Chapter III-The Judicature: Constitutionalist

ISSUE: 20170817 - Re The 2 faces of the High Court of Australia, etc & the constitution
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

While often there are statements as to the 3 branches of Government, in my view one ought to
speak of the 4 branched of the POLITICAL UNION.
1. The Parliament
2. The Federal Executives
3. Judiciary
4. Inter-State Commission.
HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Chapter IIIThe Judicature
71 Judicial power and Courts
The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called
the High Court of Australia, and in such other federal courts as the Parliament creates, and in such
other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction. The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice,
and so many other Justices, not less than two, as the Parliament prescribes.
END QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

75 Original jurisdiction of High Court
In all matters:
(i) arising under any treaty;
(ii) affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries;
(iii) in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth,
is a party;
(iv) between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of
another State;
(v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the
Commonwealth; the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.
END QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
The Commonwealth of Australia created by statute being the Commonwealth of Australia

Constitution Act 1900 (UK) doesnt have any common law and so must rely upon the common law of
the relevant state to which it is dealing with a party.
HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) Mr. BARTON: QUOTE
And then there is this proviso:
p1 17-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Provided that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in the High Court than according
to the rules of the common law. END QUOTE
It ought to be very obvious if one consider that the High Court of Australia when sitting as a
Court of Disputed Returns is sitting for and on behalf of the politicians and as such the court
makes essentially a political decision/judgment. In Sue v Hill the ordinary standards of evidence
as is required in civil/criminal cases in my view didnt exist. The Court then claimed that by
evolution (or to that sense) the Commonwealth of Australia became an independent nation.
.
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
How on earth can one turn a POLITICAL UNION into some country, I ask? Unlike in Canada
where the parts are provinces this the Framers of the Constitution refused to apply.
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. DIBBS: QUOTE
We must not, however, be unmindful of the fact that there can be no federal government without, to a
large extent, the sacrifice of some portion of state rights; and when the word "provinces" is used in this
debate, I ignore its existence altogether. We have been, as it were, chaffed out of our very existence.
Those of us who have spoken within the walls of this building, or who have spoken out of doors to our
constituents, and have endeavoured, in discussing the federal question, to take a strong view of the
position in regard to the defence of the rights of New South Wales, have been pulled to pieces, and
called provincialists. I object, in connection with the independent state of New South Wales-a state as
independent as any in the world, even England itself, so far as the freedom of our position is
concerned-to the word "province." There may be something more dignified in the use of the word
"state." We are not going to become provinces. I do not think we are going to give up the individual
rights and liberties which we possess, and which those who have gone before us have fought for, to
become mere provinces under a federal form of government. We may take the more dignified form of
"states." Whilst we have endeavoured to put before the people of New South Wales, in these
resolutions, a sort of opiate, something assuring to their minds that in joining a federal union we give
up nothing of our territorial rights, words have been inserted in them which I shall do my utmost in
Committee to strike out-
except in respect to such surrenders as may be agreed upon as necessary and incidental to the power
and authority of the national federal government.
I do not know the meaning of these words, and no hon. gentleman who has yet spoken has given any
clear interpretation of them. It is sufficient for us, in enunciating a principle upon which the basis of a
constitution shall be prepared, to see that the territorial rights and privileges of each colony shall be
preserved to each state but when you come to consider the condition of a surrender, and the question
of the power of enforcing such surrender is placed in the hands of the federal government, then your
provinces or your states will be no party to the proceeding. END QUOTE
To turn the commonwealth of Australia into some country it means the states lost their own
independence in state hood. It (Sue v Hill) embarked also upon defining then Crown, which
clearly as civil/criminal court it never could have done. What however now appears to me to
have eventuated is that the High Court of Australia now relied upon when it was sitting as a
Court of Disputed Returns to implement the same as if it was a civil/criminal case. As such it
appears to me it used a backdoor manner to achieve something it couldnt achieve as a
civil/criminal court. In my view the Sue v Hill decision was a political court decision for and on
behalf of the politicians and should have absolutely no legal value outside the bounds of political
matters.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. BARTON. QUOTE
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth
citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really
defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it.
That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament." END QUOTE
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) Mr. DEAKIN: QUOTE
In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this
constitution. END QUOTE
Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Mr REID: I do not intend to propose an amendment, but I express my very great regret that the
Drafting Committee have not seen fit to place in the Constitution the power of determining these
disputed returns by some judicial authority. END QUOTE
As such Sue v Hill was not some watershed kind of decision, this as technically it never was a
judicial decision within Section71/75. Compare this with the Governor-General who has the
prerogative powers to make proclamations for and on behalf of the Crown. However the
Parliament can provide the Governor-General with additional powers by legislation. The same
with the Inter-State Commission (Section 101 of the Constitution) the parliament can in addition
to trade and commerce provide it with additional powers.
In my view the High Court of Australia has tarnished its own reputation by getting involved in
being a Court of Disputed Returns, and so making decision on behalf of politicians as a political
court (within s76) and then rely upon this as a civil/criminal court!
As I have set out on 4 December 2002 the Magistrates Court of Victoria by consent in a criminal
trial that is ordered that my s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS was to be
dealt with by the High Court of Australia. As such it to be heard within its ordinary criminal
jurisdiction. The Commonwealth being well aware that this could result in the overturn the of the
Sue v Hill claim that the Commonwealth of Australia became an independent nation therefore
decided not to go ahead with it. Just that as it was a court order they were obligated to do so, this
in particular where it was an order by consent.
The Absurdity we now are having is that nearly 15 years later the High Court of Australia
sitting as a criminal/civil court still has not bothered to deal with this matter whereas now it
somehow proposes to deal with the Commonwealth v Barnaby Joyce and Ors as a political
court being the High Court of Australia sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns.
QUOTE QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Attorney General 19-11-2002
Victoria
Fax 9651 0577 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
URGENT
Sir/Madam
Since 27-9-2002 I sought clarification about what, if any State citizenship I have as to be able to
obtain Australian citizenship, yet, in the recent 18 November 2002 response it was stated;
As explained in my previous letter, citizenship is a matter for the Commonwealth, not the States. You
indicated that you were naturalized in 1994. As result of that, you are an Australian citizen.
This utter ridiculous response was provided by RUVANI WICKS, Assistant Director, Civil Branch of the
Department of Justice.
Edmund Barton (later becoming the first Prime Minister of Australia and thereafter a judge of the High Court of
Australia) made very clear during the convention, that if it isnt in the Constitution, then the Commonwealth had no
legislative powers.
RUVANI WICKS refers me to the Commonwealth Government to sort out matters, however this is clearly
unacceptable, this, as the State of Victoria and not the Commonwealth deals or must deal with State Citizenship!
Unless you can point out when there was a reference of legislative powers from the State of Victoria to the
Commonwealth approved within Section 128 of the Commonwealth constitution, I view, there never was and still is
no constitutional legislative powers by the Commonwealth to determine State or any other citizenship!
END QUOTE
It ought to be clear that if a state doesnt provide for State citizenship then a person can neither
obtain Australian citizenship being the political status to vote in state/federal elections.
QUOTE
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER
1. The Defendant GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA gives notice that the

proceedings involves a matter arising under the constitution or involving its interpretation
within the meaning of section 78B of the judiciary Act 1903.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
37. That I seek this Court to adjourn these proceedings and to place before the HIGH COURT OF
AUSTRALIA a CASE STATED as to have the High Court of Australia to first determine the following
matters;
(i) Can a person obtain Australian citizenship without first obtaining State citizenship (Quasi
States being Territories included)? If so, then by which constitutional valid manner?
(ii) Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to define citizenship? If so;
(a) under which provision? And
(b) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or
(c) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born within Australia?
(iii) Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to declare and/or grant citizenship? If so,
(d) under which provision? And
(e) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or
(f) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born within Australia?
(iv) Does the Commonwealth have the constitutional powers to determine the rights of a resident in a
State to obtain citizenship of such State? If so, by which constitutional powers?
END QUOTE
This was part of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS that was filed and
served upon all Attorney-Generals and which the magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Victoria
by consent ordered on 4 December 2002 to be determined by the High Court of Australia. In
view that I objected to the issue of Australian citizenship being a purported nationality.
The onus was on the prosecutor, the Commonwealth of Australia to place the matter before the
High Court of Australia. The Commonwealth however failed to do so. It was to me no wonder
that the Commonwealth was bound to be defeated comprehensively in both appeals on 19 July
2006, where it had blatantly disregarded the orders of the magistrate of 4 December 2002.
However, this is too little avail to those persons who now have their constitutional validity of
being a Member of Parliament placed in jeopardy. Therefore, being a criminal matter it has and
must have precedent over a political matter. The High Court of Australia cannot ignore my
legal rights as per orders of 4 December 2002. As a matter of fact, if the High Court of Australia
sitting as a civil/criminal court were to rule that constitutionally Australians are and remain to be
British subjects then the entire matter against Mr Barnaby Joyce and others would collapse.
Regardless of New Zealand not having joined the federation for constitutional purposes it is and
remains to be a state within the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and
as such it is irrelevant if New Zealand declares it to be named New Zealand citizenship because
it is bound by the constitution that no matter what they are and remain to be British subjects.
Where Sue v Hill was not an ordinary judgment within the judicial powers of the High Court of
Australia but rather was a delegated power within the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)
and such powers could be taken back by the Parliament at any time, then one has to ask would it
not be totally absurd of the Parliament from then on could make pretended civil/criminal
decisions? In my view the High Court of Australia so to say sold out its impartiality not to get
involved in political issues where it operate as a High Court of Australia sitting as a Court of
disputed returns. In my view no serving judicial officer of the High Court of Australia should be
intertwined with political issues. Hence only retired judges should sit on any Court of Disputed
Returns, as to avoid any conflict of interest in other proceedings.
Consider the absurdity that the High court of Australia sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns
would make a decision like in Sue v Hill and then has to hear and determine my s78B NOTICE
OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and then decide that the High Court of Australia sitting
as a Court of Disputed Returns was incorrectly applying legal issues. Yes, they would have to
criticise their own conduct! Come on this surely amounts to the absurdity.
QUOTE Duncan v Queensland (1916) 22 CLR 556, 582 (per Griffith C.J.)
That case (a previous decision of the High Court, Foggit, Jones & Co v NSW (1915) 21 CLR 357) was
very briefly, and I regret to say, insufficiently argued and considered on the last day of the Sydney
sitting..... The arguments which now commend themselves to me as conclusive did not find entrance to
my mind. In my judgment that case was wrongly decided, and should be overruled.
END QUOTE
As such, the High Court of Australia could now reconsider the issues of Sue v Hill and
acknowledge that the term Australian Citizenship is not permissible as a alleged referral to
nationality and neither that the Commonwealth of Australia can be deemed to be an independent
nation (country) as it remains to be a POLITICAL UNION. It is beyond the judicial powers
of the High Court of Australia to declare otherwise, and Sue v Hill must be overruled.
New clause 11A, as read, agreed to.
Mr. BARTON: I have to propose a new clause to follow clause 48 in this form:
Until the Parliament otherwise provides all questions of disputed elections arising in the Senate or
House of Representatives shall be determined by a Court exercising federal jurisdiction.
We have not said "the High Court" here, because there is power in the Constitution to invest any
court with federal jurisdiction, so that this clause will work in this convenient way that the Court of a
State invested with federal jurisdiction may determine such a matter in any States
Mr. KINGSTON: Is it for disputed return' only?
Mr. BARTON: Yes; vacancies and qualifications are left in both Houses.
Mr. SYMON: Is it "disputed returns" or "elections"?
Mr. BARTON: "Disputed elections." We consider that the more general term.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON: I will ask Mr. Barton why in the case of elections to the Senate the
dispute shall not be heard by the Supreme Court of the State where the case arises?
Mr. BARTON: I think I explained that matter. The Parliament may at any time invest the Supreme
Court of a State with federal jurisdiction to determine a federal matter. The clause only provides for
the matter to be determined by a court exercising federal jurisdiction. END QUOTE
It appears to be very clear that qualifications is not within the powers of the High Court of
Australia sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns. A person may be legitimately a Member of
Parliament and then during the years become bankrupt or otherwise becomes disqualified and
this clearly would not fall within the term of Disputed Returns.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
76 Additional original jurisdiction
The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter:
(i) arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation;
(ii) arising under any laws made by the Parliament;
(iii) of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
(iv) relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of different States.
77 Power to define jurisdiction
With respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last two sections the Parliament may make
laws:
(i) defining the jurisdiction of any federal court other than the High Court;
(ii) defining the extent to which the jurisdiction of any federal
court shall be exclusive of that which belongs to or is invested in the courts of the States;
(iii) investing any court of a State with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
The question therefore is that any reference of powers for the High Court of Australia sitting as a
Court of Disputed Returns is one of a criminal/civil basis or just on a political basis.
Mr. SYMON: I move the following new clause to follow clause 78:
No person holding any judicial office shall be appointed to or hold the office of Governor-General,
Lieutenant-Governor, Chief Executive Officer, or Administrator of the Government, or any other
executive office.
I need not say that the great tribunal we have constituted is to be, above all things, the interpreter of
the Constitution, and the laws made under the Constitution and to deal with all the laws of the States in
their relations to the Commonwealth, and to be the arbiter between the Executive and the people. We
all wish, and have sought by this Constitution, to secure the independence and purity of the judges
constituting the High Court, particularly in view of the momentous functions they will have to
discharge. We all wish that justice shall be administered throughout the Commonwealth unspotted and
unsuspected. END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention), Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).- QUOTE
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice
should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both. END QUOTE
In my view it cannot be held that impartiality can exist if the High Court of Australia makes
decisions for politicians.
Mr. BURGESS: I think it would be well to have this point cleared up. In my own colony I
unfortunately suffered from the operation of a similar clause. Under our Constitution no member of
Parliament, except those holding office as responsible ministers of the Crown, can accept any salary or
emolument from the Government. I was an officer in the defence force, and Parliament passed a bill
providing for the payment of all the officers of that force, and I was then compelled by the Attorney-
General to retire from my seat in the House, resign my commission as an officer, and afterwards
submit myself to my constituents for re-election. That being so, I think it would be well if this point
could be cleared up, so that there may be no mistake about it. END QUOTE
I myself until March 2017 was under the understanding that when I naturalised on 28 March
1994 I had then renounced my Dutch nationality. It is after about 5 months of all kinds of
contacts with the Dutch Government that I am given the understanding my Dutch nationality
lapsed when I didnt renew my Dutch passport within 10 years. I understand that many children
who came out with their parents were overlooked to be included in a nationality ceremony and
now some 50 years or later are deported. It ought to be clear that the entire system needs to be
overhauled.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-The amendment is to omit clause 110, and insert the following now clause:-
The citizens of each state, and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen and residing in any territory
of the Commonwealth, shall be citizens of the Commonwealth, and shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the Commonwealth in the several states, and a state shall not make or enforce any
law abridging any privilege or immunity of citizens of the Commonwealth, nor shall a state deprive any

person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of its laws.
Now, there is a clause that covers the whole ground-a clause that is all-sufficient for the purpose-bearing in
mind that every provision is made for securing to the Commonwealth that its citizens shall not be people of
alien races to any considerable extent. There are in India some 150,000,000 British subjects, but of those
150,000,000 people very few indeed could stand the test applied by the Natal Immigration Restriction Act,
which I think has been adopted already in Western Australia; which will no doubt be adopted in other
colonies. of Australasia, and which will be effective in keeping from our shores the natives of India who
cannot pass the education test that is applied under the Natal Act. This education test is one which would
debar some 149,000,000 at the least out of 150,000,000 from qualifying, and would so keep them out of
Australia. There you have a very much wider disability-and I think a very wholesome disability-which goes
far and away beyond that suggested by the learned and honorable member (Mr. Isaacs). I think if we took this
clause into our consideration, it might be found to do all that is required for us.
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-It seems to me that the clause that has just been read by the Right Hon. Sir
Edward Braddon-the one suggested by the Tasmanian Assembly-would land us in greater difficulties than
anything we have thought of yet, and I think we shall be incurring a very great risk in endeavouring to
define who is in future to be considered a citizen of the Commonwealth. We have a right to deal to-day
with what we think is right for to-day, but we have Do right to tie the hands of the future people of the
Commonwealth in this connexion. END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of
the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under
it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-
the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the
court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as
will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere
of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Nothing should be too easy. We have the power to alter the Constitution, but it
is a power that can only be exercised with great difficulty. END QUOTE
.
Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: QUOTE
Of course it is necessary for the purposes of the commonwealth that it should have the control over all means
of communication. Another provision to which I desire to call special attention is No. 30, which reads thus:
The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all the
states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory of the commonwealth, or
any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this constitution be exercised only by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject to the
provisions of this constitution. END QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN.-If it is implied, would it not be best to make it explicit? The parentage of this clause, as
I have shown-originating as it does in a body with practically no financial power-casts a certain
suspicion on that reading of it, although, of course, the provision when embodied in this Act would
have a different effect. Still, why not make it clear whether we mean that, when the Federal Parliament
has passed federal legislation for some of the colonies, we shall allow that same legislation to deal with
any necessary raising of revenue from those colonies which may be required to give effect to the
legislation?
Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-I think the point taken by my honorable friend (Mr. Deakin) is one well
worthy of the consideration of the Drafting Committee, and probably the difficulty to which he has
drawn attention could be obviated by some such provision as that which he suggested. But this matter
has struck me also from another point of view, and it seems to me that the provision affords an easy
method of amending the Federal Constitution, without referring such amendments to the people of the
various states for their assent. Now, either when the state Parliaments have referred these matters to
the Federal Parliament, and the Federal Parliament has dealt with such matters, that becomes a
federal law, and cannot afterwards be repealed or revoked by the State Parliaments-that is one
position, and in that case, of course, the reference once made [start page 218] is a reference for all time,
and cannot be revoked, so that to that extent it becomes an amendment of the states' Constitution,
incorporated in and engrafted on the Federal Constitution without the consent of the people of the
various states. On the other hand, if that be not so, and the states can, after making such reference,
repeal such reference, what is the result? You have a constant state of change-no guarantee for
continuity or permanence-in this class of laws, and this might lead to a great deal of confusion and a
most unsatisfactory state of things. My principal objection to the provision is that it affords a free and
easy method of amending the Federal Constitution without such amendments being carried into effect
in the manner provided by this Constitution.
Mr. BARTON.-I cannot understand how it gives an opportunity of amending the Federal
Constitution.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution. END QUOTE
As His Honour French J of WA (later French CJ of HCA) made clear that Section 51 did no
more but for the Commonwealth to accept a reference of powers but not providing the states with
such powers.
xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments
of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the
matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;
(xxxviii) the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the
Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this
Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council
of Australasia;
END QUOTE
This means that any reference of legislative powers must be approved by way of State
referendum. Any purported Reference of legislative powers by any state not having been
approved by State referendum is ULTRA VIRES and so any Commonwealth legislation in
regard of the same and by this also judicial decisions.
In any event to my knowledge/understanding the states never referred legislative powers to the
Commonwealth and as such the purported Citizenship Act 1948 is ULTRA VIRES.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

Chapter III-The Judicature: Constitutionalist

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

Chapter III-The Judicature: Constitutionalist

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSUE: 20170817 - Re The 2 faces of the High Court of Australia, etc & the constitution

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

QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

The Commonwealth of Australia created by statute being the Commonwealth of Australia

p1 17-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

QUOTE QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General

1. The Defendant GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA gives notice that the

p6 17-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

You might also like