20140613-g. h .schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to louise asher re mr geoff shaw-request for details and...

8/12/2019 20140613-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Louise Asher Re Mr Geoff Shaw-REQUEST for DETAILS and INFORMATIO

1/20

p1 13-6-2014INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1stedition limited special numbered book on Data DVDISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

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

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

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Hon. Louise Asher, MP 13-6-2014Minister for Innovation, Minister for Tourism and Major Events,and Minister for Employment and Trade

[email protected]

Cc: Christine Fyffe, [email protected] Andrews leader [email protected] Michael [email protected] Geoff [email protected] D. Napthine Premier of Victoria [email protected]

Matthew Johnston [email protected] David Hurley [email protected] Ken Smith [email protected] Williams [email protected]

20140613-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Louise Asher Re Mr Geoff Shaw-15REQUEST for DETAILS and INFORMATION-etc

Madam,As I am eager to get the facts right, being an author of books in the INSPECTOR-

RIKATIseries on certain constitutional and other legal issues, I hereby request and invite you20to provide information /details to which I will set out questions below. However do not feel

restrained to provide further and addition al information/details where you view they arerelevant.

I understand you hold the following positions:25Standing Orders CommitteeDispute Resolution CommitteeDeputy Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party:

QUOTE HANSARD LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11-6-201430(6) requires the Speaker to name the member for Frankston for not complying with the code of conduct;

END QUOTE HANSARD LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11-6-2014

On Thursday 12 June 2014 I downloaded Assenbly_standing orders and could not find in itany provision for the Privileges Committee being able to dictate the Speaker to name a35Member, nor any provision for the Privileges Committee to have any power at all in that regard.It refers to where a person complaints about a Member of Parliament mentioning their name andif they consider it was harmful to them but not what I discovered relating to the ability of thePrivileges Committee being able to direct the Speaker or that there is power for the PrivilegesCommittee to change ordinary application of Standing Orders. As such I do refer to the fact that40the State of Victoria is created within s106 of the Commonwealth of Australi a Consti tuti on Act1900 (UK) and so subject to this constitution and as such bound by the legal principlesembedded in this constitution also.
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:George%20Williamsmailto:George%20Williamsmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:George%20Williamsmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


2/20




Hansard 17-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT:I am not particular about that, but I think at all events the Federal Parliamentought to have power to make its own standing orders for the purpose of preventing disorder. When I say this I5do not suppose the Commonwealth Parliament would attempt to exercise control with regard to people out ofits own doors. But within our own dominion we ought to be absolute. If we summon a witness in any of ou r

local Parliaments to the bar of the House, he can decline to give evidence, laugh at us, and walk away. Thecase I have just mentioned shows the necessity of Parliament having control over any disorder.

Mr. TRENWITH:Anything to stop them throwing stones at labor members.10

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT:In Victoria they took the matter in a wholesale manner, and passed an Act ofParliament declaring that the Victorian Legislature had all the powers, privileges, and immunities of theHouse of Commons. There was no mincing of matters there, and it was in consequence of the Parliament ofVictoria having arrested a man, and it having been decided that they had no power to do so, that theyimmediately declared they had all of the powers of the House of Commons. The man, I think, was connected15with Goldsbrough's Company, and named Glass. He did something, and the Parliament arrested him, broughthim to the bar of the House, and it was declared that they had no power to do so. In all the decisions of the

Privy Council in reference to the powers of Parliament, the Privy Council has invariably declared thatParliament has no power outside the very words of the Constitution Act.In the own of Hampton andFenton, I think, in Tasmania they had the audacity to tell a great colony like Tasmania that so far as it was20concerned it had no greater powers than a municipality.

Mr. BARTON:The Speaker only had the power of a chairman of a public meeting.

Mr. DOUGLAS:Regarding the case alluded to by the hon. member, I happened to be present when thedecision was given. The Privy Council did not declare that the colony had no power, but that any colonialGovernment, being under a Statute, would have no power beyond that Statute. The result was that the25Tasmanian Parliament passed a law giving the powers to which the hon. member has made reference.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:I think that the amendment which the hon. member has proposed must beconsidered in connection with clause 8, page 4 of the Bill, which provides:

The privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives respectively, andof the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared by30the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the UnitedKingdom, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, at the establishment of theCommonwealth.

If the hon. member's amendment is to include the power of punishment it will scarcely be necessary. The

effect of the decision of the Privy Council to which my hon. friend has alluded must be read in35connection with the Constitutions of the several colonies , which were affected at the time of the

pronouncement of these decisions. In New South Wales, and I think in Tasmania, what exists at the present

time is a Legislature as distinct from a Parliament. A Sovereign Parliament has punishing power. ALegislature which is created by Act of Parliament, and with the equivalent powers conferred upon it, as theyare conferred by section 8, has, in the case of New South Wales and Tasmania, no power except such as can40be gathered from the necessary implication of the words of the Constitution. In the present instance wehave passed a clause which states that the[start page 758]privileges, immunities, and powers of the FederalParliament shall be those declared by the Parliament, and until a declaratory Act is passed the privileges,immunities, and powers of the House of Commons will be accepted. The power of punishment exists in theHouse of Commons, and the same power would exist in the Parliament of the Commonwealth under clause 8.45An outrage committed within the walls of the Federal Parliament could be punished in the same way as in theHouse of Commons. If a man ventured to throw a stone into the Imperial Parliament, though unfortunatelythe thrower is not always caught, it would be contempt of Parliament, and that would be a matter to be dealtwith by the Commons according to the powers, privileges, and immunities it possesses.
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


3/20




Sir GEORGE TURNER:Has not the House of Commons power to make Standing Orders?

Mr. BARTON:Yes.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:Then where is the necessity for this clause?

Mr. BARTON:The necessity for it does not arise out of the powers of the Standing Orders, which are

merely regulations for the conduct of the business within the House, but out of the power of punishment in5 cases where contempt is exercised by persons within the walls of Parliament.If, for instance, a person throwsa stone and the Sergeant-at-Arms can catch him he can be brought before the Parliament and can beimprisoned or dealt with otherwise for contempt. Under the operation of the clause similar action can betaken by the Federal Parliament, and that goes far enough. It does not require Standing Orders to deal withthe powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament. They exist, and if you made Standing Orders you10would really only limit them. Under the Bill we have taken the powers, privileges, and immunities possessed

by the House of Commons.

Sir JOSEPH ABBOT:Then why do you want clause 49?

Mr. BARTON:I have already explained that, but I will return to it if my hon. friend wishes. I say in themeantime you have already taken the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons, and15there is no necessity to pass Standing Orders with reference to them. They do not need definition in theStanding Orders; they are not the subject of definition in the Standing Orders; they are totally different intheir whole circuit to the Standing Orders which relate to the conduct of the business of each House and itstransactions with the other House. That is not a question of the powers, privileges, and immunities of theHouse of Commons, which exist independently of the Standing Orders. They have a historical application20in the House of Commons, and they can be applied to the Federal Parliament.

Mr. TRENWITH:Could they not make Standing Orders?

Mr. BARTON:The Federal Parliament, of course, will have power to make Standing Orders for theregulation of its internal business.

Mr. TRENWITH:If we adopt clause 49 do we not restrict the power of the Federal Parliament with25regard to any Standing Orders they may make?

Mr. BARTON:No. You do not restrict them because you have the clause in the most general terms. Myhon. friend wishes the clause to read:

The Senate and the House of Representatives may each of them from time to time adopt Standing Orders asthey or each may deem to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have he force of law.30

That is altogether too wide, as the Standing Orders would then have the effect of law outside the House.

Mr. PEACOCK:Hear, hear. That is the point.

Mr. BARTON:It is the point to which I think the hon. member was anxious to come. What we have doneis to adopt a clause giving the Federal Parliament power to pass Standing Orders for the con- [start page759] duct of their business, and so that there should be no doubt the power has been taken in the widest35possible words.The House of Commons does not make its Standing Orders by reason of its powers,privileges, and immunities, but by virtue of its inherent powers as a sovereign Parliament . TheStanding Orders are for the internal regulation of the House of Commons , but my friend would like tosay that the Federal Houses may make Standing Orders for any matter it may deem necessary. This wouldhave the effect of passing laws without the royal assent. I ask my friend if the clause as it stands is not40sufficient.

END QUOTE


4/20




What therefore needs to be explored is on what legal basis did the Parliament deal with Mr GeoffShaw?

On what legal basis can the speaker provide for the Privileges committee to dictate the Speaker5to namea Member.Within which part of Standing order 125t can the Speaker namea Member for something thatwas not in violation with standing orders nor in violation with the proceedings within the House?

On what legal basis could the Speaker/Deputy Speaker ignore compliance with Standing Order10126?.

15Where there is a breach of legislation then as with any other person I view the matter can beexplored by relevant authorities including the police.

.QUOTE

130 Contempt

Any person who disobeys an order of the House, or any person other than a member who wilfullyinterrupts the sitting of the House, may be declared guilty of contempt.

END QUOTE20

Obviously this only can apply if an order was made in compliance with Standing orders orstanding orders was sus\pended.

QUOTE HANSARD LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12-6-201425MEMBER FOR FRANKSTONThe SPEAKEROrder! I remind all members that the next item of business is a seriousproceeding of great significance to the member concerned and the house. Debate should be focusedon the matters for the action of the house and the substantive motion and the two reports. Whilstevery member is entitled to express their point of view, it is important they make use of the richness30of the English language and select phrases that express their meaning without causing offence toothers. Members will be referred to by their correct titles at all times. The addition of adjectives to atitle will not be allowed.


35

I could not detect any suspension of standing orders and as such take the view that thereforestanding orders did apply normally, yet to me appeared not to be followed..As I never have been inside a Parliament you may then explain to me what the processes

are and how the Speaker can divert from standing orders, such as what does she require to40state to suspend Standing orders, or can she willy-nilly do whatever she/he likes to do upon

her/she whims?

Perhaps because of my self-processed crummy English I tend to be more on details and thewording of sentences/orders/rules. By this question the real meaning and application of wording45


5/20




and the context they are stated, without being so to say brainwashed to accept some meaningeven if this might be incorrect..I am not so to say a self-appointed defender of Mr Geoff Shaw because quite frankly I think theman is competent enough to speak for himself, but as a taxpayer and author I view to be entitled5to seek what are FACTSand what isFICTION.

In view that the transcript published by the Hansard 11-6-2014 doesnt indicates within whichStanding order the matter was dealt with but Mr Daniel Andrews claimed it was Standing order125 then I view considering Standing order 125 details I can find no part that could have been10applied..As the Framers of the Constitution made clear where the Parliament in House rules do not

provide for something then the constitution must provide for it. As such, where the constitutionprovides powers for the Parliament to deal with a person (not just a Member of Parliament) then15I view the Parliament can do so, albeit it must be governed by certain rules to deal with thiscontempt powers (as shown below).

If therefore the Speaker failed to suspend Standing orders but acted upon contempt powers thenclearly the Speaker failed to provide the appropriate ruling for this to inform the House (so the20Members) about what procedures were to be followed. The entire thing so to say became acircus, where Premier Denis Napthine pursues what is fairetc, when in fact he knew or shouldhave known it was not fair at all..Indeed, the purported punishment that the privileges committee pursued in my view was far in25excess to what was dealt with by others in simular situations.

And, as I made clear in my writings to the Speaker before 11 June 2014 I questioned the

eligibility of any Member of parliament who was in receipt of financial benefits either in the pastor present as a shadow Ministerbeing an Office of Profit to be entitled to sit in the Parliament.30As the Federal constitution has the legal principle ( see also s44 of the federal constitution) thatonly Members of Parliament who are Ministers of the Crown are excluded from being an Officeof profit to disqualify them then the so called shadow Ministersare not. Hence if you were, as Iunderstand you were, had been a shadow Minister in receiving additional payments for thisthen I view technically you were in an Office of profit and automatically disqualified from being35a Member of Parliament. Likewise so those currently shadow Ministers. As such beforeanyone can argue ab out what the privileges committee decided/recommendedwe first have tolook at how many of those Members were disqualified from sitting in Parliament butnevertheless persisted in conduct to remain in the as if still being members of Parliament and

continued to receive monies. Indeed, such monies I view would likely by far strip the amount40upon which Mr Geoff Shaw was considered to have inappropriately been advanced with byallegedly misuse of the taxpayers vehicle. Indeed I view impersonating to be a Member ofParliament when not qualified to do so and receiving monies as if being a Member of Parliamentought to be considered a far more serious matter and yet the speaker Christine Fyffe alerted tothis seems to just blatantly disregard this. Moreover, when an election is called then technically45all members of the state parliament seized to be Members of Parliament and none then can usethe privileges and entitlements as if they are still Members of Parliament and neither the title MPor their parliamentarian email addresses, etc. And yet as I understand it they are still travelingabout and incur expenses at account of taxpayers, including mobiles and car usage to which I


6/20




view they are not entitled upon. So when you accuse Mr Geoff Shaw it is like the pot calling thekettle being blackHow often did you or other Members used their parliamentarian offices to have party issues dealtwith? For example phone calls, computer usage, etc.http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php5QUOTE

The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferredby a public expenditure is not

merely incidental. The term public funds is not limited to money, but includes anything of value belongingto a public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers,and fax machines and other equipment and resources.10

END QUOTE

http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.phpQUOTE

Ethics Orientation for State Officials15

Misuse of Publ ic Funds

Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes

The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that publicfunds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose whenits purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.20Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possessesonly those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not beexpended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor arethey authorized.25The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit mayresult from an expenditure of public funds.For example, the payment of a public employees salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it isan appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the employee for public

purposes.30 The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferredby a public expenditure is notmerely incidental. The term public funds is not limited to money, but includes anything of value belongingto a public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers,and fax machines and other equipment and resources.

35

Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

1.In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to purchase items for himselfand others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though those receiving the discount paid for theitems with personal funds.

2.In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle to transport a40

political candidate, his staff and family.3.In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work on his political

campaign for Lieutenant Governor.4.In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in connection with official

business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great Falls, Montana and back.45

Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil sanctions.These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.phphttp://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.phphttp://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.phphttp://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.phphttp://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.phphttp://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.phphttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


7/20




State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections

There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public funds.This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following is a list of whatwell cover in this section.

Stanson v. Mott5 Endorsements and Informational Materials

Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines

Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns

The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mottis the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of publicfunds in election campaigns.10In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,challenging the directors expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on astatewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding that inthe absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a

partisan position in an election campaign.15Stanson v. Mott

The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: A fundamental precept of this nations democratic electoral process is thatthe government may not take sides in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing

factions. A principal danger feared by our countrys founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmentalauthority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office.... 20The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson...The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course,raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government agency mayendorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote its passage.Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not25

promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot measureelections.

1.The StansonCourt also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to disseminate informationrelating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the public with a fair presentation of relevant30information.

2.The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable public agencies fromdisclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such disclosure is full and impartial and does notamount to improper campaign activity.

3.To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal treatment to both sides of35the issue.

Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines from theFair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a$10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several

ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a40neutral and fair presentation of the facts.

Let's ReviewTRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.

Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.

Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone calls45before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governors campaign fundraisingdinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of issues,may she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.

Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal political purposes ratherthan for a public purpose.50


8/20




Let's Review

Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer questions aboutthe impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.

a.The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.b.The materials do not make false statements.5c.The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.

Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts ofthe measure.

Remember These Points

Expenditures must be for a public purpose10 Expenditures must be authorized

Public funds may not be expended for personal use

Information must be fairly presented

Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions

END QUOTE15

Clearly politicians shouldnt use their public office to do election campaigns, pursue politicalbattles, etc. Ministers are commissioned for no other purpose but to be constitutional advisorsto the Governor/Governor-General and manage relevant Departments, irrespective of their

political alliance to any political party.20

Therefore why was the matter not investigated I ask? Is it that it is not at all a matter to protectthe Victorian public against misuse/abuses of public monies rather that Mr Geoff Shaw is so tosay a maverick and the privileges committee was out to one way or another try to undermine hisstanding in the electorate by issuing while other Members committing in my view far serious25offences are let off. I for one cannot accept this to be This motion outlines a fair, just andappropriate penalty for the Member for Frankston. As Premier Denis Napthine referred to onvarious occasions. Even if Mr Geoff Shaw had been guilty of misusing his taxpayers funded(something I do not judge him upon in view of it was resulting to court litigation) vehicle I viewthat the matter was dealt with before the courts and without a convict ion that should have been30the end of it. The man is entitled to be deemed INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.Again, unless Standing orders had been suspended and some rule was implemented to allowotherwise to name the Member for Frankston being it under the out of House contempt

proceedings or otherwise, I for one cannot accept the suspension and other orders are valid, andrather makes an utter mockery of parliament.35.

If the Legislative Assembly was not dealing with the Member for Frankston within StandingOrders, even so they were not suspended, then surely the Speaker ought to have informed theHouse what on earth she was doing so they all would know what procedures were to befollowed? Or is it that really no one had a clue what on earth was appropriate and by convention40they just go along and so tho say the hell with Standing orders if it doesn t suit?But if you are dealing with a person for allegedly breaching orders then surely you must yourselfensure not to do the same as two wrongs doesnt make it right.

Because the provisions of allowanceof a Member of Parliament is not within the powers of a45House but is in fact constitutionally for the Parliament to legislate in regard of then I view if the


9/20




usage of a motor vehicle is included in an allowance then it should never have been an issue as toabuse of privileges but a breach of law, if such breach was established and then I view only uponconviction may the relevant House, if the Standing Orders provide for this, deal with the memberhaving been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction.What also should be considered what is really a privilege, as an allowance cannot be a5

privileges but is a constitutional right to compensate a Member of Parliament towards the cost ofbeing a Member of Parliament. if therefore the Parliament in the allowance provides for a motorvehicle then while I may understand it should not be used for commercial purposes neverthelesswhen one consider many members of parliament involved in business dealings and use theirtelephone at the parliamentarian offices for this also then what is the difference between them10doing so at taxpayers cost and what Mr Geoff Shaw has been accused of?Do you really hold the view that not a single Member of Parliament may drive from his/her

parliamentarian offices and step by a business they own on their way home, etc, and then do notcharge for the trip on account of taxpayers. I think you would live in fairy land and be out ofreality.15And where is the constitutional powers for Premier Denis Napthine to have reportedly handedout more than a million dollars to a friend under the so to say cover of being for employment

purposes?Firstly, any such special payments, as a once of and not being for the maintenance of aDepartment must be approved by Appropriation Bill.20As such if there was no special Appropriation Bills to sanction such a payment then it wasunconstitutional.Hansard 8-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but,[start page 2042] as he25pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxationincluding 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 ofRepresentatives 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 stage30of its existence.

END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. HOLDER(South Australia).-

In an Appropriation Act we should have so many hundred thousand pounds for this, and so many35hundred thousand pounds for that, and other items; but we should have no detail whatever. In no

Appropriation Act passed by any Parliament is there given small details of the amounts appropriated.An Appropriation Act would often include amounts of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, and larger sums, the

details of which would be lost altogether in the mass of votes included in the Act. Therefore, it is quiteimpossible for any court to tell from the mere construction of an Appropriation Act whether the items do40comprise moneys required for the ordinary annual services of the Government, even if that phrase "ordinaryannual services of the Government" were beyond dispute. Personally, I do not know what the phrase means,and I do not suppose it is possible for anybody definitely to say what it means.

Mr. REID.-With a new Government it will be a very difficult matter to know what are "ordinary annualservices."45


10/20




Mr. HOLDER.-Yes; but every item must be an annual expenditure, not one which comes on specially.Now, we all know that all sorts of special emergencies arise in every country, and that special provision

has to be made for every such emergency.

Mr. ISAACS.-Would 50,000 for contingencies be regarded by the court as money appropriated for theordinary annual services of the Government?5

Mr. REID.-That would a nice question for the High Court to determine.

END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE10

Mr. ISAACS.-Suppose you had in the Appropriation Bill, a grant of 500 payable to John Brown,

and it was not one of the ordinary annual services of the Government: could not the court, under this

sub section, set the whole law aside?

Mr. BARTON.-There is no doubt that I might be tempted to return the same answer to that question whicha speaker on a memorable occasion returned.15

Mr. ISAACS.-It is a very good reason for not having the clause in the Bill.

Mr. BARTON.-It is no reason for not having the clause in the Bill. If my learned friend thinks that thewords as they stand are liable to confusion, if he thinks that the ordinary annual services. of the

Government do not sufficiently define the ordinary annual Appropriation Bill-an Act which the

Government must pass to carry on its own existence-let him suggest some better form of words. Let20him make the clause clearer, and by so much as he makes it[start page 2019] clearer he loses the wholepoint and effect of his own argument. If the court were to decide that this grant of money to John Brown is

part of the ordinary annual services of the Government, let it be so; but if it is not to decide the question wewill soon find that out, and it can be rectified in six hours.

Mr. TRENWITH.-But in the meantime the whole Bill goes.25

Mr. ISAACS.-The whole law goes.

Mr. BARTON.-In the meantime the whole Bill need not go. We know very well that the whole Bill doesnot go under these circumstances, and I am astonished that some of my honorable friends have not sufficientrecollection of Victorian history not to tell us that.

Mr. ISAACS.-We have too vivid a recollection of Victorian history to allow this to pass.30

Mr. BARTON.-Well, summing up, if the argument is that the sub-section should be made clearer, let ushave suggestions for the clearing of the sub-section, and, in proportion as those suggestions are good, the

necessity for my learned friend's amendment diminishes; but I submit that where a law bears on its face theevidence of an infraction of the Constitution, we should be entitled not to allow the process of that law to beregulated by mere methods of procedure, but to submit them to the determination of the court, because of the35evil which appears on their faces. Then, as regards the objections taken to clause 54, I submit that under thatclause the rights of the Senate and the House of Representatives are correlative rights, but that we are nothere to confer rights on Chambers, except by way of making them instruments of the rights of the

people-that so far as we assume to do that we do that sufficiently under clause 54, a clause relating toprocedure, without invoking a judicial tribunal to interfere with mere matters of procedure; but that where the40matters are not only procedure, but go beyond procedure, so as to be matters which carry on their face theevidence of distinct infractions of the Constitution, then, as we do under clause 55, we do right to submitthose matters to the judicial tribunal.


11/20




END QUOTEAndHansard 8-3-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-Supposing that an Appropriation Bill is brought up from the House of5Representatives providing for the ordinary annual services, and providing, amongst other things, for

the payment of light-house keepers, the Senate might think that this provision for the payment of the light-

house keepers should not be carried unless a provision was also inserted dealing with the light-house keeperswho had been dispensed with.

Mr. DOBSON.-We should put them in a separate Bill.10

END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an15annual service.

Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?

Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.

Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from

special grants and from loan services.The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which20we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.

Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place

expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a

service.

END QUOTE25

Therefore if the payment to Premier Denis Napthine friend was not approved by Appropriation Bill then I view it was unconstitutional. And as I understood this involved about $1.5 milliondollars then surely this is a hell lot more than what Mr Geoff Shaw is accused of..30To punish a Member without any regard of the Standing Orders or other NATURALJUSTICE rules, etc, to me is abused and misuse of powers and instead those of the privilegescommittee may be accountable for this.

In view that Mr Daniel Andrews during a televised statement referred to that Mr Geoff Shaw was35dealt with under Standing orders 125 I then refer to this. And it appears to me that there is noability within Standing order 125 for the Privileges committee to direct the speaker to namea

person.Also, I checked the Hansard transcript, reproduced below, and noticed that Standing Order 126requires;40

126 Procedure following naming


12/20




(1) After naming a member, the Deputy Speaker must immediately interruptproceedings and advise the Speaker of the naming.

(2) Following the naming of a member and a motion being moved 'That the member besuspended from the service of the House during the remainder of that day's sitting (or forsuch period as the House may think fit)', the Speaker must put the questionimmediately without amendment, adjournment or debate.

As such it appears to me that neither the Deputy Speaker acted as required nor did others, asclearly when a member is named no debate is to eventuate. And for this neither any amendmentsought to be permitted.

5http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing-aamps-sessional-ordersrules/standing-orders/755QUOTE

125 Naming a member

A member may be named by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker for:

(1) Persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House; or

(2) Being guilty of disorderly conduct; or

(3) Using offensive words, and refusing to withdraw or apologise; or

(4) Persistently and wilfully refusing to conform to any standing order, rule or practice of theHouse; or

(5) Persistently and wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair; or

(6) Refusing to immediately follow an order to withdraw under SO 124.

126 Procedure following naming

(1) After naming a member, the Deputy Speaker must immediately interruptproceedings and advise the Speaker of the naming.

(2) Following the naming of a member and a motion being moved 'That the member besuspended from the service of the House during the remainder of that day's sitting (or forsuch period as the House may think fit)', the Speaker must put the questionimmediately without amendment, adjournment or debate.

127 Suspension of member following naming

(1) A member suspended under SO 126 must immediately withdraw from the House and mustnot re-enter the Chamber during the period of the suspension.
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing-aamps-sessional-ordersrules/standing-orders/755http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing-aamps-sessional-ordersrules/standing-orders/755http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing-aamps-sessional-ordersrules/standing-orders/755http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing-aamps-sessional-ordersrules/standing-orders/755http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing-aamps-sessional-ordersrules/standing-orders/755http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


13/20




(2) This Standing Order does not deprive the House of any other powers it may have toproceed against a member.

128 Directions to Serjeant-at-Arms

In all matters of contempt or misconduct, the Serjeant at Arms will act on the direction of theSpeaker.

129 Grave disorder

In the case of grave disorder, the Speaker may adjourn the House without putting a question, orsuspend any sitting for a time to be determined by the Speaker.

130 Contempt

Any person who disobeys an order of the House, or any person other than a member who wilfullyinterrupts the sitting of the House, may be declared guilty of contempt.

END QUOTE

Standing orders legislative assembly victoria5

QUOTE COMMENT ON AN ARTICLE IN THE Herald Sun

Shaw was saved from criminal prosecution when charges were dropped.

Parliamentary rules were changed after criminal charges were laid changing the wording from "shall not" to10"must not" in relation to the use of government cars for commercial activities.

It should have been obvious that a change to the original wording could affect the prosecution then inprogress given that Shaw was publicly arguing there was ambiguity in the original wording and that he wastherefore entitled to use the car as he chose.

Who made this change to the wording and why?15

END QUOTE COMMENT ON AN ARTICLE IN THE Herald Sun

I was unable to establish what rules were altered (from shallto must)and invite you toclarify this and if the privileges committee relied upon the old rule or the later amended

rule and when the amendment was made, etc.20

(5) instructs the member for Frankston to apologise to the house and to the people of Victoria for his breach of the

code of conduct for members as set out in section 3 of the Members of Parliament (Register of Interests) Act 1978;

(6) requires the Speaker to name the member for Frankston for not complying with the code of conduct;25

QUOTE Members of Parliament (Register of Interests) Act 1978-mopoia1978439


14/20




(c) a Member shall not receive any fee, payment, retainer or reward, nor shall hepermit any compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest for or on account of, or as aresult of the use of, his position as a Member;

END QUOTE Members of Parliament (Register of Interests) Act 1978-mopoia19784395

Seems to me that any shadow Minister as a Member of Parliament is in breach of section 3when receiving special payments for being a shadow Minister. And also any Member of

Parliament who by virtue of being a Member of Parliament receives any salary and/orsuperannuation entitlements/benefits as a Member of Parliament is not ordinary employed by theState and so if receiving such payments then is deemed to be in an Office of Profit and10automatically relinquished the seat in the parliament.It appears to me that we end up that each and every Member of Parliament is in violation withsection 3 and we have not a single Member of Parliament validly sitting in Parliament.

QUOTE HANSARD LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11-6-201415MEMBER FOR FRANKSTONThe SPEAKEROrder! I remind all members that the next item of business is a seriousproceeding of great significance to the member concerned and the house. Debate should be focused

on the matters for the action of the house and the substantive motion and the two reports. Whilstevery member is entitled to express their point of view, it is important they make use of the richness20of the English language and select phrases that express their meaning without causing offence toothers. Members will be referred to by their correct titles at all times. The addition of adjectives to atitle will not be allowed.Mr Merlino interjected.The SPEAKEROrder! I view that seriously. That was casting a reflection on something that I25delivered to the house.Dr NAPTHINE (Premier)I move:That this house(1) notes the special reports of the Legislative Assembly Privileges Committee investigation into the improper disclosureof a committee document, February 2014, and investigation into the improper disclosure of committee deliberations,30

March 2014;(2) notes the report of the Legislative Assembly Privileges Committee inquiry in relation to recommendation 2 of theOmbudsmans report Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001Investigation into Allegations against Mr Geoff Shaw MP,May 2014;(3) orders the member for Frankston to repay $5220.75 for the improper use of his parliamentary vehicle and fuel card to35the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly by 1.00 p.m. on 2 September 2014;(4) orders the member for Frankston to pay an additional $1617.69 for misuse of his parliamentary entitlements to theClerk of the Legislative Assembly by 1.00 p.m. on 2 September 2014;

(5) instructs the member for Frankston to apologise to the house and to the people of Victoriafor his breach of the codeof conduct for members as set out in section 3 of the Members of Parliament (Register of Interests) Act 1978;40(6) requires the Speaker to name the member for Frankston for not complying with the code of conduct;(7) resolves that the member for Frankston not be permitted any interstate or overseas travel funded by his electoratebudget while he is suspended;(8) further notes that if the member for Frankston does not comply fully with paragraphs 3 and 4 of this motion by 1.00p.m. on 2 September 2014 and that if the member for Frankston does not apologise appropriately to the house for that45failure on 2 September 2014, he will be in contempt of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Assembly will moveto expel him;(9) refers to Victoria Police the Privileges Committee reports set out in paragraph 1 of this motion for

investigation;(10) requests the Speaker to write to the Premier asking that the government considers the legislative changes outlined in50recommendation 2 of the Privileges Committee report of May 2014; and(11) refers recommendation 3 of the Privileges Committee report of May 2014 to the Standing Orders Committee of theLegislative Assembly.

I agree with your sentiments, Speaker, that this is a serious matter that deserves very seriousconsideration by each and every member in this house. There is no doubt in my mind that the55member for Frankston misused his taxpayer-funded parliamentary entitlements, and he must beheld to account for those wrongful actions.


15/20




This motion before the house will ensure that the member for Frankston accepts the seriousconsequences of his actions. This motion outlines a fair, just and appropriate penalty for themember for Frankston. It also outlines very clearly the consequences if the member for Frankstonfails to comply with the decision of this house if it supports the motion before the house. It is aboutappropriate sanctionssanctions that are enforceable, sanctions that will stick. That is what this5motion is about.The motion has been very carefully drafted after proper consideration, after fulsome and detailed

expert advice. The motion is designed to: one, immediately and effectively sanction the member forFrankston for his misuse of parliamentary resources; and two, ensure that the member accepts hiswrongdoing, accepts his responsibility, apologises to the people of Victoriaand complies with the10sanctions imposed. If he fails to meet that test, then he will be held in contempt of the Parliamentand his position in this Parliament will be jeopardised.In detail, paragraphs 1 and 2 of motion note the three relevant reports of the Privileges Committee.Paragraphs 3 and 4 are in line with the unanimous recommendation of the Privileges Committeethat requires the member to pay to Parliament a total amount of $6838.44, being a component of15repayment of costs associated with the identified misuse of the parliamentary electorate officevehicle, plus a penalty payment of $1617.69.Paragraph 5 of this motion is very important and vital to the motion. It calls on the member forFrankston to accept personal responsibility for this misuse of parliamentary resources. It requires

that the member for Frankston accept that responsibility by apologising to the people of Victoria20and apologising to the Parliament for his wrongdoing.Honourable members interjecting.The SPEAKEROrder! I will not tolerate interjections.Ms Allan interjected.Debate interrupted.25SUSPENSION OF MEMBER

Member for Bendigo EastThe SPEAKEROrder! I have just said I will not tolerate interjections. Under standing order 124,the honourable member for Bendigo East will leave the house for half an hour.Honourable member for Bendigo East withdrew from chamber.30MEMBER FOR FRANKSTONDebate resumed.Dr NAPTHINE (Premier)The naming of a member for 11 sitting days in the context of thisParliament and the history of the Westminster system in this state is a very significant penalty. Weknow that if the member is named for those 11 days, he will lose $386 of pay for each and every35one of those 11 days. Paragraph 7 of the motion imposes a ban on interstate and overseas travel tobe funded through the members electorate office budget.Paragraph 8 is very significant. This makes it very clear that the member will be held to account forhis wrongdoing. It puts in place a system of accountability that says the member must do certainthings, and if he fails to do those things, there is an additional penalty. That is an absolutely40appropriate way to ensure that the member understands his responsibility, accepts responsibility forhis wrongdoing, makes the appropriate payments associated with the penalty and makes an

appropriate apology, because if he fails to do so, at that stage the member would be deemed to be incontempt of this house by thumbing his nose at the decision of this chamber and then there is apotential,45and I would be moving, that the member be expelled from this house if he fails to comply with thedecisions of this house on this very serious matter.Paragraph 9 seeks to refer to Victoria Police concerns raised by the Privileges Committee in

relation to leaks from the committee and responds to their recommendation on this issue.Weknow that any leaks from the Privileges Committee are a serious matter. The Privileges50CommitteeMr Nardella interjected.The SPEAKEROrder! The member for Melton is warned.


16/20




Dr NAPTHINEIn its report the Privileges Committee asks the house to deal with thismatter, and it is appropriate that this house does deal with this matter. Paragraphs 10 and 11deal with recommendations 2 and 3 of the Privileges Committee report dated May 2014.I now wish to move to outline why I am of the view that the member for Frankston is guilty inrelation to the misuse of taxpayer-funded electorate resources and therefore appropriately subject to5these very serious sanctions. I draw this from the conclusions that came from the hard and diligentwork and the considered work of the Privileges Committee and the evidence presented in its report.

The Privileges Committee faces a difficult task. The members of a Privileges Committee in anyParliament have the difficult task of dealing with issues raised with regard to the behaviour of theircolleagues, their fellow members, of a democratically elected Parliament. The job of the Privileges10Committee is a difficult job. It is a job that requires hard work, good advice, proper considerationand fair and appropriate reporting.That is what this Privileges Committee has done. I point out that members of the PrivilegesCommittee operate as people nominated from the floor of this house to serve on the PrivilegesCommittee in their own right as members of Parliament, not as members of the government or the15opposition. They are appointed as individual members of Parliament based on their ownexperience, track record and expertise. I commend all members of the Privileges Committee for thediligence with which they have undertaken this task.The Privileges Committee, and I quote from its report, outlines the case against the member for

Frankston. I refer to page 11, item 33, which refers to a document entitledMembers of Parliament20Vehicle Plan. In referring to that plan it says:Vehicles should not be used for commercial purposes.

It further says:It is the members responsibility to ensure the person(s) authorised to drive the vehicle does not use it for commercial orillegal purposes.25It makes that very clear and plain. The Privileges Committee also came to a unanimousconclusiona unanimous findingthat the member for Frankston had contravened the code ofconduct in section 3 of the Members of Parliament (Register of Interests) Act 1978. Indeed on page9, under findings, items 21 and 22, it says:the committee finds that Mr Shaw was not diligent in the management of his parliamentary vehicle. He allowed30individuals connected with his private business to use his parliamentary vehicle with little or no supervision.

It says further, at item 22:The committee finds that Mr Shaw enabled the use of his parliamentary vehicle for commercial purposes and hisparliamentary fuel card to purchase fuel for his private

use.35The report, on pages 8 and 9, goes into detail with reference to the Ombudsmans report, withreference to the evidence collected by the Privileges Committee itself and the thoroughconsiderations of the Privileges Committee. It clearly outlines evidence of misuse of the electorateoffice vehicle allocated to the member for Frankston.Therefore I accept those findings. I acceptthat conclusion. It is clear that the member for Frankston was wrong in allowing his40electorate office vehicle, funded by the Parliament, funded by the Victorian taxpayers, to be

used for commercial purposes.

The next task we as a house need to look at is: what is the appropriate penalty for this wrongdoing?Consideration in this case must be based on fairness and justice. It cannot be based on political

expediency or the personality of the person involved. It is absolutely wrong45Honourable members interjecting.The SPEAKEROrder! The Leader of the Opposition!Dr NAPTHINEIt is absolutely imperative that this house acts with fairness and justice. Ourdecisions should not be coloured by political expediency. They should not be coloured by ourperception of the personality of the person involved. They should be done in a fair and proper way.50That is incumbent on allof us who have the honour and privilege to serve in this great Parliament, in the great traditions ofthis Parliament, dating back 150 years. It is an absolute honour and privilege to serve in thisParliament.It is an absolute honour and privilege to be elected to this place by the people in theelectorate in which you serve. They are the people who decide who comes to this place and they are55


17/20




the people who ultimately have the sanction about whether people are re-elected to this place. It is avery, very significant issue if this Parliament seeks to usurp that situation.Therefore I say again that it is absolutely imperative that this house acts with fairness and justicewith respect to consideration of the penalty to be applied to the member for Frankston. I repeat thatit should not be about what is in the political interests of either side of this house. It should not be5about our judgement of the personality of the person concerned.This is not a political StarChamber or the Big Brother house.This is the Parliament of Victoria, and that ought to be the

ultimate respect we have. It is what is in the best interests of the parliamentary democracy of thisstate. Consideration must be based on the long experience and tradition of the Westminster systemof parliamentary democracy in Victoria, in Australia and in Westminster itself.10In those contexts it is very important that we look at the precedent of similar cases in Australia andacross the world where there have been allegations and even admissions of misuse of parliamentaryresources and what action has been taken in those cases. Let us have a look at some of the cases inAustralia. I refer to theAustralian of 17 September 2013:Julia Gillard wrote a personal cheque for $4243 to the Department of Finance because her partner, Tim Mathieson, had15misused her taxpayer-funded car to drive around Victoria selling shampoo and other hair-care products in breach ofparliamentary rules.

Honourable members interjecting.The SPEAKEROrder! The member for Footscray!Dr NAPTHINEAnd further the article goes on to say20Honourable members interjecting.The SPEAKEROrder! The Premier, to continue.Mr Howard interjected.Debate interrupted.SUSPENSION OF MEMBER25Member for Ballarat EastThe SPEAKEROrder! The member for Ballarat East will leave the chamber for half an hour.Honourable member for Ballarat East withdrew from chamber.

MEMBER FOR FRANKSTONDebate resumed.30Dr NAPTHINE (Premier)Further, the article goes on to say:

The $4243 repayment by Ms Gillard indicates her office estimated MrMathieson had driven several thousand kilometreswhile pursuing his commercial interests in the private-plated car, which was wholly funded by the commonwealth.

We can also refer to the Sydney Morning Herald of 8 October 2013, where it says:Labor frontbencher Mark Dreyfus has admitted to billing taxpayers for a ski trip to Perisher.35The shadow Attorney-General said he will repay $466 for two nights accommodation he claimed in August 2011afterincorrectly claiming travel expenses.

I refer to an article in theAustralian of 16 October 2013, which says:Labor factional warlord Don Farrell has repaid almost $900 he claimed from taxpayers to attend last years AFL GrandFinal because his trip had already been paid for by a grocery firm.40Honourable members interjecting.The SPEAKEROrder! The house will come to order.Dr NAPTHINEI refer to theHerald Sun of 24 January 2011, which says:TheHerald Sun reveals 65 federal MPs have repaid air fares and car transport in the past five yearsmany after beingcaught out abusing an entitlements scheme45Sustainability and population minister Tony Burke made 15 separate repayments involving family travel, totalling almost$7000.

There were people on both sides of the house in the federal Parliament who were involved in theserepayments.Mr Lim interjected.50The SPEAKEROrder! The member for Clayton!Dr NAPTHINEBut the point I make is that the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party inVictoria did not at any stage call for Julia Gillard, Tony Burke or any other members to be expelledfrom the federal Parliament in relation to those repayments. The point I make is that you need fair,just and appropriate penalties, and they need to be consistent with precedent, not imposed for55political expediency.


18/20




I refer to theHerald Sun of 24May 2000 and an article headed MPs vehicle a getaway car, whichsays:A Labor MPs taxpayer-funded car doubled as a getaway vehicle in a shoplifting spree pulled off by his ex-wife.Melbourne West MLC Sang Nguyens parliamentary car was found by police loaded with stolen goods which they saidwere taken from a range of shops5and it was found at the Glen shopping centre in Glen Waverley.Honourable members interjecting.The SPEAKEROrder! The house will come to order. Government members!

Dr NAPTHINEThe point I make is that there needs to be consistency in how we deal withthese matters, not political expediency. There need to be fair, just and appropriate penalties10for the wrongdoing. There need to be serious penalties for wrongdoing, but they need to be

fair, just and appropriate and not based on political expediency.

An example in Westminster was reported on BBC News on 4 February 2010 under the headingMPs told to repay 1.1 million expenses. The article says:MPs should repay 1.12 million of their second home expenses, an audit of claims dating back to 2004 has said.15Sir Thomas Legg recommended that 389MPs, more than half the current and past MPs reviewed, should repay 1.3million.

What we find from looking at that circumstance is that a number of those members resigned theirpositions in government and opposition, a number did not recontest the election, a few facedcriminal charges and some were suspended by the Parliament, but none were expelled by the House20

of Commonsnot one of those 389MPs. What we need to do is look at the examples from acrossthe world and in Australia to make sure we have a fair, just and appropriate penalty.For the situation in the House of Commons, which is the father or mother of this Parliament, wecan look atan article by Christopher Hope, Whitehall editor, in theDaily Telegraph of 6 February 2010, which25says:Expelling an MP is highly unusualThe last MP to be expelled

from the House of Commonswas in 1954 when Peter Baker, Conservative MP for South Norfolk, was thrown out after being convicted of forgery and30sentenced to seven years in prison.

The point I make is that expulsion, which some people are arguing for in this case, is a very seriousmatter and should not be done lightly. In fact the extreme penalty of expelling somebody fromParliament should only be done in the most extreme circumstances. It should not be done forpolitical expediency, and it should not be based on a member of Parliaments personalityand it35has not been used in Victoria since 1901.If we look at the advice we are receiving from expert commentators, we see an article in theAustralian today under the heading Expulsion of elected MP a bridge too farDemocracy wouldbe the loser if Geoff Shaw is kicked out, written by Greg Craven, the vice-chancellor of theAustralian Catholic University, who has expertise in government and constitutional law. That40article says:According to media reports, he is quixotic, unpredictable and difficult. These seem to be his good points.But when it comes to expelling him from Parliament, enough is enough. Personality flaws are one thing; democracyanother.The ostensible reason for pursuing Shaw is his alleged misuse of a government petrol card. Problematic, but hardly a45

force 10 on the Eddie Obeid scale of tectonic malfeasance.But when we get to the point of throwing uncongenial politicians out of Parliament altogether we are dangerously close tothe days of Cromwell, purging the House of Commons for supposed corruption and moral turpitude.

In an interview with the ABC onLateline on 5 June, Hamish Fitzsimmons, the interviewer, said:50Its not certain that expelling an MP is legally possible and constitutional law expert Greg Taylor doesnt believe thepunishment fits the crime.

Then Greg Taylor, who is an associate professor in the faculty of law at Monash University, said:That would be an absurd outcome, far out of proportion to any offence that he might be thought to have committed.Members of Parliament have been expelled in the past. The latest case I know of is in 1969but that was for really55making up evidence.

In an article in theAustralian of 6 June, it is reported that:


19/20




Swinburne University of Technology politics professor Brian Costar said Labor would take an extraordinary step bypushing for Mr Shaws expulsion and risked a backlash.Its vindictive, Professor Costar said.He hasnt murdered anybodyits 6000 bucks.

Honourable members interjecting.5The SPEAKEROrder! The house will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition will have hischance in a moment.Dr NAPTHINEIndeed, when we look at experienced political commentators who have studied

these matters for some time, we see views that are similar across the political spectrum. In theAgetoday, 11 June, Josh Gordon writes:10In terms of an appropriate sanction, Denis Napthine was probably on solid ground. Shaw is being ordered to repay$5220.75 to cover the mileage chalked up through the improper use of his vehicle, plus $1617.69 as an add-on fine.Shaw will also be humiliatingly

MrWynne interjected.Debate interrupted.15SUSPENSION OF MEMBER

Member for RichmondThe SPEAKEROrder! The member for Richmond can leave the house for half an hour.Honourable member for Richmond withdrew from chamber.

MEMBER FOR FRANKSTON20

Debate resumed.Dr NAPTHINE (Premier)The article continues:Shaw will also be humiliatingly named by the Speaker, forced to apologise to the Parliament and the people of Victoria,and suspended for 11 sitting days until September 2, costing him about $3600 in lost pay. If he fails to comply he will beexpelled.25The article further says:Napthine has also avoided setting what would be a dangerous precedent for Parliament.At the other end of the spectrum, Andrew Bolt wrote in theHerald Sun:Our political class is getting dangerously arrogant in deciding who is allowed to speak. Another state Parliamentthistime Victoriasis thinking of sacking one of its members, this time just for being obnoxious and submitting dodgy30expenses.This isnt how democracy should work.

This is a serious matter. The misuse of taxpayers funds is an extremely serious matter. It is clear

that the member for Frankston must be held to account for his wrongdoing, but it is vitallyimportant under the traditions of our parliamentary democracytraditions that go back several35hundred years in Westminster and almost 200 years herethat when we deal with this matter wedo it fairly and justly, based on the merits of the case, not on our perceptions of personalities andnot on political expediency.I believe this motion puts forward a penalty that is fair, just and appropriate to the actualwrongdoing. It is not based on politics, not based on personality and not based on individual benefit40to any member of this house; it is about this house doing its duty under the parliamentary system,upholding the traditions of the Parliament and looking at, as I have done through my presentation,the precedents in the Australian Parliament, in the Westminster system and in this house, wherethere is unfortunately a track record of misuse of parliamentary resources by members on all sidesof politics. In each and every one of those cases nobody argued for the house to expel that person45

and overrule the democratically elected position that was put forward.The vital situation here is to make sure that the penalty is fair, just and appropriate and that it isbased on precedent. It is also absolutely essential that the penalty is enforceable and that the penaltywill stick so that there are consequences for the member for Frankston if he fails to adhere to thedecisions of this house. I believe that this motion before this house achieves those laudable and50high objectives. I believe it provides a mechanism to deal with the wrongdoing of the member forFrankstonan effective mechanism, a mechanism that is fair, just and appropriate, a mechanismthat is enforceable and a mechanism that is consistent with the traditions of the parliamentarydemocracy in this house and in Westminster systems across the world.



20/20




Again a mechanism that is fair, just and appropriate Premier Denis Napthine in my viewseemed to overlook that the process was not like that at all and the culprits so to say robbingtaxpayers blind are the one sitting in judgment of Mr Geoff Shaw. Come on!

What Premier Denis Napthine seems to make clear is that around the world parliamentarians are5thieving from taxpayers, regardless how much they are so to say being overpaid. Greed knows nolimits.Well I have so some extend explained some issues and request and invite you to provide aresponse and provide further relevant material you may hold may assist me in considering it all.

10And do notify me when the Parliament investigates the unconstitutional payments and so to saykeep me abreast with any progress. But I have some suspicion that likely little will come fromthis as Mr Geoff Shaw so to say was an easy target, but others will bed ab led to continue theirrorting, etc.

15This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to be legal advice and

may not be the same were factual details be different than those understood to be by the

writer.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.(Friends call me Gerrit)20

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL(Our name is our motto!)

20140613-g. h .schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to louise asher re mr geoff shaw-request for details and...

Documents