ISSUE: 201906706- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-

Supplement 56-Appropriation

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

* Gerrit, what in your view does the meaning of APPROPRIATION stand for?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, let us first consider the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_(law)
QUOTE
Appropriation (law)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

In law and government, appropriation (from Latin appropriare, "to make one's own",
later "to set aside") is the act of setting apart something for its application to a particular
usage, to the exclusion of all other uses.

It typically refers to the legislative designation of money for particular uses, in the context
of a budget or spending bill.

END QUOTE

Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2018-2019 - Federal Register of Legislation

QUOTE

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018A00050

Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2018-2019. No. 50, 2018. An Act to appropriate money out of
the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the ...

END QUOTE

Then what the Framers of the Constitution stated:

Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?

Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!

p1 6-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the
expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and powers
given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to the Commonwealth.

Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?

Mr. BARTON: Yes.

END QUOTE

ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BILLS

HANSARD 16-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN: They propose that the senate shall have equal power with the house of representatives in
respect of all bills, except money bills, so that in every other matter that comes before the senate it stands as
well equipped for dealing with legislation as does the popular chamber. There should be a tribunal to which it
would not be too difficult to appeal in case of differences between the two houses on those measures; but,
allowing that to pass, myko hon. colleague excepts from the control of the senate money bills, bills dealing
with customs and excise, and the annual appropriation bill. He does not say these may not be rejected, but he
says that they must not be amended; he believes that the second chamber should only exercise its power with
regard to money bills in such extreme cases as those in which it will be prepared to reject the whole proposal
put before it, but should not meddle with the financial affairs of the country by entering into the details of
those proposals. The 2nd resolution says:
The act of union shall provide that it shall not be lawful to include in the annual appropriation bill any
matter or thing other than the votes of supply for the ordinary service of the year.
What this means is that every money bill which may be a bill involving a question of policy shall come to
the second chamber independently, and the second chamber shall, if it please, be entitled to reject that
measure, to challenge the opinion of the country upon it, and to say that until the opinion of the
country is pronounced, that measure shall not pass into law. Are not these large and sufficient powers?
END QUOTE

What this indicate I that if the Senate reject a money ill then it I for the Governor-General to call
for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION. What is also clear I that the ANNUAL Appropriation Bill must
be restricted to that for the new financial year commencing 1 July following. As such there is no
such thing as to backdate taxation law of a previous financial year. What should have eventuated
that any laws regarding appropriation/taxation for the 20-19 -2020 financial year should have
been passed and enacted prior to 1 July 2019. Any taxation legislation affecting the 2018-2019
taxation year should have been passed and enacted prior to 1 July 2018.
Taxation and Appropriation Bills presented to the Parliament prior to the commencement of the
new financial year should be complementary to each other. As such, to hold that one can
somehow give a tax refund backdated by more than one year in July 2019 when it should have
been legislated for by latest in June 2018 I sheer and utter nonsense, it effectively would mean
that too much taxation was charged against taxpayer in the first place. As such Scott Morrison
then as Treasurer did a rotten job in the first place.
While Scott Morrison may desire to argue that he had a mandate, reality is there is no such
mandate. In the USA they elect a President who then has a mandate but in Australia we do not
elect a Monarch nor the representative Governor-General and o there I no such thing as a
mandate.
In Australia electors do not and never did elect a Government of the Day. Electors only can vote
for person to represent them in the Parliament. The Governor-General I who run the Government
and he elects persons to assist him to do so, who may or may not be Member of Parliament.
Albeit such an appointment can only last 3 months unless the person by then becomes a Member
of Parliament.

HANSARD 17-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
p2 6-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
QUOTE

Mr. BAKER: I know it is; but it seems to me to be so intimately connected with the question under
discussion, and the assumption so often made, that we must adopt the responsible form of government, has
been so mixed up with the question of what shall be the relative powers of the two houses, that it is pertinent
to refer to it now. I, for one, think that the people of these colonies-I am not now talking about the
parliaments-would hail with satisfaction a departure from the system under which ministries are now
appointed. If there is one thing with which the people of these colonies find fault in our existing forms of
government, it is the fact that two-thirds or one- [start page 441] half of the time of parliament and the
ministry is taken up by the quarrels between the "ins" and the "outs"; and if anything could do away
with that state of affairs-if ministries were enabled to devote the whole of their time and attention to
carrying on the business of the country, and the framing of wise measures, if they were not obliged to
fight day after day simply to retain their seats, and were not obliged to bring in measures which they
would not have brought in were it not for party purposes-the people would be much better satisfied
with that form of executive than with the form under which we now live.

Mr. GILLIES: That could be done by abolishing the "outs"!

Mr. BAKER: Well, if the hon. gentleman was one of the "outs" he would not like to be abolished. I
apologise for having, in the opinion of some hon. members, referred to a question which will come up for
discussion at a later stage. As I said before, it seemed to me that the two questions were so dependent on one
another that I might appropriately say a few words upon them now.

END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an
annual 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 which
we 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 QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-

In an Appropriation Act we should have so many hundred thousand pounds for this,
and so many hundred 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 quite impossible
for any court to tell from the mere construction of an Appropriation Act whether the items
do comprise moneys required for the ordinary annual services of the Government, even if
that phrase "ordinary annual services of the Government" were beyond dispute. Personally,

p3 6-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 I 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 annual services."

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 the ordinary annual services of the Government?

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

END QUOTE
And
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE

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 which
a speaker on a memorable occasion returned.

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 the
words 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. Let
him make the clause clearer, and by so much as he makes it [start page 2019] clearer he loses the whole
point 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 we
will soon find that out, and it can be rectified in six hours.

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

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 does
not go under these circumstances, and I am astonished that some of my honorable friends have not sufficient
recollection of Victorian history not to tell us that.

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

Mr. BARTON.-Well, summing up, if the argument is that the sub-section should be made clearer, let us
have 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 the
evidence of an infraction of the Constitution, we should be entitled not to allow the process of that law to be
regulated by mere methods of procedure, but to submit them to the determination of the court, because of the
evil which appears on their faces. Then, as regards the objections taken to clause 54, I submit that under that
clause the rights of the Senate and the House of Representatives are correlative rights, but that we are not
here 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 to
p4 6-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 procedure, without invoking a judicial tribunal to interfere with mere matters of procedure; but that where the
matters are not only procedure, but go beyond procedure, so as to be matters which carry on their face the
evidence of distinct infractions of the Constitution, then, as we do under clause 55, we do right to submit
those matters to the judicial tribunal.

END QUOTE

What this means is that Scott Morrison and his fellow Member of Parliament who voted for the
Bill to backdate a tax refund simply are trampling upon the provisions of the constitution and
couldn’t give a darn what I constitutionally appropriate. That to me is a very serious matter
which I view constitutes treason. Actually it I in my view utter and sheer nonsense to legislate for
Appropriation/Taxation more than 1 year ahead because the even, albeit unconstitutionally do a
mid-term changing of what was previously enacted. It I alo harm full to businesses who contract
themselves to be provided with goods from manufacturer only to discover midstream that cost
goes up due to increased taxation, etc.
* Are you against the Federal Government stimulating the economy?
**#** I am against the misuse and abuse of power! You cannot pursue that if it suits you then the
principles embedded in the constitution must be complied with and if it suit you to violate the
provision of the constitution then that is OK also. If everyone were to hold that kind of reasoning
then we cannot have any proper governance. Scott Morrison should have been well aware that he
could not apply a refund of taxation after the tax year already was concluded it should have been
provided for prior to the commencement of the tax year. If he and his fellow parliamentarians fail
to understand this then I view they are incompetent to be in the Parliament and certainly to be
Ministers in the government.

HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
The resolutions conclude:
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.
What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE

Fancy to have Ministers who do not understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of
the constitution! As such those who promoted during the last federal election about tax rebates,
etc, beyond constitutional power I view misled/deceived the electorate and should be held
accountable to have their seat declared vacant. And have others held to have been successful
after a recount. That would teach them a lesson and so others also not to swindle the electorate
with false/misleading promises.

We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
p5 6-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati