted by Mr Robert Pincevic (NSW resident) regarding the 22 June 2010 Land Taxissue correspondence from Richard Brown for Tony Newbury Chief Commissioner of StateRevenue correctly pointed out that within s.106 of the constitution (The Commonwealth ofAustralia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)), the States subject to this constitution are entitled to25legislate in matters. I personally cannot see any difficulties then with any NSW legal provisionsthen to legislate in 1902 (provided the NSW constitution was validly amended) in regard of landtaxes, however what Richard Brown seems to ignore is the very term subject to thisconstitution meaning that s.51 only permits the States to legislate as to Land Tax until theCommonwealth legislate for this and then the moment the Commonwealth does it no longer is a30

legislative power for the States. As such where the Commonwealth commenced to legislate andin 1910 became the dominant legislator I have the view that then the States no longer had thislegislative power and the fact that the Commonwealth in 1952 abolished land taxes cannot revertthe legislative powers back to the States as the constitution doesnt allow for this..35The Australian Taxation commission has the following publications:http://www.ato.gov.au/print.asp?doc=/content/00229146.htm&page=6#P53_3984QUOTE

The ATO's beginning

November 11, 1910 was a special day in Australia's history because it heralded a new era of national unity.40

On this day the Land Tax Office was established as a branch of Treasury, in a time of political tensions and

power struggle. Its purpose was to provide a central collection office to fund old age and invalid pensions.

Although federation was almost a decade old, there were still p olitical, social and economic rivalries amongStates because each considered itself a separate entity.

Andrew Fishers Labor government needed an instrument to collect funds for its social policies and it45campaigned for a Land Tax to target landowners who avoided paying tax on unimproved land.

Despite rigorous opposition from English investors and wealthy private landowners, the first Land Tax Act wassuccessfully introduced in 1910.

END QUOTE.50http://www.ato.gov.au/print.asp?doc=/content/00229146.htm&page=6#P53_3984QUOTE

In this decade:1952 Federal Land Tax was abolished.


6/40



END QUOTE.

As such it must be clear that from 1910 till 1952 the Commonwealth of Australia formallylegislated for and collected land Taxes.The issue at hand therefore is if the States could validly legislate as to Land Taxes once the5Commonwealth abolished its LAND TAXES legislation in 1952..

In my view, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, The State no longer could retrieve any legislative

powers as such to legislate for their own respective states for land Tax and hence all and anysuch taxes must be repaid. The Framers of the constitution made clear that any taxes raised10unconstitutionally was to be repaid to those who had paid the tax..

For long I have campaigned for the government of all levels to have the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN, as a impartial, non-political advisor for the government, the people, the parliamentand the courts as to explain what is constitutionally permissible and what is not. Regretfully no15government has as yet taken up this offer/suggestion and as such no government can now excuseitself if it has to repay land taxes as it now learns a lesson not to be ignorant to the constitution,its meaning and application..

Below I will provide quotations and it will show that taxation must be uniform once it become20

federal legislation and that the States no longer can exercise any legislative powers upon thesubject matter as soon as the commonwealth commences to do so.It should be understood however that with regard of taxation the States can exercise legislativepowers on subjects the Commonwealth did not legislate upon..25The issue is that once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to Land Taxes then theStates no longer could legislate in regard of this. The constitution by way of s.51(xxvii) doesallow the States to refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth but not visa versa. It meansthat when the Commonwealth abolished Land Tax legislation it nevertheless remained a federallegislative power and the States therefore were prohibited to legislate as to land Taxation.30The Commonwealth could have authorised the States to collect Land Taxes, but because it had

become since 1910 a Commonwealth legislative power the States themselves therefore couldntlegislate as to create their own Land Taxation and also all taxes raised from land Taxation wouldhave to go into Commonwealth revenue funds and more over every State would have to have aland Tax that was throughout the Commonwealth the same. As such different Land Taxes in35different States would be unconstitutional..

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50

QUOTE40

Constitutional interpretation

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the

search for the intention of its makers[51].

END QUOTE.45Within Section 51 of the constitution both the States and the commonwealth have certainlegislative powers however as the Framers of the constitution stated:.

Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE50

Mr. REID

The object is this, that for some time to come it will not be possible for the FederalLegislature to pass laws on these subjects, and it is necessary to have some laws on

them-the state laws if they exist-until federal laws are enacted; but the moment a


7/40



federal law is passed on any one of these subjects, under the provision under the head

of "States" the federal law prevails over the state law.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National5Australasian 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 thepeace, order, and good government of the community, and that is without restriction,10except such small restrictions as are imposed by the 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 is15

necessary or incidental to a power given.END QUOTE.Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE20

Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different timesyou may arrive at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and itis necessary for the working of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should beimposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union, because every state has comeunder it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power, until the law25has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessaryrevenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the questionwhether, even when a 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 orrepealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be inclined to think it30had 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, andthat it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.

END QUOTE.35HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of itsConstitution,

END QUOTE40.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

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

45Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks toenforce improperly any law the citizen has his right.

END QUOTE

.Hansard 19-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates50QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:

This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be ableto understand.

END QUOTE


8/40



.

Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-

That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the positionwhich Mr. Barton has described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the5common law of England. This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has tobe 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,10who 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 thepeople.15

END QUOTE.

Hansard 22-9-1897Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the20commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field oflegislation.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 30-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates25QUOTE Mr. REID:

We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of

those points enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject isdead. There cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But

that I merely mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is no doubt,30whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any complication of the

kind.END QUOTE.

Hansard 30-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates35QUOTE

The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to loadthe commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it isquite true that this power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is

given to the commonwealth to legislate on a particular question, there will be40continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to exercise that power. Themoment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field

of legislation.END QUOTE.45Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power , and there isno doubt that it will be exercised.

END QUOTE50.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the

Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.55END QUOTE.

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


9/40



QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-

The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on

the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."END QUOTE.5HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

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.10END QUOTE.


QUOTE

start page 1020] I think that we ought to be satisfied on these points, and satisfied that15if we leave the clause as it now stands there will, at any rate, be some proviso inserted

which will safeguard the states in the carrying out of any of their state laws overwhich the states are to be supreme even under federation.

END QUOTE.20Hansard 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 the25Commonwealth.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 19-4-1897Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE30

Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.

The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.

END QUOTE.


Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not benecessary 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 atonce it may do serious injury to the colony. The Federal Parliament will have power to40

fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a sliding scale great injurywill be avoided.

END QUOTE

.Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates45QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five yearsafter the imposition ofuniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to theconclusion that, on the whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.

END QUOTE50.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and ofexcise such as it may determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise55

would represent something like the average opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, andthe provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, might, I


10/40



am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states for someyears, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates5QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:

2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bountiesshall be uniform throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed

on any goods exported from one state to another;END QUOTE10.

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE The CHAIRMAN .-

Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, andthat no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.15

END QUOTE.

Rest assured there are ample of other quotations I can rely upon.As Mr Robert Pincevic sought my views about the constitutional issue of Land Taxes by theStates I held it appropriately to write to you directly so you can immediately, and so without20delay, stop any unconstitutional taxation, and face reality that all States, not just NSW,constitutionally are require to refund all unconstitutionally collected Land Taxes..


QUOTE25

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 member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituentof a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every30man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency

behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates35QUOTE 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 the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so.

From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are40proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the severalcolonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures,

and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice oftheir ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of thestates, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them45that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrentlythe necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly, eachlegislature, 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 and50unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority.

END QUOTE.


QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-55


11/40



It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the constitution shall be

obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the constitution.END QUOTE.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates5QUOTE

Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the educationquestion-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the

Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, becausewe shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy10for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution , while noone could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborateprovisions 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 the15people 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 afew minutes in discussing it.

END QUOTE.20Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE 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 the25Constitution 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.30As I understand it the demands made upon not just Mr Robert Pincevic but also other land

holders to pay State land taxes is unconstitutional and in my view each and every Ministerinvolved directly and/or indirectly to this might be sued for their involvement. Meaning that if itis Mr Robert Pincevic or any other landholder who is caused emotional, mental and or indirector direct financial harm due to State Land Taxes being enforced against a land holder then we35may just see some Ministers being personally sued for this..

In my view it is irrelevant if a Minister may claim that the Parliament legislated for State landTaxes as they are responsible for their Department and if any government disregard to consultthe OFFICEOF-THE-GUARDIAN and takes it upon itself to raise unconstitutionally State40land taxes then I view the full force of the law must be used against those Ministers who take thelaw into their own hands..

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. BARTON.-45

Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-givingthat 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 any50one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom ofthe 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 your55Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under


12/40


13/40



I understand Mr Robert Pincevic is not caused undue hardship by the land tax issue and itseems to me that not just him alone but everyone else faced with a land Tax issue should for themoment in the interim be left alone and stop any kind of enforcement procedures, regardless ifthere are court orders in place, this because no court can enforce unconstitutional legislation andas such if you discover that indeed the State land taxes are unconstitutional then any court orders5in regard of State land taxes, interest and other associated cost including court cost all will beNULL AND VOID (ULTRA VIRES). And again those ministers responsible (includingpremiers) could face a class action suit to be personally sued for damages as they acted withoutlawful authority as if it is unconstitutional then no unconstitutional parliamentarian legislationcan make it valid in law.10Ok all State budgets may now be up the creek but lets be honest about it if you lot had listen tome long ago then at least you could have acted earlier to address the issue. I know that many willignore my advice and then discover they ended up in a lot more problems. Perhaps now you mayjust realise that it would have made more sense to have had for all levels of Government aOFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN and would you really want to continue without the advice of15the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN and end up in a lot more rot?.

Just consider that if every landowner just gave me $1.00 for my work to expose this rot then I bea multi millionaire several times over. Gosh, to think I provide you with all this information forfree, so better not then ignore it, would you? And why not pass it on to all other State Premiers20and treasurers? Better now before lawyers, so to say, are banging their doors down forcompensation! And, just in case you think of it, retrospective legislation is unconstitutional butthat is another story for now..

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DONT!25.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL.

Our name is our motto!.30

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)END QUOTE 31-8-2010 correspondence to NSW Premier Kristine Keneally

QUOTE 29-9-2010 correspondence to NSW Premier Kristine Keneally35Premier Kristina Keneally 31-8-2010.

Cc: * Mr John Brumby, Premier, [email protected]

* Mr Robert Pincevic40.

Re: State Land tax - etcAND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Kristina,I has been more then 4 weeks since I last wrote to you regarding State land taxes being45

unconstitutional since the Commonwealth of Australia commenced to legislate in regard ofLAND TAX and the High Court of Australia underlined this in its judgment.As I stated in my previous 31 August 2010 correspondence to you; http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50

QUOTE50

Constitutional interpretation


14/40



The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for theintention of its makers[51].

END QUOTE.

Within Section 51 of the constitution both the States and the Commonwealth have certain5legislative powers however as the Framers of the Constitution stated:Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. REID

The object is this, that for some time to come it will not be possible for the Federal10Legislature to pass laws on these subjects, and it is necessary to have some laws on them-the state laws if they exist-until federal laws are enacted; but the moment a federal law ispassed on any one of these subjects, under the provision under the head of "States" thefederal law prevails over the state law.

END QUOTE15.


The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises thepower, the states must retire from that field of legislation.20

END QUOTE.

Hansard 30-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. REID:We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points25enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be twolaws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal

criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose anycomplication of the kind.

END QUOTE30.


QUOTEThe Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the

commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this35power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate

on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth toexercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from

that field of legislation.END QUOTE40.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power , and there is no doubt that it willbe exercised.45

END QUOTE

For constitutional purposes it isnt relevant that the Commonwealth of Australia aborted any land

taxes since 1952 by abolishing the legislation as it still was and remained to be an exclusivefederal legislative power.50I thank your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response:QUOTE

CMU10-16940

13 September 2010Mr Gerrit [email protected]

Dear Mr Schorel-HlavkaI write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax.As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the Hon60Eric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention.

You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration.


15/40



Yours sincerely

David Swainfor Director General

END QUOTE.5As I stated in my previous correspondence also:QUOTE

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain

constitutional and other legal issues my issue is foremost what is constitutionally appropriate and for this

direct myself to you.10 .I do point out that I am not in any capacity acting for Mr Robert Pincevic but he is aware that I am writing to

you and reveals his identity.

I was contacted by Mr Robert Pincevic (NSW resident) regarding the 22 June 2010 Land Tax issue15correspondence from Richard Brown for Tony Newbury Chief Commissioner of State Revenue correctlypointed out that within s.106 of the constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900

(UK)), the States subject to this constitution are entitled to legislate in matters. I personally cannot see anydifficulties then with any NSW legal provisions then to legislate in 1902 (provided the NSW constitution was

validly amended) in regard of land taxes, however what Richard Brown seems to ignore is the very term20subject to this constitution meaning that s.51 only permits the States to legislate as to Land Tax until the

Commonwealth legislate for this and then the moment the Commonwealth does it no longer is a legislativepower for the States. As such where the Commonwealth commenced to legislate and in 1910 became the

dominant legislator I have the view that then the States no longer had this legislative power and the fact thatthe Commonwealth in 1952 abolished land taxes cannot revert the legislative powers back to the States as the25constitution doesnt allow for this.

END QUOTE.

I am well aware that the Governments (State/Territorial/Federal) may seek to rely upon legaladvice of lawyers who may or may not claim to be constitutionalist but the fact is that since 195630none of them appeared to have understood that the States/Territories couldnt legislate as toLAND TAXES. This is because lawyers are so to say trained to think in a certain manner andthis prohibit them to be open minded and consider all relevant issues, not just aboutState/Territorial land Taxes as for example the commonwealth in s.388 of the CEA1918 uses

averment where as on 4 August 2005 I successfully defeated the commonwealth and the Court35 ordered the commonwealth to file and serve all evidence it sought to rely upon this as the courtupheld my constitutional submission that the commonwealth cannot interfere in the legalprocesses of a State Court by dictating that AVERMENT applies. Actually the ATO usesaverment in the Supreme Court of NSW even so as I stated this is unconstitutionallyinterfering in State judicial matters, regardless if the State Court exercises federal jurisdiction.40.

It is my understanding that the ATO in legal proceedings relies upon the TaxationAdministration Act section 8ZL which is as follows:QUOTE S.8ZL(1)

[Prima facie evidence] In a prosecution for the prescribed taxation offence, a statement or averment45contained in the information, claim or complaint is prima facie evidence of the matter so stated or averred.

END QUOTE.

QUOTE S.8ZL(2)[Application of section] This section applies in relation to any matter so stated or averred although:50(a) evidence in support or rebuttal of the matter stated or averred, or of any other matter, is given; or(b) the matter averred is a mixed question of law and fact, but in that case, or of any other statement or

averment is prima facie evidence if the fact only.END QUOTE.55We now look brat the provision of the CEA1918;Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918QUOTE

388 Averments deemed to be proved

In any prosecution in a court of summary jurisdiction in respect of a contravention of the60provisions of this Act or the regulations relating to compulsory enrolment or compulsory


16/40


17/40



If therefore profits of land holdings is not an income and cannot be put in the one Bill then whatis the Tax Assessment Act 1936 about, so the unconstitutional State land tax assessments?It should be noted;Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-5

The words "trade and intercourse" are almost unbounded in their meaning when you apply them to therelations of trade and commerce, and, under the proper heads, Baker's Annotated Constitution is full of

instances showing how far-reaching these words are. Then, take the words "throughout the Commonwealth."The meaning of those words is not restricted to between the states; they refer to every part of the

Commonwealth, and I would refer honorable members to earlier portions of the Bill where the same meaning10will have to be given to them. If honorable members will turn to clause 52, which deals with the powers of the

Parliament, they will find that in sub-section (2) the Federal Parliament is empowered to legislate in regard tocustoms, excise, and bounties, which shall be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, within every

state and every part of a state. "Throughout the Commonwealth" is the largest expression that can be used. Inthe next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. An15income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout theCommonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE.

And while on this and any attempts by the states/Territories and/or even the Commonwealth to20legislate retrospectively the following ought to be noted:.


QUOTEMr. BARTON: I will look into these matters. Notwithstanding the able draughtsmanship of the 1891 Bill,25

there are several clauses not quite in their right place in it, and it would be well to alter their order. TheDrafting Committee will look into that matter, and at the end of the proceedings will ask hon. members to

give their attention to such alterations as they may suggest. It will be better to transpose some of the clauses.With reference to Sir Edward Braddon's amendment, which is put in a better form than that suggested

by Mr. Symon, I do not think there is any actual necessity for it. I find in Maxwell on "Interpretation of30Statutes," 1st edition, page 192, this passage:

It is where the enactment would prejudicially affect vested rights, or the legal character of past Acts,that the presumption against a retrospective operation is strongest. Every Statute which takes away or

impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or create a new obligation, or imposes a new duty,

or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past, must be35 presumed, out of respect to the Legislature, to be intended not to have a retrospective operation. Thusthe provision of the Statute of Frauds, that no action should be brought to charge any person on any

agreement made in consideration of marriage, unless the agreement were in writing, was held not toapply to an agreement which had been made before the Act was passed. The Mortmain Act, in the

same way, was held not to apply to a devise made before it was enacted. So it was held that the Act of 840& 9 Vict., c. 106, which made all wagers void, and enacted that no action should be brought or

maintained for a wager, applied only to wagers made after the Act was passed.Sir GEORGE TURNER: There is no doubt about those cases, I should say.

Mr. BARTON: In subsequent editions these examples are multiplied. The principle underlying thematter is this: that a court in construing an Act assumes that Parliament never intended to do a thing45which is unjust. I am quite sure that Mr. Symon will agree that the provision is not necessary.

Mr. SYMON: Hear, hear.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates50QUOTE

Mr. HOLDER.-I have two interjections to answer. I will deal first with that of the Attorney-General of

Victoria. In reply to his statement that this makes the law altogether retrospective, I simply say that theproposal is to make the law retrospective in this sense: That during the interval throughout which it was,

according to the judgment of the court, ultra vires, the decision of the people afterwards could make it intra55vires.

Mr. ISAACS.-That might make persons criminals who were not otherwise criminals. It might not

have been an offence to do a certain thing if the High Court declared the law to be ultra vires, but if thatlaw was made intra vires from an antecedent date, all the persons who did that thing might be subject

to punishment.60

END QUOTE.



18/40



QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

Unless the honorable member is willing to amend his clause in that respect, we should only complicatematters, and if retrospective operation were given to it we should be lending ourselves to what would be,

quite unintentionally on the part of the honorable member, a gross injustice .END QUOTE5.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. ISAACS.-But they have already passed a law, and I take it that if you can get an absolute majority of

both Houses directing the referendum, there is no practical difference between that and an absolute majority10again passing the law. Because they virtually passed the law as far as they could. Therefore, it seems to methere is no advantage gained from the stand-point of desiring a better means of getting an amendment of the

Constitution. Then, I feet that it is open to the destructive criticism that it makes the law retrospective, andafter the court, possibly the Privy Council, has decided that the law is ultra vires, and people have acted on

that decision, being compelled to, act on that decision, or being compelled to refrain from acting on the15decision of the court, as the law is positive or negative; then we should have under this referendum a lawmade operative as from the time of its original passing, and penalties, both personal and pecuniary, might beincurred through no fault of the individuals who had incurred them. That seems to me to be a defect to which

we cannot close our eyes.

Mr. WISE.-Besides, it would punish everybody who took the advice of a man who interpreted the law20properly.

Mr. ISAACS.-It compels everybody who has obeyed the decision of the higher courts to act, or refrain

from acting. That is a position which none of us would willingly get into, and the retrospective action is

wrong.END QUOTE25.

I am concerned that despite my writing of 31 August 2010 I am given the understanding that theState of NSW State land Tax office nevertheless has persisted in proceedings with its conductagainst the Pincevics even so it was also provided by Mr Robert Pincevic with a copy of my 31August 2010 correspondence to you and the response of 13 September 2010 on your behalf.30.

I am well aware that State/Territorial land taxes involves an estimate $35 billion a yearthroughout the Commonwealth of Australia but in all fairness I have urged for many years for allGovernments to consult the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN about constitutional matters andwhere then a State/Territory failed to do so then it has inflicted any harm upon not just itself but35also to its residents. It cannot be any excuse therefore for any State/Territorial Governmenthaving to refund all unconstitutional claimed LAND TAXES as the Framers of the Constitutionmade clear that any unconstitutional taxes had to be refunded.Neither can it be held that somehow the States/Territories were colleting LAND TAXES onbehalf of the Commonwealth because the Commonwealth is bound to raise any taxes for the40whole of the Commonwealth. As the States/Territories collected LAND TAXES in dependentof each other and as such no LAND TAX was equal throughout the Commonwealth of Australiathen it cannot be deemed that the States/Territories therefore purportedly collected LAND

TAXES on behalf of the Commonwealth..45Neither can the Commonwealth apply retrospective legislation as to try to secure past landtaxes paid since 1952 as being Commonwealth land taxes..

Neither can the States/Territories invoke any kind of retrospective legislation because the statesare within s.106 subject to this constitution and hence the legal principles embedded in the50constitution are also binding upon the States/Territories..


QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-Of course, when I speak of a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state,55which, of course, stands in exactly the same position.

END QUOTE.



19/40



QUOTE

Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw theDrafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a

considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided

that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect5taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that anincome tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting

Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of anykind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property, wherever it is

found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very careful, we shall get10 into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposedmight be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform.

END QUOTE.

Where the State land tax office is assessing Mr Robert Pincevic as to his INCOME then again15as like Commissioner of Taxation (ATO for the commonwealth) any income must beunderstood as to the meaning of the Framers of the Constitution and not that income is what isderived from direct and indirect taxable financial benefits, as this offend the Constitution thatonly one subject matter can be addressed in any taxation legislation!As such the States also fall foul upon how it assesses the unconstitutional State LAND TAXES20being on INCOME derived from different sources..

As you may be aware there are thousands of ratepayers in clashes with municipal and shirecouncils as to the paying of rates, and this too is a matter then may soon so to say blow up in theface of State and Territorial governments, as I have published articles about this in the past. It is25therefore essential that the State government reconsiders how it goes about and in particular howit pursues objectors who in the end all along may be proven to be right in certain issues butbecause the State/Territorial government rely upon legal advisors who may know next to nothingabout what is constitutionally applicable then the State government, other then to provide so tosay a gold mine for the lawyers to keep them in a job it doesnt at all act appropriately for the30general public. Instead of having if not thousands then hundreds of court cases about rates, etc, Iview it would be far more sensible if the State/Territorial governments were to reconsider its

positions and perhaps call an inquiry to assess what is actually constitutionally appropriate. Iwill not delve into all the finer details in this correspondence about it but can assure you that youmight be in the end horrified citizens have been unduly so to say crucified in courts where they35all along had a rightful position in regard of certain objections but even the judiciary was blind toit because after all they were all trained in the same manner and so not open-minded to what isconstitutionally applicable and justified..

QUOTE R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924)40'Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.'

END QUOTE.

TAYLOR v. TAYLOR [1979] HCA 38; (1979) 143 CLR 1 (22 August 1979)

Similarly in Commissioner of Police v. Tanos (1958) 98 CLR 383, at p 395, Dixon C.J. and45Webb J. said thatQUOTE

it is a deep-rooted principle of the law that before anyone can be punished or prejudiced in his person or

property by any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding he must be afforded an adequate opportunity ofbeing heard.50

END QUOTE.

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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:55END QUOTE.

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-


20/40



Most of us, when we were candidates for election to the Federal Convention, placed great stress upon itas affording a means of bringing justice within easy reach of the poor man.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates5QUOTE 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

.10 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVILRIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to15claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.

END QUOTE.

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)20QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

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

END QUOTE.

What we now have is a considerable disaster where ordinary people were dragged through the25courts, perhaps had their property garnished to pay alleged unpaid land taxes where in the endthe State government could have avoided all this rot to some extend if it had years ago consultedthe OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN as to constitutional matters. Innocent people in the processhad their lively and perhaps also their lives destroyed and all because State/Territorialgovernments failed to appropriately consider constitutional matters, and lawyers involved simply30look at matters from their point of view rather from a constitutional point of view what is just andproper.

As an example; there was the recent Victorian Colosimo case where I (as a professionaladvocate, Attorney and CONSTITUTIONALIST) took over from the lawyer and despite more35then 20 opponent lawyers being involved in the case proved to the trial judge that Mr Colosimoactually all along had not at all been in breach of law, even so he was by then was on his 6

th

contempt hearing. As a matter of fact, the prosecutor had instituted the legal proceedingsincorrectly as the proceedings, by legislative provisions, only could be instituted in a magistratescourt, something all those lawyers never realised over all the years of their litigation against Mr40Colosimo. Also, I got rid of the Administration orders over Mr Colosimo showing that the expertwitnesses simply didnt know what they were talking about because their (medical) assessmentsall had been based upon Mr Colosimo being convicted of contempt, where as in fact I proved hehad not been even formally charged with contempt let alone convicted. As such, what we saw

was with all those lawyers involved, including the Office of the Public Advocate, Victorian45 Legal Aid none of the lawyers could comprehend you first needed a formally charge a personbefore you can hold all those contempt hearings let alone tell a defendant he could be imprisonedfor up to 5 years! His case also related to taxes, FEE SIMPLE, etc. Despite that a County courtjudge Her Honour Harbison was presiding over matters she was acting as a Deputy President ofVCAT (Victorian civil and Administrative Tribunal) and by this in conflict of her legal duties as50an IMPARTIAL judicial officer of the County Court of Victoria also serving a master being aState government as a judge but then with the obligation to act in accordance with thegovernments policy as previously VCAT member Helen Gibson made clear to Mr Colosimo..


Mr. O'CONNOR: You cannot ask a judge to serve two masters.

END QUOTE


21/40



In my view no judicial officer can be a judge of a Court of law and also be a judge on a Tribunalas the Framers of the constitution referred to a retired judge to be dealing with a tribunal.Likewise so with a Court of disputed Returns as judges acting on a tribunal are causing confusionto the general community who belief to be appearing before a judge in his impartial position as a5judge of a court of law but actually ending up being before a judge of a Tribunal how is acting inthe capacity of persona designata.

Hansard 20-4-1897Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:10I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having importantquestions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.

END QUOTE.

Yet we find that throughout the Commonwealth of Australia people are seeking to stand up for15their constitutional rights and Mr Robert Pincevic is one of many, and are rebuked for this andseverely castigated in the process as if they do not know what they are talking about where infact the courts themselves and the lawyers appearing before it generally havent got a clue whatthey are talking about because their training during legal studies has prevented them tounderstand and comprehend the true meaning and application of the (federal) constitution.20

Hence, let the State of NSW commence to hold an inquiry so as to curtail all this litigation aboutState, municipal and shire rates and for once and for all try to get some proper understanding byall concerned what is really constitutionally applicable..

As I understand it there are various groups who so to say are sucking people of their hard earned25monies to protest against rates/taxes and then are no where to be found when a person ends up incourt with the objections and no matter how justified the objectionist might be the courts lack theknowledge and the skill to appropriately consider constitutional matters because it will beclaimed that as there is legislation then so be it and this is precisely unconstitutional as the courtsmust consider any objection to legislation as to upon constitutional basis and not merely accept30the word of the government lawyers for it..

I will not go into further details about this at this time but save to state that I am horrified as tothe numerous cases that are clogging the courts and I know very well that this got nothing to dowith JUSTICE because eventual more then likely the courts will rule against the objector, not35because the objector might be wrong but because we lack any proper system to advise theGovernment, the People, the courts and the Parliament as to what is constitutionally applicable.Hence the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN so to say has taken up the baton to do so, not forindividual cases but to try to stop this rot and so in the interest of all concerned. In the meantimeI view that all State/Territorial government should call a halt to all litigations and have them all40stayed pending matters to be appropriately considered. Obviously time is of an essence that suchinquiry/investigation is not unduly protracted as you cannot have State/Territorial governments

and/or municipal/shire councils running out of funds while at the same time you cannot persist inlitigation against any citizen who might be constitutionally be in his right!.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates45QUOTE

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 theprovisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by whichthose principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians .50

END QUOTE.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an55

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


22/40



.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DONT! (As you may say; We either havea constitution or we dont!)MAY JUSTICE ALWAYYS PREVAIL has been operating (without government funding) asa special lifeline service and as such I am well aware of the mental, emotional and financial5hardship caused upon so many to the extend that people contemplate to commit suicide and yet atleast I view it to be so, the State/Territorial government can resolve many of the issues byholding a proper inquiry so that finally many misconceptions, etc, can be so to say laid to rest.

After all, every suicide cost the community also a lot of money and so why not spend the moneyin a far better manner and hold an open and transparent inquiry and in the process serve the10constituents as they all along are entitled upon?.


Our name is our motto!15.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)END QUOTE 29-9-2010 correspondence to NSW Premier Kristine Keneally.20QUOTE 5-10-2010 correspondence to vIC Premier John BrumbyMr John Brumby, Premier [email protected].

Cc: * Mr Ted Baillieu Leader of Her Majesty Opposition [email protected]* Mr Rob Hulls [email protected]

.

Re: State Land tax etc AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

John,as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI30

series on certain constitutional and other legal issues my concern is foremost what isconstitutionally appropriate and for this direct myself to you. As you are aware of the copy of a31 August 2010 to Premier Kristina Keneally (NSW) correspondence that I also forwarded toyou in regard the unconstitutional State/Territorian Land Taxes and her office 13 September2010 response being:35QUOTE

CMU10-1694013 September 2010

Mr Gerrit [email protected]

Dear Mr Schorel-HlavkaI write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax.

As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the Hon

Eric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention.45You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration.Yours sincerely

David Swainfor Director General

END QUOTE50I now request to respond and set out to me what you propose to do, and considering there is aState election due if this will be addressed prior to the Election, if at all? It should be kept in

mind that the Framers of the constitution made clear that all and any unconstitutional taxationmust be refunded to those who paid it and this clearly will leave a gigantic black hole in the State


23/40



budget and this could have been addressed years ago when I recommended to you and theAttorney General that all and any legislation will be duly checked for its constitutional validitywith the OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN that is to assist as a council to advise the Government,the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to the meaning and application of constitutions?Will you take immediate action or refuse to abide by the RULE OF LAW? (constitution s.106)5.


Our name is our motto!.10

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)END QUOTE 5-10-2010 correspondence to vIC Premier John Brumby

15QUOTE 29-11-2010 correspondence to NSW Premier Kristine KeneallyPremier Kristina Keneally 29-11-2010.

Cc: * Mr Robert Pincevic20.

Re: State Land tax - etcAND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Kristina,Mr Anton Pincevic and Mr Robert Pincevic have requested me to urge you for a speedy25

answer as to the status of the investigation/consideration of the issues I raised in my 31 August2010 and subsequent 29-9-2010 correspondences in view that the Department is pursuing themas to State Land Taxes irrespective of this being constitutionally permissible or not.

QUOTECMU10-169403013 September 2010Mr Gerrit [email protected] Mr Schorel-HlavkaI write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax.35As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the HonEric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention.You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration.Yours sincerely

40David Swain

for Director GeneralEND QUOTE.

I understand from Mr Anton Pincevic that all he wants is the State to acknowledge that it cannot45pursue him for land taxes as he rather doesnt want to end up in some legal battle but if theGovernment refuses to concede this then he intends to vigorously defend his constitutional rightsin the courts..http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-50bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1932/63.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=income%20tax


24/40


25/40



fairness the delay of about 3-months surely in itself underlines a failure of propercommunication..

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL.5

Our name is our motto!

.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)END QUOTE 29-11-2010 correspondence to NSW Premier Kristine Keneally10

QUOTE 31-12-2010 correspondence to NSW Premier Kristine KeneallyPremier Kristina Keneally 31-12-2010.15Cc: * Mr Ted Baillieu Premier [email protected]

* Prof David de Kretser, Governor of Victoria C/o [email protected]* Mr Robert Pincevic Robert Pincevic

PO Box 15 Luddenham NSW 2745.20Re: State Land tax - etc

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.Kristina,

your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response (in regard of my2531 August 2010 correspondence to you regarding the unconstitutional State land taxes:QUOTE

CMU10-16940

13 September 2010Mr Gerrit [email protected]

Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka

I write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax.As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the Hon35Eric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention.You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration.

Yours sincerelyDavid Swain

for Director General40END QUOTE.

Regretfully since then despite further subsequent correspondences nothing was heard about it..Obviously both Mr Robert Pincevic and his father Mr Anton Pincevic have urged me to follow45up the matter in view that your Department is still pestering them about State land taxes.The former Premier of Victoria Mr John Brumby also ignored to respond appropriately and wellI assisted in the Bentleigh election pursuing that State land Taxes are unconstitutional andBentleigh certainly got the message and so to say revolted against the ALP and handed it to theLiberals and consequently Mr Ted Baillieu became premier of the state of Victoria.50Considering that it is now some 4-months since I wrote initially to you and you lacked anyproper response I would not encourage land holders to follow the example of Dr John B. Myers

in Bentleigh to spread the word about the unconstitutional land taxes so that in the upcomingState election of NSW you may discover this may be a problem you may have wished you had


26/40



attended to while you could. When a Government Department requires a response of a citizenthen generally it allows no more but 14 days and I view a Government Department should thenlikewise be limited to a 14 days response.Clearly now 4 months to the day that I wrote originally to you no proper response has beenreceived by me and I understand neither by Mr Robert Pincevic and/or his father Mr Anton5Pincevic and as such I view that they and other landholders should consider to commence aelaborate campaign against you and others in government so that you may so to say wake up thatyou cannot ignore the issue..

Below I have referred to the Paliflex case (including errors made in that case) and also Hansard10quotations and I urge you to ensure to respond to me and the Pincevics within 14 days of thisemail/letter in a comprehensive manner setting out the position of the N.S.W. governmentregarding what I view is unconstitutional legislation regarding State land taxes..

In my view as a Premier you have a duty and obligation to act in the best interest of the citizens15of New South Wales and not to perhaps ignore the issue so the government Department cancontinue collecting if not enforcing unconstitutional State land taxes.As I stated in my previous 31 August 2010 correspondence to you; http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50

QUOTE20 Constitutional interpretationThe starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of itsmakers[51].

END QUOTE.25Within Section 51 of the constitution both the States and the Commonwealth have certainlegislative powers however as the Framers of the Constitution stated:Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. REID30

The object is this, that for some time to come it will not be possible for the FederalLegislature to pass laws on these subjects, and it is necessary to have some laws on them-the state laws if they exist-until federal laws are enacted; but the moment a federal law ispassed on any one of these subjects, under the provision under the head of "States" thefederal law prevails over the state law.35

END QUOTE.


The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the40power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.

END QUOTE.


QUOTE Mr. REID:45 We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those pointsenumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be twolaws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal

criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose anycomplication of the kind.50

END QUOTE.

Below I quote parts of the Paliflex case and it may be noted that the High Court of Australiaapparently was unaware in its decision to make a conflicting judgment in that it on the one handheld that the 1956 Land Tax was valid and yet on the other hand made clear the state could not55encroach upon exclusive commonwealth legislative powers. What the High Court of Australiasimply overlooked in its judgment was that since 1910 the land tax issue became an exclusivelegislative power. Actually the judgment also seems to misconceive that Commonwealth can be


27/40



sold off and State laws are normally applicable. The truth is that when the Commonwealthowned land upon federation, this despite that it was stated:http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2003/65.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=PaliflexPaliflex Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2003] HCA 65; 219 CLR 325; 202 ALR 376; 785ALJR 87 (12 November 2003).

QUOTE at 61 (CALLINAN J.)The Commonwealth owned no land at the time of Federation. Everything it has (apart from land transferred or

ceded to it pursuant to ss 85 and 125 of the Constitution or given to it), must have been acquired either by10purchase, overshadowed no doubt by its ultimate power of compulsory acquisition, or by compulsory

acquisition.END QUOTE.

The evidence is in the constitution itself, which states:15QUOTE

69 Transfer of certain departmentsOn a date or dates to be proclaimed by the Governor-General afterthe establishment of the Commonwealth the following departmentsof the public service in each State shall become transferred to the20Commonwealth:

posts, telegraphs, and telephones;naval and military defence;lighthouses, lightships, beacons, and buoys;quarantine.25

END QUOTE

.At that time all land, including for example Point Nepean in Victoria became exclusiveCommonwealth property. As a matter of fact any land upon which this was vested becamesovereign land in that the Commonwealth didnt just hold it as proprietor but also as30sovereign. What this means is that all State laws whatsoever were extinguished upon any landso transferred as part of the properties within s69 and those acquired within s.85 with the consent

of the State. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that when the State didnt consent tothe Commonwealth acquiring property then the Commonwealth would do so merely as aproprietor where State laws would remain applicable for so far it didnt conflict with the purpose35for which the land was obtained, .but when the State approved it then the Commonwealthbecame sovereign over the land and all and any State laws became extinguished.Consider also http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1923/23.html Commonwealth v NewSouth Wales [1923] HCA 23; (1923) 32 CLR 200 (5 June 1923) and Commonwealth v NewSouth Wales [1923] HCA 34; (1923) 33 CLR 1 (9 August 1923) albeit then the High Court of40Australia erred to some decree because only when land was in exclusive powers of theCommonwealth as sovereign would it have powers to minerals in the land. Where theCommonwealth were merely hold the land as a proprietor then it has no constitutional rights to

the minerals under the land.Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates45QUOTE

Mr. ISAACS.-And even independent of that provision. It has been held over and over again in the United

States that it is one of the attributes of sovereignty that the Supreme Government shall be unfettered incarrying out the powers intrusted to it, and for the purpose of carrying out those powers it has the right to

acquire land compulsorily. No express power is given in the United States Constitution, and the Supreme50Court of that country has held that no express language is necessary. That power was exercised for the first

time, I think, in 1875, but it has since been exercised, beyond all doubt, on several occasions.

Mr. REID.-For what purposes?

Mr. ISAACS.-For public purposes-only for the purposes committed to it by the Constitution.


28/40


29/40



powers, but you hold it as proprietor; you can carry on your post-office, your court-house, or anythingyou please, but as regards ordinary state laws outside those functions our state laws prevail. Where thestate, however, is asked by the Federal Government to consent to the excision o f a piece of land from its

own territory for governmental purposes, and does consent, then the exclusive right of the Federal

Government to govern that portion of land attaches to it, and this is what the sub-section we are now5considering intends to enact. Therefore, I think that the leader of the Convention is right in not pressing thisamendment, and that we should be doing well to keep in the words "with the consent," because it does not

relate to the acquisition of property, but to the exercise of jurisdiction over the property when it is acquired.

END QUOTE.10When I exposed this to the then Prime Minister John Howard that he couldnt sell the land (PointNepean) to private interest as it would remain Commonwealth sovereign property and so theCommonwealth would then have to provide for the relevant infra structure including lawenforcement, etc, it was then that John Howard aborted any sale of the land as such.Commonwealth land that is held in not just propriety but as sovereign cannot be sold of to15individuals and then State laws are applied because the land technically remains under thesovereign powers of the Commonwealth. As to if t

Documents

110310 Urgent Julia Gillard Land Taxes