ISSUE: 20180824- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 9-Dutton&s44

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

* Gerrit, is this section 44 purely a federal issue or does it also apply to the states?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, the legal principles embedded in the constitution are also
applicable to the states. Recently a law professor made this also known, as I all along claimed.
* Ok, it seems your yesterday’s suggestion that Malcolm Turnbull should resign in a way seems
to come through. But let us first consider Dutton’s position. If you were Governor-General and
held he was the right man for the job would you in the circumstances still commission him?
**#** First of all I do not know the precise ins and outs of the issues at hand regarding Dutton
but let me set out as I view it.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-refers-dutton-s-eligibility-to-solicitor-general-20180822-
p4zyy6.html
Government refers Dutton's eligibility to Solicitor-General
QUOTE
"Heaven forbid somewhere down the track, especially if the current situation were to
continue and there was to be a change in leadership, this s44 is just like dynamite
historically and you’d want to make sure we don’t have collateral damage down the track,"
Mr Laundy said.
END QUOTE

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-refers-dutton-s-eligibility-to-solicitor-general-20180822-
p4zyy6.html
QUOTE
Sydney University constitutional law professor Anne Twomey had earlier told Fairfax the
case was "borderline".

“I do think there is a danger for him,” Professor Twomey said.

“I think there is a reasonable case for his disqualification but he also has a reasonable
defence."

Network Ten on Monday reported a change in the law, which began on July 2, meant
childcare centres would now be receiving direct subsidies from the Commonwealth, rather
than having the money provided to parents who were then able to spend it on childcare
services.

Coalition sources maintain the childcare subsidy, even though it is paid directly to a
childcare operator, remains in effect a payment to families through the centres.

Public accountant Chris Flynn, of Flynn Associates, said the new childcare subsidy, which
began in July, was "payable to the childcare centre, but the beneficiary is the Centrelink
[account] holder".
p1 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 "It is calculated on the adjustable taxable income and circumstances of the applicant and
their partner, not the childcare centre itself," Mr Flynn said.
END QUOTE

In my view if there was a change of law to not pay the person entitled to it but to the child care
centre directly then it appears to me that it is depending upon the entitlement of the parent(s) who
are clients and then no contract can exist between the Government and the children care centre. It
is merely a payment made on behalf of the person ordinary entitled to the monies. If the parent(s)
decide to place the child elsewhere then the monies would be paid accordingly to where the child
is subsequently placed.
* You do not see this as a violation of s44?
**#** Not on this basis as I understand it to be. The government is well entitled to say to parents:
Look some people are ripping off the system and so if you are entitled to a certain government
benefit then we rather directly pay it on your behalf to the child care centre so we have a record it
is actually being paid in regard of your child and we also then we have prove it was actually paid
to a child care centre and not ended up being ripped off by someone pretending to be a child care
centre or so. As far as I can view it there is no contract between the child care centre and the
government that child XYZ is to be cared for by them. It are the parents who decided where their
children shall be cared for. As such it is a contract between the parents and the day care centre. It
is for that purpose totally irrelevant who makes the payment to the day care centre as it is only
interested it receives the monies paid for by the parents or on their behalf. Say an accident
eventuates with a child XYZ surely the government isn’t going to sue the day care centre for and
on behalf of the child XYZ or its parents. The Government will simply make clear it is a contract
between the parents and the day care centre and the Government doesn’t tell the parents where to
place XYZ in care.
* Ok I can accept this reasoning but say you were Governor-General and you were to hold that
Dutton was the best person to be Prime Minister would you be prevented to commission him if
he were to be ousted from Parliament?
**#** Our constitution really has the legal principle, and I make clear the same applies to the
States regardless of any conventions otherwise, that the Governor-General or for that the
Governor of a state can commission any person not being even a Member of Parliament to be
the first Minister being it a Prime Minister or in a State the Premier. I understand that prior to
federation some First Ministers in the colonies were not called Premier but Prime Minister.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
64 Ministers of State
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the
Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members
of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the
Commonwealth.
Ministers to sit in Parliament
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three
months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
END QUOTE
Again:
QUOTE
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three
months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
END QUOTE
p2 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
On this basis, even if, not that I suggest this, Peter Dutton was to be ousted he still could be
Prime Minister. For sure he would require to be standing and succeeding in a by-election to get
back into the Parliament as a Member that is but I see absolutely no bar for him to be
commissioned as a Prime Minister.
Ironically Malcolm Turnbull didn’t seem to have a problem for Barnaby Joyce to be Acting
Prime Minister when his entitlement to be a Member of Parliament was in question. So why now
with Peter Dutton? Again one doesn’t have to be the leader of a party or be in as political party at
all to be commissioned Prime Minister. I view it is out of spite by Malcolm Turnbull to get back
on Peter Dutton and so he seems to use DOUBLE STANDARDS I view to try to get anyone
else but Peter Dutton to become Prime Minister. I view he is not working in the interest of the
party at all but is egoistic and spiteful.
The convention with Barnaby Joyce to be Acting Prime Minister surely then can be applied to
Peter Dutton to be Prime Minister.

We have however also a problem since federation.

The AEC (Australian electoral office published the following:
https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Fact_Sheets/fact_sheets/fact2.pdf
FEDERATION AND THE PEOPLE’S VOTE 1897-1903 Fact Sheet 2
QUOTE
THE FIRST COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT 1901
Overview
Once the Australian Constitution had been accepted by voters in the Australian colonies
and enacted as law by British Parliament, the process of putting the new system of federal
government into practice began.
The Australian colonies were now States of the Commonwealth of Australia, and the office
of Governor-General represented the reigning monarch of Britain as Head of the
Commonwealth. The first Governor-General of Australia, Lord Hopetoun, proclaimed the
Commonwealth of Australia at a special ceremony in Centennial Park, Sydney, 1 January
1901.
It was also the Governor-General’s task to commission an interim or caretaker ministry
until the Australian people were able to elect their representatives to the newly created
Commonwealth Parliament. These interim ministers, with Edmund Barton as Prime
Minister, were sworn in as part of the inaugural ceremony at Centennial Park. Over the
next months they organised the first federal election and made arrangements for the
opening of the first Commonwealth
Parliament.
The first federal election
On Friday 29 March and Saturday 30 (in Queensland and South Australia) voters took part
in the first election of representatives to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Because there was as yet no federal electoral law, the election took place in accordance
with the voting legislation in each of the States. This accounted for voting taking place on
two different days as well as many differences in voting methods and rights.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
The opening of Parliament
The Duke of Cornwall and York (later King George V) opened the first Commonwealth
Parliament in Melbourne on 9 May, 1901. Thousands of people watched the royal
procession as it made its way through the streets of the city to the Exhibition Building
where the ceremony was witnessed by 12,000 invited guests.
Immediately after the opening the new members of the Parliament made their way to
Victoria’s Parliament House in Spring Street. The Senate met to elect a president and
the House of Representatives to elect a speaker. Detailed parliamentary business was
p3 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 left until 21 May.
The Commonwealth Parliament continued to meet in Melbourne until 9 May, 1927 when
its own Parliament House was opened in Canberra. Until this time the Victorian Parliament
met in the Exhibition Building.
END QUOTE

Based on this information, assuming it is correct it means that there was no government not even
a care taking government from 1 April 1901 until 9 May 1901. This as Section 64 limits the care
taking government to be Ministers for a maximum of 3 months. It makes not one iota of
difference if the members of the care taking government were elected or on in March as they
were potential Members of Parliament or Members elect but not Members until they first sitting
of Parliament. The 3-month period was specifically provided for considering the first care taking
government needed to organize through the states elections. However being it a government or a
care taking government (Essential when an election is called there is a care taking government) it
still is a 3-month maximum and one automatically loses the care taking commission when the 3-
months expire and the care taking Minister has not made the required oath/affirmation as a
Member of Parliament. Just consider the following, and also it provides that a Member of the
House of Representatives is entitled to stand for a Senate election where the Senate election is
relating to a seat not vacant at the time. While the constitution appears to prevent this it is a
misreading because what it means is that one cannot as a member of the House of Representative
contest at that time a vacant seat for the Senate. There is in my view nothing wrong to contest a
seat that is not vacant but due to be vacant in months to come. Consider the last part of the quote
below in relation to Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH in particular also.
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE

Sir JOHN BRAY: What the hon. gentleman has said is quite right so far as the purposes of this section are
concerned as regards reckoning the time of retirement. But in another part of the bill it is provided that the
senators are to be paid for their services, and the question arises, does the term of service of a senator for the
purposes of payment begin from the date of his election, from the date when he is sworn in, or from the first
day of January?

HON. MEMBERS: On the day when he is sworn in!

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Surely when his

service begins!

Sir: I think we ought to have that fixed. It seems to me very undesirable to provide, as suggested by Colonel
Smith, that although a senator is elected in June, his term of service and payment for service shall not
begin until the following January.

Mr. CLARK: He will not do anything until the following January!

Sir JOHN BRAY: For the purposes of retirement, a date should be fixed from which the time should be
reckoned; but for all other purposes a senator ought to be a senator from the day he is chosen.

Mr. BAKER: How can he be when there is another man in his place?

Sir JOHN BRAY: I can quite see that for the purposes of this section the provision as contained in the
clause is right; but, as regards other portions of the bill, it seems to me that it is not right, and the question
ought to be clearly understood.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: So far as the objection with regard to payment is concerned, there is a good
deal in it, and the matter should be dealt with now. The clause only deals with the first senators. Afterwards
p4 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 the term of service begins on the 1st of January. I suppose a senator can hardly be called a senator until
the 1st of January arrives. He will be a senator elect, but he will not be a senator really until that day.
If parliament is in session on the 1st of January, he will walk in and take his seat, and the other man
will walk out, and his pay, I apprehend, will begin on the same day. But the hon. member has pointed out
a blot with respect to the first senators. A man might be elected in December and claim twelve months' pay,
dating from the previous January. This, I think, would be remedied by inserting in the second paragraph the
words "for the purposes of his retirement."

Mr. WRIXON: The matter will want a little thinking over, because I apprehend a man is not a
senator until he presents himself and takes the oath.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Why not?

Mr. WRIXON: He might refuse to take the oath, and so would be disqualified from the beginning. It
is not until be presents himself and takes the oath that he is really a senator. He is in potentiality a senator; but
he is not completely clad in that position until he [start page 602] appears at the table and takes the oath,
and I apprehend he is not entitled to payment until that takes place. I would suggest that it is somewhat
hazardous to make an amendment at the table in a bill of this kind, which has been carefully considered; and
if these matters are home in mind, they can be afterwards dealt with by the draftsman. I would deprecate any
hurried amendment on the spot, where it may not be required.

Sir HARRY ATKINSON: The clause states that the term of service of a senator shall not begin until
the 1st January following the day of his election. If a vacancy occurs, and a senator is elected in June,
he then becomes a senator; but, according to this part of the clause, he cannot become an actual
senator until the following January. Though parliament might be in session, he would be unable to take his
seat. I would suggest to the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, that he should take a note of this point, and
consider it. I do not think we could make any amendment here that would meet the case. For the purposes of
this particular clause the provision is right enough; but I think there will be a difficulty in regard to payment,
and also as to vacancies occurring.

Sir JOHN BRAY: I quite agree with Sir Samuel Griffith, that if we are not to overlook this question
entirely it ought to be settled somewhere in this clause, and if the hon. gentleman sees no strong objection to
such a course I shall move the insertion at the beginning of the second paragraph of the words "for the
purposes of this section." It would be manifestly absurd in regard to the first election of senators to say that if
a man is elected in September or October the term of his service shall begin from the preceding January, and
that he shall be entitled to all the privileges of a senator from that date. It is quite possible that this may not be
the best amendment that can ultimately be made, but it seems to me clear that the second paragraph was
drawn with the idea, that it applied to this section only and not to other portions of the bill. I beg, therefore, to
move as an amendment:

That before the words "The term of service" line 11, the words "For the purposes of this section" be
inserted.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is quite correct: those are the right words!

Amendment agreed to.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: In reference to the point raised by the hon. member, Sir Harry Atkinson, in
regard to vacancies occurring by death, the difficulty would be met by substituting for the words "retiring
senators" the words "senators retiring by rotation."

Amendment (by Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH) proposed:

That the words retiring senators," line 17, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "senators
retiring by rotation."

Mr. MARMION: Is this intended to refer to senators retiring by rotation throughout, or only in the first
instance?

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Always!

p5 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Mr. MARMION: It seems to me that there are two portions of the bill which may be affected by the
proposed amendment. In the first place, unless it is distinctly laid down in the bill that a senator, though
elected, does not become a senator until the 1st of January, there will be during that interval twelve senators
instead of eight; because there will be four who will not retire for some considerable period after the election.
There is another view of the case. A senator may be prevented for a period from holding his seat in the
local house of representatives. When he is elected to the senate, he cannot sit any longer in the state
house of representatives, and if his election to the senate takes place some time prior to the end of the
year, unless it is distinctly laid down that the mere fact of his election [start page 603] does not make
him a senator, he will be obliged to retire from the local house of representatives.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: There is no doubt a little difficulty. In the cases of which we have experience,
members of parliament are elected by a constituency that may be said to be in permanent session. Here we
have to deal with the case of a constituency which is in session only sometimes. We must, therefore, deal
specially with it. There cannot be more than eight senators at a time. There will be eight senators and
four senators elect; for a senator elect is not a senator until his term begins. There is no reason why a
member of the house of representatives should not be elected to be a senator in June; next January he
becomes a senator and ceases to be a member of the house of representatives.

Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, agreed to.

END QUOTE

It should be understood that one cannot be paid from Consolidated Revenue Funds directly as a
Minister, as the payment must be made to the Crown. It is up to Her Majesty if she desires to
provide a certain payment and any other benefits. Her majesty can appoint a person from being
Governor of a colony to be a Governor or Prime Minister of another colony and it would be
absurd to hold that this person then would be entitled to 2 pay packets from Her Majesty.
Ministers and Governors/Governor-Generals are not employed by any state or Commonwealth as
they are employed by the Crown.
Hence, every Minister who has some financial arrangement with the State/Commonwealth for
payment is actually in violation ofs44. It means that any Member of Parliament having a
superannuation provision with the Commonwealth violates s44.This as they are not employed
with the Commonwealth and yet receive a financial advantage not excluded by s44.
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for
his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other provision is
made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.

Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.

Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!

Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those colonies
which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement of expenses,
because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a
salary for their work, which they are not.

Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say
that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
move as an amendment:

That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.

p6 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.

If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654]
Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that
kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than
the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament
who was being paid £500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus
his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational manner; and to settle
a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own judgment, and certainly not
to the judgment of the public.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are likely to do well
to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give proper attention to further work to-
night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in
regard to the absence of provision on matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting
committee was concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution
with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the commonwealth in its first
session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great number of other matters of that kind. We have,
therefore, given them power to deal with this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a
payment of members bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual allowance
for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at £500.

Motion agreed to; progress reported.

Convention adjourned at 6.33 p.m.

END QUOTE

In my view Malcolm turn bull having Australian Federal Police, I understand about 122 of them,
guarding his private property is a violation of s44 of the constitution as he has a financial
advantage by this.
The same with members of parliament getting so to say a golden handshake when leaving of
$40,000 or whatever, it is in violation of s44. As was clear that the moment another person takes
up the seat that is the end of payment to the former Member of Parliament.
Hence now office or pension to former Governors/Governor-Generals/Premiers/Prime
Ministers/etc. None ever were employed by the Commonwealth/State but are employed if they
hold a function by the Crown and hence any other payment causes them to be disqualified
because of s44. As was made clear an ALLOWANCE is to be provided to Members of
Parliament not being Ministers that incorporate compensation for overnight accommodation,
travelling, etc. You cannot however provide an allowance and add other allowances to it, because
that violates s44.
In my view the same is in regard of any Member of Parliament or candidate who is elected
to the Parliament who accepts from the AEC payment (regarding the number of primary
votes) either directly or through his political party, as this is a payment that violates s44.
It is also a violation of use of public monies!
I in fact warned about this to the Members of the Victorian Parliament months before the 2014
State election. Also to the then Premier Napthine and leader of the Opposition leader Daniel
Andrews. Well the latter had the Red Shirt brigade that I understand is now part of police
investigation
The following was quoted in various correspondences such as:
20141203-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Electoral Commission-COMPLAINT
p7 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 20140328-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General
20140604-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier D Napthine-Re Geoff Shaw MP-etc-
20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc
20140613-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Louise Asher Re Mr Geoff Shaw-
REQUEST for DETAILS and INFORMATION-etc
20140615-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Bruce Atkinson MLC -Re Geoff Shaw saga-etc

http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE

Ethics Orientation for State Officials

Misuse of Public Funds
Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
END QUOTE

* Oh boy you really are on to things!

**#** My concern is also that I understand Julie Bishop is reportedly going to try to become
Prime Minister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bishop
QUOTE
Bishop won preselection to become the Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Curtin in
1998
END QUOTE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bishop
QUOTE

As Education Minister, Bishop's policies centred on the development of national education

standards as well as performance-based pay for teachers.[14] On 13 April 2007, the
Australian State Governments jointly expressed opposition to Bishop's pay policy. In the
2007 budget, the Federal Government announced a $5 billion "endowment fund" for higher
education, with the expressed goal of providing world-class tertiary institutions in
Australia.[15] Some of Bishop's public comments on education, including the remark that
"the states have ideologically hijacked school syllabi and are wasting $180 million in
unnecessary duplication", were criticised by teachers. An advance media kit for a 2006
speech claimed parts of the contemporary curriculum came "straight from Chairman Mao";
the remark was dropped from her speech.[16][17]

In 2006, Bishop was offered substantial donations to the Liberal Party by Tim Johnston,
the Perth-based head of the fraudulent company Firepower International, who sought her
co-operation in obtaining substantial Commonwealth funding for his operations.[18] Bishop
facilitated Johnston's access to the Howard Government at the highest level, compounding
extensive official complicity and Austrade funding of the multimillion-dollar scam.[19] For
example, Firepower was promoted as a co-sponsor of the trade show "Australia Week in
Moscow", which was opened by the Australian Governor-General Michael Jeffery on 10
May 2005.[20]

END QUOTE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bishop
QUOTE

p8 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Bishop is in favour of an Australian republic, having served as a delegate at the
Constitutional Convention of 1998
END QUOTE
Again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bishop
QUOTE
Bishop facilitated Johnston's access to the Howard Government at the highest level,
compounding extensive official complicity and Austrade funding of the multimillion-dollar
scam.[19]
END QUOTE

I view it hypocritical of anyone to oppose the current constitution, as they are when pursuing a
Republic, without even bothering to show what Republican constitution, if any at all, is
proposed. This as our current constitution doesn’t allow for it to be a Republic.

Hansard 6-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE

Mr. GILLIES: We are not all agreed on the question of the establishment of a republic!

Dr. COCKBURN: There is no question of that. We want to establish such a commonwealth as will exist
with the least strained relations with the mother country.
END QUOTE

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:

There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions
in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.

END QUOTE

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

As such it is absurd to me having any Member of Parliament who is in the service of the Crown
is then seeking to undermine the Crown. In my view Julie Bishop involvement with I view
stealing monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds to give to the Clinton Foundation is also a
p9 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
serious matter. In my view one cannot hold her to be of credentials that she could be
commissioned to be Prime Minister.
I may add that I understand from reports that Malcolm Turnbull had off shore tax heaven
investments or bank holdings. In my view that alone ought to have been sufficient to bar him for
becoming Prime Minister. In the first place. How does one know if he has not direct government
contracts with entities some person in his name is managing?
*.What about Morrison?
**#** As I just covered in the previous PRESS RELEASE that I view he is grossly incompetent
in understanding the true meaning and application of the constitution such as regarding the non-
uniform taxation then I view he wouldn’t even made the first grade.
*. What about Tony Abbott?
**#** I hold the view he is one of the better persons to be Prime Minister, and he certainly
would have learned a lesson having been Prime Minister and so to say back stabbed but I do
view that Peter Dutton is the better candidate for the job. I really like his honesty in making
known he wasn’t going so to say melt like ice but was going to pursue to contest Malcolm
Turnbull again. Malcolm Turnbull should understand what goes around comes around. He so to
say is getting some of his own medicine. I view that Peter Dutton is more inline regarding the
sovereignty of the commonwealth and that is a good start. I cannot expect he will be 100% in
line with constitutional limitations but he might just pursue to do so. And even if, not that I
suggest he might, be ousted from the Parliament it still wouldn’t stop him to be Prime Minister
for 3-months and in the meantime stand for by-election.
*.What if he fails in a by-election?
**#** Well, some Member of Parliament in the House of Representatives due for retirement may
then vacate his seat earlier so Peter Dutton can still contest that seat.
*.Anything else you like to add?
**#** I would like to see genuine participation and education in regard of the true meaning and
application of the constitution. It is the pillar of our democracy.
Every time some Commonwealth/State/Territorial Member of Parliament is defrauding the
Consolidated Revenue funds then they are undermining our democracy. That is the problem with
those who enter the parliament for greed rather than to actually serve the constituents.
QUOTE 23-8-2018 Email
Re: [conlawprof] Teaching the Constitution, formerly NYTimes:
Donald Trump’s High Crimes and Misdemeanors
People

 William Funk <funk@lclark.edu>


 Today at 15:36 (23-8-2018)

To

 conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu

Hide

p10 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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

It's all well and good on this list to discuss the failings of our current Constitution and
potential improvements, and if I were teaching a political science course at the graduate or
undergraduate levels, such issues might be central to the discussion. But I will be teaching
ConLaw at a law school, and not Harvard or Yale, where perhaps the students don't need
professors to teach them law.

For my students, and I would guess the students at most law schools in the nation, ConLaw
must fulfill some basic roles -- preparation for the bar, preparation for practice, and
preparation to be able to describe to lay persons what the Constitution allows, requires, and
prohibits in light of contemporary events. This is not to say that one should avoid
discussing the defects in the Constitution, but the "central focus" should be constitutional
doctrine, because that is what drives 99% of constitutional law in the real world. It's what
drives legal advice to federal, state, and local actors. It's what drives decisions to challenge
government action in court. It's what drives most of the debates in the public forum. And it
is what courts use to justify their decisions regarding the Constitution.

I'd love to spend time in class exploring why a parliamentary form of government might be
better, and if so, what level of support a party must show to obtain any representation in the
legislature. And I confess that I do spend a few minutes on the question of whether one
could constitutionally amend Article V to eliminate the ban on amendments regarding
equal representation in the Senate. But any time spent on such philosophical musings is
time lost to doctrine, and there is much doctrine to be learned, and it can't all be learned in
a bar review course.

Bill Funk

Lewis & Clark Law School

END QUOTE 23-8-2018 Email

Here we have a High Court of Australia where I view judges simply lack to understand and
comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution and then go out making
judgments that in my view are utter and sheer nonsense.
*.Example please?
**#** Consider the following:
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
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

Citizenship is for the States to determine for each state.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/16/pastafarianism-is-not-a-religion-dutch-court-rules
Spaghetti injunction: Pastafarianism is not a religion, Dutch court rules
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster follower denied right to wear colander in ID photos

p11 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
In New Zealand they are recognised as a religion. There is nothing wrong for one state to
demand you have to wear a pasta strainer for say a week to be able to become a citizen whereas
another State may hold you have to be shaven bold or some other idiotic demand.
As I made known there is a 4 December 2002 by consent court order in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka
to have the s78 B NOTICE OPF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS such as about
CITIZENSHIP to be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. This is so far refused
to do. Si we have a High Court of Australia making rulings about citizenship issues without
actually having any definition in Australian law from any state what CITIZENSHIP actually
stands for. The Commonwealth has no constitutional powers for this!

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we
are all alike subjects of the British Crown.

Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more

comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the
Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of
the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship,
and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the
scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a
colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
Again;
we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British
Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X
This book published also the written submissions in the successful appeals such as some of
those set out below, which were not challenged at all by the Commonwealth and neither by any
of the State/Teritory Attorney-Generals
QUOTE Written submissions ADDRESSTO THE COURT 19-6-2006

The Defendant submits, that any judicial officer who was natural born and/or naturalized was and remained
to be a British national with an alliance to the British Crown. And where such judicial officer made an oath of
alliance to the LEGAL FICTION “Queen of Australia” then this judicial officer has an purported oath of
alliance to two different monarchs and cannot be deemed to be a acceptable judicial officer for purpose to
make judicial determinations.

The Defendant submits, that as also further set out below, where any natural born and/or naturalized person
has made an oath of alliance to the LEGAL FICTION “Queen of Australia”, then this would be an act of
sedition.

The Defendant submits, that any natural born or naturalized person who made an oath of alliance to the
LEGAL FICTION “Queen of Australia” is by Section 44 of the Constitution disqualified from being a
Member of Parliament.

The Defendant submits, that because subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution provided for “naturalization” of
“aliens” to be granted “British nationality” then any notion by the ULTRA VIRES Australian Citizenship
p12 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Act 1948 legislation that they were granted “Australian citizenship” is NULL AND VOID in that the were
and remain to be actually made “British nationals”.

The Defendant submits, that because the Victorian constitution relied upon the ULTRA VIRES Australian
Citizenship Act 1948 for certain rights and so also further legislation demand certain government functions
that the person must be an “Australian citizen” then all such persons, being it police, judicial officers,
Members of State parliament, etc, all failing to have “Australian citizenship” as an ULTRA VIRES
legislation cannot be enforced, by this all are without legal right in their positions.

The Defendant submits, that by the ruling in Sue v Hill, that British nationals own alliance to a foreign
Monarch cannot hold a seat in Parliament, then for this also all natural born and naturalized persons who are
in fact British nationals by this ruling are disqualified from being a Member of Parliament.

The Defendant submits, that therefore the legal power of any judicial officer involved in this case to
adjudicate may be ULTRA VIRES, if this judicial officer made an oath of alliance to the LEGAL
FICTION “Queen of Australia”, and it would result that this Court then constitutes to be a STAR
CHAMBER COURT, referred to in the Act Interpretation Act 1980 (Vic).

The Defendant submits, that as the Framers of the Constitution stated, legislative powers as to
“citizenship” remains with the States and “Australian citizenship” is AUTOMATICALLY obtained when a
person obtains “State citizenship”.

The Defendant submits, that legislation enacted by any parliament, where persons failed to have Australian
citizenship as derived from having State citizenship then any such legislation is and remains ULTRA
VIRES, and any legal enforcement by the Court of such legislation that is ULTRA VIRES are NULL AND
VOID and so also without legal force.
END QUOTE Written submissions ADDRESSTO THE COURT 19-6-2006

When you place before the Court submissions and they are not challenged then they are
implicitly acknowledged by the prosecutor and where then the Court upholds both appeals then
for all purposes and intend it so upheld the submissions made by me which again remained
unchallenged. I clearly did challenge the Sue v Hill ruling that it was beyond judicial powers and
this obviously I view is not something the High Court of Australia would like to revisit and be
exposed as a fraud.
*.And you represented yourself?
**#** I did indeed. My writings were up the creek such as having an and a mixed up but
nevertheless the message was very clear. So it seems to me we have a High Court of Australia
that instead of interpreting the true meaning and application of the constitution itself it seeks to
rely upon what some other country might have as citizenship. I did what one should do and that
is place it before the courts. And once you make a legal challenge that is not defeated then the
legislation is ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio unless and until, if ever at all, the courts declare it to be
INTRA VIRES! It means that the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is and remains to be ULTRA
VIRES.
* I think you certainly earned your stripes to be Governor-General! At least you show to know
what the constitution is on about.
**#** Well let see how smart the Liberal Party Members of Parliament are to make sure they to
do want to conduct matters appropriately within the provisions of the constitution and not despite
of it.
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!)

p13 24-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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