20180824-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Commonwealth Bank of Australia-COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Chief Executive Officer Commonwealth Bank 24-8-2018

C/o Customers Relation Fax 1800 028 542
CBA Tower 1, Ground Floor, 201 Sussex St, Sydney, NSW, 2000
Cc: Australian Banking Association
PO Box H218 Australia Square NSW 1215
Ref; Complaints AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Sir,
My wife Mrs Olga Hlavka-Schorel is a shareholder in CBA shares. I hold Enduring Power of
Attorney and as such contact you on her behalf.
As I understand it the Federal Government altered the taxation provisions to plug to some extend
its debt by charging the 4 major Australian banks about 6billion dollars on extra taxation not
applicable to other banks. In my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST this is unconstitutional. I
will explain below why I view this.
I may add that I previously defeated the Commonwealth in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka on
constitutional grounds on 19 July 2006 in both appeals. Prior to that I defeated the
Commonwealth on 4 August 2005 in the usage of AVERMENT. As such I have a track record to
defeat the Commonwealth. I may add that this involved also all State/Territory Attorney-
Generals.
It is regrettable that those who are candidates in political elections and are elected generally have
no clue what the true meaning and application of the relevant constitution might be. When they
are then commissioned to govern they will make gross errors but generally ordinary citizens lack
the finances to challenge them.
Those who are lawyers generally have so to say been brainwashed to accept the idioticy that goes
on rather than to consider what is really constitutionally permissible.
https://www.commbank.com.au/guidance/newsroom/executive-leadership-team-appointments-201806.html
CBA announces Executive Leadership Team appointments Executive leadership team appointments
I understand that CBA had a change to some extend of directors, but how many of them are
really knowledgeable as to the relevant constitutional matters that governs the bank taxation
liabilities? Are the legal advisors and accountants really able to advise appropriately? It means
generally that all those upon which the bank may rely in effect know next to nothing about what
is constitutionally appropriate and permissible. The result is that shareholders might be duped.
.
I will below try to give you some basic understanding why so to say the 4 major banks are ripped
off big time by the Federal Government.
.
The first thing that should be understood is that the constitution is above the Government
(Executive), the Judicature and the Parliament (legislator) as well as above the Inter-State
Commission (the fourth branch of the constitution).
p1 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
.
The constitution must be interpreted to the understanding of the ordinary citizens, not to
whatever may legally be applicable in some foreign country.
.
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has
described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This
Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to
this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or
rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and
it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to
understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole
time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is
commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be
appreciated by the people.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
Re Wakim [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)

KIRBY J. : “ A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitution power

where none exists. ”
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers"
Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the
text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive
interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It
means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a social group
with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE
Therefore, we are bound by the legal principles the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the
constitution and we therefore must consider the following quotations also:
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
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
And
QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the
imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the
whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may
determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average
opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout
the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states
for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniform
throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from one
state to another;
END QUOTE

QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-
Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty
shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I am saying now that I do not think there is any necessity for clause 95 in its present form.
What I am saying however, is that it should be made certain that in the same way as you provide that the
Tariff or any taxation imposed shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, so it should be
provided with reference to trade and commerce that it shall be uniform and equal, so that the
Commonwealth shall not give preference to any state or part of a state. Inasmuch as we provide that all
taxation, whether it be customs or excise duties, or direct taxation, must be uniform, and inasmuch as
we follow the United States Constitution in that particular-in the very same way I argue that we should
protect the trade and commerce sub-section by not doing anything which will limit its effect. That is the real
logical position.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the
Drafting 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 indirect
taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an
income 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 any
kind? 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 get into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax
sought to be imposed might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not
absolutely uniform.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-The court would not consider whether it was an oversight or not. They would take the
law and ask whether it complied with the Constitution. If it did not, they would say that it was invalid.
They would not go into the question of what was in the minds of the Members of Parliament when the law
was passed. That would be a political question which it would be impossible for the court to determine.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE
It is therefore in my view very clear that the commonwealth has no legislative powers to apply a
special tax to certain banks but not the same to other banks.
https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/big-bank-levy-set-to-pass-parliament-this-week/news-
story/63794df083e8b7c41521edf0eea17fbb
Turnbull Government’s $6.2b big bank levy passes Parliament
JUNE 20, 2017 7:31AM
QUOTE
Treasurer Scott Morrison has refused to back down however as the levy is a key plank of the Government’s
plan to return the Budget to surplus by 2021.
Liberal senator Ian Macdonald raised some concerns about the tax last night, saying he “despaired”
that the Coalition government was taxing some companies differently.
“I’m uncomfortable about that and I know that many in my party are,” he told parliament.
END QUOTE
https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/big-bank-levy-set-to-pass-parliament-this-week/news-
story/63794df083e8b7c41521edf0eea17fbb
QUOTE
Treasurer Scott Morrison has refused to back down as the levy is a key plank of the Government’s plan to
return the budget to surplus by 2021. Picture: AAP Source: AAP
Crossbench senator Nick Xenophon tried, but failed, to amend the legislation to ensure the levy would
apply to foreign banks with significant assets such as HSBC or BNP Paribas, arguing the levy unfairly
disadvantaged Australian banks. Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said the levy would apply to
foreign banks if they were ever to meet the threshold but at present, none fit the “major bank”
category.
One Nation’s Brian Burston described the levy as a “lazy, ugly, cheap solution” that would hit
shareholders and superannuation savings without fixing any of the real problems within the banking
sector.
“It’s as if you call the cops to deal with a thug demanding protection money and instead of arresting
the thug, the policeman just puts out his hand to take his cut,” he told parliament.
END QUOTE
Turnbull government offered to exclude big banks from company tax cut for
One Nation support
The Sydney Morning Herald ·
The Turnbull government offered to exclude banks from business tax cuts in a
bid to get One Nation's support
The Turnbull government offered to exclude banks from business tax ...
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/company-tax-cuts-big-banks-senate-failure-one-nati...
2 days ago - The Turnbull government looks set to lose a second signature policy within 24 hours
with attempts to find crossbench support for its company ...
Federal budget 2017: How the new bank tax will work - Federal ... - ABC
www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-2017/...bank-tax.../8513264
May 9, 2017 - The new bank tax aims to raise $1.5 billion a year for the next four years, so who is
... The new tax — or levy — is a tax on each banks' liabilities and is ... Turnbull quite good at tidying
up old messes, writes Annabel Crabb ...
It ought to be clear that the now as I understand it the newly commissioned Prime Minister Scott
Morrison was as Treasurer who engineered this rot. I view that my wife as shareholder has every
right to have bank executives to protect her rightful entitlements as a shareholder and take on the
federal government that it cannot inappropriately slug the 4 major Australian Banks while doing
so in violation of the constitution not doing the same with other banks.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that all taxation must be uniform. While the
Commonwealth may apply a sliding scale such as it does with income tax it cannot however
apply different taxation to banks which have the same level of turnover, etc.
In my submission to the Royal Commission I exposed what I held the wrongdoing of AMP way
back in 2008 and coincidental or not reportedly 5 directors resigned the following day.
I have promoted that directors should be legally accountable and not so to say punish the
shareholders who may really be the innocent shareholder victims.
While I am (now) a retired Professional Advocate the fact that I was able to defeat the
Commonwealth in li9tigation may underline that if the bank(s) were to employ a competent
lawyer who actually has competence in constitutional issues then the banks may have the
unconstitutional tax already paid refunded.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear any unconstitutional taxation must be refunded.
Surely the banks could afford to litigate this matter with competent lawyers considering that I
without any team of lawyers was able to do it and succeed time and time again because of using
the true meaning and application of the constitution.
The bank can change its management as much as it likes and those directors can have reams
paper of titles but in the end it is all useless if they fail to know what they need to know to
appropriately represent the shareholders interest.
Management team | Australian Banking Association

https://www.ausbanking.org.au/about-us/management-team/
Anna Bligh, Chief Executive Officer. Anna Bligh is the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Banking
Association. Her priorities include strengthening the ...
As I understand it Anna Bligh was previously Premier of the State of Queensland but to me
obviously neither understand or comprehend what true the constitutional taxation powers are.
Because the States are created within section 106 of the constitution SUBJECT TO THIS
CONSTITUTION all legal principles embedded in this constitution applies also to the States
unless otherwise indicated.
As no email address could be located I intend to post it via Australia Post while in the meantime
publishing a copy on my blog, hence my wife’s private details are not included and I view are
not needed as the bank has its records.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)


20180824-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Commonwealth Bank of Australia-COMPLAINT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20180824-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Commonwealth Bank of Australia-COMPLAINT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Chief Executive Officer Commonwealth Bank 24-8-2018

Ref; Complaints AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-

Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Re Wakim [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)

p2 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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

p3 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Management team | Australian Banking Association

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

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

p7 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like