20140303-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Human Rights Commission

5
10
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Australian Human Rights Commission Address: Level 3, 175 Pitt Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000 GPO Box 5218, SYDNEY NSW 2001 Telephone: (02) 9284 9600 Complaints Infoline: 1300 656 419 General enquiries and publications: 1300 369 711 TTY: 1800 620 241 Fax: (02) 9284 9611 Email: communications@humanrights.gov.au Sir/Madam,
3-3-2014
15
while English was not my native language and neither did I have any formal education in the English language nor in legal matters, somehow it appears to me that the Human Rights Commission could learn from my writings. If you were to check out my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati and download the 22-2-2014 (400 odd page) correspondence to HM Queen Elizabeth II, you may just discover a bit more than any of you may ever have understood that is wrong with the Commonwealth of Australia.
.
20
25
30
35
40
Did any of you ever eat Marshmallow in chocolate coating with white sprinklers? Well I was pleased to read on the Internet last night that in the Dutch language they are still called neger zoenen which translated means negro kisses. Before trying to get rid of section 18C of the purported Racial Discrimination Act you better get to understand that the entire act should go! Personally I oppose discrimination, not just racial discrimination, but we have of late councils making clear that when it comes to women having Islamic religions then man can be banned from using the swimming pool. My wife (age 81) born in Europe find it very offensive that when she is in a public toilet someone is there as she deems it under a bag covered up without her being able to see who that person is. To her common decency and courtesy is that a person shows their face where they can see the faces of others around them. It is discrimination against the general community whereas it was reported that in South Australia a woman can be hidden under a hijab (the so to say potato bag) without having to show her face to a police officer to check her identification where others have to show their face. Indeed, as I understand it in a criminal case the woman was let off because she claimed it was not her as the woman was wearing a hijab. I hold that the purported Racial Discrimination Act is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. As a self-educated CONSTITUTIONALIST I considering Section 51(xxvi) of the constitution (that is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900 (UK) in case you are not aware of this) the purported Racial Discrimination Act is unconstitutional. I am well aware of the ruling by the High Court of Australia in the Commonwealth v BjelkePeterson case but then again lets look at the understanding (besides the intelligence) of the High Court of Australia.
index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635 Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000) QUOTE 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p1
45
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to. END QUOTE
This statement alone ought to make clear that there is a major problem within the judiciary. No such constitutional legislative powers exist within the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)!
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE
10
15
20
In my view no one in his right mind could even remotely hold that to legislate for every blueeyed baby to be killed can be for peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. The mentality expressed by the High Court of Australia is clearly questionable at the very least.
index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635 Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000) QUOTE But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to. END QUOTE
25
Lets use the statement by changing the subject matter to as follows: 30

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every judge killed if it wanted to But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every Aboriginal killed if it wanted to But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every police officer killed if it wanted to
35
40
Would the Human Rights commission accept that a statement like (as example)
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every Aboriginal killed if it wanted to
45
50
Would not then a lot of people be up with their arms complaining this is racism? Why then not the same where it relates to blue-eyed babies? Is it that we have an Aboriginal phobia and it is all being overdone and in the process blueeyed babies is not as offensive as if it relates to an Aboriginal? My quotations below may underline that I am not anti-Aboriginal, and so do not misconceive my writings. I hold, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST that the that the Northern Territory Intervention Act was and remains unconstitutional, this as any legislation enacted within ss51(xxvi) must be an Act in regard of all people of that race, not just a few of them. As such the legislation must be applied to all Aboriginals, regardless if they are doctors, lawyers, etc, residing in large cities, or none at all. Ss51(xxvi) was specifically inserted to enable to discriminate against coloured races! See also my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati which includes the following document: 20149301-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM- Re 'Race'
3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p2
55
Constitutional powers as to races, religion, etc. ENJOY THE READ.

.
The document can be downloaded from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/209947922/20149301-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-TonyAbbott-PM-Re-Race What we have in the Commonwealth of Australia is a reverse discrimination! Where not being Aboriginal or not deemed to be an Aboriginal is resulting to being discriminated against, and so unconstitutionally. If an ordinary person has some legal dispute then he/she may not be able to obtain legal aid but an Aboriginal may be able to get legal aid funding from a special fund set up for Aboriginals. Why this extra funding for the same issues involved? Then where an Aboriginal makes a land right claim he/she can enjoy often free litigation, paid for directly or indirectly by the tax payers but the farmer who may have inherited the property through generations or may just have lawfully purchased the property may be out so to say on a limb having to fund his/her own litigation and may as result be financial destroyed.
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE We now come to a most dangerous point in connection with the proceedings of this Convention. I hope that the 4th resolution, dealing with the question of military and naval defence, will receive the most anxious consideration of the delegates. I hope that the words which fell last evening from the lips of the hon. member, Sir George Grey-words which bear the weight of great experience-will be taken to heart by those who may form the federal government. The question of creating a standing army is one which, to my mind, is almost more repulsive than the question of readjustment of territorial boundaries. It means the existence in our midst of a certain number of idle men-men sharpening their knives and their swords for the first fitting opportunity of fleshing them on the people of their own country, because we have no other enemies. We, in Australia-federated Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies to the whole-have no enemies within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us the possession of the soil; we have no powerful Maori race, to fight, as was once the case in New Zealand, for the territory the right to which belonged to the Maoris themselves. We have no enemies within, and the only thing we have to fear is the possibility of any assault on the mother country by her enemies from without, unless indeed the creation of a standing army proves a menace to the people of Australia by the existence of an armed force for unlawful purposes. This question of the creation of a military force is one of the blots upon these resolutions. We want no military force within New South Wales. All we want to do is to make every man who is either a native of the soil, or one of ourselves by reason of his taking up his residence amongst us, prepare to resist possible invasion from without. Who are our enemies? Who are our enemies but the enemies of England, and they, so long as we remain under the Crown, will be dealt with by an outer barrier, an outer bulwark in the defence of Australia, in the shape of the navy of Old England. But we have no enemies within, and there is no necessity to fasten the curse of a standing army upon us. As was pointed out by the hon. member, Sir George Grey, yesterday, in his interesting speech, we have no necessity to keep a large standing army at a large cost to the people of the country, [start page 185] when we have no enemies with whom they will have to fight. Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within. END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
For the Framers of the Constitution Aboriginals were not considered for the purpose of federation to be a race but where considered equal to any ordinary Australian provided that the State had granted them citizenship (the political status within a state/Territory that pending qualification of age, etc, may include franchise), And s41 preserved their right to vote in federal elections. As quoted from my book published in regard of the 40th anniversary of the con-job ss51(xxvi) referendum;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices legislation, A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-112006 decision ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour) QUOTE 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p3
55
11. In 1964, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Calwell) introduced a measure for the alteration of the Constitution to remove the exclusion of Aboriginals from par (xxvi) and to delete s 127[232]. He called attention to possible United Nations criticism that the Constitution was "discriminating against" the Aboriginal people[233]. The Federal Attorney-General (Mr Snedden) affirmed that all parliamentarians felt that "there should be no discrimination against aboriginal natives of Australia "[234]. He warned that the proposed change to par (xxvi) created the potential for "discrimination ... whether for or against the aborigines"[235], in response to which Mr Calwell affirmed his view that the amendment would only be beneficial for Aboriginal Australians[236]. The Bill was ultimately defeated. 12. In 1965, the Government introduced the Constitution Alteration (Repeal of Section 127) Bill 1965 (Cth). The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) justified the exclusion of any amendment to par (xxvi) on the ground that to include the Aboriginal people in the race power would not be in their best interests[237]. However, although the Bill was passed by both Houses, the Government decided not to put it to referendum. 13. In March 1966, Mr W C Wentworth (later the first Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs[238]) introduced a Private Member's Bill[239] to amend the Constitution to substitute for the race power in par (xxvi) a new provision[240]: "The advancement of the aboriginal natives of the Commonwealth of Australia". Mr Wentworth also proposed a new s 117A of the Constitution. This would forbid the Commonwealth and the States from making or maintaining any law which subjected any person born or naturalised within the Commonwealth "to any discrimination or disability within the Commonwealth by reason of his racial origin". The proposal contained a proviso that the section should not operate "so as to preclude the making of laws for the specific benefit of the aboriginal natives of the Commonwealth of Australia"[241]. One of the reasons given by Mr Wentworth for his amendments was his concern that the deletion of the exclusion of people of the Aboriginal race from par (xxvi) could leave them open to "discrimination ... adverse or favourable". He suggested that the "power for favourable discrimination" was needed; but that there should not be a "power for unfavourable discrimination"[242]. His Bill was supported by the Opposition[243], but it ultimately lapsed[244]. The 1967 referendum 14. Instead, on 1 March 1967, a new Prime Minister (Mr Holt) introduced the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Bill 1967 (Cth). He explained that the government had been influenced by the "popular impression" that the words "other than the aboriginal race in any State" in par (xxvi) "are discriminatory"[245]. This was a view which the government believed to be erroneous. But it was deeply rooted. It required amendment of the Constitution in a way that would give the Parliament the power to make special laws for Aboriginals which, with cooperation with the States, would "secure the widest measure of agreement with respect to Aboriginal advancement"[246]. 15. The Government's Bill was supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). He referred to the many disadvantages which Australian Aboriginals had suffered and which needed positive federal initiatives[247]. It was also supported by Mr Wentworth. He expressed the opinion that some discrimination was necessary in relation to Aboriginals but "it should be favourable, not unfavourable"[248]. The Bill passed through the House of Representatives without a single dissenting vote[249]. END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Again consider this nonsense of a statement: 45

QUOTE One of the reasons given by Mr Wentworth for his amendments was his concern that the deletion of the exclusion of people of the Aboriginal race from par (xxvi) could leave them open to "discrimination ... adverse or favourable". END QUOTE
50
55
What we have, is a clear statement of misconception as to what ss51(xxvi) stood for. At the time the High Court of Australia refusing to allow the usage of the Hansard Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) records (until the Tasmania Dam case when then it became convenient to do so albeit by taking out of context the statements of the Framers of the Constitution, as I view it so often did to side with the Federal Government rather than to hand down a judicial determination based upon the
relevant facts) as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that ss51(xxvi) could not be used against the general community! Therefore couldnt be used in favour of a race detrimental against the general community. 5 Again: Ss51(xxvi) was specifically inserted to enable to discriminate against coloured races! See also my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati which includes the following document: 20149301-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM- Re 'Race' Constitutional powers as to races, religion, etc. ENJOY THE READ.
.
10
15
The document can be downloaded from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/209947922/20149301-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-TonyAbbott-PM-Re-Race

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree. END QUOTE
20
25
30
As I view it the judges of the High Court of Australia manipulated their judicial powers to ignore that the Commonwealth of Australia was no more but a POLITICAL UNION! Despite the Sue v Hill case the High Court of Australia has never had any constitutional powers via backdoor manner or otherwise to amend the constitution! Since the Dutch shipwrecked in the westerns coast of New Holland (which part is now called Western Australia) and the captain and about 70 men then assimilated with Aboriginals in that area then the Captain actually did bring Dutch common law, etc, into the landmass New Holland now known as the landmass Australia French logbooks of ships that travelled near New Holland reported seeing Dutch shaped buildings and land cultivated. As such the Dutch were the first to actually bring both common law and Dutch statute law into Australia (then New Holland). (Something as I understand the High Court of Australia ignored.) While we are so to say brainwashed that Aboriginals are a race, the truth is that even today no such identity can be associated with all Aboriginals. The Framers of the Constitution themselves recognized that Aboriginals resided in Asia also. And I recall that in the 1970s there was this dispute about original aboriginal nam es in the Grampians Victoria where Aboriginals of more recent times pursued to have the original Aboriginal names changed to their tribe. And, there never was any Aboriginal nation as such as they were tribes who at times would kill other tribe members for whatever reason. They didnt speak one language, and many still dont and neither had any governing council. Therefore the purported Aboriginal flag was a con-job as if this was designed by and on behalf of all Aboriginals.
.
35
40
45
50
I recall that the request in 2004 from Patrick Byrt QC to design a flag that would incorporate all races in the Commonwealth of Australia. We worked together to arrive to the following:
3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com
p5
. This design of the flag is as much worth as the so called Aboriginal flag, as both were designed without any consultation of all existing Aboriginal tribes. Just that the flag we designed was intended to incorporate all races, not just Aboriginals. After all who can deny the existence of other races such as the Torres Strait Islanders? They are not and cannot be deemed to be Aboriginals for the sake of the flag the Aboriginals seems to use.
.
10
And, while ss51(xxvi) permits the Commonwealth to legislate as to a specific race it doesnt allow to legislate for more than one race in the same legislation. Hence, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders Act is unconstitutional for this also.
.
15
The issue is not if this or other legislation such as the purported Northern Territory Intervention Act might be for certain deemed justified purposes as the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
.
20
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive. END QUOTE
25
Obviously one also have to consider that we have now purportedly handed over to aboriginals huge parts of the commonwealth of Australia and yet we still have that we are berated not looking after Aboriginals in health, education, etc.
.
30
Now, what a sheer and utter nonsense is this that on the one hand Aboriginals are a race as like a nation (a nation within a nation) while some are getting rich and squander monies while they do not care less about other Aboriginals and then blame the general community about the plight of those Aboriginals struggling in life?
Why is it that Aboriginals now holding huge tracks of land do not use the monies generated from this to assist other Aboriginals, where those tracks of lands were provided upon the basis of historical land rights? Or is it that those land rights are associated with specific tribes and not as to the Aboriginals being one race looking after its own? What we therefore have is that for land right purposes we have Aboriginals joining together but at the end of the day when they get the land then they are only interested to secure their own tribe and the rest so to say can get lost. In my view, as the federation was built upon the fact that we didnt have the land rights issue ion Australia then it is a little bit too late to afterwards try to reconstitute the basis upon which the federation was built/. I am not aware that any referendum existed to permit this.
.
10
15
Moreover, when one have a certain law then this is to be for all people that the legislation has one certain meaning.
.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that it was to discriminate against a race. It is not relevant if one may agree or disagree with this on a personal view, what is relevant is that this is the legal principle embedded in the constitution. Therefore, it cannot be that ss51(xxvi) somehow has one meaning for Aboriginals but the ordinary meaning of legal principles as embedded by the Framers of the Constitution. As such, if it can be held that the Commonwealth of Australia can legislate in favour of Aboriginals then it also should be able to do for any other race. And this clearly is not what can be achieved because it would result as to legislation against the general community. One cannot use the one constitutional provision in different context pending which race it may applied to. And moreover I do not gain the understanding of the referendum held in 1967 regarding amending ss51(xxvi) that it included to amend the legal principles applicable to ss51(xxvi) regarding races (other than Aboriginals) that for them also this amendment would be applicable. As such, the electors were deceived as to vote in a referendum regarding ss51(xxvi) concealing from them that it would not just relate to Aboriginals but would in effect also then have a drastic effect upon how the Commonwealth deals with any race and that the legal principle embedded in the constitution that this section 51(xxvi) cannot be used against the general community then will be abandoned. In my view the concealment went even further. One of the motives I understand of the amendment of ss51(xxvi) was to give Aboriginals citizenship, the right to vote. Reality is as shown in this document that for purpose of federation any Aboriginal who had obtained the right to vote for the numerous house of the state/Territory then had the right to vote in federal elections guaranteed by s41 of the constitution. And as such as I understand it 1908 the white only legislation by the Commonwealth to exclude Aboriginals from voting was unconstitutional. Hence, ss51(xxvi) amendment did not provide federal franchise for Aboriginals but in fact was taking it from them. Because the moment the Commonwealth of Australia had in place legislation in regard of Aboriginals (the disgraced purported Northern Territory Intervention Act) all Aboriginals lost their citizenship (including franchise). What I view that should have eventuated is that competent lawyers should have relied upon the Hansard records that the Framers of the Constitution intended that the constitution was to be interpreted based upon what was debated by the delegates at the time to indicate their intentions.
.
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p7
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
5
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) Last Updated: 22 September 2000 QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation 10 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
.
15
20
25
30
Therefore, you cannot accept that the 1967 referendum was valid where it was to be of a contradiction to the existing legal principles applicable to ss51(xxvi) and the electors were never informed of what the end result was of this con-job referendum, that it would not just alter how Aboriginals were to be dealt with but also any other race. Indeed, one may ask why on earth has other races since 1967 not pursued special legislation in favour of themselves where Aboriginals can pursue this? That is if one were to accept the 1967 referendum regarding ss51(xxvi) to be valid (not that I concede this).
.
35
It should be understood that if any government can manipulate a referendum to achieve an end result never contemplated by the electors (such as changing the entire application of ss51(xxvi) then what would stop it to repeat the same time and time again? We, the people, cannot condone such kind of deceptive tactic.
.
40
45
50
Again, in my view the correct manner to have con about the 1`908 legislation was to have challenged it on constitutional grounds. The problem is however that many lawyers call themselves constitutional lawyers which is really an oxymoron, this because a lawyer is to twist and infringe upon legislative provisions to often seek to win the case for his/her client. This whereas a constitutionalist is not interested in which way a court may make a ruling as to the constitutionalist the issue is the true meaning and application of the constitution regardless of to whom it applies. As where 100 cases are decided by the courts with all parties being represented then in the end 100 sets of lawyers are proven to be wrong and so one has a 50% success rate engaging lawyers. If the same was applicable to doctors in operations then they be called charlatans. Lawyers do not determine the law and its application but merely give their "opinion" and in the end the client which relies upon such opinion ends up paying the bill if losing the case
as well as ending up paying the winners legal cost and this all as result of the reliance of their lawyers legal advice! 5 In my view the 1967 referendum regarding the amendment of ss51(xxvi) is invalid because it was a con job and a fraud committed not just upon the electors but also upon Aboriginals to pretend it would advise their status, etc, where clearly it never was and at the time Prime Minister Robert Menzies was aware of the dangers regarding amending ss51(xxvi) for this!
QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343 Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true. END QUOTE
.
10
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence 2d; SS: 256 & 257: 15 "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. 'Such an unconstitutional law is void', the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority to anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts preformed under it . . . 'A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." . . . The fact that one acts in reliance on a statute which has theretofore been adjudged unconstitutional does not protect him from civil or criminal responsibility ....
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm QUOTE 37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." END QUOTE
20
25
30
35
And 40
QUOTE The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. END QUOTE
45
50
55
p9
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
10
Therefore, I hold that the 1967 referendum regarding ss51(xxvi) is and remains not valid. It should be understood that it is not that the referendum is applicable regardless of my denial as to its validity, because once it has been objected against it is and remains ULTRA VIRES unless and until if ever at all a court of competent jurisdiction declares it INTRA VIRES. . I may make it very clear that on 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia (AEC) that compulsory voting is unconstitutional. As such, I am well aware that what ordinary might be constitutional valid for lawyers, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I proved it to be otherwise. In my view the High Court of Australia therefore also lacked the judicial powers regarding the MABO case regarding declaring the Commonwealth of Australia to be some form of entity which was not as such the basis upon which the federation was created.
.
15
20
25
30
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree. END QUOTE
.
35
40
There are ample of people who are sick and tired of the Aboriginal land rights claim and soon or later it will result that people will stand up and all together reverse it. As may gave me the understanding, that the Aboriginals never made the value of the land as it is today, and they are claiming even parts of the shore merely because they claim they can then see the sea their ancestors used for their boats. We have where the High Court of Australia has ruled that Aboriginals can at certain areas fish without the need of a license whereas other are prohibited from doing so. I personally resent fishing as I view it is cruel, and do not consume fish, but that is not the issue. The issue is that this is adverse discrimination that I view was beyond the powers of the judiciary. What however I understand the policy of the High Court of Australia is that it uses judgments to make up for where it held the legislators failed to do so. To me this is a blatant infringement upon the legislative powers of the Parliament and unconstitutional. .
HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE The Hon. J. H. CARRUTHERS: I will take the three great purposes under clause 52 of this bill for which the commonwealth is to be established-for taxation, for defence, and, what is to my mind one of the greatest of all purposes, the regulation of the inflow of population so as to secure a white Australia. END QUOTE
.
45
50
55
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights. 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p10
Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.

END QUOTE .
As to Aboriginals:
.
10
15
20
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted. Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting. Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree. Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota. Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be deducted. Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes. Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote. END QUOTE
.
25
What we therefore have is that the inclusion of Aboriginals and special laws enacted for Aboriginals within ss51(xxvi) causes them to have lost their franchise (right to vote).
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
30
the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state. Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the confines of Victoria at all. Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
35
40
45
Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it. Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p11
50
55
laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth should not have power to devise such laws. END QUOTE
What we therefore have is that while the Framers of the Constitution pursued a white Australia it was not against Aboriginals as they were for federal purposes deemed to be equal.
10
Ss51(xxvi) was specifically inserted in regard of the influx of coloured races and their conduct within the Commonwealth of Australia. As such the United nations allegedly seeking Aboriginals to be included as a race was in my view utter and sheer nonsense and contrary to the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution that for Federal purposes they were equal to other Australians. .
Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON: There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of the common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot be justly applied here. END QUOTE
15
20
As such whatever the United Nations may claim it doesnt mean it applies to the Commonwealth of Australia! The following may also indicate the danger caused by the Sue v Hill decision where now the High Court of Australia somehow seems to hold that the Parliament can order the killing of every blue eyed baby (no longer limited by the original constitutional restrains of the legal principles embedded in the constitution), whereas within the true meaning and application of the constitution this would not be permissible/possible.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices legislation, A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-112006 decision ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour) QUOTE Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED
25
30
Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED * Gary, what is your view about McHughs statement ? 35 **#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI, how can anyone put the Court in disrepute when you have such idiotic statement of a judge. Well, I have put my bit on the Internet about it. In my view considering that statement the parliament should have moved to have him removed from the bench as soon as he made that statement. If this is the kind of mentality and intelligence that we can expect from judges of the High Court of Australia then I think we might as well appoint one of my grandchildren to the bench and at least they be rather playing with toys and crayons and say nothing sensible then the utter rubbish that we now had. And this kind of intelligence, or the lack thereof, is used to deal with constitutional matters, no wonder wee are going downhill! index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635
QUOTE 070520 posting I am very disturbed to find the following of a quotation to have found this discussion;
40
45
50
QUOTE McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not. END QUOTE QUOTE But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to. 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p12
55
END QUOTE As a "constitutionalist" (not some lawyer who is brainwashed) I condemn any one, in particularly judges, to undermine the constitutional system that exist in the POLITICAL UNION BEING THE Commonwealth of Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia, as like the European Union, is created by Statue and itself has no common law. Hence, any jury that were to be involved in federal hearings must be drawn from a State.
10
As author of the INSPECTOR-RIKATI books in regard of constitutional and other matters I have set out extensively how I succeeded and defeated Federal Government lawyers after a 5-year legal battle on all constitutional issues I raised! The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was an act to create a "APOLITICAL UNION" and the States who partly federated retaining all legislative powers regarding "CIVIL RIGHTS" as it was their constitutions that were based upon the provisions of the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Habeas corpus, etc. In the Commonwealth of Australia, judges are appointed to the High Court of Australia regardless lacking any competence in constitutional matters, in fact they may never have practiced in constitutional matters, and in one incident a judge actually refused to hand down a judgment other then to state he didn't have any knowledge in the constitutional matter before the court and for this would abstain from handing down a judgment. You find it as a matter of record that where the Governor-General was Defendant in a case before the High Court of Australia then all 7 judges subsequently fraternised with the governor-General, and no one has to be surprised the Court subsequently refused to allow the case to be heard upon its MERITS. In the Commonwealth of Australia judges are purportedly appointed by the Governor-General but he merely appoints those who the Government provides to be appointed. Hence a political stacking occurs. The High Court of Australia in 1996 using their powers as a "persona designata" to make decisions for the parliament, approved of the entire constitution to be replaced by the Australia act 1986 (forget about it being constitutionally valid) so that there no longer is a "constitutional Parliament" but the parliament now is above the constitution. As it now legislated the (purported) constitution. But, I successfully challenged this validity of this De Facto Constitution in Court. Having myself served in the NATO at the then IRON CURAIN having been trained as a sharpshooter, I personally deplore the usage of weapons, as I am trained to use it to kill. However, I recognise the right of others to bear arms, for defending their rights, and even the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) indicated that militia could be drawn from civilians of a State after the federation was created. This to me implied that the commonwealth of Australia would have been able to enlist armed civilians to serve at that time to protect the shores of the Commonwealth of Australia until it could set up its own defence force. There are always terrible incidents involving firearms that stand out. Likewise there are also terrible incidents where motor vehicles are standing out in having resulted to mass killings. Personally, I would prefer not a single person to have a firearm, but then I have to recognise that others may desire that everyone should have a weapon to defend himself/herself. My wife, opposed me to even fit a knife sharpers on the kitchen wall, but wanted me to hide it in a pantry, as she fears that someone might come in the residence and see the knives and use it wrongly.
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Surely, we are not going to ban all knives in the world? When anyone desires to exercise a right then the person must also accept there are obligations. Hence regulations as to the storage, handling and usage of a firearm should be deemed to be appropriate where it provides for what is locally required. Therefore, while a person may have the right to own a firearm, the Parliament rightfully could legislate to have the usage, carrying, etc made subject to conditions.
60
65
Where there is a constitutional right, implied or otherwise, that a person may bear arms to defend himself then I view one cannot limit the usage of a weapon to be some small handgun, a tank, or a warplane, as depending 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p13
what your personal conditions are you may need one or another, without having any intention to use it against other civilians.
The Supreme Court (USA) has extensively decided cases regarding infringements of RELIGION and I for one admire the Courts numerous judgments I read. If the same kind of logic was used regarding the right to bear arms, then I view likewise both parliamentarians and civilians should accept this kind of reasoning. I for one do not desire to use a weapon, do not like them being used, but that are my personal views, and I recognise others have total opposite views. They have their right on their opinion as much as I have and as such I view that the concentration should not be as to how to make inroads to the rights of others, but rather how can we facilitate the rights of others without that our own rights (including that of personal safety, as not to be held up by some crazy gunman) jeopardised needlessly. In particular those of the law enforcement who are risking their lives daily to protect innocent citizens of harm they must not unduly be jeopardised in their law enforcement positions because inappropriate regulations allow anyone to obtain a weapon. While many people argue about the right of freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, few do actually concentrate on the issue of right of freedom of travel, even so this likewise was protected by old English law. Not to many people argue that their right to travel is denied where they must first have a driving licence to drive a motor vehicle, where as no kind of driving licence existed to drive a cart-and-wagon. As such, somehow we have accepted inroads to our guaranteed freedoms because society allowed for this where as in regard of weapons we may have different positions pending the local society we reside in. In my view, the right to legislate that a person should not be allowed to bear arms cannot be justified on a court decision, as if the freedom to bear arms is guaranteed then I view not a court in the land could possible make an order contrary to it.
10
15
20
25
30
35
We therefore may have to look at the constitutional framework as to what was existing at the time each constitution was created and if the conditions then existed that a Court could actually have denied a person to bear arms. If in history it can be shown that certain persons were denied by the local authorities to bear arms, then it must be accepted that the Constitution albeit if it provides for the right to bear arms then was created upon the understanding that such implied freedom was at all times deemed to be subject to court judicial decisions and or legislative powers. As a "constitutionalist" I find it laughable how judges, despite their extensive legal training, can come up with such utter and sheer nonsense such as McHugh J did with his statement ;
40
QUOTE But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to. END QUOTE As no such constitutional system operates that would allow the parliament to enact such laws. And there I have to come back upon the other quotation;
45
50
QUOTE McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not. END QUOTE Lawyers are being trained in legal studies by other lawyers and as such are brainwashed far to often that some LEGAL FICTION is FLEGAL REALITY> As I exposed in my book published on 30 September 2003
55
60
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
65
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p14
There is no constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare "citizenship" as Australians are constitutionally "subjects of the British Crown". Citizenship is a " POLITICAL POSITION" of rights, including franchise, and has absolutely nothing to do with "nationality" yet the High Court of Australia goes on as if it is a nationality. In court, on 19 July 2006, I defeated the Federal Government lawyers also on this matter. Hence, having has a legal study and having obtained law degrees in itself will not prove you are not brainwashed by LEGAL FICTION but more then likely you are. Hence, the work as a constitutionalist is to expose this. Only when we are dealing with LEGAL REALITY and have appropriately explored the constitutional basis upon which constitutional rights, implied or otherwise, were provided for in the constitution can we commence to address the issues such as the right to bear arms, etc. And to make clear, no Parliament in the Commonwealth of Australia has any legislative powers to allow the killing of blue-eyed babies or for such kind of nonsense, as none of the State constitutions could allow for such legislative nonsense as they are all bound to make laws for "the peace, order, and good government", even so judges likewise fails to recognise this constitutional limitation. As the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) made clear the Constitution was the " new Magna Carta". END QUOTE 070520 posting
10
15
20
25
30
The danger is that if some fanatical religion were to come to power in Australia it could in fact rely upon these and other stupid and irresponsible statements of the High Court of Australia and turn this Commonwealth of Australia into some murderous regime, to pursue ethnic cleansing and fund their religious schools at taxpayers expenses. Whatever may suit to today for the socalled Judeo-Christians may tomorrow suit a other fanatical religion to achieve precisely the opposite! This is what we should keep in mind, and why the Framers of the Constitution so much sought to prevent this kind of religious war to exist in the Commonwealth of Australia.
END QUOTE Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED
35
Because Aboriginal affairs gives me an opportunity to set out better matters regarding the usage of the various legislative powers of the Commonwealth of Australia I will use this to some extent, and as such the Reader must remain spell bound, so to say, to follow my reasoning.
Hansard, 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: One of them is to deal with the affairs of people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community ; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand.
40
45
This related to Subsection 51(xxvi) as to race legislation. The amendment in the con-job referendum in 1967 to delete the reference to Aboriginals in subsection 51(xxvi) with its subsequent legislation had the effect; 50
Hansard, 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) Mr. BARTON.-But if he is under any disability under any regulation of the [start page 1787] Commonwealth he would cease to be a citizen, however slight that disability might be. I doubt whether the honorable member intends that. There is power by law to regulate the people of any race requiring special laws. There may be some purely regulative law passed, not imposing any special restriction on any person of that kind who may be a subject of the Queen. That regulation, if it were of the mildest character, under this definition, would deprive him of his rights. HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates p15 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com
55
60
10
15
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. END QUOTE . HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament. END QUOTE . HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." END QUOTE
I will now quote the entire Chapter 022A Failure of the case albeit it was only a part of the entire book and so will not in its entirely set out all relevant issues/matters. 20
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices legislation, A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-112006 decision ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
25
QUOTE Chapter 022A Failure of the case (part only) Because Aboriginal affairs gives me an opportunity to set out better matters regarding the usage of the various legislative powers of the Commonwealth of Australia I will use this to some extend and then bring it back to industrial relations, and as such the Reader must remain spell bound, so to say, to follow my reasoning.
Hansard, 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: One of them is to deal with the affairs of people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community ; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand.
30
35
This related to Subsection 51(xxvi) as to race legislation. The amendment in the con-job referendum in 1967 to delete the reference to Aboriginals in subsection 51(xxvi) with its subsequent legislation had the effect; 40
Hansard, 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) Mr. BARTON.-But if he is under any disability under any regulation of the [start page 1787] Commonwealth he would cease to be a citizen, however slight that disability might be. I doubt whether the honorable member intends that. There is power by law to regulate the people of any race requiring special laws. There may be some purely regulative law passed, not imposing any special restriction on any person of that kind who may be a subject of the Queen. That regulation, if it were of the mildest character, under this definition, would deprive him of his rights.
45
50
55
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by this has the effect that all persons in the Commonwealth of Australia by this lost their citizenship/franchise! See also Chapter 021H Aboriginal constitutional issue. What we have therefore is that, at least to me, it appears electors are conned in voting in a referendum unaware to the true constitutional construction of the application of certain constitutional provisions, and if anything the 14 November 2006 judgement regarding the WorkChoices legislation underlines that even the judges themselves over more then one hundred years did not appear to understand/comprehend how subsection 51(xx) really applied. Yet,
despite this admission the judges nevertheless do not even bother to check out what is recorded in the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates as to the usage of the terms so important to the case being it company factory law State sovereign rights etc. At the very least one would have expected that the judges concerned claiming that it was done for so long wrong should be extra careful for themselves not to compound problems by ignoring to first elicit from the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates what really was intended with the term corporations and how it was considered. Numerous references were made by the Framers of the Constitution that the internal workings of a State was to remain with the State and as such it is evidently clear that the corporations powers within subsection 51(xx) was never to be more then the general registration and conduct of corporations as a corporation in management style and not at all involve the nots and bolts, so to say, of how shop floor workers earn their crust. Indeed, the fact that the Framers of the Constitution stated that the States retained their factory laws and that disputes were to be considered upon State contracts, etc., itself underlines that subsection 51(xx) was limited to the organization of companies and had nothing to do with how workers were employed. Indeed, the fact that the Commonwealth of Australia had no constitutional powers to deal with religious aspects in itself underlines that State laws were the only once to prevail. If in time Australia turn into some other religion as its general usage and Christian public holidays become unsuitable then it would be beyond the powers of the Federal government to interfere with religious public holidays where as the States still can legislate where it comes to religion but on the other hand by the Commonwealth of Australia having invoked legislative powers cannot do so because Section 51 does not allow the States to legislate upon matters once the Commonwealth of Australia has commenced to do so. It means, that neither the States or the Commonwealth of Australia can legislate any further in regard of religious holidays, an total absurdity. We then have a vacuum of legislative powers! Neither can it be argued that the Commonwealth of Australia somehow can legislate as to religion under its subsection 51(xx) powers as to allow this vandalise the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and the constitutional concept embodied in this new Magna Carta. What will however eventuate is, that where it comes to workers who do not work for a corporation they can benefit of State legislative provisions where as workers performing the same job but their employer happens to become a corporation then they have a different level of standards and we will have for this two classes of employment. Any employer could upon his wimps destroy the security of a worker by switching to another system and this would workers in a precious position that their contracts, such as purchasing a residence, is jeopardized. Such industrial vandalism caused by the High Court of Australia decision cannot be allowed to stand. It is no more then providing for corporate greed and not at all considering the sovereign rights of the States to manage their own internal affairs as they desire. Irony is that in this case I cannot specifically blame the current Federal Government for its ill conceived WorkChoices legislation as I view they are entitled to legislate upon what they deem constitutionally permissible being it that I hold each and every member of parliament to be held accountable as a representative of the constituency for failing to appropriately care for their constitutional rights. As I have indicated in the past published books, the constitutional set up in the Commonwealth of Australia is totally different then that which applies in the United Kingdom. A clear example is that the so called Henry the VIII powers to amend legislation by the government of the Day does not exist in the Commonwealth of Australia. Also, while a Minister of State in the UK has unlimited powers within his portfolio, to the contrary in the Commonwealth of Australia a Minister is bound within what is for the peace, order, and good government and so are the powers of the Federal Parliament limited to this. The British parliament did not have a constitution that dictated the usage of Ministerial powers and indeed parliamentarian powers where as the Commonwealth of Australia can only operate within
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
the peace, order, and good government and also that it must follow the dictated regime that the parliament legislate and the Federal government cannot enforce any self dreamed up amendments as like the Henry the VIII powers as it is prohibited in the constitutional structure of the Commonwealth of Australia. Hence the government exclusion of islands of Migration territory was unconstitutional regardless if the Federal parliament later legislated for this to be part of legislation and the Federal Parliament in fact unconstitutionally provided for the exclusion of any parts of the Commonwealth of Australia for migration purposes is and remain unconstitutional and as such also any action taken against refugees on the basis of the purported exclusion. It is the High Court of Australia, as I view it, in its corrupted decision that is really to be blamed. Time and again it has allowed the Commonwealth of Australia to infringe upon constitutional prohibitions and limits disregarding totally what the Framers of the Constitution intended. The Pacific Solution, the ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION and numerous other decisions to me reek, if not stink, to political manoeuvring by the Court to undermine the proper application of constitutional powers and limitations. Now it appears we going to have a CARIBBEAN decision in human trading between the Commonwealth of Australia and the USA. In my view so that if any further refugees arrive from Papua New Guinea then they be transported to the USA as not to embarrass the Indonesians. Just that I view this is not a power for the Commonwealth of Australia to deal in human bodies trading, as while it may have constitutional powers to deal with immigration, migration and aliens nothing can justify a human trade. It is akin to the slave trade only now using a different terminology. I doubt the High Court of Australia will bother to address this issue, even if an application is made, as I only have to look about my section 75(v) matters how it refused those time and again, disregarding obviously the constitutional issues and by this allowing the slaughter of human beings to continue.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) Mr. BARTON.Now, the preservation of every inch of the shores of Australia from immigration of the kind indicated, except to a certain limited extent, is one of the most desirable powers to place in the Constitution
25
30
35
40
45
As the Constitution makes clear the Commonwealth of Australia can only legislate as to the whole of the Commonwealth and not exclude any part of it, such as is done under the Migration Zone as to purportedly exercise parts of Australia from the migration zone. Regretfully, we also have found that the High Court of Australia justified the government of the day to invoke the so called Henry the VIII powers to make amendments to legislation and then use it and have it enforced without first having been passed through both Houses of Parliament and given Royal Assent. It would be sheer impossible to quote in this document all relevant quotations from the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates as this would cause this document to run in several thousands of pages, safe to say that Chapter 33 of the book on CD contains all records and the Reader can for himself /herself check it out. Whatever the British Parliament may do and whatever the Privy Council may have ruled in certain cases cannot be adapted at all times to the Commonwealth of Australia as there is a total different constitutional set up. The Commonwealth of Australia is not the overall governing body over the States, because many legislative powers of the States are not existing in the Commonwealth of Australia. There is no such thing as the Australian troops to enter a State to break a strike as to do so would be unconstitutional. Again There is no such thing as the Australian troops to enter a State to break a strike as to do so would be unconstitutional.
50
There is no such thing as a soldier standing behind a citizen and going to shoot a bullet through an electors head merely for refusing to comply with Section 245 of the Commonwealth electoral Act 1918 refusing to vote, as I did, as it would be beyond constitutional powers to do so, and if any evidence is needed why such obnoxious conduct could never be tolerated is in the fact that on 19 July 2006 I succeeded in the County Court of Victoria to prove that voting is not constitutionally permitted to be compulsory. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, any alleged breach of Commonwealth law was to be dealt with by the Commonwealth by having the alleged offender formally charged (accused) and placed before the relevant State Court and the person be given a judicial decision as to the persons innocence or guilt. I am not the least interested what Quick & Garran stated in regard of certain issues, as their own motivations may have distorted what was in fact really applicable and I rather rely upon the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates as to the true intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. Domestic violence was not then meaning a dispute between husband and wife but was then referring to a civil unrest involving violence where then the Governor of the State could issue a proclamation for Australian troops to restore order. As such, it had to be qualified within the meaning of the term domestic violence as it then was referred to. A peaceful protest in industrial matters is not and cannot be regarded constituting domestic violence. It might be injurious to others, in preventing others to get to work or otherwise being obstructed to perform their normal daily routines but it is not to be considered domestic violence in the meaning of the Framers of the Constitution. It is not that somehow soldiers are marching into the homes to point guns upon innocent children, because their mummy and daddy have an altercation. Sure, we have the Australian Federal Police already bashing down peoples front doors and pointing weapons upon children and others in raids within States, and so unconstitutionally, but this does not make it lawful. It is, as I view it, because we have an utter corrupt High Court of Australia that refuses to consider all matters that are relevant to interpretation of the Constitution that so much is being done unconstitutionally.
I member has said-that it is not desired to raise up a great standing army for our defence from imaginary enemies.
10
15
20
25
30
35
Well, we have the purported WAR AGAINST TERROR where we have imaginary enemies and where innocent people are rounded up and denied their constitutional rights because where the High Court of Australia (obviously then not using the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates) in 1943 purported that the Commonwealth can suspend civil rights in time of war then all that is needed is to purport there is some kind of war against imaginary enemies.
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
40
45
Hermann Goering, Hitlers' Reich-Marshall, at the Nuremberg trials after WW2. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear regarding the States; 50 Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within.
p19
Any notion of ASIO and/or Federal Police (under whatever title) roaming around with staff of the immigration Department to arrest people, like Vivian Alvarez Solon and many others is an absolute lunacy. In every case the Australian Federal police removes a person from State soil without having first obtained a order of a State Court (such as the Bakhtiyari children) then that is no less kidnapping as it would if any other stranger would have done so. END QUOTE Chapter 022A Failure of the case (part only) QUOTE Chapter 022A Failure of the case (part only) Hansard 16-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) The service and execution throughout the commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and judgments of the courts of the states,
10
15 Not that there is a different kind of law enforcement pending if a person is deemed to be unlawfully in the Commonwealth of Australia, regardless if the person is or isnt! 20
Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: A territory would be either a state of the commonwealth, or another country! The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: The word "country" might mean an independent state. The
Hon. E. BARTON: I will keep the matter in mind, though I fancy it is all right!
25
30
35
We also have to consider the error the High Court of Australia made in regard of Aboriginals and how the Framers of the Constitution appeared to me to be blamed for denying them equal rights. Just look at the con-job of the 1967 referendum that was arguable to give Aboriginals equal rights. If one were to consider Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth [1998] HCA 22 (1 April 1998) then the High Court of Australia appears to set out that the original version of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution (prior 1967 referendum) was bias against Aboriginals. If anything, this just shows the failure of the judges to understand what the Constitution really stands for! Sure, the Commonwealth passed in 1909 a law for white only electors arguing that Section 30 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution gave that right, and the High Court of Australia approved this and also later argued that Section 41 of the Constitution no longer was a valid section as the people that were alive at the time of federation had died long ago and so the application of this section 41, the truth is that again the High Court of Australia was giving utter and sheer nonsense. The Framers made clear that section 30 of the Constitution would be subject to Section 41! Further, lets see what Barton stated at the closure of the Constitutional Convention!
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) Mr. BARTON.-
40
45
This Bill also contains a provision in favour of electors, which is altogether absent from the Bill of 1891; that is, a provision for the protection of the voting right, when the right has been granted, so that no adult person who, at the establishment of this Constitution, or [start page 2468] at any time afterwards, acquires the right to vote for the Legislative Assembly in his own colony or state can be deprived of that right by any law passed by the Federal Parliament.
50
Did you notice the wording or at any time afterwards, acquires the right to vote
The Framers made all along clear that the Commonwealth would have no constitutional powers to deny a elector of a State the political rights to vote in a federal election! As such, the right of Aboriginals qualified to vote in State elections were secured! Now have a look at the application of subsection 51(xxvi) by any kind of legislation in regard of Aboriginals since the 1967 referendum;
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD)
10
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights. Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races. Mr. BARTON.-But if he is under any disability under any regulation of the [start page 1787] Commonwealth he would cease to be a citizen, however slight that disability might be. I doubt whether the honorable member intends that. There is power by law to regulate the people of any race requiring special laws. There may be some purely regulative law passed, not imposing any special restriction on any person of that kind who may be a subject of the Queen. That regulation, if it were of the mildest character, under this definition, would deprive him of his rights. Dr. QUICK.-The regulation would have to specify the ground of disability.
15
20
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but my honorable friend says not under any disability imposed by the Parliament. Would not the difficulty be that if he were under any slight disability for regulative purposes, all his rights of citizenship under the Commonwealth would be lost?
25
30
35
40
45
50
What is clear is, that the Aboriginals and so neither the entire electorate of the Commonwealth were ever advised that any legislation in relation to Aboriginals would cause the loss of their citizenship! So their political rights to be an elector to be a Member of Parliament! It might be stated that subsection 51(xxvi) was intended to alien coloured race, as to control their doings, such as chines gold mining in Victoria, the Afghans selling in Tasmania, etc, but then the Commonwealth could only make laws applicable to the entire Commonwealth, not for a particular State. What the Framers did, was referring to nationalities and upon that basis inserted subsection 51(xxvi) of race and referring to nationalities as being a race! Afghans clearly is a nationality identification, not a race. To the Framers, the identification of a nationality was refereed to as being a race. Albeit, when dealing with Aboriginals, they sought to avoid this confusion by excluding them of subsection 51(xxvi) as well as to protect the Aboriginal rights to be considered equally as other Australians. Not at all what Latham CJ purported to make out of it as referred to above. Extensive reading does indicate that the Framers had misconceptions about what a race stood for. It referred to Chinese, even those born in Australia and having Australian nationality, to be Chinese. However, if it were to have related to a Chinese national that was Caucasian then the Framers clearly didnt seem to apply this, as the body of their debates seem to indicate. They had this white only racist attitude in general and as such their references were to Afghans and Chinese but to coloured races, which signify that they were basically against coloured races not a particular nationality, albeit they generally referred to this. What was achieved with the 1967 referendum was that it removed the protection of Aboriginals, and caused more harm then good, as set out in my books. Still, the problem existing is that technically Aboriginals lost the right of citizenship, so their political rights! The Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to grand State citizenship, or to interfere with it, but could in effect deny Australian citizenship by invoking any legislation within subsection 51(xxvi) for any matter, as it then would cause AUTOMATICALLY the lost of Australian citizenship. It ought to be clear that Australian citizenship has got nothing to do with Australian nationality or with naturalization. This to has been set out considerable before the High Court of Australia. The
Framers made clear that unlike the USA version, they didnt want to follow as the Commonwealth would have no constitutional powers to define/declare citizenship!
Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth [1998] HCA 22 (1 April 1998)
16. Paragraph (xxvi), in its original form, should be understood in the context of attitudes to race and to "White Australia" which were common amongst the settlers represented in the Conventions and constituting the electors of the federating colonies. In the original draft Constitution Bill of 1891, the proposal was for a grant of exclusive legislative power to the Federal Parliament with respect to[220]: "The affairs of people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand". There is uncertainty as to the initial purpose of including this power and proposing that it be exclusive to the Federal Parliament. The provision was Sir Samuel Griffith's idea[221], and it has been suggested[222] that it was based upon the unhappy experiences of Queensland with "blackbirding". This was the practice by which people from the Pacific Islands had been snatched from their homes and sold into a form of slavery in the Queensland sugar farms. Whether its inclusion was out of a concern for the victims of such activities, a desire to exclude the States from control over them or to provide the Federal Parliament with powers, in addition to the proposed power over aliens, to deal with possible unrest and expulsion, is not entirely clear. The Convention Debates, particularly those of the Melbourne Convention of 1898, show that some delegates wanted to retain power for the States, and to permit the Federal Parliament to enact, laws far from beneficial for people of minority races (such as Chinese in factories and shops[223], "Asiatic or African ... miner[s]"[224] and so on). However, other delegates regarded the prospect of discriminatory legislation on the part of the new federal polity as "disgraceful"[225] and "degrading to us and our citizenship"[226]. 17. As finally adopted, the power in par (xxvi) was not restricted, in terms, to securing the benefit or advancement of the people of a given race. In the historical context of that time such protective purposes would have been possible, eg in the case of the "kanakas" in Queensland. But so also would laws detrimental to, or discriminatory against, such people. The exclusion from the paragraph of power with respect to "the aboriginal race in any State" appears principally to have been designed to leave their regulation to the States. It may have had the effect of protecting them from any risk of the misuse of the race power by the new Federal Parliament[227]. This view of the exclusion of Aboriginals from the power was to recur in the Parliamentary debates leading to the amendment of the Constitution in 1967. Moves to enlarge federal powers for Aboriginals
10
15
20
25
30
35
18. Before 1967, there was one earlier proposal to afford power to the Parliament to legislate with respect to Aboriginals. Such a power was included in the 1944 "fourteen powers proposal"[228]. It failed to secure the approval of the electors at referendum. 19. In 1959 a Constitutional Review Committee was established by the Parliament. One of the issues it considered was whether the Federal Parliament should have an express power to make laws with respect to Aboriginals. The Committee recommended the deletion of s 127 of the Constitution[229]. That section provided that "In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted."
40
45
50
However, the Committee reached no agreement on the grant of special legislative powers with respect to Aboriginals[230]. In the result, a large number of petitions were presented to the Federal Parliament urging the deletion of s 127 and the amendment of par (xxvi)[231]. Whatever the original intention of these constitutional provisions, and whatever may have been the initial protective effect of the exclusion of people of the Aboriginal race from the race power, by the late 1950s, both in and out of the Federal Parliament, commentators were viewing ss 51(xxvi) and 127 (containing as they did the only references to Australian Aboriginals in the Constitution) as negative and discriminatory, needing amendment. 20. In 1964, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Calwell) introduced a measure for the alteration of the Constitution to remove the exclusion of Aboriginals from par (xxvi) and to delete s 127[232]. He called attention to possible United Nations criticism that the Constitution was "discriminating against" the Aboriginal people[233]. The Federal Attorney-General (Mr Snedden) affirmed that all parliamentarians 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p22
felt that "there should be no discrimination against aboriginal natives of Australia "[234]. He warned that the proposed change to par (xxvi) created the potential for "discrimination ... whether for or against the aborigines"[235], in response to which Mr Calwell affirmed his view that the amendment would only be beneficial for Aboriginal Australians[236]. The Bill was ultimately defeated.
21. In 1965, the Government introduced the Constitution Alteration (Repeal of Section 127) Bill 1965 (Cth). The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) justified the exclusion of any amendment to par (xxvi) on the ground that to include the Aboriginal people in the race power would not be in their best interests[237]. However, although the Bill was passed by both Houses, the Government decided not to put it to referendum. 22. In March 1966, Mr W C Wentworth (later the first Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs[238]) introduced a Private Member's Bill[239] to amend the Constitution to substitute for the race power in par (xxvi) a new provision[240]: "The advancement of the aboriginal natives of the Commonwealth of Australia".
10
15
20
Mr Wentworth also proposed a new s 117A of the Constitution. This would forbid the Commonwealth and the States from making or maintaining any law which subjected any person born or naturalised within the Commonwealth "to any discrimination or disability within the Commonwealth by reason of his racial origin". The proposal contained a proviso that the section should not operate "so as to preclude the making of laws for the specific benefit of the aboriginal natives of the Commonwealth of Australia"[241]. One of the reasons given by Mr Wentworth for his amendments was his concern that the deletion of the exclusion of people of the Aboriginal race from par (xxvi) could leave them open to "discrimination ... adverse or favourable". He suggested that the "power for favourable discrimination" was needed; but that there should not be a "power for unfavourable discrimination"[242]. His Bill was supported by the Opposition[243], but it ultimately lapsed[244]. The 1967 referendum 23. Instead, on 1 March 1967, a new Prime Minister (Mr Holt) introduced the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Bill 1967 (Cth). He explained that the government had been influenced by the "popular impression" that the words "other than the aboriginal race in any State" in par (xxvi) "are discriminatory"[245]. This was a view which the government believed to be erroneous. But it was deeply rooted. It required amendment of the Constitution in a way that would give the Parliament the power to make special laws for Aboriginals which, with cooperation with the States, would "secure the widest measure of agreement with respect to Aboriginal advancement"[246]. 24. The Government's Bill was supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). He referred to the many disadvantages which Australian Aboriginals had suffered and which needed positive federal initiatives[247]. It was also supported by Mr Wentworth. He expressed the opinion that some discrimination was necessary in relation to Aboriginals but "it should be favourable, not unfavourable"[248]. The Bill passed through the House of Representatives without a single dissenting vote[249]. 25. In the Senate, the Minister responsible for the Bill (Senator Henty) repeated what had been said by the Prime Minister[250]. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Murphy, met directly the argument that the exclusion of Aboriginals from par (xxvi) had been intended to be beneficial for them. He said[251]: "The simple fact is that they are different from other persons and that they do need special laws. They themselves believe that they need special laws. In this proposed law there is no suggestion of any intended discrimination in respect of Aboriginals except a discrimination in their favour." The Bill was also approved by the Senate without a single dissenting vote[252]. 26. There having been no opposition within the Parliament to the proposed alterations to the Constitution, it was necessary, in the procedures which followed, to prepare only the argument in favour of the proposed law to be distributed in pamphlet form to the electors[253]. The case for the "yes" vote authorised by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Australian Country Party and the Leader of the Opposition addressed the amendments to par (xxvi) and s 127 which were to be put before the electors as a single proposal. The case, relevantly, argued[254]: "The purposes of these proposed amendments ... are to remove any ground for the belief that, as at present worded, the Constitution discriminates in some ways against p23 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com
25
30
35
40
45
50
people of the Aboriginal race, and, at the same time, to make it possible for the Commonwealth Parliament to make special laws for the people of the Aboriginal race, wherever they may live, if the Commonwealth Parliament considers this desirable or necessary. ... The Commonwealth's object will be to co-operate with the States to ensure that together we act in the best interests of the Aboriginal people of Australia". In relation to the proposed amendment to s 127, the written case said[255]: "Our personal sense of justice, our commonsense, and our international reputation in a world in which racial issues are being highlighted every day, require that we get rid of this out-moded provision ... The simple truth is that Section 127 is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes and modern thinking . It has no place in our Constitution in this age." 27. In addition to the foregoing statutory argument the leaders of all of the major Australian political parties issued statements supporting the amendment to par (xxvi) and the repeal of s 127. The Prime Minister (Mr Holt), in his statement said that it was not acceptable to the Australian people that the national Parliament "should not have power to make special laws for the people of the Aboriginal race, where that is in their best interests"[256]. For the Federal Opposition, Mr Whitlam stated that the then provisions of the Constitution were "discriminatory". He pointed out the need to assist Aboriginal communities in the realms of housing, education and health, and stated that the Commonwealth must "accept that responsibility on behalf of Aboriginals". It was also vital, he argued, to remove the excuse "for Australia's failure to adopt many international conventions affecting the welfare of Aborigines"[257]. For the Australian Country Party, its Deputy Leader, Mr Anthony, explained that the amendment to the Constitution "would give the Commonwealth Government, for the first time, power to make special laws for the benefit of the Aboriginal people throughout Australia"[258]. For the Australian Democratic Labor Party, Senator Gair titled his statement "End Discrimination - Vote 'Yes'" and explained that his Party had "adopted the slogan 'Vote Yes for Aboriginal Rights'"[259]. There was not the slightest hint whatsoever in any of the substantial referendum materials placed before this Court that what was proposed to the Australian electors was an amendment to the Constitution to empower the Parliament to enact laws detrimental to, or discriminatory against, the people of any race, still less the people of the Aboriginal race. 28. The referendum was put on 27 May 1967. It was overwhelmingly approved[260]. In the history of Australian constitutional referenda, no other such vote has come close to the unique political and popular consensus demonstrated in the 1967 referendum on Aborigines. Arguments for the validity of the impugned law
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
29. The Commonwealth disputed the relevance of any of the foregoing history. In its submission, the meaning of par (xxvi) had to be found exclusively on the face of the Constitution in the language in which it was expressed. At most, the history explained the hopes and aspirations of the politicians and of the Australian people. But these could no more control the meaning to be ascribed to the language of the Constitution than could equivalent extrinsic materials determine the meaning of an ordinary statute[261]. Attention was drawn to the contrast between Mr Wentworth's successive proposals and the amendments to the Constitution eventually adopted. The Commonwealth argued that had it been the purpose of the Parliament legally to forbid legislation detrimental to, or discriminatory against, Aboriginals, a group of Aboriginals or any other people on the ground of race, the Wentworth proposals (or some variant of them) would have been adopted. But they were not. In addressing the arguments of the parties, it is essential to acknowledge the force of the submissions put for the Commonwealth and the supporting interveners. They rested principally upon the language of the power conferred by par (xxvi) and upon the ordinary rule that such language should not be given a narrow or limited operation but one broad and large so as to meet all possible legislative eventualities. Historically, the power was apparently intended, at the time of Federation, to extend to legislation detrimental to, and discriminatory against the people of any race (other than the Aboriginal race). The deletion of the exception left, so it was
45
50
argued, the essential character of the power unchanged. Most readers of the Constitution would be unaware of the Convention and Parliamentary debates. In time, few would be aware of the arguments at the 1967 referendum. They would have before them only the head of power expressed in par (xxvi). The 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p24
Commonwealth argued that, even if contemporary and future readers chanced to study the historical material, they would find much in the Conventions and some in the Parliamentary debates which was ambivalent. Particular statements could be found which acknowledged the possibility that the race power might, perhaps rarely and exceptionally, be used to support legislation detrimental to, or discriminatory against, a people
(including, after amendment, Aboriginal people) on the ground of their race.
10
15
What we have is that Subsection 51(xxvi) was intended to DISCRIMINATE against a coloured race and as the Court itself acknowledged the intention in regard of Aboriginals was to make laws in favour of Aboriginals. Proper reading of the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates shows that nothing of the sort was intended by the Framers of the Constitution as to allow the commonwealth of Australia to make laws to make laws to benefit a coloured race as in fact it was made clear that legislation could NOT be against the general community which by the amendment would eventuate. Again, not at all what Latham CJ purported to make out of it as referred to above.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) Mr. BARTON.. If it is necessary to give the Federal Parliament power to make laws for their regulation, not applying to the rest of the people of the Commonwealth,
20
25
30
35
40
The issue therefore is to ask, was at the time of the referendum the electors advised that to remove the wording regarding aboriginals would alter the structure of the section and would allow the Commonwealth of Australia to legislate against the general community? I doubt the referendum would have been successful in that regard. Hence, it was a con-job referendum where, by the High Court of Australia own quotation of the matters put to the electors did not in anyway whatsoever refer to any change of application in regard of this Subsection in regard of other coloured races. Hence, it could not be accepted that therefore this was intended by the electors. Neither was there any part in the referendum put to them to seek the elector to vote to allow within this section legislation to be made against the general community, and as such it cannot then be argued that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, against the general community is valid. We therefore have that subsection 51(xxvi) was amended to remove the wording relating to Aboriginals and by this allowed DISCRIMINATION against Aboriginals to occur and by this in the process they all lost their citizenship. It cannot be that somehow one subsection has different meaning pending as to which race it applies to and neither can it be deemed that somehow the electors accepted discrimination against themselves on a grand scale that they too were to be deprived of their citizenship and so their franchise, as like anyone else and by this in effect all subjects of the Queen would be robbed of their citizenship and so franchise and no one would be left to be eligible to vote and neither to be a Member of Federal Parliament or for that any other Parliament. Hence, in my view, despite that it might have been put to the voters in the referendum;
"The purposes of these proposed amendments ... are to remove any ground for the belief that, as at present worded, the Constitution discriminates in some ways against people of the Aboriginal race, and, at the same time, to make it possible for the Commonwealth Parliament to make special laws for the people of the Aboriginal race, wherever they may live, if the Commonwealth Parliament considers this desirable or necessary. ... The Commonwealth's object will be to co-operate with the States to ensure that together we act in the best interests of the Aboriginal people of Australia". In relation to the proposed amendment to s 127, the written case said[255]: "Our personal sense of justice, our commonsense, and our international reputation in a world in which racial issues are being highlighted every day, require that we get p25 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com
45
50
rid of this out-moded provision ... The simple truth is that Section 127 is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes and modern thinking. It has no place in our Constitution in this age."
10
15
20
25
In my view, the case to argue that Subsection 51(xxvi) discriminated against the Aboriginal race was a falsehood. Subsection 51(xxvi) protected the Aboriginal race from being discriminated against by the Commonwealth of Australia. It was a federal Constitution not a State constitution. As to section 127, it had no application as to the right of franchise of Aboriginals, however should have been, in my view, made a provision only to have been applicable for a few years after federation to avoid financial ruin of States with large Aboriginal populations for the first few years considering the application of quotas then. In my view, the amendment of subsection 51(xxvi) should have been placed before the people outlining what was intended in the overall. Not that there was a gross deception to the true intentions of the Federal Government as now appears to me to have eventuated. In my view, it is unacceptable to accept that on the one hand the electors desired to advance the cause for the Aboriginals and at the same time accepted that in return the Aboriginals as well as themselves could be robbed of their citizenship and so their franchise. Indeed, no sane politician is, so to say, cut his own throat to put himself in such manner out of a job. Hence, despite the question pur to the electors, it cannot be deemed right that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 was within constitutional powers of the Commonwealth of Australia in that it was a law to discriminate on behalf not just for Aboriginals but of any race against the general community! A discrimination in reverse, beyond the ability of subsection 51(xxvi) to be applied considering the limited or narrow view of the referendum. I cannot accept that the United Nations somehow oppose the discrimination against Aboriginals but would accept discrimination against Aboriginals as to them loosing then their citizenship and so their franchise as well as anyone else of the general community. This is the problem; when you have people seeking to tamper with constitutional provisions not understanding what consequences there might flow from.
30
35
40
45
Albeit at the time a barrister sought my assistance (FREE OF CHARGE) to address the constitutional issue regarding subsection 51(xxxvi) I had not had the benefit to read let alone to consider what was stated in Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth [1998] HCA 22 (1 April 1998) I had nevertheless given my views that subsection 51(xxvi) did not allow for any Hindmarsh Bridge to be enacted in that it was not a law against a coloured race and would be harmful to Aboriginals who were, say, residing in major cities whom had no connection with the building of the bridge yet would still be robbed of their citizenship and so franchise because of the legislation. I did not have at the time any material as to why subsection 51(xxvi) was amended, and having read now the Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth [1998] HCA 22 (1 April 1998) judgment it does not alter my original views one of iota. No constitutional provision can have a double standard that it operates in regard of one race one way and in regard of another race another way. Whatever the ill conceived advise might have been from the UN it was immaterial, as I view it, as the United Nations had no say as to the Constitution as was enacted in 1900. And, if anything, its interference may very well have caused the misconception and the constitutional dilemma now faced in regard of Aboriginals and so the rest of the population. In my very successful case before the County Court of Victoria I did challenge also the validity of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 on constitutional grounds and this was also stated in the Section 78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and that upon this no person in the general community and neither any Aboriginal had citizenship and so neither franchise.
50
My numerous constitutional grounds against various legislative provisions remained UNCHALLENGED and hence for this I was not just successful in my cases but also had a legal verdict to prove this. In my view, the best option would be to have subsection 51(xxvi) restored to its original version and then have a new subsection added that specifically refers to Aboriginals and for this also Torres Strait Islanders and so as to make clear that the Aboriginal cause is different then that which might be desired against other races. In my view, the entire subsection 51(xxvi) ought to be deleted but that is my personal view and it not the issue as to what is constitutionally appropriate.
Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota. Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be deducted. Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
10
15
The statement The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes
20
Refers to Section 41 of the Constitution that already preserved the votes of any Aboriginal who at the time of the federation had obtained State franchise as to be able to vote in federal elections. And, at the time of federation Aboriginals who had (colonial) State franchise did vote in the first federal election as even the Australian Electoral Commission now amidst to on its website. Again
It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
25
As such, it was not at all directed per se against Aboriginals to discriminate against them but it was for financial purposes as otherwise the federation may not have eventuated had the States, such as South Australia been heavily burdened to pay per capita to the newly formed Commonwealth of Australia a levy. (Consider the breadwinners issue referred to above also)
Hansard 6-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) The Hon. F.W. HOLDER: We do not want any such position. South Australia wants her own, if she can get it. She is going to get as near to her own as she can; but she does not want one penny belonging to anyone else. I think I may say the same for Tasmania. We all of us want our own, no more and no less. That being so, it is apparent at once that neither 40 per head, nor any other amount per head, equal over the whole commonwealth will do. You appear to wipe out the surplus, but you do not wipe it out at all. You simply provide that there shall be a return equal per head over the whole population at once throughout the commonwealth. Suppose it were proposed that at once a per capita distribution of the surplus should take place, would that be accepted? Do not even the representatives of Tasmania themselves argue against the inequity of such a proposal? Is it not apparent to us all, whatever may be possible in the future, that when things have settled down, and the new tariff has been some years in operation, it is simply out of the question that we should begin right away with an equal per capita distribution, which is what this scheme of taking over it certain proportion of the debts amounts to if you go to bedrock in considering it. Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
30
35
40
45
50
Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting. Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree. 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p27
Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota. Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be deducted. Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote. Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote. Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this matter is, that when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita, if he leaves out these aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to pay, whilst if they are counted South Australia will have so much the more to pay.
10
This proves that Section 127 was not particularly against Aboriginals but was rather to reduce the monies payable, such as in regard of South Australia, having a large population of Aboriginals. 15 Exercising constitutional powers just be appropriately applied. While I can accept for purpose of law enforcement the Navy might detain a person or persons of an illegal fishing boat to be able to transport the person to the nearest location to be handed over the appropriate State law enforcement force, it cannot, as it did keep people in a unseaworthy boat of Ashmore island, regardless it was on orders of John Howard, as this was unconstitutional and illegal detention and likewise the towing of an unseaworthy boat away from safety was unconstitutional and illegal. It had nothing to do with enforcing Commonwealth law relating to the defence forces but was to use armed forces in an unconstitutional manner for political purposes. John Howard did not have any constitutional powers to override constitutional embedded principles and neither to overrule State and Territorial laws that requires that no unseaworthy boat is permitted to leave. Yet, I have yet to discover in any judgment of the High Court of Australia condemnation upon John Howard and his cohorts to have acted in flagrant disregard for constitutional and other legal provisions and having manipulated the defence forces to carry out his political intentions to better himself in a purported federal election rather then to uphold constitutional provisions and relevant laws. Anyone who were to argue that because the USA declares war against another nation or simply go out and murder people in their own country because their cowboy attitude of shoot them up might be dictating their conduct then arguing that because of some ANZUS or other treaty then the Commonwealth of Australia likewise can go to war disregarding constitutional requirement and limitations in my view, so to say, has a screw loose. Then consider;
Re: COMMANDER CHRISTOPHER BOLTON, CAPTAIN H.M.A.S. "PENGUIN" AND THE HONOURABLE KIM CHRISTIAN BEAZLEY, THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR DEFENCE Ex Parte DOUGLAS BEANE F.C. 87/012 High Court of Australia The words of a Minister must not be substituted for the text of the law. Particularly is this so when the intention stated by the Minister but unexpressed in the law is restrictive of the liberty of the individual. It is always possible that through oversight or inadvertence the clear intention of the Parliament fails to be translated into the text of the law. However unfortunate it may be when that happens, the task of the Court remains clear. The function of the Court is to give effect to the will of Parliament as expressed in the law. Any officer of the Commonwealth Executive who, without judicial warrant, purports to authorize or enforce the detention in custody of another person is acting lawfully only to the extent that his conduct is justified by clear statutory mandate. 3-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p28
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12. In the absence of statutory provision to the contrary, a person in Australia who has not breached Australian law is entitled to his freedom: see Brown v. Lizars (1905) 2 CLR 837 at pp 851-852, 861 and 867-868 and Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Prison; Ex parte Soblen (1963) 2 QB 243 at pp 299-302 and 306-307. Lord Denning M.R. in Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Prison; Ex parte Soblen (1963) 2 QB 243, at p 299, stated the common law in terms which I would respectfully adopt: " ... every person coming from abroad, as soon as he sets foot lawfully in this country, is free; and, so long as he commits no offence here, he is not to be arrested or detained for any offence that he may have committed in some other country. If any attempt were made to arrest him in order to surrender him to that other country, he would at once be entitled to be set free. The writ of habeas corpus is available to him for the purpose. In the absence of an extradition treaty, it is no answer for the Crown, or any officer of the Crown, to say that he wishes to send him off to another country to meet a charge there." 2. The laws relating to the return and deportation of prohibited immigrants and the deportation of aliens and laws relating to extradition for trial on criminal charges qualify the general freedom from arrest and surrender to foreign authorities but, unless a provision of such an exceptional law applies, the common law and the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 deny to the Executive governments of this country, whatever inducement a foreign government may offer or press, any power to arrest and surrender an Australian resident into the custody of foreign authorities. Unless there be overriding statutory authority for the arrest and surrender of an Australian resident, he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his freedom here: Ex parte Besset (1844) 6 QB 481 (115 ER 180). To justify such an arrest and surrender, there must be a statute or subordinate legislation (Lloyd v. Wallach (1915) 20 CLR 299; Ex parte Walsh (1942) Arg LR 359) enacted in exercise of an available legislative power (Australian Communist Party v. The Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, at p 195) which abrogates or suspends the right to habeas corpus: R v. Clift; Ex parte P (1941) SASR 41, at p 46. The question in this case is whether the prosecutor's right to a writ of habeas corpus has been abrogated, in the particular circumstances of the case, by the provisions of Pt IXA of the Defence Act 1903 (Cth) which were inserted by s.8 of the Defence Acts Amendment Act 1981 (Cth) ("the 1981 Act") and which came into operation on 15 August 1983. 4. The law of this country is very jealous of any infringement of personal liberty (Cox v. Hakes (1890) 15 App Cas 506, at p 527) and a statute or statutory instrument which purports to impair a right to personal liberty is interpreted, if possible, so as to respect that right: R. v. Cannon Row Police Station (Inspector) (1922) 91 LJKB 98, at p 106.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
See also; 55
CHU KHENG LIM AND OTHERS v. THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER (1992) 176 CLR 1 F.C. 92/051
60
There simply is no constitutional powers for the Federal Attorney-General to authorise Federal Police, Immigration staff, ASIO or other federal officers to operate within the sovereignty of any State in the manner as seems to be now occurring by unconstitutional legislation. It underlines
the need for an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN as the GUARDIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION, in my view, it incompetent to do the job required, without the impartial source to assist in a better understanding as to what constitutionally concepts, embedded principles, prohibitions, powers and limitations stand for. (See also below about issue of the OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN.) * Gary, I am getting a bit confused here, and perhaps you can clarify this matter not just for me but also for the reader.
10
**#** Off course, just what is the confusion about? * Well, if the Commonwealth of Australia can pass legislation as to Aboriginals but cant legislate even so the referendum approved of laws to be made then how does this work?
15
**#** I will explain this. In Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth [1998] HCA 22 (1 April 1998) the Court was faced with the building of a Bridge in the State of South Australia and not that of a building of a bridge in Northern Territory. * What is the difference besides geographically location?
20 **#** Well, South Australia is not a territory of the Commonwealth of Australia but a limited sovereign State. * Why limited? 25 **#** It is sovereign in regard of all legislative powers it retained but not sovereign in regard of legislative powers that were transferred for purpose of federation, by referendums an and subject to (that is if it was constitutionally valid) referrals of powers. It doesnt matter if this deals with Aboriginal matters, Industrial Relations or other matters as it remains to be in all legislative powers incidents the same. So, the Commonwealth of Australia has legislative powers but only for the whole of the Commonwealth for all matters governing ordinary legislative powers as contained in the Constitution, such as those in Section 51, however there is a certain reservation to this. Any legislative powers that have been referred by a State, or some but not all States are not necessary legislative powers for the Commonwealth of Australia for the whole of the Commonwealth and so are legislative powers the Commonwealth of Australia can use for only those States which have referred the particular legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia, have adopted it or where within Section 122 of the Constitution the Commonwealth of Australia already had legislative powers. However, to make it more confusing, if in the end legislation referred to the Commonwealth but was adopted by all other States and already applicable in the Territories then it would become before Federal law of the kind that must be for the whole of the Commonwealth. Where however the Commonwealth of Australia within Section 122 exercises quasi State powers (for so far they exist) then the Commonwealth is not bound to make laws for the whole of the Commonwealth as it only relates to a specific Territory. As such a bridge could have been build for Aboriginals in the Northern Territory within the Section 122 powers not because of having anything to do with Aboriginals but because of sovereign of the Northern Territory. I am. So to say, gobblesmakked why all those politicians and lawyers went out on a limb, so to say, to amend Subsection 51(xxvi) to remove the reference to Aboriginals as the Commonwealth of Australia could have used its Section 96 powers to grand to the relevant State monies which the State then within its own powers could have used for Aboriginal purposes. As such, had the Commonwealth of Australia pursued to build the bridge in South Australia by granting monies to the South Australia government for
30
35
40
45
50
purpose to build a bridge, but not being conditionally upon Aboriginals usage, as since the 1967 con-job referendum this no longer was possible, then the bridge could have been build. That is if the State of Western Australia would have desired to have it build in the first place. 5 * Does the same operated in regard of Industrial Relations, corporations matters, etc? **#** No difference at all. The commonwealth of Australia as sovereign of the Territories (on behalf of the States) exercising powers could therefore regulate the way corporations are to be registered. It then has its powers also to apart of the corporations powers legislate the working conditions of those working in the Territory. It could in fact within Section 122 apply different legislation to different Territories as each Territory is a sovereign area upon itself. It was for this also that when John Howard proposed to sell of POINT NEPEAN, in the state of Victoria for about 500 million dollars and Premier Steve Bracks offered a mere 74 million dollars I wrote to John Howard , and forwarded a copy to Premier Steve Bracks, that the Commonwealth of Australia could not sell the land comprising POINT NEPEAN to private developers unless it was prepared to maintain POINT NEPEAN as a TERRITORY and have its own law enforcement, planning legislation, building legislation, etc, etc, as State laws had been extinguished when POINT NEPEAN became exclusive federal territory. John Howard then subsequently announced that he would not sell the lands but would lease it. I then pointed out that the Commonwealth of Australia could not lease the lands as it could only use the land for the purposes for which it had acquired it or for other Federal purposes. It should be kept in mind that it was never intended by the Framers of the Constitution that the Commonwealth of Australia could be a competitor against the States, and so where there is any notion of competition then the Commonwealth must fail. * Moment, what about Section 109? **#** That is not relevant as such, as the Commonwealth of Australia is bound to make laws for the peace, order, and good government and it was not created to become a competitor against the States but to represent the States in a unified manner. * If I may ask, how do you establish competitive conduct by the Commonwealth of Australia? **#** Well, take for example the usage of WOOMERA where it is leased out by the Commonwealth of Australia to let Japan, The Netherlands, and many other countries use its facilities to launch rockets, etc. This is in fact unconstitutional as the Commonwealth of Australia acquired the land for Commonwealth purposes and not for other nations to exercise upon it. The moment it leases out the territory for non-Commonwealth purposes then it is unconstitutional. * How can it then be that they can lease out property in the Northern Territory? **#** That is because that is a quasi State not at all obtained for Commonwealth purposes but it was separated from South Australia and retained its own common law structure by this. Also. Anyhow, the way it is that John Howard ended up not leasing it either, as I understand it, but handed POINT NEPEAN back to the State of Victoria and paid about 5 million dollars for a clean up. Steve Bracks having received a copy of my correspondence to John Howard subsequently withdrew his 74 million dollar offer. People in Victoria then argued that he did a backflip, but they were not aware that I had written in regard of the constitutional position if it all. * Did anyone give you credit for this?
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
**#** No, neither did they do in the Queensland Court of criminal appeals when it basically word for word quoted from my book INSPECTOIR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP the reasons of overturning the convictions of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge, but then again neither do others when they successfully win their cases. Liam McGill is a clear example in his paternity case where in fact I was assisting him with his case but as soon as he won he was in the news claiming he had done it all by himself. Well, when then he engaged a lawyer for the High Court of Australia case I made clear he had done is himself, so he had claimed, then I wasnt going to get involved. * Out of spite? **#** Nothing to do with that. The man lied to the people and claimed it as being his own work, even so one of the judges during the case in fact referred to me that I had indeed sought to follow the proper procedure and his former lawyer had wrongly advised him, and as such there can be no doubt that I was assisting Liam McGill and the Court had recognised this itself. My issue is that he was dishonest to claim the credit for himself. If he had not claimed for himself and left it unanswered then it would, so to say, have been no skin of my nose, but I dont like it when all the hard work I have put into it is being claimed by others. Likewise that with Pauline Hansons case I published on 1 December 2003 a book INSPECTOR-RIKATI on PLEASE EXPLAIN A book on CD political and legal questions ISBN 978-0-9751760-0-9 was ISBN 0-9751760-0-5
10
15
20
25 It contains copies of correspondences, such as of the Queensland Attorney-General admitting that none of the issues I had raised were by any parties placed before the various courts, not even before the High Court of Australia. As such, I viewed that Premier Peter Beatty (through the States lawyers) had concealed from the High Court of Australia relevant details/information and the High Court of Australia then refused the application, however because I managed to pass on material to Pauline Hansons sister urging her to place it before the Court of Crimi nal Appeals it was so done and the result was the appeals succeeded. Anyhow getting back to the legislative powers, the Commonwealth of Australia therefore may or may not have complete legislative powers depending upon how it is obtained and to what extend. If only a few States refer (that is constitutionally validly so) legislative powers then the Commonwealth of Australia is not legislating as under its general legislative powers but is legislating as representing the sovereign of the particular State or States who have referred legislative powers only, and as such can therefore legislate upon the reference of legislative powers in regard of those States who referred the legislative powers and for those who adopted it in special terms to those States provided it does not involve all States. This, as the moment referred powers covers most States and all other States have adapted it then it is no longer an exclusive legislative power but become an ordinary general power for the whole of the Commonwealth. As such, every piece of legislation by the Commonwealth of Australia should really be identified under which constitutional power it was enacted. It is absurd to expect the High Court of Australia to elicit from the legislation under which heading it might fall. That is not what the purpose of the High Court of Australia is for and to do so would make the Court not being the judicial arbitrator but rather a political tool for the federal government to do its dirty work so to say, to find some way to legally justify its legislation. END QUOTE Chapter 022A Failure of the case (part only)
30
35
40
45
50
It is a shame that people appointed to the Human Rights Commission, at least as it appears to me, have no proper knowledge and understanding as to what constitutionally is applicable. 5
HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it. END QUOTE
.
10
15
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten , END QUOTE HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE
20
25
30
35
40
45
While we have a written constitution the unwritten part of the constitution is that which applies as legal principles embedded in the constitution. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST that is what I have been researching. That is also why when I read some High Court of Australia judgment I detect how the court took a statement of a delegate out of context (as it did regarding the 2006 WorkChoices case) whereas others may never realise this to be done and may never have contemplated the court would act in such disgraceful manner to betray the People. During January 2014 NITV was advertising on SBS television a commercial about black fellows whereas if a non-Aboriginal were to refer to this then somehow this could be deemed racial discrimination. The advertisement was ongoing used, and children therefore hearing this would get used to the term black fellows. Why on earth have something deemed offensive when those who would claim it to be offensive on numerous occasions bombard non-Aboriginals with this terminology? It is like having the cake and eat it! Get the message? We cannot have Aboriginals seeking special deals adverse to the general community. There are ample of Aboriginals who rather live their lives as like any other ordinary Australian and become successful in their lives because they have the incentive and desire to be one of the general community. I couldnt care less not to be political correct if it is unconstitutional or violates the legal principles embedded in the constitution, this as to me the true meaning and application of the constitution is what is our principle law that should be adhered to! Likewise so with the so called refugees, which are so to say window shopping for a country that they desire, rather than needing a safe haven for themselves. We should set up a system, that I proposed many years ago to the federal government, where anyone using people smuggling acts adverse to his/.her own future. If we did so then we may safe in the process many children from drowning. And it would promote correctly human rights! This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all issues/details. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
50
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

( p33
Our name is our motto!)
p34

20140303-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Human Rights Commission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

20140303-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Human Rights Commission

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

20140303-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Human Rights Commission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5

Lets use the statement by changing the subject matter to as follows: 30

Constitutional powers as to races, religion, etc. ENJOY THE READ.

Again consider this nonsense of a statement: 45

The document can be downloaded from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/209947922/20149301-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-TonyAbbott-PM-Re-Race

Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.

(including, after amendment, Aboriginal people) on the ground of their race.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

You might also like