20200413-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Victoria's Human Rights Commissioner Kristen Hilton

Page 1
1
2
3 Kristen Hilton 13-4-2020
4 Victoria's Human Rights Commissioner
5 Level 24, 121 Exhibition Street
6 Melbourne VIC 3000
7 enquiries@veohrc.vic.gov.au
8
9 Kristen,
10 I am a person who not merely makes some claim and tell people just trust me, I am a
11 person who supports as to what I am stating with what the Framers of the Constitution were
12 recorded to have stated. Hence quoting them, even limited, does means a huge amount of work
13 to set it out. Then again this is the better way as you then can for yourself make an informed
14 decision as can my readers when a copy of this correspondence is published at my blog.
15
16 I cover in this correspondence for example subjects like
17
18  Mr Julian Assange
19
20  Citizenship
21
22  Constitutional embedded rights
23
24  Etc.
25
26 I includes part of my WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS (ADDRES TO THE COURT) of successful
27 appeals regarding the CITIZENSHIP ISSUE also.
28
29 I various images of video’s which appears to indicate that the reported COVID-19 cases have
30 been manipulated considerably all around the world, due to the CDC and WHO requiring a
31 reference to COVID-19 even is it is merely “ASSUMED” that COVID-19 may be relevant,
32 regardless if it had absolutely nothing to do with the cause of death. As such the death
33 certificates are misused to create a perception of astronomical proportion of deaths due to
34 COVID-19 even so not being so.
35
36 https://www.bitchute.com/video/gDd8cQkohNJE/ & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwl__8rivG8
37 Montana physician Dr. Annie Bukacek discusses how COVID 19 death certificates are being
38 manipulated
39 There is below also reference with video link that “Exosomes” is the same as “COVID-19” and
40 as such it already existed long before it became a major health scare. “Exosomes” as I
13-4-2020 Page 1 © Mr 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, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 understand it is a normal part of the body function in certain conditions. Again, I have below
2 included images from the video’s and you can always check out those video’s yourself.
3
4 What this may mean is that this “LOCKDOWN” is based upon “MISCONCEPTIONS”,
5 MISINFORMATION” “DISINFORMATION” etc.
6
7 Essentially to me it is like the “Salem witch hunt” that went on in the USA where many
8 innocent people died because of this.
9
10 https://youtu.be/Ppy7ZU0oDWg
11 NYC 10 minute video. New York intensive care Doctor confirms 5g symptoms and NOT covid19!
12 This video is about a NYC doctor who spend reportedly some 20 years in ICU, etc, and makes
13 clear that many victims show absurd abnormalities noting to do with a virus, as if they were so to
14 say just coming down from high altitude and that using ventilators on them could actually
15 accelerate their deaths because it is the wrong thing to use in their circumstances.
16
17 It might be absurd to consider but an open minded person should as to why so to say “ground
18 zero” of large scale claimed COVID-19 cases are within range of 5G towers. And the harm such
19 towers can cause to the human health system. There are numerous video’s on the internet
20 explaining this all in details but safe to say any “open minded” person should not ignore this
21 possible reference in particular where cruise ships involved reportedly all were using 5G
22 communication systems.
23
24 If indeed the “LOCKDOWN” (State of emergency) is based upon “MISCONCEPTIONS”,
25 MISINFORMATION” “DISINFORMATION” etc, then we have a major problem at our
26 hands. It may be engineered by politicians to push their own political issues, such as extending
27 their powers in violation of the constitution, get rid of using cash transactions, etc.
28
29 As for Julian Assange I view there has been a considerable failure by Human rights
30 Commissioners, lawyers and politicians to appropriately understand matters and for this I detail
31 certain legal issues governing this in some details.
32
33 To indicate how citizens can so to say be brainwashed I will also give an example how this is
34 with “council rates”. People simply are not aware of what is constitutionally permissible, etc, and
35 so accept whatever often assuming that the Government of the Day knows what is legally
36 permissible to do. However, as I proved with 2 successful appeals in court even “compulsory”
37 voting is unconstitutional.
38
39 I now will refer to a conversation with INSPECTOR-RIKATI® regarding issues:
40
41 * Gerrit, what is your view about this Kristen Hilton as a Human Rights Commissioner?
42
43 **#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I do not know anything really about her other than that she is a
44 lawyer but let say I got the impression that she is not up to the task of what really Human rights
45 are standing for, at least the article I referred to doesn’t bring out to me a competence.
46
47 * If there is an Emergency isn’t that then overriding everything?
48

Page 3
1 **#** Actually no. As a constitutionalist I first of all look at the issue is whatever the
2 Government or even the parliament pursues falls within their powers as provided for in the
3 relevant constitution. If not then I view the Human Rights commissioner should stand up and
4 object to it.
5
6 * Doesn’t the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 give the Parliament whatever power it desires?
7
8 **#** You mean the PURPORTED Victorian Constitution Act 1975, this as our real
9 constitution is the 1856 Colonial Constitution as amended by the Commonwealth of Australia
10 Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and this later constitution in fact caused the Colonial C onstitution
11 Act to become a State Constitution Act albeit will drastically reduced powers and changing the
12 Colonial Sovereign powers to State Constitutional powers
13
14 * What is the difference?
15
16 **#** Well let the Framers of the Constitution themselves explain this:
17
18 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
19 Australasian Convention)
20 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
21 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
22 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
28 END QUOTE
29 .
30 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE
32 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
33 terms that are just to both.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth
39 powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the
40 Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us.
41 END QUOTE
42
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government
46 END QUOTE
47 And
49 QUOTE
50 Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
51 responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
52 END QUOTE
53 And
55 QUOTE
56 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
57 Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the

Page 4
1 provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
2 those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
3 END QUOTE
4 And
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
8 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
9 therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
10 END QUOTE
11 .
13 QUOTE
14 Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates
18 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
19 Is it a Constitution which gives all reasonable and liberal guarantees of freedom? That can only be
20 answered in one way. Is it a Constitution the action of which, until amended by the people, is preserved and
21 safeguarded? There is only one answer to that. Is it a Constitution which the people themselves, by their
22 will expressed by their Parliament and themselves, are able to alter to suit their needs under conditions of
23 reasonable thought, without unreasonable difficulty? There can be no answer but one to. that question.
24 END QUOTE
25
27 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
28 The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
29 the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
30 whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
31 constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
32 several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
33 royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
34 practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
35 full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
36 that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
37 assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
38 again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
39 conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
40 such authority.
41 END QUOTE
42
44 QUOTE
45 Sir GEORGE GREY: I beg to propose that the following resolution stand as resolution No. 5:-
46 The inhabitants of each of the states of federated Australasia ought to be allowed to choose, and if they see
47 fit from time to time to vary, the form of state government under which they desire to live. Provision should
48 therefore be made in the federal constitution which will [start page 478] enable the people of each state
49 to adopt by the vote of the majority of voters, their own form of state constitution.
50 Question proposed.
51 Sir HENRY PARKES: I wish to raise a point of order upon this resolution, and I do it with the
52 utmost respect to the distinguished gentleman who has moved it. My point of order is that the
53 resolution goes beyond our instructions. We have been sent here for one object and one object only,
54 and that is, to prepare a scheme for the framing of a federal constitution. Anything outside of these
55 prescribed words cannot be dealt with under the commission in virtue of which we have come here.
56 END QUOTE
57 And
Page 5
1 QUOTE
2 Dr. COCKBURN: I think we have nothing whatever to do with deciding the details of the state
3 constitutions. On the other hand, I think it appertains to the functions of this Convention to decide that the
4 power of framing a constitution shall be in the hands of the several states. At present the legislatures of the
5 various colonies can only be altered with the consent of the Imperial Government. Is it intended that that
6 shall remain? When we have a federated Australasia, in which we have state legislatures and a federal
7 legislature, is it intended that the state legislatures shall have the power of altering their constitutions at will
8 or not? From that point of view I think the proposition put forward by the hon. member, Sir George Grey, is
9 decidedly within the powers of the Convention, the power to lay down a general rule, without touching the
10 details of any individual constitution, that the various states should have the power of framing their own
11 constitutions according to the will of the majority of the people of those states.
12
13 QUOTE H. L. D’EMDEN v F. PEDDER – High Court of Australia
14
15 The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the Constitution are within
16 the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority, sovereign States, subject only to the
17 restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or
18 implied. Where, therefore, the Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the
19 Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
20 interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.
21 END QUOTE
22
24 QUOTE
25 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
26 sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
27 parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present
28 are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the
29 power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
30 sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
31 power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
32 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
33 one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
34 with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
35 which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
36 of the constitution.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 What this means is that while the Commonwealth and the States are “sovereign” within their
40 spheres they are however not sovereign constitutional bodies that they can create and/or amend
41 their own constitutions. As such, they are sovereign within the ambit of their respective
42 constitutional powers but not above the constitution and cannot amend their own constitutions.
43 While in 2002 the then premier Peter Beatty of Queensland purportedly went back to the
44 Queensland Colonial constitution to then create the 2001 Queensland Constitution act this
45 simply was in my view sheer and utter nonsense as the Queensland constitution Act was no more
46 due to the changed caused by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
47 Likewise the Victorian Colonial constitution Act changed because of the Commonwealth of
48 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and no longer was the Victorian Parliament a
49 constitutional body that could create and/or amend its own constitution but was now subject to
50 any constitutional change since federation to be approved by the State electors in a State
51 referendum. Therefore, where this PURPORTED Victorian constitution Act 1975 was to my
52 understanding never approved by way of State referendum then it is ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio.
53 Likewise any other State constitution that was purportedly amended without approved by a State
54 referendum.
Page 6
1
2 * Oh boy, that is rocking the boat.
3
4 **#** And there is more to it.
6 QUOTE
7 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-We spend time enough in discussing things here, and when every one is agreed that this
8 clause is not to be adopted in the form in which it is printed, but is only to be a power of the Parliament, it is not
9 worth while to discuss the question of whether it is [start page 1665] absolutely necessary to put in the words.
10 Where there is a wide difference of opinion, it would be safer to do it. I agree with Mr. Barton that there is no
11 power, because sub-section (37) of clause 52 reads-
12 Any matters necessary for or incidental to the carrying into execution of the foregoing powers, or of any other
13 powers vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or Executive Government of the Commonwealth, or in any
14 department or officer thereof.
15 I venture to say that these are not necessary or incidental to the execution of any powers. The Commonwealth will
16 come into existence under this Constitution plus English law, one of whose principles is that the Queen can do
17 no wrong. That is the foundation on which the Constitution is established.
18 END QUOTE
19 .
20 Did you notice the wording “under this Constitution plus English law,”?
21
22 *.Didn’t the High Court of Australia make a ruling that because of the Australia Act 1986 British
23 are foreigners?
24
25 **#** You mean the PURPORTED Australia Act 1986 this as to my knowledge our (federal)
26 constitution was not amended by any referendum and the High Court of Australia lacks any
27 judicial powers to amend the constitution. Its judicial powers is purely to “interpret” the
28 intentions of the Framers of the Constitution but it cannot do so by back door manner to imply a
29 change.
30
31 *.Didn’t the States within Ss51(xxxvii) agree to refer the powers to the Commonwealth like
32 certain legislative powers such as children of non-married people? Didn’t also the States agree to
33 the Australian Act 1986?
34
35 **#** As indicated before Parliaments became subject to the constitutions and not above it and
36 so the States cannot give away something over which they had no power. As French J (Later
37 French CJ of HCA) made clear Subsection 51 (xxxvii) did no more but to give the
38 Commonwealth powers to accept referral of legislative powers but for the states to do so one
39 must find it elsewhere.
40
41 *.And that is?
42
43 **#** Section 123 of the constitution. This as by referring legislative powers to the
44 Commonwealth it must be approved by State referendum. A Parliament cannot give away
45 legislative powers and rob any future Parliament of its legislative powers unless the State
46 electors approved it by way of State referendum. This is also critical as the Supreme Court of a
47 State is the ultimate Court to decide State issues and when legislative powers is transferred to the
48 Commonwealth then with it, then it denied the State Supreme Court of its judicial powers in
49 regard of that. Hence a State referendum can only allow for this.
50
51 *.Can’t they reverse it later when another parliament is existing?
52
53 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Page 7
1 QUOTE
2 Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
3 position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that
4 law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the
5 Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no
6 power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary
7 revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even
8 when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it
9 has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I
10 should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be
11 settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and
12 that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 Again, no parliament can give away the judicial powers of the courts. Only the Electors can do
16 so by way of a successful State referendum.
17
18 *. If a referendum fails, is that a prohibition forever?
19
20 **#** Not at all. If a referendum fails then at a later time the electors may then decide to desire a
21 change to the State constitution and so can approve this or they may wish to veto any change.
22
23 *. Can I go back against to this “under this Constitution plus English law”, how does this otherwise
24 apply?
25
26 **#** I will give an example. Victorians are under 2 constitutions first of all, being the
27 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and the 1856 State constitution act as
28 amended by the federal constitution. Then on top of that English law. For example when the UK
29 joined the European Union it signed the EU constitution and so all EU laws override UK laws
30 but not UK constitutional laws. This means that the English law would in itself have been
31 complimentary to our constitutions but also the EU laws, including Human Rights laws.
32
33 *.Oh boy, that is something I haven’t heard lawyers talking about.
34
35 **#** That is not what I understand they are teaching in law studies. Nevertheless it is part of
36 UK law that the EU laws override all UK laws.
37 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such
38 considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English
39 Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark
40 (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment
41 IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168
42 It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
43 Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is
44 complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
45 Act 1900 (UK) is.
46
47 *. Could this apply also to Julian Assange?
48
49 **#** I for one am wondering why the Human Rights Commissioner blatantly ignored this and
50 didn’t speak up for Julian Assange’s rights.
51
52 Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
53 QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:
54 Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
55 secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
56 possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been

Page 8
1 no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
2 in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
3 There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
4 country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
5 by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
6 we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
7 in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 This means that the very rights embedded in the USA constitution and it’s than 14 Amendments
11 also are applicable in the commonwealth of Australia including FREEDOM OF SPEECH, etc.
12 Also, much is claimed that the UK doesn’t have a written constitution but reality is that in fact is
13 has a part written constitution. After all each time it created a Constitution Act being it for
14 Canada and later for the Commonwealth of Australia then it in fact provided the same for itself.
15 After all if the British Parliament didn’t have the legislative powers for itself then how can it
16 provide for a colony to have it. While the High Court of Australia in the Albert Langer case
17 decided there was political liberty embedded in the constitution, reality is that the Framers of the
18 Constitution themselves made this declaration
19
21 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
22 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and
23 the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined
24 in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of
25 the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
26 END QUOTE
27 And
29 QUOTE
30 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
31 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
32 for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
33 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
34 Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
35 charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 Simply stated the High Court of Australia cannot fabricate some constitutional provision that
39 never existed and it can only interpret if there was such rights all along in the constitution.
40 Clearly the Framers of the Constitution themselves made clear such rights existed.
41 That brings us back to the purported Australia Act 1986, when I understand the HCA held that
42 with passing of time the Commonwealth of Australia became an independent country. There is
43 no such judicial powers in the constitution. Again, unless the commonwealth of Australia was an
44 independent country since federation it remains to be the same as was since federation and the
45 purported Australia Act 1986 cannot amend the constitution by back door manner. I understood
46 from reports that the former Mason CJ of HCA had claimed that the court would use its
47 judgments to essentially legislate where it held the Parliament had failed to do so, but that clearly
48 violates the separation of powers.
49
50 *. Aren’t the court the third arm of Government?
51
52 **#** Not at all. If you check the Letters Patent of Governors you find they are to provide for an
53 “impartial” administration of justice. I am aware there are many judges who view they are part of
54 the government and by this are acting outside the realm of their jurisdiction. The judiciary is not
55 and cannot be part of Government because that would imply bias.
56
Page 9
1 *.So there is then no Queen of Australia?

2
3 **#** Her Majesty is the British Queen and presides over the Commonwealth of Australia and
4 so also the States and Territories.
5
7 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
8 Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the
9 Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one
10 would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a responsible
11 Minister.
12 END QUOTE
13
15 QUOTE
16 Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere
17 with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
18 END QUOTE
19
21 QUOTE
22 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: At all events, I would ask hon. members to pause before they determine upon
23 asking the Queen to surrender all her prerogatives in Australia. For my part, I believe that all the
24 prerogatives of the Crown exist in the governor-general as far as they relate to Australia. I never
25 entertained any doubt upon the subject at all-that is so far as they can be exercised in the commonwealth.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 If Her Majesty was the Queen of Australia then this means there would be no Governor-General
29 needed.
30
31 With the Iraq invasion there never was any Proclamation in the Gazette by the then Governor-
32 General to declare war against Iraq. As such, I view John Howard and his cronies committed
33 TREASON to invade Iraq in violation to our constitutional provisions and limitations.
34
35 *. What about the International Criminal Court?
36
37 **#** It would have no judicial powers over Australians, this as our constitution has embedded
38 that our government provides to the Governor-General who shall or can be appointed and by
39 session of both Houses a judge can be removed for misconduct, etc. Clearly our federal
40 Parliament would have no such powers to remove a judge for misconduct which belongs to the
41 International Criminal Court
42
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of
46 the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under
47 it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-
48 the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
49 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
50 this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions , then by slow
51 degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
52 guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the
53 court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as
54 will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
55 constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere
56 of the Commonwealth.
57 END QUOTE
Page 10
1
3 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
4 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
5 shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
6 believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
7 invest with federal jurisdiction.
8 END QUOTE
9
11 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
12 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
13 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
14 END QUOTE
15
16 *. Moment, what about the High Court of Australia with those NZ born Aboriginals which the
17 commonwealth within its constitutional powers of “influx of criminals” had denied entry? And
18 what about the overturning of the conviction of George Pell?
19
20 **#** This is where we have a major problem with the HCA, because is undermines the true
21 meaning and application of the constitution when it dictates rules in violation of what the
22 Framers of the Constitution embedded in the constitution as legal principles. On the one hand it
23 so to say kick out Members of Parliament for having some citizenship of NZ, even so they never
24 lived there and neither were born there yet with those Aboriginals who were born in NZ and as
25 such had its nationality then the High Court of Australia as I understand it makes clear not our
26 federal Government or the Federal Parliament dictates who can or cannot enter the
27 Commonwealth of Australia having a criminal record but some group of Aboriginals instead
28 decide this. Reality is that the Framers of the Constitution were well aware that we all being
29 Subjects of the British Crown then there would be many criminals who being Subjects to the
30 British Crown would want to migrate to the commonwealth of Australia. It held that the
31 Commonwealth of Australia would be entitled to deny any criminal regardless of nationality to
32 enter. In reality even an Australian who travelled abroad and then commit serious crimes could
33 be denied re-entry. As for the George Pell case.
35 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
36 And then there is this proviso:
37 Provided that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in the High Court than according
38 to the rules of the common law.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 I have not read the reason of judgment and so cannot comment in that regard upon what the court
42 did or didn’t argue but ordinary the jury had the benefits of hearing the witnesses which
43 generally cannot come out when a court of appeal deal with transcripts. Also, while this might
44 not have been part of the case I recall various reports about the lies and deception of George Pell
45 about some of the victims. I also recall his claim about health problems not being able to travel
46 by plane, but then sitting in Rome with beer and chips. As such, from what I read he was not
47 coming across as a very honest man. If jury members even if unaware of this, as really they
48 cannot take that into account, held that he was not trustworthy and held that the witness despite
49 considerable cross-examination was truthful then I view the jury’s judgment should not have
50 been set aside. There was this issue about a so-called Pacman video that the defense was denied
51 to use after the prosecution had closed its case. In my view, the trial judge acted appropriately. I
52 representing myself was faced in 2016 with an opponent barrister who was explaining to the
53 court how photo’s had been made of my property and that I accused of trespassing but the GPS
Page 11
1 records proved that the photo’s were made from locations outside my property. When then I
2 commenced cross examination I stated to the witness; I put it to you that your are not telling the
3 truth, are you? The trail judge then asked me if I was saying the witness was lying and I
4 responded that the witness would give the answer. I then asked him about the photo’s he had
5 earlier identified being made from GPS locations of my property and he again confirmed this. I
6 then pointed out that 2 photo’s had completely different houses on them and so only one of them
7 could be relevant. He then admitted that one was not of my house. I then asked where this other
8 house was and his response was he didn’t know. Now, here we had a barrister claiming it were
9 GPS recorded photo’s to prove there was no trespassing while in fact His Honour then himself
10 made clear that obviously the GPS couldn’t be applied to every photo.
11 As such, with the Pacman video I am too well aware that if you deny the prosecutor to deal with
12 that during the prosecutor’s presentation then you cannot afterwards introduce some self-made
13 video that may or may not be correct in details. If therefore the HCA relied upon the Pacman
14 video then to me it would have been outside its scope of jurisdiction to review the case within
15 “common law”.
16
17 When the High Court of Australia dealt with the WorkChoices case I then wrote a book in which
18 I expressed my concerns the HCA failed to act within the true meaning and application of the
19 constitution. Corporate powers in my view is no were as extensive as I view the HCA makes it
20 out to be.
21
22 Getting back to the purported Australian Act 1986 the judges apparently didn’t seem to realize
23 that they were sworn in as judges and gave their Oath of Office to serve Her Majesty Queen
24 Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and as such I view it can be considered TREASON for the
25 judges then to adjudicate about some Queen of Australia.
26
27 *. Are you some monarchist?
28
29 **#** I am neither a monarchist or a republican as I am a constitutionalist. Whatever the
30 constitution is about that to me is relevant. Obviously I do point out the con-job 1967 referendum
31 regarding ss51(xxvi), this as constitutionally Aboriginals since federation had voting rights in
32 federal political elections, as I proved where even at Heidelberg election office there is a poster
33 showing aboriginals having voted in the first federal election of 1901.
34
35 *. If the voted in the first federal election then why then amend ss51(xvi) at all?
36
37 **#** While I understand the UN was behind it to get this amended. The truth is that Ss51(xxvi)
38 was specifically designed to enable legislation against “alien” “inferior” “coloured” races, but
39 not against the “general community”.
40
42 QUOTE
43 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
44 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
45 community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
46 the aboriginal race in any state.
47 Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
48 understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general
49 community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
50 Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to
51 do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not
52 see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
53 particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if
Page 12
1 Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which
2 are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do
3 not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
4 confines of Victoria at all.
5 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
6 Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
7 class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I
8 do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended
9 to debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not
10 think that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
11 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
12 the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
13 with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
14 existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
15 made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
16 Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
17 that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
18 will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
19 laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
20 should not have power to devise such laws.
21 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
22 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
23 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
24 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
25 immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
26 END QUOTE
27
29 QUOTE
30 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
31 legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
32 END QUOTE
33
35 QUOTE
36 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
37 nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
38 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

39 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
40 remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
41 all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
42 END QUOTE
43
45 QUOTE
46 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
47 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
48 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
49 the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
50 END QUOTE
51

Page 13
1 What essentially the 1967 amendment of ss51(xxvi) means is that Aboriginals now are equally
2 as to “alien” “inferior” “coloured” races. And, for this the leading person of Aboriginal descent
3 was given a human rights medal? Come on. Ss51(xxvi) was not amended at all regarding other
4 races and so the true meaning and application of ss51(xxvi) was not amended as to its
5 implication at all to essentially “discriminate” against a race. Hence I view KOOWARTA V.
6 BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia
7 Was wrongly decided because you cannot use External Affairs to achieve something in
8 contradiction to the constitution. If indeed “external affairs” were to allow the Commonwealth
9 legislative powers over whatever then it would totally undermine the very meaning and
10 application of the constitution. However, because when the Commonwealth commenced to
11 legislate as to Aboriginals then they lose their rights as citizens. Precisely the opposite that the
12 1967 referendum sought to achieve. In fact prior to this referendum being held the Federal
13 government was warned that this was the wrong way to go about because of the baggage this
14 subsection 51(xxvi) had with it.
15
17 QUOTE
18 Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is
19 co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any
20 disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
21 Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
22 END QUOTE
23
25 QUOTE
26 Dr. QUICK (Victoria)-I do not propose to be as severe in my criticism of the provision of the honorable and
27 learned member (Mr. Symon) to-day as he was in his determined opposition to my proposed clause yesterday.
28 I would point out, however, two difficulties in the way of adopting his provision. The first is that there is no
29 definition of the status of "citizen." The clause does not say whether a citizen is a ratepayer of a state, an
30 adult male, or any member of the population of a state-men, women, children, Chinamen, Japanese,
31 Hindoos, and other barbarians. Who are the citizens of a state?
32 Mr. SYMON.-That depends upon the law of the state upon the subject.
33 Dr. QUICK.-So far as I am aware, there is no law in any colony defining colonial citizenship or state
34 citizenship. I am merely adopting the line of argument which my honorable and learned friend adopted
35 yesterday, in taking advantage of technical points.
36 Mr. SYMON.-That was not my line of argument.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Again:
40
42 QUOTE

49 END QUOTE
50
51 Actually the same applies when it comes to weight and measures as all those state laws are
52 unconstitutional as the sole powers rest with the Commonwealth. It means that all parking
53 meters, traffic light camera’s, speed radar equipment, etc, all are unconstitutional unless they
54 were specifically certified by the Commonwealth.
Page 14
1
2 ANTHONY FERNANDO v PORT PHILLIP CITY COUNCIL AND OTHERS 2330 of 2011
3 QUOTE at 52
4 The Attorney-General also made the following remarks about the power of magistrates:
5 The bill gives broader options to magistrates in open court hearings which occur
6 after the execution of an enforcement warrant. By this stage, other enforcement
7 sanctions, instalment payment plans or community work will not have been
8 successful in expiating the fines. These hearings will consider whether a person
9 should be imprisoned, and will determine whether the individual has extenuating
10 circumstances.
11 END QUOTE
12 Considering the application of the Imperial Act Application Act 1980 (Vic) that there can be no
13 fine before conviction then obviously it poses the question when was there a conviction for the
14 purported INFRINGEMENT NOTICE to be able to have been issued for a fine?
15 As once a PERIN COURT registrar gave me the understanding generally people would rather
16 pay the fine regardless if they were guilty of any offence because it was a lot cheaper then to go
17 to court and risking to lose anyhow. As such to me this is an extortion racket and not
18 enforcement of law.
19 Then this who purported Infringement Court and its forerunner Perin Court is unconstitutional as
20 it defies the legal principles embedded in the constitution that “both sides” must be heard.
21
23 QUOTE
24 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
25 point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
26 heard.
27 Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.

28 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
29 the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
30 accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
31 first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 I long ago checked the Magistrates Court of Victoria website and it never even included it its
35 statistics any purported warrants, etc, of the purported Infringement Court.
36 Neither is the State judiciary “impartial” because as a former Supreme Court of Victoria Phillips
37 made clear upon retirement that the courts are “Unit 19” under the Attorney-General’s
38 Department and it has access to the courts computers. As such, you could be sitting in court
39 having a judge telling you that say charges are dismissed against you, and then weeks later you
40 get a court order that you were found GUILTY and convicted and have to pay whatever. Then
41 mysteriously transcripts will no longer be available allegedly die to come recording error, etc.
42
43 *. Are you sure?
44
45 **#** I spend decades at the bar table in various positions including assisting/representing
46 lawyers. The last one was a barrister for about 22 years. I exposed in court when a trail judge
47 checked me for misleading a witness in cross examination that I actually didn’t do so at all as I
48 was correctly reading from the Affidavit of the opposing party. In the end the trail judge
49 acknowledged that the version of Affidavit I had been provided with was different then which
50 was on court file. His claim was the lawyers must have done so in error. The truth is that lawyers
51 would go to the Courts registry and then amend unlawfully witnesses affidavits to change the
52 meaning of the paragraph, after the other party responded. Let’s use an hypothetical example:
53 The wife in her Affidavit states: 4. “My husband was never violent during the marriage.”
54 The husband respond: I confirm paragrapah 4.
Page 15
1 Now the wife’s lawyers go to the Registry and amend this to: 4. “My husband was never
2 violent during the marriage.”
3
4 *. Come on, surely they wouldn’t do so?
5
6 **#** Actually I assisted a man and I asked him to get from the court file a copy of his wife
7 Affidavit. He protested that he already had one. I explained he better make sure he got an true
8 copy of what was on court file. So he went and got a copy of the court file Affidavit. After that
9 he filed his response. Some weeks later I asked him to go back to the registry and get another
10 copy of his wife’s affidavit. He questioned why but in the end did so. He then came back with
11 that copy and it had various alterations on it which known were initialed by the wife neither had
12 the Affidavit been re-sworn after the alterations were made. I have come across Affidavits of
13 opposing parties with up to 8 changes per page after the other party responded. One judge
14 commented during a trial: Well now you know the changes. He blatantly disregard that the other
15 party has perverted the course of justice. I was so well prepared for the rot that when at times a
16 judge would claim he didn’t have a original on court file I would produce sworn copies. You see
17 I was aware lawyers go to the court registry and remove material from it.
18
19 *. Surely there is supervision to prevent this?
20
21 **#** Actually, if I had wanted to do so I could have walked out with entire files of other cases,
22 as they were left of the ledger of the closed window of the registry. I even watched how a
23 woman sat there removing all exhibits from the various Affidavits and was piling them up in one
24 gigantic stack. There was a court staff who happen to come to the window and saw me sitting
25 there watching this woman and well than he decided to come out to look what she was doing.
26 Too late as the entire court file was now in 2 heaps of documentation, with all exhibits in one
27 pile.
28
29 R v. Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia [1956] HCA 10; (1956) 94 CLR 254 (2
30 March 1956) was a case in which the High Court of Australia held that the judicial power of the
31 Commonwealth could not be vested in a tribunal that also exercised non-judicial functions.
32 Although the court's reasons did not examine the fundamental justifications for the separation of
33 judicial and executive powers, this case is one of the foundations for that doctrine in Australian
34 law.
35 The significance of the case was that it restricted the use of judicial power to Chapter III courts
36 (under the Australian Constitution), also established that these courts could exercise no other
37 power. In this way, it set a high standard for the separation of judicial power.
38 process
39 presumption of innocence
40 mistrial
41 Definition Save to Favorites See Examples
42 Conduct of legal proceedings strictly according to established principles and procedures, laid down to ensure fair
43 trial for every accused. Because the infallibility of court judgments cannot be guaranteed, the legal system aims to
44 secure this second-best but possible option. The guaranty of due process means no accused is punished without an
45 orderly and adequate procedure that is applicable uniformly in all cases. Under a due process, every accused gets an
46 advance notice of trial, and an opportunity to be present, to be heard, and to defend himself or herself. It also
47 includes the rights to (1) legal counsel, (2) confront and cross examine the witnesses, (3) refuse self-incriminating
48 Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.html#ixzz2mjxpd0CQ

49 From The Age
Page 16
1 http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
2 The corporatising of our courts
3 Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
4 March 24, 2005
5 QUOTE
6 As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
7 particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what
8 they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but
9 while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's
10 independence.
11 END QUOTE
12 http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
13 QUOTE John K. Phillips statement

14 The corporatising of our courts
15 Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
16 March 24, 2005
17 In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of the
18 court's independence.
19 For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and
20 rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had to
21 bite my tongue.
22 I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench, and
23 especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the perception of
24 this court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of that now because I
25 have been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes effective, I fear that
26 nobody will listen.
27 As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
28 particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what
29 they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but
30 while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's
31 independence.
32 One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on
33 remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing both
34 Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial salaries and
35 so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking.
36 Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive officer
37 be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be ultimately
38 answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.
39 That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming
40 absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a
41 movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.
42 This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court of
43 plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is the third
44 arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is to control
45 and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms and the
46 citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.
47 Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe - as
48 "Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which indiscriminately
49 includes all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.
50 This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are prescribed
51 by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the department at its

Page 17
1 discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in this court, apparently
2 in disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of court.
3 And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the
4 department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily avail
5 themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But access is
6 possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is the major
7 litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.
8 Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly, otherwise
9 than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is evolving is a
10 perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice, a perception
11 which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.
12 Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure and
13 its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no different
14 from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is simply not
15 the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over the years, and it
16 must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not 2to be subverted.
17 The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be,
18 impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all, and
19 ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of government.
20 Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a tribunal, properly
21 so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things flow from that. Such a
22 tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed terms, with the possibility
23 of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see that their remuneration is
24 fixed independently of the executive.
25 You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the
26 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members
27 appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm when,
28 in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for the latter is
29 altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure.
30 There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising judicial
31 power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to this court for
32 a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary appointments at the
33 discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of tenure or, in a
34 relatively small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts have been
35 remarkably free from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be, and be seen to
36 be, impartial and so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to conflict or the
37 appearance of bias.
38 In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals
39 pass like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness
40 but in one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is
41 demanded of the appointee.
42 John D. Phillips is retiring as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is part of his farewell address to
43 the court.
44 END QUOTE John K. Phillips statement
45
46 Do note the heading “The corporatising of our courts ” (Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme
47 Court of Victoria March 24, 2005) and considering that corporation powers fall within Commonwealth
48 legislative powers then the Commonwealth could amend the Courts structure as it desires.
49 However, as I successfully pointed out on 4 August 2015 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka when the
50 Commonwealth pursued to use “AVERMENT” that the Commonwealth is bound to accept the
51 State Court (when exercising federal jurisdiction) as it finds it. The Court then ordered that the
52 Commonwealth had to file and serve all material it sought to rely upon. Counsel for the
53 Commonwealth then argued this would be truckloads and the court made clear that was an issue
Page 18
1 to be sorted out between the parties. And on 17 November 2015 the then magistrate ignored this
2 orders and went ahead using AVERMENT but on appeal the Country Court of Victoria Case
3 numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 exercising Federal Jurisdiction noted that the
4 Commonwealth had not provided any evidence, and upheld both appeals.
5 It should be understood that for example in regard of Bass Strait the Victorian Parliament
6 legislated to allow Averment for the Commonwealth this therefore proved that it is up to the
7 State to provide for AVERMENT. Where it doesn’t then the Commonwealth cannot rely upon it
8 and any legislation to AVERMENT by the Commonwealth is ULTRA VIRES, Ab Initio. This
9 also means that where the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) litigate against any person in a
10 State Court exercising federal jurisdiction it unconstitutionally uses AVER when the relevant
11 State has not legislated for this. Yet tens of thousands of cases nevertheless are resulting in
12 adverse finding rather then the courts so to say throw out of the window the cases for blatant
13 violation of courts rules and regulations.
14 I had that opponent lawyers simply refused to comply with the County Court of Victoria orders
15 to provide a Brief to me. In fact they ignored proper compliance with rules and regulations and
16 when I pointed this out to Carmody J he simply commented he wasn’t going to deal with this.
17 Now, those lawyers first of all failed to comply with legal requirements. When they I obtained a
18 court order for them to comply they ignored this. They provided then false and misleading
19 documentation and in the end Carmody J wasn’t going to bother to deal with it? And this is why
20 we have lawyers like Lawyer X Nicolo Gobbo misusing and abusing the legal processes and
21 undermining the administration of justice.
22 .
23 Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
24 QUOTE
25 As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his
26 clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he
27 honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is
28 paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or
29 his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is
30 the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He mus t not knowingly
31 conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support
32 it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client
33 discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
34 specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 Actually when it comes to Nicola Gobbo, I in 2017 was requested by a person to investigate the
38 murder of Carl Williams. I did so to an extent, and in my view the murder was most likely set up
39 involving one of his lawyers, the Victorian Police and the head of the prison, who disappeared
40 weeks later. Again that was in 2017 long before the High Court of Australia in 2018 made its
41 comments about Nicola Gobbo. In my view, the police concealed from the Victorian
42 Ombudsman relevant details. Obviously, I made this known but reality is they just wanted to
43 avoid rocking the boat. As the Victorian Police made clear it cannot always deal with what is
44 appropriate.
45
46 Constitutionally there is a division between the Judiciary and the legislators and executives. As
47 indicated the States are created “subject to this constitution” within s106 of the constitution and
48 bound by the legal principles embedded in this constitution. As such, the States have only
49 “constitutional” Parliaments, which has no power to interfere with the judiciary. The High Court
50 of Australia made this also clear in the Kable (NSW) case No Attorney-General has the
51 constitutional powers to interfere with the judiciary but nevertheless the former Attorney-
52 General Robert Hulls and the Police Minister at the time signed a charge with TENIX
53 SOLUTIONS MIE Pty Ltd that it now can actually access court computers and use them to issue
54 Magistrate Court of Victoria court orders as well as warrants, all without any open court hearing.
Page 19
1 As such the corruption into the judicial system is rife, because the government bodies allow a
2 private corporation to not just access court files but to even issue (albeit unconstitutionally) court
3 orders and warrants.
4
5 His Honour refers to being the third arm of Government, rather than the “3 rd arm of the
6 sovereign State”. No judiciary can be part of the “Government’ because this infringes upon the
7 independence of the judiciary. However, it should be understood that the State of Victoria is in a
8 limited manner a “sovereign state” (subject to the constitution” it has no “sovereign” Parliament
9 as it is a “constitutional” Parliament.
10
11 *. With your knowledge has this ever assisted you?
12
13 **#** I had more than 20 years ago an opponent barrister claiming before the full court that I
14 likely knew more about relevant laws then any lawyers ever before the court included any
15 judges. Then another opponent barrister interrupting my cross examination with; “Mr Schorel-
16 Hlavka is surgically taking apart my clients Affidavit.” I responded: “Sit down I am doing my
17 job.”
18
19 With the van Rooy case, she was charged with 3 criminal offenses of injuring a police officer
20 with her motor vehicle. There were 5 police officers deponents of Affidavits and also a Clerk of
21 Court and a Deputy Clerk of court. I understood she had legal advice to better plea GUILTY.
22 However, she approached me in the court lobby and asked if I could assist her. I accepted.
23 I wrote to the DPP that there was NO CASE TO ANSWER, and the DPP responded that it
24 withdrew 2 of the 3 charges. I am aware that ordinary a case of no case to answer is made at the
25 conclusion of the prosecutors presentation in a trial but there is nothing to prevent doing so about
26 2 years earlier.
27 The police had a voice recording of the event and well this was filed as evidence in court. Just
28 that the police had not been aware that van Rooy also had voice recorded it all. And what turned
29 out the police recording was considerably shorter then that of van Rooy’s. A sound expert report
30 indicated that the police recording had been cut on 11 different places. The police claimed this
31 must have been accidentally, but the sound expert made clear that there was no sound of
32 switching on and of the recorded and as such couldn’t be accidentally. Let it be clear it was a
33 mere few minutes of recording and to claim it then accidentally was switched on and off 11
34 times hardly is making common sense. After the Prosecutor presented the case Wood J then
35 directed the jury to return a verdict NOT GUILTY as the Prosecutor had not made out its case to
36 prove the offence.
37 Let this however be a warning to everyone that the police manipulate recordings and cut into it to
38 make it sound like something different.
39 Lets use a hypothetical example:
40 John tells Mark; I don’t like going to the Sunday market when it rains.
41 Mark now tells Charlie: John told me he doesn’t like going to a Sunday market.
42
43 Clearly, leaving part of a statement off changes the dynamics of the statement that John made.
44
45 When I cross examined 3 medical doctors it was clear that each of them were to their knowledge
46 telling the truth. Each of them were to their knowledge the only GP attending to the children at a
47 certain period of time and held that the children had “Day to day illnesses.” However the
48 evidence before the Court was that in fact all three were during the same period attending to the
49 children. I did put to each doctor; “If besides yourself there were one or more doctors also
50 attending to the same children in regard of illnesses you were unaware of would you still
51 maintain the children had “Day to day illnesses?”.” Which doctor made clear that they based
52 their statements upon what they knew and if there was any other doctor at the same time
Page 20
1 attending to the children then obviously they had their concerns and couldn’t hold that the
2 children suffered “Day to day illnesses”.
3
4 I once cross-examined a so called “expert” councilor who in his report claimed that the
5 “consensus amongst expert…”. His qualifications were refereed to as being a Minister in some
6 religious order, etc. We had long weekend following my initial cross-examination and I happen
7 to end up in a bookstore that had a booklet about the religion. On the second day of my cross-
8 examination I then commenced to cross-examine him about his religion when he objected that he
9 no longer was a Minister of that religion but now was a Humanist. Moment, on the Friday he
10 was a Minister and on the following Tuesday suddenly a Humanist? Yet his report relied upon
11 his qualifications as a Minister! The trail judge then made clear I could no longer proceed to
12 question him on his religion, this even so the report was based upon this. Nevertheless faced with
13 him suddenly declaring to be a humanist I then questioned him why he made known he was not
14 concerned about the woman’s violence. He made known that it was none of his concerns. So, in
15 my view he was a charlatan who lacked proper qualifications and regretfully a trial judge who
16 accepted the so called expert to pervert the course of justice in that manner.
17
18 Regretfully this is going on and on in courts and tribunals big time and this is why many
19 unsuccessful defendants view to have been denied JUSTICE.
20
21 Let me give you a clear example how terrible things can go wrong.
22 .
23 Mr Frances James Colosimo had been given a shed that previously had been recorded by its local
24 council in Footscray as being a shed. Mr Colosimo however at his residence was given an order
25 to stop the building of the shed. The notices were all in violation of proper legal procedures but
26 in the end another notice was issued that effectively withdrew the stop building notice. This can
27 only be done if the council accepted that the shed was being build according to required building
28 regulations. As such, it clearly admitted the shed was lawfully being build. However, a few days
29 later council engaged lawyers to pursue Mr Colosimo for building an illegal shed. VCAT made
30 orders that he remove the “secondary house” it held was because it had large windows and a flat
31 roof within 90 days. Mr Colosimo was represented throughout by a barrister who also was a
32 lecturer at a university in law. In the process Mr Colosimo was subjected to Administration
33 orders as the solicitor for the Office of the Public Advocate had made clear to 2 doctors (who
34 made reports) that Mr Colosimo had not accepted to be convicted for CONTEMPT OF
35 COURT for failing to demolish the “secondary residence”. By December 2008 Mr Colosimo got
36 fed up with this barrister and contacted my wife if I could take over the case both an appeal
37 against the Administration orders as well as regarding the contempt of Court hearing before Her
38 Honour Harbison J. I accepted to do so FREE OF CHARGE. When I entered the lobby, before
39 the hearing was to commence, the solicitor of the Office of the Public Advocate commented to
40 me that Mr Colosimo didn’t understand the law. I replied that he didn’t understand the law. At
41 the hearing I then submitted that the instructing solicitor and barrister of the local council be
42 ordered to remove themselves as they had no legal standing at the bar table. While they objected
43 they nevertheless were ordered to leave. I also made known that while the appeal was in progress
44 I sought orders that the State Trustees could not involve itself in any matters pertaining Mr
45 Colosimo. This order was issues. The case was adjourned pending further hearing before Her
46 Honour Harbison J. On 16 march 2009 I then appeared before her Honour Harbison and made
47 clear that I objected to the conduct of the State Trustees to have agreed that the council could
48 withdraw the CONTEMPT OF COURT application as the State Trusties violated VCAT orders.
49 I also submitted that that once a CONTEMPT OF COURT application was filed it become the
50 property of the court/tribunal and the party filing it cannot withdraw it. Council for the council
51 commenced to provide me along the bar table with a stack of Authorities. Obviously, there was
Page 21
1 no way I could digest in mere minutes such pile of documentation. I simply opened somewhere
2 and found the Authority to state that a house must have a ‘toilet” and also a “sink” etc. I
3 immediately alerted Her Honour Harbison J about this. Counsel then claimed that she had merely
4 been given those authorities by the instructing solicitors. Nevertheless I viewed that as the shed
5 had neither a “toilet” not any sink or running water then the VCAT determination it was a
6 “secondary residence” and no one in the world could possible remove a “secondary residence”
7 that didn’t exist. I also pointed out to Her Honour Harbison that the Affidavit from council was
8 made on the 89 th day and as VCAT had orders 90 days then clearly there was no valid evidence
9 before her Honour and I sought that her Honour would order a “permanent stay” of the
10 application and could only be returned to the court upon the request of Mr Colosimo. Her
11 Honour in her reason of judgement provided for all this. Further, I submitted that I was assisting
12 Mr Colosimo FREE OF CHARGE and so requested Her Honour to order 5 previous transcripts
13 and the current hearing transcript FREE OF CHARGE. Her Honour to her credibility did indeed
14 also order this and no long after the hearing I received the 6 transcripts. It also would be made
15 clear that I specifically requested Her Honour Harbison J of Her Honour had indeed convicted
16 Mr Colosimo as the solicitor of the Office of the Public Advocate had claimed to the medical
17 doctors who certified for Administration of Mr Colosimo. Her Honour Harbison J made very
18 clear that Her Honour had not at all convicted Mr Colosimo at all. After receiving the transcript I
19 then discovered that at no time Mr Francis James Colosimo had been formally charged!
20
21 After this there were further hearings before VCAT regarding the appeal against the orders of
22 Administration and the Appeal was upheld and the orders for Administration were set aside.
23 All this can be checked and verified from the records.
24
25 What this proved was a considerable legal disaster in the making where all lawyers/judges
26 involved simply didn’t have a clue how to deal with matters appropriately and it was not until I
27 got involved that matters finally were appropriately resolved.
28
29 And this should be an example that all those lawyers/judges involved can make ongoing
30 numerous errors when a Professional Advocate and constitutionalist I expose the rot.
31
32 Let us then get back for a moment to Julian Assange.
33 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British enactment and as
34 such I view the British Court must also honour the legal principles embedded in this constitution.
35 .
36 Mr Julian Assange is not held now as to any conviction but rather incarcerated for being held
37 pending he should or should not be extradited to the USA.
38 .
39 Our constitution provides for:
40 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
41 QUOTE
42 120 Custody of offenders against laws of the Commonwealth
43 Every State shall make provision for the detention in its prisons of persons accused or convicted of
44 offences against the laws of the Commonwealth, and for the punishment of persons convicted of
45 such offences, and the Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws to give effect to this
46 provision.
47 END QUOTE
48
49 This means Julian Assange being held in isolation is not ordinary “detention”, but rather is
50 equivalent to a person being held as a punishment. As our constitution is a British constitution
51 Act for the Commonwealth of Australia then it must follow the legal principles embedded in this

Page 22
1 constitution and cannot place a person in “solitary confinement” that ordinary is used as a form
2 of punishment when a prison doesn’t follow the rules of the prison.
3 From the reports I read Julian Assange is not held in ordinary detention as he is denied ordinary
4 rights that are applicable to a person held in “detention” but not being a prisoner as such for any
5 conviction. Reportedly even his lawyers have problems to have access to him. It is here that I
6 view the Human Rights commissioner is missing in action. Perhaps not competent enough to
7 understand/comprehend what the legal principles embedded in the constitution stand for.
8
10 QUOTE
11 Clause 113.-Every state shall make provision for the detention and punishment in its prisons of persons
12 accused or convicted of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth and the Parliament of the
13 Commonwealth, may make laws to give effect to this provision.
14 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I think the words "or detention" should be inserted after "the detention."
15 At present the clause reads-"The state shall make-provision for the detention and punishment in its prisons of
16 persons accused or convicted," &c. We do not want to punish "persons accused." I beg to move-
17 That the words "or detention" be inserted after "detention."
18 The clause will then read-"For the detention or detention and punishment," &c.
19 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I do not think that amendment would quite do. I could understand the
20 clause being amended so as to make it read-"detention or punishment of persons accused or convicted." The
21 object of the clause, as it stands, is to keep together the terms "accused or convicted," so, that the relation,
22 both of accusation and conviction, to the laws of the Commonwealth may be made clear. The clause only
23 applies to accusations or convictions in respect of laws of the Commonwealth, and, therefore, these words
24 "accused or convicted" are kept together just before the words "offences against the laws of the
25 Commonwealth." I think that if my honorable [start page 693] friend (Mr. Glynn) would alter his amendment
26 so as to make it read "detention or punishment," there can be no misreading of the clause.
27 Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I think the words should stand as they are. You have to make
28 provision for both things.
29 Mr. GLYNN.-Not for the punishment of accused persons.
30 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Provision has to be made both for detention and punishment. I think the clause is
31 clear enough as it stands at present.
32 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I believe that my honorable friend's (Mr. Glynn's) feeling is that, by
33 leaving the words as they are, the clause might be interpreted to enable the federal authorities to demand
34 from the state the detention and punishment of persons who were not convicted, but I do not apprehend
35 that there is the slightest difficulty on that score. I do not think any court would interpret the words to
36 mean the punishment of a person accused and not convicted.
37 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-My contention is that, as the clause stands, the words are to be read
38 conjunctively in relation to the word "accused." The clause says that each state shall make provision for the
39 detention and punishment of persons accused or convicted. You must read the word "punishment" in relation
40 to "accused," as well as to "convicted." The clause should read-"For the detention, or detention and
41 punishment, as the case may be, of persons accused or convicted," &c.
42 Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I think the clause might be amended to get out of the difficulty
43 which has been pointed out. As it stands at present, it provides that the state shall make provision for the
44 detention and punishment in its prisons of persons accused or convicted. Now, evidently, the detention is for
45 those who have not yet been convicted, and the punishment is for those who have been convicted, and I
46 think that those two classes ought to be separated.
47 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have an amendment which I think will meet the case, and enable us
48 to get on. I beg to move-

Page 23
1 That the clause be amended by striking out the words after "detention" down to "Commonwealth," and
2 substituting in lieu thereof the words "in its prisons of persons accused of offences against the laws of the
3 Commonwealth, and the punishment of persons convicted of such offences."
4 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I would point out that, under the clause as now proposed to be
5 amended, a state might make provision for whipping persons convicted, but not for detaining them in
6 prison.
7 Mr. ISAACS.-Detention may be part of the punishment.
8 Mr. GLYNN.-But the punishment may not be detention, it may be flagellation. Are you going to allow a
9 state to make provision for the character of the punishment for an offence against the Commonwealth?
10 Mr. Barton's amendment was agreed to.

11 END QUOTE
12
14 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
15 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
16 Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
17 legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
18 to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
19 Parliament."
20 END QUOTE
21
22 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
24 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
25 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
26 END QUOTE
27
29 QUOTE
30 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
31 the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
32 Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
33 are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
37 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
38 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
40 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
41 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
42 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 Therefore the legal principles that are embedded in this constitution must also be adhered to by
46 the British Government and placing Mr Julian Assange in solidary confinement, as reported by
47 the media, is a form of punishment that is in violation of the embedded legal principles of our
48 constitution. In my view the British Government cannot act in violation of the legal principles of
49 the very constitution it passed in 1900! Hence the wrongful imprisonment of Mr Julian Assange
50 is a gross deliberate violation of his legal rights.
51
52 And there is more to it.
53 .

Page 24
1 I understand from news report that the USA Government admitted that some of the material it
2 relied upon may be wrong but it claims that this is for the US court to deal with.
3 I do not accept this, as the extradition must be considered upon FACTS not FICTION.
4 .
5 I understand that in the case of MORIATY v LONDON, CHATMAM & DOVER RY Queen’s
6 Bench 1870 L.R. 5 Q.B. 314;39 L.T.Q.B. 109;22 L.T. 163;34 J.P. 692;18 W.R. 625 in which the
7 plaintiff sued a railway company for personal injuries sustained and this plaintiff has gone about
8 suborning false evidence and it was held by the Court that even so the plaintiff would have had a
9 genuine and justify to case to sue normally, by the plaintiff conduct to suborn false evidence
10 this was seen by the Court that this conduct amounted to an admission that he had no case.
11
12 There is obviously another issue that likely is being totally ignored and that is that all Australians
13 are and remain to be, constitutionally that is, “Subjects of the British Crown”.
14 Our constitution cannot be amended merely by some parliamentarians or even a court decision.
15 It can only be amended by the electors within the framework of Section 128 referendum powers
16 and only in regard of part 9 of this Constitution Act and not as to anything else.
18 QUOTE
19 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
20 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
21 Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
22 and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
23 application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
24 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to
25 create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make
26 provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this
27 political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is
28 to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the
29 slightest degree.
30 END QUOTE
31 .
32 It must be clear that the Federal Parliament neither the Federal Government has any legal powers
33 to turn this Commonwealth of Australia in some republic. Indeed the constitution doesn’t even
34 allow s128 for this
35
36 I will refer back to my successful appeals (While there is a considerable long quotation –even so
37 it still is only part of it- nevertheless it must show that I extensively challenged the issue of
38 “citizenship” and that nothing was challenged by any of the Attorney-Generals who all were also
39 provided with a copy of the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and for this both
40 appeals being upheld then this includes that those constitutional issues I raised and not
41 challenged were also and prevent any of them ever to re-litigate the same against me.) before the
42 County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006:
43
44 ADDRESS TO THE COURT
45 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
46 QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
48 Mr. THYNNE:
49 The union of these colonies must take place in either one or two ways, namely, either by a
50 unification under one all-powerful parliament, or by a federation which gives to the central
51 federal parliament certain limited powers and reserves to the other parliaments all other
52 powers. As I think we may be in danger of overlooking some of the first principles
Page 25
1 connected with federation, I may be pardoned if I briefly define some of the characteristics
2 of a federation. I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its
3 language. He says:
4 One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be
5 either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority
6 above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state
7 legislatures, existing under the constitution.
8
9 Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278
10 “The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law'
11 Our sworn duty is to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all.
12 If, then, we find the law to be plainly in conflict with what we or any of our
13 predecessors errornously thought it to be, we have, as I conceive no right to choose
14 between giving effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It is not,
15 in my opinion, better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should
16 be ultimately right..
17 Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here to
18 consider the principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at least
19 emerges as is undoubtedly beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly
20 wrong, and there are no circumstances countervailing the primary duty of giving effect to
21 the law as the court finds it, the real opinion of the court should be expressed.”
22
23 It is a matter of fact that I was issued with a “Certificate of Australian Citizenship” No.
24 ME9401317C on the 28th day of March 1994. I do not believe that the Commonwealth Director
25 of Public Prosecutions contest the issue of this certificate.
26 The certificate states;
27 QUOTE
28 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
29 Australian citizenship Act 1948
30
31 Certificate of Australian Citizenship
32
33 GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL
34 Born on 7 th June 1947
35
36 having applied for a Certificate of Australian Citizenship, having satisfied the conditions
37 prescribed by the Australian Citizenship Act 19448 for the grant of such Certificate
38 and having undertaken to fulfil the responsibilities of a citizen.
39
40 I the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs,
41 Grant this Certificate of Australian citizenship to the abovenamed applicant who is
42 an Australian citizen on and after 28 th March 1994.
43
44 Issued by the authority
45 Of the Minister
46 For Immigration and
47 Ethnic Affairs.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 By marriage, on 28 March 2001, I became Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka
51
Page 26
1 Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)

2
3 Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state,
4 allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with
5 respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is
6 a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and
7 citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of
8 compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political
9 tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is
10 a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship
11 is freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is
12 repulsive. Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential
13 differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it
14 can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in
15 which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously
16 enforced, there are striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth,
17 and the homage, which, under every modification of government, must be paid to the
18 inherent rights of man.
19
20 And
21 These are tacit acknowledgments of the right of expatriation, vested in the individuals; for,
22 though they are instances of adopting, not of discharging, subjects; yet, if Great Britain
23 would (ex gratia) protect a Russian naturalized by service, in her fleet, it is obvious that
24 she cannot do so without recognizing his right of expatriation to be superior to the
25 Empress's right of allegiance. But it is not only in a negative way, that these deviations in
26 support of the general right appear. The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two
27 sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of
28 withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign.
29 And
30 The power of naturalizing has been vested in several of the state governments, and it
31 now exists in the general government; but the power to restrain or regulate the right
32 of emigration, is no where surrendered by the people; and it must be repeated, that,
33 what has not been given, ought not to be assumed. It may be said, however, that such
34 a power is necessary to the government, and that it is implied in the authority to
35 regulate the business of naturalization. In considering these positions, it must be
36 admitted, that although an individual has a right to expatriate himself, he has not a
37 right to seduce others from their country. Hence, those who forcibly, or seductively,
38 take away a citizen, commit an act, which [p*143] forms a fair object of municipal
39 police; and a conspiracy or combination, to leave a country, might, likewise be
40 properly guarded against. Such laws would not be an infraction of the natural right
41 of individuals; for, the natural rights of man are personal; he has no right to will for
42 others, and he does so, in effect, whenever he moves the mind of another to his
43 purpose, by fear, by fraud, or by persuasion.
44 And
45 But naturalization and expatriation are matters of internal police; and must depend
46 upon the municipal law, though they may be illustrated and explained by the
47 principles of general jurisprudence. It is true, that the judicial power extends to a
48 variety of objects; but the Supreme Court is only a branch of that power; and
49 depends on Congress for what portion it shall have, except in the cases of
50 ambassadors, &c. particularly designated in the constitution. The power of declaring
51 whether a citizen shall be entitled in any form to expatriate himself, or, if entitled, to
Page 27
1 prescribe the form, is not given to the Supreme Court; and, yet, that power will be
2 exercised by the court, if they shall decide against the expatriation of Captain Talbot.
3 Let it not, after all, be understood, that the natural, loco-motive, right of a free
4 citizen, is independent of every social obligation. In time of war, it would be treason to
5 migrate to any enemy's country and join his forces, under the pretext of expatriation.
6 1 Dall. Rep. 53, and, even in time of peace, it would be, reprehensible (say the writers
7 on the law of nature and nations) to desert a country labouring under great
8 calamities. So, if a man acting under the obligations of an oath of office, withdraws to
9 elude his responsibility, he changes his habitation, but not his citizenship. It is not,
10 however, private relations, but public relations; private responsibility, but public
11 responsibility; that can affect the right: for, where the reason of the law ceases, the
12 law itself must, also, cease. There is not a private relation, for which a man is not as
13 liable by local, as by natural, allegiance;--after, as well as before, his expatriation: He
14 must take care of his family, he must pay his debts, wherever he resides; and there is
15 no security in restraining emigration, as to those objects, since, with respect to them,
16 withdrawing is as effectual, as expatriating. Nor is it enough to impair the right of
17 expatriation, that other nations are at war; it must be the country of the emigrant. No nation
18 has a right to interfere in the interior police of another: the rights and duties of citizenship,
19 to be conferred, or released, are matter of interior police; and yet, if a foreign war could
20 affect [p*145] the question, every time that a fresh power entered into a war, a new
21 restraint would be imposed upon the natural rights of the citizens of a neutral country;
22 which, considering the constant warfare that afflicts the world, would amount to a
23 perpetual controul. But the true distinction appears to be this:--The citizens of the neutral
24 country may still exercise the right of expatriation, but the belligerent power is entitled to
25 say, "the act of joining our enemies, flagrante bello, shall not be a valid act of
26 expatriation." By this construction, the duty a nation owes to itself, the sacred rights of the
27 citizen, the law of nations, and the faith of treaties, will harmonize, though moving in
28 distinct and separate courses. To pursue the subject one step further: A man cannot owe
29 allegiance to two sovereigns. 1Bl. Com. He cannot be citizen of two republics. If a man
30 has a right to expatriate, and another nation has a right and disposition to adopt him,
31 it is a compact between the two parties, consummated by the oath of allegiance. A
32 man's last will, as to his citizenship, may be likened to his last will, as to his estate; it
33 supersedes every former disposition; and when either takes effect, the party, in one
34 case, is naturally dead, in the other, he is civilly dead;--but in both cases, as good
35 Christians and good republicans, it must be presumed that he rises to another, if not
36 to a better, life and country. An act of expatriation, likewise, is susceptible of various
37 kinds of proof. The Virginia law has selected one, when the state permits her citizens
38 to depart; but it is not, perhaps, either the most authentic, or the most conclusive that
39 the case admits. It may be done obscurely in a distant county court; and even after
40 the emigrant is released from Virginia, to what nation does he belong? He may have
41 entered no other country, nor incurred any obligation to any other sovereign. Not
42 being a citizen of Virginia, he cannot be deemed a citizen of the United States. Shall he
43 be called a citizen of the world; a human balloon, detached and buoyant in the
44 political atmosphere, gazed at wherever he passes, and settled wherever he touches?
45 But, on the other hand, the act of swearing allegiance to another sovereign, is
46 unequivocal and conclusive; extinguishing, at once, the claims of the deserted, and
47 creating the right of the adopted, country. Sir William Blackstone, therefore, considers it
48 as the strongest, though an ineffectual, effort to emancipate a British subject from his
49 natural allegiance; and the existing constitution of France declares it expressly to be a
50 criterion of expatriation. The same principle operates, when the naturalization law of the
51 United States provides, that the whole ceremony of initiation shall be performed in the
Page 28
1 American courts; and if it is here considered as the proof of adoption, shall it not be
2 considered, also, as the test of expatriation? If America [p*146] makes citizens in that way,
3 shall we not allow to other nations, the privilege of the same process? In short, to admit
4 that Frenchmen may be made citizens by an oath of allegiance to America, is, virtually, to
5 admit, that Americans may be expatriated by an oath of allegiance to France. After this
6 discussion of principles, forming a necessary basis for the facts in this case, it is insisted,
7 1st, That Talbot was a naturalized citizen of the French Republic at the time of receiving a
8 commission to command the privateer, and of capturing the Magdalena. He left this
9 country with the design to emigrate; and the act of expatriation must be presumed to be
10 regular, according to the laws of France, since it is certified by the municipality of Point a
11 Pitre, by the French Consul, and by the Governor of Guadaloupe. 2d, That Redick was
12 also, a naturalized citizen of the French Republic, when he purchased the vessel, and
13 received a commission to employ her as a privateer.
14
15 And
16 Ballard was a citizen of Virginia, and also of the United States.
17 Within the united States of America a person granted naturalization is also granted citizenship,
18 where as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) does not provide for this.
19 Section 51(xix) provides for “naturalization”.

20 As already extensively placed before the magistrates in previous proceedings (upon which I rely
21 before this Court also) some of the “Colonies” (now States) naturalized “aliens” and others
22 didn’t however each and every Colony did have legislation in regard of citizenship and the rights
23 to franchise.
24 The Hansard records of the 2 March and 3 March 1898 Constitutional Convention Debates
25 made clear that “naturalization” powers would be transferred from the Colonies to the newly to
26 be formed Commonwealth of Australia, as it would be approved by the British Parliament but
27 “CITIZENSHIP” legislative powers would be retained by the States in the newly formed
28 Commonwealth of Australia.
29 Mr Quick proposed to give the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to

30 define/declare “CITIZENSHIP” but this was defeated/refused by the Delegates!
31 I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the
32 qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our
33 position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
34 Constitution to do that.
35 Therefore, even if the amendment of Mr Quick had succeeded it still was not intended to give
36 any legislative powers to the commonwealth of australia to interfere with the rights of any person
37 as a British subject.
38 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
39 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we
40 are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
41 Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
42 comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in
43 the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
44 clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of
Page 29
1 the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship,
2 and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
3 interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the
4 scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a
5 colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I
6 see therefore nothing unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British
7 subjects, in proposing to place power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament
8 to deal with the question of federal citizenship. An objection has been raised in various
9 quarters-as by the honorable and learned members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the
10 effect that we ought to define federal citizenship in the Constitution itself. I have
11 considered this matter very carefully, and it has seemed to me that it would be most
12 difficult and invidious, if not almost impossible, to frame a satisfactory definition. There is
13 in the Constitution of the United States of America a cast-iron definition of
14 citizenship, which has been found to be absolutely unworkable, because, among other
15 things, it says that a citizen of the United States shall be a natural-born or naturalized
16 citizen within the jurisdiction of the United States, and it has been found that that
17 excludes the children of citizens born outside the limits of this jurisdiction. That
18 shows the danger of attempting definitions, and although I have placed a proposed
19 clause defining federal citizenship upon the notice-paper, the subject, seems to me
20 surrounded with the greatest difficulty, and no doubt the honorable and learned
21 members (Mr. Wise, Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Symon) would be the first to attack any
22 definition, and would be able to perforate it. In my opinion, it would be undesirable
23 to implant a cast-iron definition of citizenship in the Constitution, because it would be
24 better to leave the question more elastic, more open to consideration, and more
25 yielding to the advancing changes and requirements of the times.
26 Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the
27 Commonwealth will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of
28 the Commonwealth which will enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it
29 will be merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen of the Commonwealth who is not already a
30 citizen of the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue of it he is entitled to
31 the citizenship of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow different
32 people to come in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they become
33 naturalized, and thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.
34 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they
35 come here.
36 Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of
37 the states, and it is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens
38 of the Commonwealth. Are you going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens
39 of the Commonwealth?
40 Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.
41 Mr. WALKER.-Is not a citizen of the state, ipso facto, a citizen of the
42 Commonwealth?
43 And
44 Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
45 Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the
46 power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and
Page 30
1 learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this
2 Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
3 exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we
4 acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is
5 put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot
6 on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a
7 lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to
8 become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
9 having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-
10 "Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out
11 of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to
12 take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.
13 And
14 Mr. OCONNOR.-I have said that I do not see that such a trust in the Federal Parliament
15 would be effective. I sympathize with the honorable member's view, but I think it will be
16 carried out by some kind of definition of citizenship, and I was pointing out the only
17 aspect in which it appears to me it might be desirable to have some such definition, and
18 that is, you are creating new rights to citizens of the Commonwealth as citizens of the
19 Commonwealth in regard to your courts. You establish courts for the Commonwealth, and
20 every citizen of the Commonwealth is entitled to the use of those courts.
21 Mr. HIGGINS.-Who is he?
22 And
23 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I shall have to oppose Dr. Quick's amendment, although
24 I would really go further than he intends. His object is to have a common citizenship, and
25 he proposes to define that in a proposed new clause, 120A, which reads as follows:-
26 All persons resident within the Commonwealth, being natural-born or naturalized subjects
27 of the Queen, and not under any disability imposed by the Parliament, shall be citizens of
28 the Commonwealth;
29 and he now wants to give power to Parliament to vary that subsequently.
30 Mr. ISAACS.-It is not clause 120A that he is proposing now.

31 Mr. HIGGINS.-It is his amendment in clause 52-to insert "Commonwealth citizenship"
32 as a new sub-section.
33 Mr. GLYNN.-I am quite aware of that, but what I want to understand is whether Dr.
34 Quick will propose the insertion of clause 120A, and also put it in the power of the
35 Parliament to vary the Commonwealth citizenship under clause 52? That is the point about
36 which I am doubtful. But I desire to point out that Dr. Quick is not going as far as they
37 have gone in America or Germany. There is a common citizenship both of the
38 Commonwealth and of the states in America. Citizenship of the Commonwealth carries
39 with it citizenship of the states, and the Constitution provides that immunities and
40 privileges enjoyed by the citizens of a particular state shall be equally shared, when in that
41 state, by the citizens of all the other states. Now, the German Constitution makes a
42 declaration that there must be a common citizenship. It does not state that the Parliament
43 of Germany will have the power of providing for a citizenship of the empire, but that there
44 must be a common citizenship of the whole empire, and that the privileges which are
45 given in one part of the empire would apply right through the whole empire. That is to say,
Page 31
1 there is a Commonwealth citizenship and a state citizenship running the one with the
2 other-a perfect equality of rights. All that is done in Germany is that Article 3 of the
3 Imperial Constitution declares that there shall be a common citizenship for all Germany,
4 and that the rights of the individual citizens of any state must be extended to the individual
5 citizens of any other state as long as they come within the jurisdiction of the former state;
6 but the German Constitution also provides that Parliament-and here is the distinction-may
7 define what the conditions of that common citizenship are to be. The Constitution declares
8 that there must be a common citizenship, but it leaves the determination of the particular
9 terms of that citizenship to the Parliament. That is different from the proposal of Dr.
10 Quick.
11 And
12 [start page 1761]

13 Mr. KINGSTON.-It was in the Bill.
14 Mr. OCONNOR.-There is no portion of the Bill which gives any right of citizenship, or
15 points out what citizenship is.
16 Mr. HIGGINS.-The word "citizen " occurred in clause 110, although it is now struck
17 out.
18 And
19 Mr. OCONNOR.-The words in clause 110 do not define any right of citizenship; they
20 prevent certain restrictions upon it. I would point out to Dr. Quick that he is proposing to
21 give a power to regulate or describe rights of citizenship, when we really do not know at
22 present what is meant by a citizen. I confess I do not know what the honorable and learned
23 member means by that term. Does he mean only the political rights which you give to
24 every inhabitant of a state who is qualified to vote, or does he go beyond that, as the
25 American decisions have gone, and describe every person who is under the protection of
26 your laws as a citizen? The citizens, the persons under the protection of your laws, are not
27 the only persons who are entitled to take part in your elections or in your government, but
28 every person who resides in your community has a right to the protection of your laws and
29 to the protection of the laws of all the states, and has the right of access to your courts. If
30 you are going to define citizenship for the purpose of giving these rights, you must say
31 clearly what you mean by citizenship. You leave it to the Federal Parliament to say what
32 citizenship is; and I think there is a great deal in what Mr. Glynn says, that we must not
33 hand over to the Federal Parliament the power to cut down the rights the inhabitants of
34 these states have at the present time. If we do not know what you mean by citizenship-
35 Mr. ISAACS.-Commonwealth citizenship.
36 Mr. OCONNOR.-Exactly. But if we do not know what you mean by citizenship-

37 whether you mean to restrict it to political rights or to the right of protection under your
38 laws, which every person, whether a naturalized subject or a person for the time being
39 resident in one of these communities, possesses-we may drive the Federal Parliament into
40 some difficulty, in which it is not at all unlikely that some cutting down of what we believe
41 to be the rights of citizenship may take place. I would point out that under the Bill the
42 power of dealing with aliens and immigration gives an abundant right to the
43 Commonwealth to protect itself, and, of course, the right of defining citizenship will
44 have to be exercised with due regard to any laws which might be made regarding the
45 position of aliens. I would ask my honorable friend (Dr. Quick) to say if he has considered
Page 32
1 how far he means the Federal Parliament to go in the definition of citizenship, and what he
2 means by citizenship? Because, unless we have a clear idea of that, it seems to me that we
3 are handing over to the Federal Parliament something which is vague in the extreme, and
4 which might be misused.
5 And
6 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will
7 come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who
8 would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for
9 such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
10 Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists,
11 but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
12 be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but
13 one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship
14 meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say,
15 I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the
16 dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we
17 introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and
18 those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision,
19 and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore,
20 it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we
21 possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or
22 exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness.
23 As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not
24 want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be
25 prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an
26 argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
27 Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen
28 of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
29 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
30 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
31 rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
32 citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
33 shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
34 with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
35 and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over
36 our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the
37 amendment will not be accepted.
38 And
39 Mr. BARTON.-If the honorable member's exclamation means more than I have
40 explained, then the best thing to do is to confide to the Commonwealth the right of dealing
41 with the lives, liberty, and property of all the persons residing in the Commonwealth,
42 independently of any law of any state. That is not intended, but that is what the expression
43 "Trust the Federal Parliament" would mean unless it was limited by the consideration I
44 have laid down. I am sure Dr. Quick will see that he is using a word that has not a
45 definition in English constitutional law, and which is not otherwise defined in this
46 Constitution. He will be giving to the Commonwealth Parliament a power, not only of
47 dealing with the rights of citizenship, but of defining those rights even within the very
Page 33
1 narrowest limits, so that the citizenship of a state might be worth nothing; or of

2 extending them in one direction, and narrowing them in another, so that a subject
3 living in one of the states would scarcely know whether he was on his head or his
4 heels. Under the Constitution we give subjects political rights to enable the Parliament to
5 legislate with regard to the suffrage, and pending that legislation we give the qualification
6 of electors. It is that qualification of electors which is really the sum and substance of
7 political liberty, and we have defined that. If we are going to give the Federal Parliament
8 power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having
9 defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really
10 defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play
11 ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
12 Parliament."
13 Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.
14 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons subjects of
15 the British Empire. Have we not done enough? We allow them to naturalize aliens. That
16 is a power which, with the consent of the Imperial authority, has been carried into
17 legislation by the various colonies, and, of course, we cannot do less for the
18 Commonwealth than we have done for the colonies.
19 Mr. KINGSTON.-Such legislation is only good within the limits of each state.
20 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
21 right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and
22 protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be
23 recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not
24 among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page
25 1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states. We
26 do not propose to interfere with them in this Constitution. We leave that amongst the
27 reserved powers of the states, and, therefore, having done nothing to make insecure the
28 rights of property and the rights of liberty which at present exist in the states, and having
29 also said that the political rights exercisable in the states are to be exercisable also in the
30 Commonwealth in the election of representatives, we have done all that is necessary. It is
31 better to rest there than to plunge ourselves into what may be a sea of difficulties. We do
32 not know to what extent a power like this may be exercised, and we should pause before
33 we take any such leap in the dark.
34 Again;
35 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
36 rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
37 citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
38 shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
39 with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
40 and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over
41 our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the
42 amendment will not be accepted.
43 Also
44 The administration of [start page 1766] the laws regarding property and personal
45 liberty is still left with the states.

Page 34
1 As was made clear by Mr quick;
2 I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the
3 qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our
4 position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
5 Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens
6 of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
7 Therefore, the Constitution never provided any constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of
8 Australia to legislate as to “CITIZENSHIP”.
9 As the Commonwealth of Australia was provided with powers within Subsection 51(xix) of the
10 constitution to “naturalize” “aliens” to become “British nationals” and the Nationalization Act
11 was enacted after Federation then clearly the powers to naturalize an alien to become a British
12 national is not diminish. In 1948, the Federal parliament then replaced the Naturalization Act
13 with the Australian citizenship Act 1948 by this “STEALING” the legislative powers of the
14 States states in regard of “citizenship” by purporting that there was an “Australian citizenship” as
15 an Australian nationality.
16 Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning

17 not warranted by s73 of the Constitution.
18 Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
19
20 If the Commonwealth of Australia never had any constitutional powers to declare/define
21 citizenship then what is the meaning of the Certificate of Australian Citizenship realty?
22
23 If Australian citizenship is purported to be Australian nationality then this must fail as
24 Subsection 51(xix) provided constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to
25 “naturalize” aliens to become British nationals! Without any Section 128 referendum this cannot
26 be changed to some purported “Australian nationality”.
27 We either have a Constitution or not! We use it as was intended by the framers of the
28 Constitution, modified as have been provided for by the successful referendums or we have no
29 constitution at all and no federation exist!
30
31 In view that the British parliament declared Australians to be “foreigners” can this then alter the
32 application of the constitution, one may ask?
33
34 Constitutional law cannot be amended by mere implication but must be amended by appropriate
35 legislation. In the case of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Section
36 128 exclude the British Parliament to amend the constitution as it can only be amended by the
37 consent of the people, as expressed by a Section 128 referendum. Hence, regardless if the British
38 parliament did or didn’t pass legislation to declare Australians “foreigners” the only way to
39 resolve the matter was and remains to have the Constitution amended to allow the
40 Commonwealth of Australia to “naturalize” aliens to become Australian nationals.
41
42 The following part of transcript indicates how the High Court of Australia itself is confusing
43 “citizenship” with “nationality”.
44
45 Dang, Ex parte - Re MIMA M118/2001 (18 April 2002)
46 IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
47 Office of the Registry
Page 35
1 Melbourne No M25 of 2001

2
3 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
4 AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 18 APRIL 2002, AT 10.17 AM
5
6 KIRBY J: Your clients were not British subjects.
7 MR MAXWELL: That is so. If I might move immediately to the question of what
8 Patterson decided. In our respectful submission, what Patterson decided was this, that
9 allegiance, not citizenship, is the touchstone for determining alien status.
10 KIRBY J: There is only one reference to citizenship in the Constitution, is there not, and
11 that is the disqualification that was considered in Sue v Hill?
12 MR MAXWELL: Yes, your Honour.
13 KIRBY J: There is no other reference to the concept and, indeed, we did not have a
14 Citizenship Act until quite late in the history of the Commonwealth.
15 MR MAXWELL: One of the critical aspects which comes through clearly in the
16 judgments, both the dissenting and the majority judgments in Patterson, is the point your
17 Honour has just adverted to: alien is a concept of our Constitution, citizenship is a concept
18 of our statute law. Your Honours Justices Gummow and Hayne in the joint judgment put in
19 these terms the proposition advanced by the prosecutor in Patterson, namely, at paragraph
20 [223]:
21 alienage and citizenship . . . do not occupy the relevant universe of discourse -
22 That, we would respectfully adopt, though your Honours disagreed in the result, as being
23 the proposition which the majority did endorse. That is to say, it does not follow that
24 because a person is a non-citizen he or she is, by definition, an alien because you must be
25 one or the other.
26 What Patterson held and why Nolan had to be overruled was that there is a category of
27 non-citizen non-alien. That is what your Honours held by majority Taylor was. He was not
28 a citizen and he was not an alien.
29 GUMMOW J: I should make clear to you I do not regard that matter as closed.
30 MR MAXWELL: I am indebted to your Honour.
31 GUMMOW J: It seems to me absolutely fundamental.
32 MR MAXWELL: It is absolutely fundamental and, in our respectful submission, there
33 can be no conclusion, with respect, other than that is what this Court found because Mr - - -
34 GUMMOW J: I am not so sure about that. The Solicitor-General goes into all of this.
35 MR MAXWELL: Your Honour, we note with some surprise that less than a year after
36 that decision was handed down, the Commonwealth is inviting this Court to reopen it and
37 overrule it if it says what we say it says.
38 GUMMOW J: The question really is whether it should have overruled Nolan. Now, I will
39 not hold you up.
40 MR MAXWELL: Your Honour, in our respectful submission, this Court did overrule
41 Nolan. Four Justices of the Court addressed the question whether it should be overruled
42 and each of them decided for reasons given that it should and it is no longer the law in this
43 country, in our respectful submission, and we will go further and say that necessarily Pochi
44 was at best left under a considerable cloud, if not necessarily overruled by that overruling.
45 GUMMOW J: It seems to me what I was putting to you really can be put to one side
46 because you have to go further in this case, and that is the real point.
47 MR MAXWELL: Indeed, your Honour. Plainly enough - - -
48 KIRBY J: As I understand your argument, it is that until Taylor there was clear authority
49 that there was a simple clear criterion for alienage, non-citizen.
50 MR MAXWELL: Exactly so.
51 KIRBY J: After Taylor, whatever is the criterion, the base has shifted.
Page 36

2 KIRBY J: It did not have to shift further than British subjects to resolve the issue of
3 Patterson.
4 MR MAXWELL: That is so.
5 KIRBY J: But you say, having shifted the basis, a new, stable basis must be found and
6 therefore this case presents the obligation to find that new, stable basis.
8 GUMMOW J: And what is the stable basis?
9 MR MAXWELL: The starting point is that the obligation of allegiance can come into
10 existence between a person and the Queen of Australia otherwise than by the taking out of
11 citizenship. The next question is, by what criteria is the establishment of that obligation to
12 be determined - I am sorry, your Honour?
13 GAUDRON J: You say "can". Did Patterson go further than say at a certain time it could
14 come into operation by that method in respect of a certain category of people?
15 MR MAXWELL: That is so, but - - -
16 GAUDRON J: Yes. Well, you have to go beyond that to say that since, when? At all
17 relevant times it has been possible and it continues to be possible?
18 MR MAXWELL: Your Honour, all I need to establish is that at the date of the relevant
19 decisions the obligation of allegiance had been assumed by these individuals. It is quite
20 separate, of course, from the discussion which was necessarily engaged in for Patterson
21 about the evolution of the Crown in right of Australia and its separation from Britain.
22 These are, plainly, individuals who have never been British subjects. This is a different
23 case. But as his Honour Justice Kirby has put, we will be inviting the Court to explore this
24 category of non - - -
25 GUMMOW J: We do not set off on exploration tasks. We respond to submissions and we
26 are trying to find what your submission is.
27 MR MAXWELL: Of course, your Honour.
28 GUMMOW J: You can tantalise us with this notion of a stable basis. The question is:
29 what is it?
30 MR MAXWELL: In these cases - - -
31 GUMMOW J: Bearing in mind that Patterson was, on one view of it, all about the
32 changing nature of the British Commonwealth, to use that expression.
33 MR MAXWELL: Your Honour, we put the stable basis on three bases in these cases as
34 set out in our submission. First, we say that each of these individuals renounced his
35 allegiance to his country of birth by fleeing from a regime which could not guarantee him
36 protection.
37 GUMMOW J: How do notions of allegiance work with republican systems of
38 government? As I understand it, the whole notion of citizenship dates back to the
39 American and French Revolutions, where they had to replace notions of allegiance which
40 were monarchical with something else and they devised the notion of citizenship. These
41 gentlemen never owed allegiance to any sovereign, did they?
42 MR MAXWELL: No, though your Honour will - - -
43 KIRBY J: Although they would have been born during the reign of Prince Sihanouk.
44 Cambodia was not a separate colony of France; it was a protectorate. So I think that is
45 something we would not know without some detail.
46 GUMMOW J: That is right.
47 MR MAXWELL: But, your Honour, in our respectful submission, as a matter of principle
48 this will not turn on whether a person came from a country which was a monarchy or a
49 republic. The concept of allegiance - - -
50 GUMMOW J: The point I am trying to make to you is that notions of allegiance come out
51 of English medieval feudalism. That is where it comes from - monarchical feudalism.
Page 37
1 MR MAXWELL: With respect, we fully appreciate that. As your Honours in the lengthy
2 joint judgment explained, the concept has developed very significantly since the original
3 notion of personal loyalty to a lord. It became, and it was declared in the Court of Queen's
4 Bench in the 1880s, as your Honours pointed out, that it changed from a personal
5 obligation or an obligation to the sovereign in his or her personal capacity to an obligation
6 to the sovereign in his or her political capacity. That is just one respect in which the
7 discussion about allegiance in the 21st century is a different discussion from that which it
8 would have been under more confined notions.
9 HAYNE J: And it is pointed up by your proposition that each renounced allegiance to the
10 country of his birth because the regime of the day would not protect him.
12 HAYNE J: But is allegiance concerned with allegiance to the government? Is it more
13 abstracted a notion than allegiance to whatever regime is in power?
14 GAUDRON J: There is a further question of course too and that is, by whose law is this
15 renunciation to be determined? That was addressed in Sykes and the general principle of
16 international law is that that is determined by the laws of the country of which the person
17 was a citizen or to which he or she owed allegiance.
19 GAUDRON J: So it is not a simple question, I should have thought.
20 MR MAXWELL: No, and it is not necessary for our argument, with respect, that there
21 have been no renunciation.
22 GAUDRON J: Well - - -
23 MR MAXWELL: It is not. It happens to be the fact and it makes our cases a fortiori, but
24 what is the critical question is whether it can be said of the person that he has assumed the
25 obligation of allegiance and our submission puts it that it - - -
26 GAUDRON J: And you put that as a one-way traffic as well.
27 MR MAXWELL: Well, with respect, no we do not. We gratefully accept the analysis of
28 their Honours in the joint dissenting judgment, which points out that changes in the
29 relationship of allegiance can occur either by the joint act of the parties to it, the subject
30 and the sovereign, or by the unilateral act of either, which, apart from anything else,
31 enables us to put to one side the old notion that allegiance was perpetual and the natural-
32 born subject could never give it up. The concept of naturalisation scotched that notion 100
33 years ago. It can be given up by a formal act. We submit that one would expect to find a
34 parallel notion of renunciation by conduct, but we accept - and our learned friends say just
35 because you have renounced your citizenship of another country does not mean you have
36 become a citizen of Australia. Well, we accept that. We do not assert that the renunciation
37 somewhere else makes you a subject of the Queen of Australia. There needs to be an act or
38 a course of conduct of which it can be said that this person enjoys the protection of the
39 Queen of Australia and owes her obligations of allegiance.
40 GLEESON CJ: At which stage did your clients cease to owe allegiance to Cambodia or
41 Vietnam respectively?
42 MR MAXWELL: At the time they sought refuge in refugee camps or, alternatively, upon
43 the grant of permanent residence visas to each of them, enabling them to come from the
44 refugee camp to Australia. At that point, we have argued in our submission that the self-
45 description as a refugee is the explanation or the manifestation of the renunciation.
46 GLEESON CJ: They are interesting alternatives, in practice, because if the former is
47 correct, they would have been in the same situation even if they had been refused visas.
48 MR MAXWELL: That is so. Again, they were granted visas and that means that - and we
49 will take your Honours in due course to the findings of fact in the Tribunal in each case -
50 each of these persons was a refugee at the time and, as I understand it, there is no dispute
51 about that. We do not say that an application for refugee status was made and determined
Page 38
1 in Australia. There is no evidence that that occurred. Nor is there any doubt but that they
2 were refugees in the sense in which that term is understood - defined in the Convention.
3 Your Honours will see in the material a question arises before the Tribunal "whether the
4 protection obligations which Australia owed under the Convention still obtained as at the
5 date of the Tribunal review?" Held: "No they don't. Conditions have changed in Cambodia
6 or Vietnam. The protection obligation does not subsist."
7 To come back to your Honour's question. The assertion of refugee status is the act of
8 renunciation because it is a statement that, "I cannot rely on the sovereign government of
9 my country to protect me." Indeed, that language is used in the Convention itself.
10 GLEESON CJ: Why did they need visas? I wondered if it was because they were aliens.
11 MR MAXWELL: Well, they otherwise had no right to enter Australia.
12 GUMMOW J: You seem to be asserting they did. Of course HYPERLINK
13 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Constitution - - -
14 MR MAXWELL: As a matter of international law - - -
15 GUMMOW J: Forget about international law, because HYPERLINK
16 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Constitution operated in
17 some magical way.
18 MR MAXWELL: No, your Honour. We conceded before Justice Hayne that these people
19 had not - I think we conceded they were aliens at the point of arrival. We will seek to
20 qualify that concession by the protection allegiance argument we have made in our reply.
21 We start with the proposition that Australia owed obligations of protection to these
22 refugees under the 1951 Convention. At that point there was an acceptance of what is
23 described in the Refugee Convention in these terms, and it is in the material, a person is,
24 "unable or . . . unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".
25 What is helpful in this analysis, in our respectful submission, is what Sir John Salmond, in
26 the Law Quarterly Review article that we will take your Honours to, and the House of
27 Lords in Joyce refer to as "the reciprocal obligations of protection by the sovereign to the
28 subject and allegiance by the subject to the sovereign."
29 KIRBY J: Could I just ask a factual matter, that is partly a legal matter. Was there any
30 impediment to your clients becoming naturalised Australian citizens?
31 MR MAXWELL: Not that I am aware of, your Honour, no. No application was made. At
32 a certain point they may have, by their criminal convictions, become unable to satisfy the
33 "good character" requirement.
34 KIRBY J: Does one draw any inference at all from the fact that in the interval between
35 their arrival as children and their evictions, that they could have signified their allegiance
36 to the Queen of Australia and the people of Australia by becoming citizens but omitted,
37 failed, refused to do so?
38 MR MAXWELL: In our respectful submission, no. One draws no inference because - and
39 this comes back to the fundamental point - the assumption of citizenship - we have put this
40 in terms in the outline - is a sufficient condition of allegiance but it is not a necessary
41 condition, and that is what Patterson held. If that is correct, then the non-taking out of
42 citizenship does not disqualify a person from being a subject of the Queen of Australia.
43 GAUDRON J: But are we not a little bit off the track here? From a constitutional point of
44 view we are concerned with aliens and non-aliens. At least in the case of persons who are
45 not and never have been British subjects is it not the case that it is well within the
46 legislative power of the Parliament to decide and define who are and who are not aliens?
47 CALLINAN J: That is what Mr Justice Barton said in Ferrando v Pearce.
48 GAUDRON J: But is that not the case, that it has legislative power to define who are and
49 who are not aliens?

Page 39
1 MR MAXWELL: Yes, but, with respect, to exclude from a statutory definition of aliens -
2 let me put that differently - to include within a statutory definition of aliens someone who
3 is not is beyond power.
4 GLEESON CJ: But if granting a visa to someone produces the result that they are not an
5 alien, then the entire scheme of the Migration Act 1997 has miscarried, has it not? Its long
6 title is it is "An Act relating to the entry into, and presence in, Australia of aliens, and the
7 departure or deportation from Australia of aliens". Visas can be cancelled, can they not?
8
9
10 By the reasoning of the Framers of the Constitution (the Delegates to the Constitution
11 Conventions) a “subject to the Crown” was anyone who was subjected to the laws of the Crown
12 regardless if they were aliens or not.
13
14 Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
15 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/72.html" [2003] HCA
16 72
17 9 December 2003
18 B99/2002
19 10. However, contrary to the submissions for the applicant, the result of such a consideration
20 of his position is his classification as an alien for the purposes of HYPERLINK
21 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/c167/s51.html" s 51 (xix) of the
22 Constitution. Much of the applicant's argument proceeded from the premise that, because
23 the expression "British subject" could be applied to him, he was not an alien. That
24 premise is flawed. First, "British subject" is not a constitutional expression; it is a
25 statutory expression. Secondly, and more fundamentally, if "British subject" was being
26 used as a synonym for "subject of the Queen", an expression which is found in the
27 Constitution, that usage would assume that there was at the time of federation, and there
28 remains today, a constitutional and political unity between the UK and Australia which
29 100 years of history denies.
30 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitutional Convention Debates
31 Mr. BARTON.- I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are
32 alike subjects of the British Crown.
33
35 Mr. MUNRO:
36 . I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be
37 proud of that position.
38
40
41 Mr. HOLDER:
42
43 because I take it that the legal bonds which bind us to the mother-country, to the
44 great British Empire,
45
47 Mr. BARTON:
48 The association of the Queen with the action of the commonwealth is distinct, and is
49 firmly embedded in the whole bill. If that is done, there can be no association of the
50 idea of republicanism with this bill.
51
Page 40
1 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right
2 which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection
3 under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that
4 the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects
5 confided to the Commonwealth.
6
8 Dr. QUICK.-
9 we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British
10 Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be
11 citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would
12 still be, subjects of the Queen.
13
15 Mr. BARTON.-
16 We are subjects in our constitutional relation to the empire, not citizens. "Citizens" is an
17 undefined term, and is not known to the Constitution. The word "subjects" expresses the
18 relation between citizens of the empire and the Crown.
19 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Is a naturalized alien a subject?

20 Mr. BARTON.-He would be a citizen under the meaning of this clause.
21 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Suppose you say "subject" without definition, would that
22 include naturalized aliens?
23 Mr. BARTON.-Yes. Dr. Quick's definition is: Persons resident in the Commonwealth,
24 either natural-born or naturalized subjects of the Queen, and if they are subject to no
25 disabilities imposed by the Parliament they shall be citizens of the Commonwealth. Why
26 not use the word "subject," and avoid the necessity of this definition?
27 And
28 Mr. OCONNOR.-Exactly. It has two meanings, but we are only dealing now with
29 the one meaning-the general meaning. Mr. Isaacs' reference shows the danger that
30 might be incurred by using the word "citizen," because it might have the restrictive
31 meaning the last decision imposes. All we mean now is a member of the community or
32 of the nation, and the accurate description of a member of the community under our
33 circumstances is a subject of the Queen resident within the Commonwealth."
34 Mr. SYMON.-A person for the time being under the law of the Commonwealth.
35 Mr. OCONNOR.-A person for the time being entitled to the benefits of the law of
36 the Commonwealth.
37 And
38 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If it is a fact that citizens, as they are called, of each
39 state are also citizens of the Commonwealth, there may be some little doubt as to whether
40 this is not providing for practically the same thing.
41 Mr. WISE.-No, there may be territories that is what I want to provide for.
42 Mr. BARTON.-In other portions of the Bill we use the words "parts of the
43 Commonwealth" as including territories, so that the object of Mr. Wise would be met
44 by using the words "citizens of every part of the Commonwealth" or "each part of
45 the Commonwealth."
Page 41
1 And
2 Mr. BARTON.-
3 We are subjects in our constitutional relation to the empire, not citizens. "Citizens" is
4 an undefined term, and is not known to the Constitution. The word "subjects"
5 expresses the relation between citizens of the empire and the Crown.
6 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Is a naturalized alien a subject?
7 Mr. BARTON.-He would be a citizen under the meaning of this clause.

8 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Suppose you say "subject" without definition, would that
9 include naturalized aliens?
10 Mr. BARTON.-Yes. Dr. Quick's definition is: Persons resident in the Commonwealth,
11 either natural-born or naturalized subjects of the Queen, and if they are subject to no
12 disabilities imposed by the Parliament they shall be citizens of the Commonwealth. Why
13 not use the word "subject," and avoid the necessity of this definition?
14 Dr. QUICK.-This definition does not interfere with the term "subject" in its wider relation
15 as a member of the empire or subject of the Queen.
16 Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized

17 subject of the Queen is co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in
18 America. The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his
19 rights.
20 And
21 Dr. QUICK.-The regulation would have to specify the ground of disability.
22 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but my honorable friend says not under any disability imposed by
23 the Parliament. Would not the difficulty be that if he were under any slight disability for
24 regulative purposes, all his rights of citizenship under the Commonwealth would be lost?
25 Mr. KINGSTON.-There might be a special disability on minors.

26 Mr. BARTON.-That might be one of the disabilities. Of course here the disabilities
27 as to minors would not matter much, but I would like to put this consideration to Dr.
28 Quick, that if we use the term "subject," or a person subject to the laws, which is a wider
29 term, we shall avoid the necessity for a definition of "citizen." You might say a subject or
30 resident being the subject of the Queen.
31 And
32 Mr. SYMON.-There is no man in Australia who is more profoundly versed in
33 constitutional law than Mr. Isaacs, and he knows that every point and every question has
34 been the subject of more or less debate and discussion, and will be until the end of time.
35 The words "subject," "person," and "citizen" can be made subjects of controversy
36 at all times if occasion requires it. At the same time, it does not affect the principle
37 that there should be a definition of "citizen," either in the form suggested by Dr.
38 Quick or by Mr. Barton.
39
40 And
41 Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-I am afraid that the amendment is far too wide, unless we say
42 that the disabilities imposed by Parliament may extend to birth and race. This would,
Page 42
1 notwithstanding the rights conferred under clause 52, deprive Parliament of the
2 power of excluding Chinese, Lascars, or Hindoos who happened to be British
3 subjects.
4 And
5 Mr. GLYNN.-
6 I would like to mention, in connexion with what Mr. Isaacs said as to aliens, that this
7 provision would not interfere in the slightest degree in the way of preventing aliens
8 from coming in, because it is only when the aliens get inside the Commonwealth that
9 this provision is to apply to them. The decision of the Privy Council in the case of Ah Toy
10 v. Musgrove was that an alien had no right to land here, but that decision does not affect
11 his citizenship after he has landed.
12
13 And
14 Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-My mind has wavered very much during this debate. I
15 have come to the conclusion that my original suggestion was wrong, that the best form
16 of all in which the original amendment could be moved is [start page 1793] that in which it
17 was proposed by Mr. Symon, and that then no definition such as is suggested by Dr. Quick
18 will be really required, because, if we allow each state to make its own standard of
19 citizenship, we shall reserve all the rights of the states, and obviate all the difficulties
20 contemplated by Mr. Trenwith, by retaining to each state the right to determine the
21 qualification of its own citizens. And then we will make a provision that is necessary as
22 part of the Federal Constitution, that when a man has acquired citizenship in one state he
23 shall be entitled to the right of citizenship in the other states.
24
25 And
26 Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia).-If the word "citizen" simply means resident or
27 inhabitant, why should we go to all this trouble about it? If it means inhabitant, what
28 is the use of saying the inhabitant of one state going to another state shall be an
29 inhabitant of that other state? It seems to me that if you are going to use the word
30 "citizen" in the sense of being equal to resident or inhabitant, and it is to have no
31 other meaning such as has always been attached to it, we had better leave out the
32 clause.
33 And
34 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I would suggest that Mr. Symon should accept the
35 amendment suggested by Mr. Barton, so that his clause shall read-
36 Every subject of the Queen resident in any state or part of the Commonwealth shall be
37 entitled to all privileges and immunities of subjects resident in other states or parts of the
38 Commonwealth.
39 I am altogether in favour of the principle of Mr. Symon's amendment; but the word
40 "citizen" creates a difficulty. If, instead of the word "citizen," we use the words "Every
41 subject of the Queen resident in a state," it really means the same thing. The meaning to
42 be given to the word "citizen" in Mr. Symon's amendment is not the narrow limited
43 meaning of the citizen who can exercise the franchise, but it is the broad general
44 meaning which the word has been held to have under the United States Constitution.
45 It has been decided there that the word "citizen" has, [start page 1796] in a general
46 and wide sense, this meaning:-
47 In its broad sense the word is synonymous with subject and inhabitant, and is
48 understood as conveying the idea of membership of the nation, and nothing more.
Page 43
1
2 And
3 Dr. COCKBURN.-But the present proposal if carried would raise an initial difficulty in
4 framing special laws. It might be urged that it was necessary to discriminate between
5 residents who are subjects of the Queen and those who are not, and the amendment
6 would introduce an element which would give rise to a great deal of trouble in the
7 future.
8 Mr. HIGGINS.-You want to keep both classes out.
9 Dr. COCKBURN.-We desire always to deal with Asiatics on broad lines, whether
10 they are subjects of the Queen or not; and in South Australia, and, I believe, other
11 colonies, those lines of distinction are obliterated. In South Australia we make no
12 difference between Chinese from Hong Kong and those from other parts of China.
13 That, I think, is the most effective way of dealing with this matter.
14 Again;
15 We are subjects in our constitutional relation to the empire, not citizens. "Citizens" is
16 an undefined term, and is not known to the Constitution. The word "subjects"
17 expresses the relation between citizens of the empire and the Crown.
18
19 Clearly, the Framers made clear it is not the relationship between a subject and some Queen, but
20 more significantly the relationship between the subjects as “citizens of the empire and the
21 Crown.” One must therefore be a citizen of the empire to have a relationship with the Crown.
22 If one is not a subject of the Crown residing as a citizen in the empire then no relationship exist.
23 This, the High Court of Australia never addressed as such. It simply sought to bypass this kind of
24 definition, being it unaware of it all together or not. But, the “Queen of Australia” is no Queen
25 recognised by the British Crown, or can be Queen of the Empire. It is a fictitious name and title
26 that can hold no water, so to say, to issue proclamation in that title, as to do so would create a
27 fictitious appointment not worth the paper it is written upon.
28
29 To get a bit of an understanding about “internal affairs” and “external affairs” the following may
30 be considered;
32 Dr. COCKBURN: I should like to justify the vote that I shall have to give on this matter,
33 because it will be rather dissonant with the votes I have been giving throughout the sittings
34 of the Convention. I shall vote for the clause as it stands, and also for the amendment
35 intended to be proposed by the hon. member, Mr. Gordon, because I take it to be essential
36 to federation. It is the very definition of a federation that, as regards external affairs, the
37 federation shall be one state, and only have one means of communication, and in regard to
38 internal affairs the federation should be many states-
39 Mr. GORDON: These are not internal affairs!

40 Dr. COCKBURN: These are internal affairs, and it is one of the principles of federation
41 that, in internal affairs, there should be complete autonomy. In local affairs, why do you
42 want to go outside the state at all? For the alteration of the constitution of a state, why
43 should you go outside the boundary of that state?
44 Effectively, “external affairs” referred to in the constitution deals with nations/territories not
45 within the Commonwealth of Australia and/or under the British parliament. The Delegates did
46 refer to the “Home Office” when referring to contact with the British government, as it is the
47 “home” of the Commonwealth of Australia, which exist only because of the States (formally
Page 44
1 colonies) being granted Letters Patents to have their own limited self government under British
2 law.
4 Mr. BARTON: The hon. member who is in the chair will be able to inform you. He said:
5 I do not think there is in this Convention a stronger advocate of State rights and State
6 interests than I am; but still I strongly support the clause as it stands, for it seems to me that
7 one of the very fundamental ideas of a Federation is that, so far an all outside nations are
8 concerned, the Federation shall be one nation, that we shall be Australia to the outside
9 world, in which expression. I include Great Britain; that we shall speak, if not with one
10 voice, at all events, through one channel of communication to the Imperial Government;
11 that is, as it has been put, we shall not have seven voices expressing seven different
12 opinions, but that Her Majesty's Government in Great Britain shall communicate to
13 Her Majestys Government in Australia through one channel of communication only.
14
15 Again;
16
17 Her Majesty's Government in Great Britain shall communicate to Her Majestys
18 Government in Australia
19
20 It is clear that the Framers of the Constitution referred to the one and only person and any
21 purported title of a legal fiction of “Queen of Australia” cannot amend or purport to amend the
22 Constitution, or the application of the Constitution.
23
25 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-The Drafting Committee could not interpret the
26 intentions of the Convention, excepting in so far as they found them expressed in the
27 Bill, in the amendments, or in the debates. We have endeavoured to give effect simply
28 to what the Convention have said and done.
29 And
30 Sir RICHARD BAKER (South Australia).-
31 When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution
32 should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we
33 consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any
34 alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly
35 have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the
36 people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident
37 that too much care has not been exercised.
38
40 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia)[12.35]: I have not the Federal Council Bill before me; but
41 I believe that that bill contained the words "sailing between the ports of the colonies." The
42 bill was sent home with those words in it; but her Majesty's advisers at home deliberately
43 changed the wording of the measure so as to give the Council wider jurisdiction. There was
44 a limitation in the bill which does not appear in the act, and the Imperial authorities must
45 have made this alteration for some specific purpose. They could not have accidentally
46 inserted the words "port of clearance, or." There is no danger of conflict between the
47 laws of the commonwealth and the Imperial law. The moment a new act is passed in
48 England which conflicts with any legislation passed by the commonwealth, that act
49 will to the extent of the difference abrogate the legislation under the constitution of
50 Australia. At the present time there is never any conflict. Our Marine Board and
Page 45
1 navigation acts are not in conflict with the English merchant shipping acts; but they
2 give us jurisdiction, not to the 3 miles limit, but within Australian waters, as
3 specifically defined in these acts, that is, between port and port. Without these acts we
4 should not have this jurisdiction. As I understand the law, it was decided in the case
5 of the Franconia that, the 3-mile limit only applied in connection with intercolonial
6 disputes, that limit being arrived at in the first instance because it [start page 247] was
7 then the range of a cannon shot; and that civil and criminal jurisdiction stopped at
8 low-water mark. Originally there was no jurisdiction beyond the limits of mean low-
9 water mark; but that jurisdiction has been extended by legislation, and the Imperial
10 authorities deliberately changed words in the Federal Council Bill which would place
11 a limitation upon the existing jurisdiction as defined by our local acts, so as to amplify
12 it, and make it apply to any vessel leaving our ports for foreign parts, or coming from
13 foreign parts to the colonies. They did this deliberately, and in view of the fact that
14 there was no possibility of conflicting decisions being arrived at under the proposed
15 constitution, we have no criminal jurisdiction at all, so that if a crime is committed on
16 board a ship coming to Australia, the criminal will be tried according to the laws of
17 Great Britain.
18 We cannot give a sanction to a law

The Hon. E. BARTON:
19 without imposing some penalty or punishment!
20 Mr. GLYNN: The hon. and learned gentleman is quite right; but we have only
21 power to impose such penalties as will operate as sanctions for the civil legislation
22 under clause 52.
23 The Hon. E. BARTON: We cannot establish a new criminal offence!

24 Mr. GLYNN: No, unless it is part of a sanction to enforce the obligation of a civil
25 law. So that if an offence is committed on board a ship coming to the commonwealth
26 it will have to be dealt with according to the law of England, not according to the law
27 of the commonwealth. Seeing that the English authorities deliberately changed the
28 wording of the Federal Council Bill, although there is no possibility of the legislation
29 of the colonies clashing with Imperial legislation, because English legislation must
30 abrogate colonial legislation to the extent of the difference between them, I think we
31 should accept the words used by the Imperial advisers of her Majesty.
32
33
34 The latter about “abrogating” colonial laws do not apply when it comes to the Commonwealth of
35 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in that this provides that amendments of the Constitution
36 can only be made by a successful section 128 referendum. As such, it excludes powers of the
37 Imperial government (British Parliament) to amend the Constitution. However, State laws
38 remain subject to Imperial laws and are abrogated where they are in conflict of Imperial laws.
39
40 Again;
41 They did this deliberately, and in view of the fact that there was no possibility of
42 conflicting decisions being arrived at under the proposed constitution, we have no
43 criminal jurisdiction at all, so that if a crime is committed on board a ship coming to
44 Australia, the criminal will be tried according to the laws of Great Britain.
45 The Statement;
46 There is no danger of conflict between the laws of the commonwealth and the
47 Imperial law. The moment a new act is passed in England which conflicts with any
Page 46
1 legislation passed by the commonwealth, that act will to the extent of the difference
2 abrogate the legislation under the constitution of Australia. At the present time there
3 is never any conflict. Our Marine Board and navigation acts are not in conflict with
4 the English merchant shipping acts; but they give us jurisdiction, not to the 3 miles
5 limit, but within Australian waters, as specifically defined in these acts, that is,
6 between port and port.
7
8 Is not correct in that while normally the imperial government can make specific legislation to
9 amend a constitutional enactment, in this case it has ousted itself of doing so by including the
10 Section 128 provision.
11
13 Mr. SYMON:
14 There can be no doubt as to the position taken up
15 by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of
16 the common law and rules of international comity
17 in other countries cannot be justly applied here.
18
19 In the Shaw case the high Court of Australia stated;
20 42. Jason Shaw, the applicant, migrated to Australia with his parents in 1974. He was then
21 two years of age and a citizen of the United Kingdom. Along with his parents, he was
22 granted a permanent entry permit. Under reg 4 of the Migration Reform (Transitional
23 Provisions) Regulations (Cth), after 1 September 1994 the permanent entry permit held by
24 the applicant continued in effect as a transitional (permanent) visa that permitted the
25 applicant to remain in Australia indefinitely. He has never left Australia since arriving in
26 1974. However, he has never become an Australian citizen.
27 Again;
28 However, he has never become an Australian citizen.
29
30 The judges simply seemed not to realize that they were talking about “citizenship” involving
31 political rights and not at all being about nationality.
32 Mr. SYMON.-
33 I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the
34 Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution,
35 and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a
36 question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the
37 Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or
38 diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am
39 willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
40 not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a
41 leading inducement for joining the Union.
42 Therefore, Mr Shaw was an “Australian citizen” the moment he entered the Commonwealth of
43 Australia and began to reside in a State by obtaining State citizenship! He remained for all
44 purposes a “subject of the Queen” and as the Commonwealth of Australia is a limited
45 POLITICAL UNION and not a nation in its own rights one cannot have a nationality of being
46 an Australian (as incorrectly referred to being Australian citizenship”) as no such nation exist!

Page 47
1 To hold that the Commonwealth of Australia is an independent “nation” would mean to claim
2 that the States no longer exist as such. The federation then was a confederation!
3
4 For the extensive set out above, it is clear that Jason Shaw was an Australian citizen from the
5 moment he came to reside in a State in the Commonwealth of Australia.
6
7 The High Court of Australia has only constitutional powers to interpret the meaning of the
8 Constitution provisions by the intentions of the Framers and it has no constitutional powers to
9 pursue to bring within the meaning of constitutional provisions that were never intended by the
10 Framers to be so!
11
12 Ex Parte Lovell; Re Buckley (1938) 38 S.R. N.S.W. 155 at 158; 55 W.N. 63 Jordan C.J.
13 “This court however must take the act as it finds it, and cannot do violence to its language in
14 order to bring within its scope, cases, which although within its mischief are not within its
15 words.”
16
17 The following ought to be applied perhaps to Shaw, Sue v Hill and the Sykes v Cleary cases, to
18 mention a few, this as those cases, in my view were based upon ill conceived reasoning, and not
19 at all as to the intentions of the framers of the Constitution;
20
21 Duncan v Queensland (1916) 22 CLR 556, 582 (per Griffith C.J.)
22 “That case (a previous decision of the High Court, Foggit, Jones & Co v NSW (1915) 21
23 CLR 357) was very briefly, and I regret to say, insufficiently argued and considered on the
24 last day of the Sydney sitting..... The arguments which now commend themselves to me as
25 conclusive did not find entrance to my mind. In my judgement that case was wrongly decided,
26 and should be overruled.”
27
28 The Shaw case;
29 45. In July 2001, the Minister cancelled the applicant's visa on the ground that he had a
30 substantial criminal record and did not pass the character test as defined by
31 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html"
32 s 501 (6).
33 HYPERLINK
34 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" Section
35 501 does not apply to British citizens who arrived in Australia before 3 March
36 1986
37 46. There are only two heads of federal constitutional power that could arguably extend the
38 operation of HYPERLINK
39 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" s 501 to a
40 person such as the applicant who is a British citizen and who arrived in Australia in 1974.
41 The first is the immigration power; the second is the aliens power HYPERLINK
42 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn49" [50] . A long line of
43 authority establishes that the immigration power does not authorise the Parliament
44 to make laws with respect to persons who have immigrated to Australia, made their
45 permanent homes here and become members of the Australian community
46 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn50" [51] .
47 Accordingly, the immigration power did not authorise the enactment of HYPERLINK
48 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" s 501 in so
49 far as it purports to apply to the applicant.

Page 48
1 47. The aliens power, however, gives the Parliament greater power over immigrants than the
2 immigration power. In Nolan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
3 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn51" [52] ,
4 this Court held that any immigrant who has not taken out Australian citizenship is an
5 alien for the purpose of HYPERLINK
6 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s51.html" s 51 (xix) of
7 the Constitution. On that view of the aliens power, the Parliament can legislate for
8 the deportation of persons who are British citizens and have been permanent
9 residents of Australia for many years. In Nolan, the Court upheld an order of the
10 Minister deporting Nolan, a citizen of the United Kingdom who had lived permanently in
11 Australia since 1967 but who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
12 48. In Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor HYPERLINK

13 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn52" [53] , however, a
14 majority of this Court held that Nolan should be overruled in so far as it held that all
15 British citizens living in Australia who had not taken out Australian citizenship were
16 aliens for the purpose of the Constitution. Taylor was a British citizen who had arrived in
17 Australia in 1966 and had since lived here permanently. However, he had not taken out
18 Australian citizenship. A majority of the Court held that HYPERLINK
19 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" s 501 of
20 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/" the
21 Act could not constitutionally authorise the deportation of Taylor.
22 49. As I pointed out in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Te
23 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn53" [54] ,
24 Re Patterson has no ratio decidendi. The four majority Justices were Gaudron, Kirby and
25 Callinan JJ and myself. Gaudron J held that Taylor was a member of the body politic
26 that constituted the Australian community and that British citizens who were
27 members of that body politic and had been in Australia before 1987 HYPERLINK
28 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn54" [55] , were not
29 aliens within the meaning of the Constitution. Kirby J held that Taylor was not an
30 alien when he arrived in Australia, that he "had been absorbed into the people of the
31 Commonwealth" HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/"
32 \l "fn55" [56] and that the Parliament could not retrospectively declare him to be an
33 alien. I held that British immigrants who settled in Australia before 1973 were subjects of
34 the Queen of Australia and could not be "aliens" for the purpose of the Constitution. I
35 selected 1973 as the earliest date on which the constitutional power to legislate with
36 respect to aliens could apply to British immigrants. I did so because 1973 was the
37 year in which the Parliament enacted the HYPERLINK
38 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rsata1973258/" Royal Style and
39 Titles Act 1973 (Cth). But I expressed the view that the relevant date "maybe later"
40 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn56" [57] .
41 Callinan J agreed with the reasoning of both Kirby J and myself.
42 While a judge of the High Court of Australia may elect judicial powers because of some
43 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rsata1973258/" Royal Style
44 and Titles Act 1973 (Cth). The truth is that this latter Act is irrellevant to the issue of
45 constitutional powers regarding “citizenship”.
46
47 Constitutionally,
48 Mr. SYMON.-

Page 49
1 I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the
2 Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution,
3 and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a
4 question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the
5 Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or
6 diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am
7 willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
8 not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a
9 leading inducement for joining the Union.
10 Therefore, becoming a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia is only achievable by
11 becoming a state citizen first.
12 The fact that the Certificate of Australian Citizenship states;
13 QUOTE
14 Certificate of Australian Citizenship
15
16 GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL
17 Born on 7 th June 1947
18
19 having applied for a Certificate of Australian Citizenship, having satisfied the conditions
20 prescribed by the Australian Citizenship Act 19448 for the grant of such Certificate
21 and having undertaken to fulfil the responsibilities of a citizen.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 It must be clear that no kind of application can be made for this and neither can any be granted
25 by the Commonwealth of Australia in that it is AUTOMATICALLY obtained upon obtaining
26 “State citizenship”.
27
28 Therefore, what is really occurring was that I applied to my understanding to naturalize and by
29 this dispose of my Dutch nationality to become a British national within the meaning of
30 Subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution, and the Commonwealth of Australia purport this to be
31 somehow to be “Australian citizenship”.
32
33 Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning
34 not warranted by s73 of the Constitution.
35 Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
36
37
38 Likewise, the Commonwealth of Australia cannot turn naturalization into something else not
39 contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution.
40
41 Subsection 51(xix) naturalization powers had nothing to do with political rights, that are
42 included in citizenship, but related to alliance to the British Crown.
43
44 “Australia” is a continent, and was so before Federation, at least that is what I perceived was
45 applicable also at the time of Federation.
46 The Framers of the Constitution made clear that at all official functions the national anthem was
47 to bless the Monarch.
48
50
Page 50
1 Mr. GLYNN:
2 The foundations of our national edifice are being laid in times of peace; the invisible
3 hand of Providence is in the tracing of our plans. Should we not, at the, very inception
4 of our great work, give some outward recognition of the Divine guidance that we feel?
5 This spirit of reverence for the Unseen pervades all the relations of our civil life. It is
6 felt in the forms in our courts of justice, in the language of our Statutes, in the oath
7 that binds the sovereign to the observance of oar liberties, in the recognition of the
8 Sabbath, in the rubrics of our guilds and social orders, in the anthem through which
9 on every public occasion we invocate a blessing on our executive head, in our
10 domestic observances, in the offices of courtesy at our meetings and partings, and in
11 the time-honored motto of the nation.
12
14 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
15 Thus we are forced-after, forsooth, the 1891 Convention and the three sessions of this
16 Convention-back to the elementary consideration of whether this body is to be analogous
17 to the position of the House of Lords in [start page 2036] England, and we have the
18 English Constitution brought in, and an appeal made through our patriotism, and "God
19 save the Queen," and all that sort of thing. That is not the question which we have to deal
20 with. We have to do our best to arrange a Constitution which has very little analogy to the
21 English Constitution, but, at the same time, from the circumstances of our birth and the
22 love of country, we have to adhere to the English Constitution as nearly as is consistent
23 with the altered condition of things.
24
25 Whatever the argument might be of those seeking to advocate that the Commonwealth of
26 Australia is an independent nation, the truth is that constitutionally it never is and never can be.
27
29 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I beg to move-
30 I wish to clear away the misconception in the first place that I have any objection whatever
31 to the word "Commonwealth," or to the use of the word "Commonwealth," in this Bill. I
32 have no objection to that where it is confined to the expression of the political Union. In
33 the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
34 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth-that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
35 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby
36 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
37 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
38 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
39 are going to create under that Union. The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
40 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
41 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
42 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
43 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
44 The first clause says-This Act maybe cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
45 Act." I assent to all that. Then comes clause 3, which says it shall be lawful for the Queen,
46 by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council, to declare by
47 proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after
48 the passing of this Act, the people of the colonies enumerated shall be united in a Federal
49 Constitution under the name of-I say it ought to be "of Australia." Why do we want to put
50 in "the Commonwealth of Australia"? We are there by our Constitution giving the name to

Page 51
1 our country, and, to the united people who are to be established as a nation under the
2 Constitution. By what name, I would like to ask honorable members, will they call this
3 Federal Union? It will be called by the name Australia, whether we like it or not.
4 Again;
5 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
6 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
7 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
8
9 The Commonwealth of Australia is a LIMITED POLITICAL UNION by the Colonies (now
10 States) As like the EUROPEAN UNION is in Europe.
11 No one would seek to argue that the European Union is a country. Yet, it doesn’t matter if one is
12 a British national, a Dutch national, Frenchman, German or else they are all “citizens of the
13 European Union”
14 Citizenship is not limited to the nationality of the person but by the territory in which the person
15 resides that forms part of the European Union.
16 No one could dream of the European Union to become some Monarchy, Republic or Dominion.
17 Likewise, the Commonwealth of Australia likewise cannot be a Monarchy, Republic or
18 Dominion. It is a federation out of the States.
19 The States themselves can perhaps become independent in time and then assume to become a
20 Republic or Monarchy but not while they remain dominions. If the states cannot become
21 Monarchies or Republics in the current climate then their Agent, so to say, the Commonwealth
22 of Australia hardly can take on some different constitutional position.
23
24 The term “citizenship” was not at all associated with “nationality” but rather covered any
25 “subject of the Queen” residing within the Commonwealth of Australia or for that the continent
26 Australia.
27
28 The terms “Australian citizen”, “Australian citizens” , “Australian citizenship”,
29 “Commonwealth citizens”, “federal citizen”, “citizen of the Commonwealth” were used ongoing
30 by the Framers of the Constitution, as shown below, and as such were terms not as to
31 “nationality” but in regard of citizenship as being a resident in the colonies (now States) and the
32 Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore any constitutionalist, as I am, is or should be aware that
33 the term “Australian citizenship” cannot be held to relate to nationality. Neither that there can be
34 an “Australian nationality” merely because some judges happen to desire to make such a
35 declaration as the proper powers to legislate for this is to follow the procedures within Section
36 128 of the Constitution.
37
38 13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen
39 13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens
41 Re; dual citizenship
42 26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
43 29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
44 30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen
47 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
51 15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
Page 52

2 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
6 28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
7 Re; Commonwealth citizens
12 Re; federal citizenship
28
29 Such as Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
30 Mr. SYMON.-Yes. Mr. Wise asked why should New South Wales or Victoria-to take a case
31 which is extremely unlikely to occur-prohibit a citizen of the neighbouring colony from
32 acquiring property in the legislating colony, or only allow him to acquire it under adverse
33 conditions? But why not? The whole control of the lands of the state is left in that state. The
34 state can impose what conditions it pleases-conditions of residence, or anything else-and I
35 am not aware that a state has surrendered the control of the particular administration of
36 its own lands, or of anything that is left to it for the exercise of its power and the
37 administration of its affairs. I would much prefer, if there is to be a clause introduced, to have
38 the amendment suggested by Tasmania, subject to one modification, omitting the words-"and all
39 other persons owing allegiance to the Queen." That would re-open the whole question as to
40 whether an alien, not admitted to the citizenship here-a person who, under the provisions
41 with regard to immigration, is prohibited from entering our territory, or is only allowed to
42 enter it under certain conditions-would be given the same privileges and immunities as a
43 citizen of the Commonwealth. Those words, it seems to me, should come out, and we should
44 confine the operation of this amendment so as to secure the rights of citizenship to the citizens
45 of the Commonwealth. I think, therefore, that with some modification the amendment suggested
46 by Tasmania would be a proper one to adopt.
47 And
48 Mr. KINGSTON.-I say we are creating a Commonwealth in which I hope there will be
49 a federal citizenship, and I shall be glad indeed to see the powers of the Federal
50 Parliament enlarged to enable that body to legislate, not only with reference to
Page 53
1 naturalization and aliens, but also with reference to the rights and privileges of federal
2 citizenship.
3 An HONORABLE: MEMBER.-What is the meaning of citizenship?
4 Mr. KINGSTON.-It is not defined here, but it ought to be defined in the Constitution, or
5 else we ought to give power to the Federal Parliament to define it. And, after having
6 defined what shall constitute Australian citizenship for the purposes of the
7 Commonwealth, we ought to carefully prevent any state legislating in such a way as to
8 deprive any citizen of the Commonwealth of any privileges which citizenship of the
9 Commonwealth confers within its borders. I have the honour to come from a state which
10 has already adopted a system of absentee taxation, but I do not hesitate to say, speaking on
11 my own individual account, that I think the continuance of that system, applied to citizens
12 of the Commonwealth resident in other states of the Commonwealth, would be a great
13 mistake and an unfederal act.
14 Mr. HIGGINS.-If a rich South Australian went to live in Tasmania, on account of the
15 cool climate, would you allow the imposition of the absentee tax on him?
16 Mr. KINGSTON.-I do not think it ought to be imposed on him.

17 And
18 An HONORABLE MEMBER.-How would that affect a tax on absentees?

19 Mr. WISE.-It would give full power to impose a tax on absentees outside the
20 Commonwealth, but not within it. There [start page 675] should be no absentees within the
21 Commonwealth after federation. I do not see, how, after federation, a man can be regarded
22 as an absentee at Sydney when he lives in Melbourne. If we are to have federation, the idea
23 that when a man moves from one part of the Commonwealth into another he becomes an
24 absentee, or ceases to be an Australian, is one that must vanish, and we ought, as far as our
25 Constitution will permit us, to do everything to make it vanish quickly. It is a survival of
26 the old idea that there is a distinctive citizenship in a Victorian, and a distinctive
27 citizenship in a New South Wales man. That is the idea which I am endeavouring to
28 destroy by supporting the amendment of Tasmania, that Australian citizenship, and that
29 alone, shall be recognised in every part of the Federation. The way to secure that is to
30 provide in the clearest terms, as Tasmania suggests, that no local Parliament can have any
31 authority to, in any way, abridge the citizenship of an Australian.
32 Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I really think that the constant attempts which are being
33 made to interfere with the rights of the states, in matters which are left to them expressly, is
34 becoming quite alarming. There are a number of general words already in this Constitution
35 which, I fear, may be used so as to almost destroy the independent powers of legislation of
36 the states, with reference to every conceivable subject that they have left to them.
37
38 For the above, and what already has been placed before on file in previous proceedings the issue
39 therefore is that if the Commonwealth of Australia holds that “Australian citizenship” purports
40 some kind of Australian nationality then this is ULTRA VIRES, as no such constitutional
41 powers were granted by the Imperial parliament and neither by any Section 128 referendum.
42 Section 51(xix) only provides for naturalization of “aliens” to be made “British nationals”.
43 The problem with this is that if the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 purports to be “Australian
44 nationality” then this likewise is unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES.

Page 54
1 If therefore the Constitution of the State of Victoria relies upon the Australian Citizenship Act
2 1948 as to provide State “franchise” then this is also ULTRA VIRES, as an the State cannot rely
3 upon an unconstitutional enactment.
4
5 If the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is purporting to grant “citizenship” as to refer to political
6 rights then that too would be unconstitutional, and so ULTRA VIRES.
7
8 If the “AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP” referred to in the “Australian Citizenship Act 1948”
9 in fact is and remains to mean that a person is naturalized to be a British national, then in any
10 case it is ULTRA VIRES where it purports to define/declare the nationality of any person born
11 within the States, as any subject born within the realm of the King (Queen) is automatically a
12 national and so a subject of the British Crown. Any reliance by the State Constitution to allow
13 for franchise based upon a unconstitutional provision in that regard also remains ULTRA
14 VIRES.
15
16 It ought to be kept in mind that in 1948 most likely no one really has a slightest understanding
17 and perception as to what was constitutionally appropriate. Whatever was enacted at the time by
18 ill conceived perceptions cannot make it lawful. It remains ULTRA VIRES for so far it is
19 beyond constitutional powers or exceeding constitutional powers.
20
21 As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia could put a
22 disability to any “alien” upon naturalization to obtain “citizenship”, this by legislation any race is
23 subjected to provided within subsection 51(xxvi) of the Constitution or otherwise being limited,
24 such as that a person naturalized cannot obtain citizenship within, say, 2 years of naturalization,
25 then a “Certificate of Australian Citizenship” cannot be granted to anyone. For example, since
26 the 1967 referendum that provides for Aboriginals to be dealt with under the “race” provisions of
27 Section 51(xxvi) constitutionally not a single Aboriginal can have citizenship involving franchise
28 as they are constitutionally barred once the Commonwealth of Australia enacted legislation
29 within its race constitutional powers.
30 Likewise, while the race powers did not give the Commonwealth of Australia any powers to
31 legislate against the “general community” the fact that the Commonwealth of Australia
32 nevertheless did so and so with the Racial Discrimination Act, by this in effect it also robbed
33 each and every citizen of their right to have franchise and indeed be a Member of Parliament!
34
35 Because “Australian citizenship”, albeit wrongly, has been the core requirement of numerous
36 positions, such as to be a judicial officer, to be a police officer, to be a Member of Parliament,
37 etc, it is having horrific consequences that follows from what currently is so wrongly applied.
38 Still, the rule of law, so constitutional law, must be applied in a proper manner, and not some
39 Banana Republic kind of system.
40
41 The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 also relies upon the unconstitutional declaration/
42 definition of “Australian citizenship” as to provide for “franchise” where in fact “franchise in the
43 Commonwealth of Australia is obtained only by having obtained State franchise through “State
44 citizenship”.
45 What is missing is the States legislation to provide for State citizenship and by this for
46 “franchise”!
47
48 Moller v The Board of Examiners [1999] VSC 55 (10 March 1999)
49

Page 55
1 16. The concept of allegiance was considered by Ormiston, J. (as he then was) in Nicholls v.
2 Board of Examiners for Barristers and Solicitors [1986] V.R. 719. At p.728 his Honour
3 said:
4 "Allegiance is a concept which is at the same time both obvious and subtle. Its precise
5 nature has varied over the centuries in ways which it is unnecessary to discuss here.
6 For those reasons it is undesirable to say more about the duty of allegiance than is
7 necessary for the decision in this case. It should be observed, however, that it is not
8 now an obligation peculiar to monarchical systems of government, whatever may have
9 been its basis in Stuart times: cf. the Case of the Postnati:: Calvin's Case (1608) 7 Co.
10 Rep. 1a; 2 State Trials 559; 73 E.R. 761 and Re the Stepney Election Petition (1886)
11 17 Q.B.D. 54. Secondly, the present case does not concern the oath of allegiance to be
12 given by a subject, national or citizen. Even when an alien had virtually no rights, the
13 correlative right of protection by the sovereign was sufficient to justify a duty of
14 allegiance on the part of aliens, at least aliens from friendly countries, who lived
15 within the realm. Since the disabilities of aliens have been largely abolished, except as
16 to the right of entry into the country, their duty of allegiance, when they live within
17 this country, cannot be disputed. On the other hand, I have found no authority, at least
18 since the Middle Ages, which suggests that the taking of an oath of allegiance creates
19 any new or different obligation on a resident foreign national. In making this latter
20 observation, I am in no way referring to those oaths which are taken as part of a
21 naturalization ceremony or which otherwise contain a renouncing of all other
22 allegiance, as appears in the oaths in Schedules 2 and 3 to the HYPERLINK
23 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca1948254/" Australian
24 Citizenship Act 1948. I add that what I have said as to the status of aliens appears
25 applicable to all those who do not owe a general duty of allegiance and I say nothing
26 as to the effects of the repeal of the HYPERLINK
27 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/aa194775/" Aliens Act 1947 and
28 the prospective repeal of the definition of 'alien' in the HYPERLINK
29 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca1948254/" Australian
30 Citizenship Act 1948 (Act No. 129 of 1984, HYPERLINK
31 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s4.html" s.4 (2)(a)).
32 Consequently there would appear to be significant differences between the local duty
33 of allegiance owed by aliens or non-citizens, and that owed by citizens or those who
34 otherwise owe a general duty of allegiance. When Parliament amended s.5(2) of the
35 Legal Profession Practice Act 1958, it chose to retain the obligation to take an oath of
36 allegiance for those who wished to become admitted to practise, but gave a right to
37 those applicants to seek exemption from that obligation. As was pointed out by the
38 Chief Justice in Re Miller [1979] V.R. 381, at p.383, this appears to be a recognition
39 by Parliament of the importance attaching to that obligation. It is therefore neither
40 necessary nor desirable that any opinion should be expressed as to the right of persons
41 other than aliens or non-citizens to seek exemption under the amended sub-section.
42 The present applicant is a citizen of a foreign country and the considerations
43 applicable to him are not necessarily considerations applicable to citizens of this
44 country, nor to persons who may hold dual citizenship."
45
46 Dual citizenship is not a dual nationality this as the Framers of the Constitution made clear;
47
49 Mr. SYMON.-
50 Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in
51 each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are
Page 56
1 citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be
2 the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and
3 myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the
4 Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.
5
6 Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal
7
8 Moller v Board of Examiners for Legal Practitioners [1999] VSCA 116 (30 July 1999)
9 24. Mr Bevan-John's next submissions related to the appellant's personal position. He put it
10 that the appellant has already publicly and deliberately declared his allegiance to
11 Australia and that the purpose of his taking the oath has been fulfilled by his pledge upon
12 taking citizenship. He submitted that it was unfair to use the exemptive power under
13 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lpa1996120/" the
14 Act to excuse those who do not want to make any commitment of allegiance to
15 Australia at all and to deny it in respect of one who has already made the solemn pledge
16 of that allegiance when he formally undertook Australian citizenship.
17 And
18 32. The requirement which the Court imposes on those seeking admission to practise as
19 barristers and solicitors in this State to take an oath or make an affirmation of allegiance
20 retains a significance which goes beyond the mere academic and the pompous. Young,
21 C.J. explained its importance in Re Miller [1979] V.R. 381 at 383 in terms of the
22 statutory recognition given by the Parliament to the oath of allegiance and its
23 administration to persons carrying out significant functions in this State.
24 33. To my mind his Honour's comments remain valid, notwithstanding the differences to be
25 found between the terms of HYPERLINK
26 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lpa1996120/s6.html" s.6 of the
27 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lpa1996120/" Legal
28 Practice Act 1996 and those which existed in s.5 of the Legal Profession Practice Act
29 1958. As Street, C.J. said in Re Howard [1976] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 641 at 643, the significance
30 of the oath being administered to those wishing to practise as barristers and solicitors is
31 its reminder to them that their role will be to serve law and justice in the State, of which
32 the Sovereign is the fountainhead.
33
34 34. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Court, in exercising its role as the ultimate
35 controller of the profession, imposes as one of the prerequisites for admission to practise
36 a promise of allegiance and does not lightly entertain applications to exempt persons
37 from that obligation. Where, as here, exemption was sought on the grounds of a strongly
38 held commitment to a republican model of government and a fear of compromising
39 conscience and principles if required to take an oath of allegiance, it is equally, in my
40 view, not surprising that His Honour exercised his discretion against exemption.
41 Again;
42 He submitted that it was unfair to use the exemptive power under HYPERLINK
43 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lpa1996120/" the Act to excuse
44 those who do not want to make any commitment of allegiance to Australia at all and to
45 deny it in respect of one who has already made the solemn pledge of that allegiance when
46 he formally undertook Australian citizenship.
47

Page 57
1 What was misconceived was that the “oath of alliance” is not as to “citizenship” but to
2 “naturalization” in regard of Subsection 51(xix) op the Constitution The oath of alliance to be
3 admitted to the Bar to practice in the State of Victoria is a different kind of alliance as it related
4 to uphold the specific laws of the State of Victoria. The oath of alliance in the State of NSW, for
5 example, is to uphold the laws of that State when seeking admission to the Bar there.
6 There can be no “oath of alliance” in regard of “Australian citizenship” as referred to by the
7 Framers of the Constitution as it is obtained “AUTOMATICALLY” when obtaining state
8 citizenship.
9
10 As I perceived it at the time of what I considered to be “naturalization” I made an oath of
11 alliance to become a subject of the British Monarch and indeed the Dutch Government advised
12 me that by taking up this naturalization I no longer have the Dutch nationality. This being so
13 then clearly the “oath of alliance” was in regard of the naturalization powers provided for within
14 Subsection 51(xix) to naturalize “aliens” to become British nationals, and as such nothing to do
15 with “citizenship” as to being to include “franchise”.
16
17 It is not relevant if the intentions of the Commonwealth of Australia is to include “franchise” as
18 it simply is unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES.
19
20 Many “aliens” who arrived as children in the Commonwealth of Australia with their parents,
21 who subsequently naturalized, found that years later they never were actually naturalized even so
22 they were voting in elections. Indeed, the Australian Electoral Commission is on record that
23 people were found not to be naturalized and so not entitled to vote even so they had filled out a
24 card to be an Australian citizen and so entitled to vote.
25
26 What has occurred that often “children” understood, as their parents did, that they were
27 naturalized at the time their parents were but this was somehow omitted from the documentation
28 to show so. My own 45 year old stepdaughter discovered this only a few years ago! By this,
29 while she considers herself to be an State citizen, and so an Australian citizen and also having
30 been naturalized, the Commonwealth of Australia however never accept any of this. The Pochi
31 case is another clear example, where Mr. Pochi was deported where the High Court of Australia
32 in 1982 held he was not an “Australian citizens” despite that he had lived for most of this life and
33 had children here. The High Court of Australia confusing “Australian citizenship” with
34 “nationality”.
35
36 To many “Australian citizenship” remains to be relating to having political rights and nothing to
37 do with nationality, and yet the Commonwealth of Australia keep advertising about “Australian
38 citizenship” but in real terms may and does in fact refer to some concocted “Australian
39 nationality” even so no constitutional powers exist in that regard.
40
41 Therefore, the fact that I had filled in enrolments cards to vote in Federal elections is of no
42 meaning where this was done upon misconceptions created by the Commonwealth of Australia
43 itself to refer to “Australian citizenship” but which in fact was not at all referring to “franchise”
44 of citizenship as such but to some purported Australian nationality.
45
46 As a self educated “constitutionalist”, I view that the Racial Discrimination Act in effect (even
47 so unconstitutional in its conception) in fact robs every person of their “citizenship” and so their
48 “franchise” as the Framers made clear that any legislation within the race provisions disqualified
49 every such person of their “citizenship” and so their franchise”. Hence, there can be no one who
50 is eligible to vote or to be a Member of Parliament.

Page 58
1 In any event, where I claim that constitutionally I am a British national if the naturalization was
2 effected within the constitutional provisions of subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution, and the
3 High Court of Australia already made clear in Sue v Hill that British nationals are “foreigners”
4 (“aliens”) and so kicked out Heather Hill, then clearly I cannot be deemed to be entitled to vote
5 in any event. Australians are “Australians” by the fact that they are residing within the
6 Commonwealth of Australia, not because they are naturalised or born in the Commonwealth of
7 Australia.
8
9 Those born in the United Kingdom, but residing then in the colonies (now States) and
10 participating in the Constitution Conventions to create a federation nevertheless
11 considered themselves to be Australians, besides being British nationals.
12
13 Lord Denning M.R. in Reg. v.
14 Governor of Brixton Prison; Ex parte Soblen (1963) 2 QB 243, at p 299, stated
15
16 4. The law of this country is very jealous of any infringement of personal
17 liberty (Cox v. Hakes (1890) 15 App Cas 506, at p 527) and a statute or
18 statutory instrument which purports to impair a right to personal liberty is
19 interpreted, if possible, so as to respect that right: R. v. Cannon Row Police
20 Station (Inspector) (1922) 91 LJKB 98, at p 106.
21
22 CHU KHENG LIM AND OTHERS v. THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL
23 GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER (1992) 176 CLR 1 F.C. 92/051
24 14. Aliens, not being members of the community that constitutes the body
25 politic of Australia, have no right to enter or remain in Australia unless
26 such right is expressly granted. Laws regulating their entry to and providing
27 for their departure from Australia (including deportation, if necessary) are
28 directly connected with their alien status. And laws specifying the
29 conditions on and subject to which they may enter and remain in Australia are
30 also connected with their status as aliens to the extent that they are capable
31 of being seen as appropriate or adapted to regulating entry or facilitating
32 departure if and when departure is required((107)
33
34 This indicates that permission to be and remain in Australia is not depending on being a natural
35 or born national, but rather if one has become a member of the body politic of Australia. This
36 body politic is in fact being an Australian citizen.
37 The right of exercising any rights as an “Australian citizen” is enshrined in the Constitution
38
40
41 Mr. DEAKIN.-
42
43 In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
44
45 It falls under personal liberties to exercise ones right to vote or not to vote.
46
47
48 LEGAL FICTION
49 Sue v Hill Authority;
50

Page 59
1 GRADUAL INDEPENDENCE, that is what the High Court of Australia argued in the Sue v Hill
2 case to oust her, despite being a subject of the British Crown from the Senate. Quit frankly, at
3 that time, I had myself argued that in 1919 by the signing of the Treaty of Versailles the
4 Commonwealth of Australia had become in effect an INDEPENDENT nation and by this the
5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was no more valid then any other
6 colonial legislation.
7 The Family Court of Australia even published this in its judgment!
8
9 But, while I had this great kind of argument as to why the Commonwealth of Australia was an
10 INDEPENDENT nation, I later discovered that constitutionally this could not be so. If, the
11 Commonwealth of Australia somehow became an INDEPENDENT nation then at some point of
12 time legislation enacted in the commonwealth of Australia and in any of the states would be
13 defective as they would no longer be what the respective Constitutions required.
14 The commonwealth of Australia exist as a part POLITICAL UNION between the States, and it
15 would be sheer impossible for the Commonwealth of Australia to somehow then dictate the
16 States if it remained to be colonial entities or become independent. No such constitutional
17 powers were ever provided for in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
18 and the Framers of the Constitution clearly opposed such possibility without a Section 128
19 referendum! Indeed, they made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia could not , so to say,
20 throw off the Imperial connection under this Constitution.
21 The signing of the Treaty of Versailles could not have somehow invoked the Commonwealth
22 of Australia to become INDEPENDENT and neither can there be something like a gradual
23 becoming of INDEPENDENT as to even contemplate this on constitutional grounds would mean
24 that having a Constitution is of no avail as no one will know when things are purportedly
25 changed over time as it be the judges who may declare what they view by hindsight.
26 The POLITICAL UNION between the Colonies (now States) to form a political alliance, albeit
27 partly, was a contract that was binding among them. However, can we accept that somehow a
28 contracts between them on partial political issues somehow then can change everything?
29 Would this mean that if tenants of a building are making an alliance then somehow they can
30 become the owners of the building merely because they claim that over time they became the
31 owners by what they did?
32
33 As the Framers of the constitution made clear, “external affairs” gave the Commonwealth of
34 Australia powers to make treaties but only for so far it already was within its constitutional
35 powers. It could not use it to acquire somehow powers it didn’t possess in the first place. As
36 such, while the Commonwealth of Australia, for example, may make a treaty with any other
37 foreign nation that their citizens drivers licences will be accepted as valid without needing a
38 international driving licence, the truth of the matter is that there is no constitutional powers for
39 the Commonwealth of Australia to do so in the first place, as only the States have the legislative
40 powers in that regard.
41 If it were to be allowed for the Commonwealth of Australia to make any kind of treaty in regard
42 of matters the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) specifically withheld
43 any legislative powers for, then the whole notion of having a Constitution that can only be
44 amended by way of Section 128 referendum no longer is applicable as the Commonwealth of
45 Australia can simply circumvent any constitutional limitation by making treaties in regard of
46 matters it didn’t have constitutional powers for.
47 The Constitution is “constant” and can only be amended by Section 128 referendum. CoAG
48 (Council of Australian Governments) is an unconstitutional entity and cannot therefore somehow
49 circumvent Section 128 provisions either.
50

Page 60
1 When I contested the legal validity of the application of the Cross Vesting Act, in 1994, I was, so
2 to say, thrown out by the Courts, yet in 1999 the High Court of Australia in the Wakim case then
3 formally declared the purported Cross vesting act to be unconstitutional.
4
5 In my 28 October 2002 to Mr Justice Michael Kirby I contested the validity of the Australian
6 Act, and on 17 June 2003 His Honour in the MIMA case then made clear the Australian Act had
7 no legal enforcement against the Constitution.
8
9 It doesn’t matter if the States therefore somehow agreed to the enacting of the “Australian Act”
10 as it was beyond the powers of Subsection 51(xxxvii) to allow for this in that this subsection
11 only allows for matters to be referred that is in dispute between two or more States but not all
12 States. The “Australian Act” could not be held to have been a matter of dispute between two or
13 more States such as the Murray River can be!
14 There never was any constitutional powers given to the High Court of Australia to declare the
15 Commonwealth of Australia to be some alleged INDEPENDENT nation as its constitutional
16 powers are bounded by the limits of the Constitution.
17 Are we next going to have that essentially we have become part of the Republic of Indonesia
18 because we now are enacting legislation dealing with refugees to please the Indonesian
19 Government?
20
21 As Author of various books about certain constitutional issues under the INSPECTOR-
22 RIKATI® label I have extensively canvassed those constitutional issues, and rely upon my past
23 published books also in support of this argument that Australians are Australians because they
24 are living in the Continent of Australia and that they are British nationals and this is
25 EMBEDDED in the Constitution to remain so. No one can point out that there is a country
26 named Australia where it makes laws regarding, say, driving licences, council rates, etc for the
27 whole of the nation. The Commonwealth of Australia doesn’t even have legislative powers over
28 local governments in the States.
29
30 It is simply a LEGAL FICTION that the Commonwealth of Australia is a INDEPENDENT
31 nation, and so also that somehow the Commonwealth of Australia has a “Queen of Australia”.
32
33 Would it not encompass that judicial officers who made an oath of alliance to the British
34 Monarch and since remained judges of the Courts but never did make a new alliance to the
35 pretended “Queen of Australia” then are disqualified from sitting as judicial officers at the
36 bench of the Queens Courts?
37
38 Surely, no one could accept that lawyers who swore an oath of alliance to the British Monarch
39 somehow could continue to be members of the Bar and be judicial officers when we somehow
40 now hold that the British Monarch and its subjects are all “foreigners” and ousted from not only
41 voting but also from being Members of Parliament, as Heather Hill was?
42
43 When I applied to naturalize it was in the perception that the I would become a British national
44 with the British Crown as head of the Empire. It is not, in my view, for the High Court of
45 Australia then to somehow imply later with the Sue v Hill case that somehow I never gained any
46 alliance to the British Crown, neither became a subject of the British crown but somehow
47 became a subject to a non existing Queen of Australia of a fictional country.
48
49 In my 30 September 2003 published book titled;
50

Page 61
1 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
2 A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
3 ISBN 0-9580569-6-X
4
5 I canvassed the issue then about the case of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge as to what I
6 considered to be their wrongful conviction. I pointed out that it was immaterial what was stated
7 on the flip side of the membership card as what was relevant was that the membership Card
8 showed that the person was a Member of Pauline Hanson One nation and as such were full
9 members for purpose of legislation. On 8 October 2003 the Queensland Attorney-General and
10 Minister of Justice then wrote to me that in fact legal issues I had raised had not been canvassed
11 by any of the parties in any of the proceedings. Yet, subsequently the Court of Appeal about
12 word for word used the very legal argument I had used in my book as to overturn the
13 convictions.
14
15 What was clear is that those who joined Pauline Hanson One Nation for all purposes were
16 “Members” regardless of what may have been stated otherwise to try to interfere with this on the
17 flip side of the membership card.
18
19 Likewise, I naturalized to become an British national referred to as “Australian” because of
20 being resident in the Commonwealth of Australia, and do not accept that somehow years later
21 the High Court of Australia, and notably beyond its constitutional powers (as it did with the
22 MABO case, as the colonies joining Federation did not accept there was a native title issue in
23 Australian colonies existing) can then interfere with my constitutional rights being a British
24 national. It is not relevant for this if the British Parliament did or did not legislate as to
25 Australians being “foreigners” as it would be ULTRA VIRES, as it has no legislative powers to
26 deny Australians their British nationality that is embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia
27 Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
28
30
31 Mr. DEAKIN.-
32
33 In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
34
35 Because no judge can be an adjudicator in his own cause, it must be clear that in effect not a
36 single judge could purport to have a position to decide this matter if his/her own position
37 depends upon the outcome of this matter to be decided.
38 It would be judicial bias for any judicial officer to decide a matter in which his very own survival
39 of being a judicial officer depends upon the outcome of the matter.
40
41 The first principles of British law incompetence, propter affectum to sit upon the trial must be
42 considered.
43 In my view a Jury of men in the language of omni exceptions majores could without difficulty
44 consider the matters and if it is tenable for a High Court of Australia to somehow create on its
45 own some kind of a LEGAL FICTION that does not exist but affects by this the very
46 constitutional rights enshrined in the Constitution!
47
48
49 Now, still assuming them to be a Jury, and of course invested with all the attributes of
50 Jurors at the Common Law, this challenge propter affectum certainly ought to hold good
51 for even were the statute construed as bearing out a different signification, still an
Page 62
1 established right was not to be overturned by any supposed negative clause, but by a direct
2 and express affirmation. It was an immutable law of justice of Great Britain, in fact of
3 every civilised country on the face of the globe, and well laid down had that doctrine been
4 from time immemorial, so far had the doctrine been carried too, that Blackstone, book i p.
5 91. Christian's edition, conceives it impossible so monstrous and absurd an injustice should
6 ever exist any where, as that any man should be constituted a judge in his own cause.
7 And
8
9 Mr. Wentworth gave a very lucid explanation of what in law sedition meant, and how it
10 could most properly be applied, considering it a Scotticism. Mr. Chief Justice Forbes rather
11 thought the word had its origin from the Latin tongue, and his Honor, with much classic
12 taste, proceeding to elucidate his idea used an apt quotation from the Mantuan Bard -- from
13 the Æneid of Virgil 1 Book, lines 152, 3, 4, as follows:--
14 "Ac veluti magno in populo, cum soepe coorta est SEDITIO, soevitque animis ignobile
15 vulgus,
16 Iamque faces, et saxa volant -- furor arma ministrat."
17 After a most elaborate, eloquent, and argumentative appeal as to the justice and the facts
18 applicable to his client's case Mr. Wentworth again sat down.
19 Forbes C.J., Stephen and Dowling JJ, 20 June 1829
20 Source: Sydney Gazette, 23 June 1829
21
22 As already set out above that Australians (British nationals) are governed by Constitutional law
23 and British law! It is impossible for the High Court of Australia to somehow throw of the
24 Imperial powers while still maintaining that the Imperial legislation such as the Commonwealth
25 of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) remains in force albeit upon conditions what they
26 themselves consider is relevant. Some kind of, so to say, “cherry picking” tactic.
27
28 The mere fact that the people of the Commonwealth of Australia rejected a referendum to
29 become a REPUBLIC in itself underlines that Australians never accepted that the
30 Commonwealth of Australia is an INDEPENDENT nation but rather that it remains under the
31 British Crown.
32 Indeed, the monarchist argued that the British monarchy had been good to us and the Republican
33 were having their say why to keep this kind of pompous royalty if we can do without. The mere
34 fact that such kind of arguments were going on in itself indicates that the people of Australia
35 didn’t accept to become an INDEPENDENT nation and neither regarded to be so. While for
36 political purposes members of parliament and indeed those in seat of power of Government may
37 elect wanting to wield unlimited powers, it is not the function of the High Court of Australia to
38 look after their power hungry desires but to declare constitutional provisions as intended by the
39 Framers of the Constitution aligned with what was amended by successful referendums.
40
41 David Hick, as I view it, was therefore a British national by birth, irrespective if his mother was
42 born in the UK!
43
44 My children and grandchildren born in the Commonwealth of Australia are all British nationals,
45 as this is their birthright that was embedded in the Constitution!
46
47 For the record, it ought to be understood that my naturalization never involved any State official,
48 as it was done at 55 Kings Street, Melbourne at the then offices of the Immigration Department,
49 and as such unlike most other people my naturalization was purely conducted by Commonwealth
50 of Australia officers, who obviously lacked any constitutional powers to provide me with
51 “franchise” as that was a State matter. It can therefore neither be argued that somehow the state
Page 63
1 of Victoria did provide me with “franchise” as it never did. It erroneously relied upon the
2 ULTRA VIRES Australian Citizenship Act 1948 as to somehow take it that I was granted
3 “franchise” where clearly this never could be so.
4
5 In the Moller v Board of Examiners for Legal Practitioners case it is clear that some “oath of
6 alliance” was required. Now, if there was some change of “oath of alliance” because of
7 purportedly the Commonwealth of Australia having become INDEPENDENT then at what time
8 was the “oath of alliance” taken by lawyers to practice at the Victorian Bar valid? And, when did
9 lawyers already have taken this “oath of alliance” to the British Monarch then make a new “oath
10 of alliance” to the purported “Queen of Australia”? Or is it that we have lawyers (including
11 judicial officers) where some have sworn an “oath of alliance” to the LEGAL FICTION of
12 Queen of Australia while others to the British monarch?
13
14 I take the position that it is not relevant what the High Court of Australia may purport to make
15 out of matters in the Sue v Hill case, as ultimately it is ULTRA VIRES where they are making
16 decisions that are in conflict to the intentions of the Framers (and so amended by the successful
17 referendums) as expressed in the Constitution.
18 I view it is beyond constitutional powers for the High Court of Australia to interfere with
19 constitutional provisions and as such we are and remain to be British nationals and ultimately it
20 will be up to the people to decide otherwise.
21
23 Mr. DEAKIN.-
24 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
25 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can
26 reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also
27 a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
28 whom it will embrace and unite.
29 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not
30 intend to enter into any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the
31 Constitution which we have been engaged in framing. But, sir, no man can remain
32 unmoved upon this momentous occasion. We who are assembled in this Convention are
33 about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are
34 about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I
35 can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of
36 the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
37 Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a
38 reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to
39 themselves.
40
41 Again;
42 This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
43
44 My view is that, “We, the people” have the only power to amend the Constitution and political
45 appointed judges who may lack any proper perception of what is constitutionally appropriate
46 have no powers whatsoever to rob us of our constitutional rights.
47
48 Again, if the High Court of Australia ruling in Sue v Hill that British nationals are not entitled to
49 franchise and sit in the parliament then this means every Australian by this is in effect excluded

Page 64
1 from participating in any election, because of the embedded constitutional provision that we are
2 and remain British nationals by birth or by naturalization!
3 And, as the British Parliament did provide for what the Framers of the Constitution intended that
4 any person subjected to a race legislation by this is having a disability that denies the person to
5 have citizenship and so franchise (obviously as to avoid persons subjected to race legislation to
6 overturn the legislation) then by the unconstitutional Racial Discrimination Act each and every
7 Australian is by this disqualified to have citizenship and so also franchise and to be in the
8 Parliament.
9 Unlike what I did, I found it remarkable that the High Court of Australia never appropriately
10 quoted the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates such as in the Sue v Hill,
11 Sykes v Cleary, the MABO, Pochi, and other cases. Indeed, in the Sykes v Cleary it incorrectly
12 referred to the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates, taking it out of
13 context, as I have already extensively canvassed in previous published books. Hence, likely
14 those decision will be overturned in time to come as having been erroneously made.
15
16 Therefore, on this basis also, the Court could not invoke
17 legal jurisdiction as to federal jurisdiction because if
18 Australians are all disqualified to have citizenship and so to
19 be electors, by whatever reason set out above, then the Court
20 cannot entertain any alleged breaches of electoral laws.
21
22 It might also be asked if the Commonwealth tor of Public Prosecutors lawyers made an “oath of
23 alliance” to the FICTIONAL “Queen of Australia” or made an “oath of alliance” to the British
24 Monarch. After all, we cannot uphold British constitutional law, as the Commonwealth of
25 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is by officers who have sworn an “oath of alliance’ to a
26 foreigner and by this are, so to say, perhaps bend to pursue their own cause regardless how
27 inappropriate and indeed unconstitutional this might be??
28
29 In my view, one can only have a “Queen of Australia” if there is such a country as Australia
30 where the government of that country has all powers over its subjects by its constitution. Clearly,
31 no such country exist, as like the European Union, the Commonwealth of Australia is a
32 LIMITED POLITICAL UNION where there can be no kind of monarchy existing.
33 The only reason that Australians have the Monarchy is not because the Commonwealth of
34 Australia is a Monarchy, but because it is created by a LIMITED POLITICAL UNION of the
35 Colonies (now States) who were and remain dominions of the British Empire. Hence, if the
36 States were to become independent then automatically the Commonwealth of Australia would by
37 this become INDEPENDENT provided such INDEPENDENCE was reflected by the people of
38 Australia to amend the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) that
39 Australians no longer would be British nationals, etc.
40 Again;
41 This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
42
43 In my view, it would be sedition for any judge of the High Court of Australia, having made an
44 “oath of alliance” to the British monarch then to make a ruling against the Monarch that would
45 undermine the very intentions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
46 that succession of the British Crown will be the monarchy, as for example by the Bill of Rights it
47 is well recognised that all judicial officers as well as Parliamentarians are to respect the
48 Monarchy and its position.

Page 65
1 Also, as I pursued naturalization after about 23 years having resided in the State of Victoria, and
2 as such did not quickly get naturalized but indeed took my time to understand what seemed to be
3 applicable and for all purposed Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second was the rightful
4 Monarch to the British throne, and being the British Monarch who was for all purposes was and
5 remained the Queen under which Australian State and Federal laws are enacted, then a later
6 fictitious Queen of Australia for an INDEPENDENT Australia cannot be deemed to override
7 constitutional foundations.
8 By marriage, I had a name change, from “Schorel” to “Schorel-Hlavka”, to but for all purposes
9 remain the same person. As such, regardless if for title purposes there was some alleged name
10 change the person was and remained the British Monarch, the rightful Monarch in regard of the
11 Commonwealth of Australia.
12 As I understand it the British Monarch cannot obtain an other titles as Queen of Australia where
13 no such Monarchy exist. In my view, it is an insult to name the British Monarch “Queen of
14 Australia” as being a Queen without a country.
15
16 As the British Parliament enacted Section 51(xix) that the Commonwealth of Australia could
17 naturalize “aliens” to become British subjects, then neither the Commonwealth of Australia and
18 for this matter the High Court of Australia can turn this into naturalization of “aliens” to become,
19 say, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, Indonesian or whatever other kind of nationality. The British
20 Parliament had itself no legislative power but to provide for the Commonwealth of Australia to
21 naturalize “aliens” to become British nationals, being subjects of the British Crown.
22 Indeed, if the British Parliament were to have contemplated to provide for Subsection 51(xix) for
23 naturalization for “aliens” to somehow obtain nationality of anything other then British
24 nationality then its may itself have been guilty of sedition, as it could not undermine the British
25 Crown and rights to its subjects.
26
27 In my view, the later Sue v Hill judgment, after I had already naturalized in 1994, cannot affect
28 my constitutional rights to be a British national, and neither that of my children and grand
29 children born in the Commonwealth of Australia, or for that matter other born or naturalized in
30 the Commonwealth of Australia.
31
32 As such, I am an Australian resident with British nationality since naturalization and failing there
33 being any State legislation as to define/declare “citizenship” it effectively means that no one is a
34 “State citizen” and hence neither “Commonwealth citizen” (Australian citizen).
35 END QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
36 .
38 QUOTE
39 Mr. KINGSTON.-How would you define the word "citizen"?
40 Mr. SYMON.-I do not think that it is necessary to frame a definition of "citizen." A citizen is one who
41 is entitled to the immunities of citizenship. In short, a citizen is a citizen. I do not think you require a
42 definition, of "citizen" any more than you require a definition of "man" or "subject."
43 Mr. ISAACS.-Would you include a corporation in the term "citizen"?
44 Mr. SYMON.-Why not?
45 Mr. ISAACS.-Well, in America they do not.
46 Mr. SYMON.-I do not see why a corporation existing in one colony should not have the rights of a
47 corporation in another colony. Otherwise you defeat the objects of this Constitution.
48 [start page 1783]
49 Mr. ISAACS.-I agree that that ought to be so, but the word "citizen" will not include a corporation.
50 Mr. SYMON.-Well, in my opinion it should. I
51 END QUOTE
52 .
54 QUOTE
55 Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Page 66
1 Mr. WISE.-I presume so.

2 Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
3 Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
4 inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
5 I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
6 within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
7 citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
8 to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
9 definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
10 decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
11 Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
12 Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
13 determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
14 Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
15 END QUOTE
16 .
17 The latter makes it very clear that the Federal Government was entitled to deny Aboriginals who
18 had criminal convictions to refuse entry or to deport them. It makes not one iota of difference if
19 they are Aboriginals or not. The Constitution is not in any manner providing special rights for
20 Aboriginals. In fact they were equal at the time of federation but they themselves wanted to be
21 discriminated against by having Ss51(xxvi) amended in the 1967 referendum.
22
23 What must be clear is that “citizenship” is relating to the residential position a person has and
24 nothing to do with “nationality”,
25
26 It must be clear that as I in a legal manner by way of NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
27 MATTERS did serve upon all Attorney-General this notice and the Court in the end upheld my
28 appeals then it implies that the purported Australia Citizenship Act is no more. After all that is
29 why one makes a legal challenge. The Commonwealth and the States had the opportunity to
30 prove mem wrong but they never even attempted to do so. Hence, forever they are stuck with
31 this that the purported Australia Citizenship Act is no more. And even so the High Court of
32 Australia was made aware of this it nevertheless blatantly carries on as if the Australian
33 Citizenship Act still is applicable.
34
35 In regard of Mr Julian Assange, he clearly is a British subject and entitled by this also of all
36 ordinary British rights.
37
38 While much is argued that the UK Parliament classified Australians to be foreigners in reality
39 this is meaningless this is because an ordinary act cannot override a Constitution Act like the
40 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). What was needed was to have an
41 Amendment Constitution Act for this and that never eventuated.
42 .
43 It also should be understood that (the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore)
44
45 QUOTE
46 Commonwealth citizenship.
47 139. --(1) In accordance with the position of Singapore within the Commonwealth, every
48 person who is a citizen of Singapore enjoys by virtue of that citizenship the status of a
49 Commonwealth citizen in common with the citizens of other Commonwealth countries.
50 (2) Any existing law shall, except so far as Parliament otherwise provides, apply in relation
51 to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who is not also a Commonwealth citizen as it applies
52 in relation to a Commonwealth citizen.
53 END QUOTE
54
Page 67
1 What this provides is that technically every Australian has citizenship rights of Singapore. As
2 such if it is good enough to so to say kick out Mr Barnaby Joyce for through his father being
3 entitled to have citizenship of New Zealand then well not a single Australian could be in the
4 Parliament due to the citizenship rights of Singapore.
5
6 It really would be totally absurd that if some foreign Government decides to bestow citizenship
7 upon Australians irrespective that they may have been unaware of this, then somehow they could
8 be ousted from the Parliament. It means a foreign power could effectively decide who can or
9 cannot be a Member of Australian parliaments. A very dangerous thing to allow for.
10
11 Reality is however that HCA had it all wrong. What the Framers of the Constitution intended
12 was that a person residing as a “citizen” in another country cannot then hold a seat in the
13 Parliament. Also:
14
16 QUOTE
17 III. Who is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime:
18 shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives
19 until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the expiration or remission of the sentence, or a
20 pardon, or release, or otherwise.
21 Mr. GORDON: I should like to ask Mr. Barton whether there is anything in this point: A number of
22 German fellow colonists may have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power, especially those who
23 have served in the ranks in Germany. Would it not be necessary to add after "power" in line 27 the
24 words "or who has not since been naturalised as provided in clause 30"?
25 Mr. GLYNN: You cannot have two, allegiances.
26 Mr. BARTON: No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against us.
27 Sir GEORGE TURNER: He may be Minister of Defence.
28 Mr. CARRUTHERS: I would like to put a case to Mr. Barton. It may happen that treaties may be in
29 force between say England and Japan. There is a treaty almost in operation on the very lines I am
30 citing that will give to a British subject travelling in Japan practically the same rights and privileges as
31 he would enjoy as a citizen of his own country. Surely it is never intended that by a person travelling in
32 another country, who becomes entitled to privileges conferred on him by a treaty between two high
33 powers, he should be disqualified from holding a seat in the Federal Parliament. Our members of
34 Parliament who are hardworked take their summer trips, and it may be that some of them may come
35 back and find they have lost their seats as a result of this clause.
36 Clause as read agreed to.

37 END QUOTE
38
40 QUOTE
41 Sir JOHN BRAY: I am very glad to hear that the committee considered the point, although I think
42 they arrived at a very unwise decision. The hon. gentleman who last spoke is mistaken in what I take to
43 be the drift of all parliaments. No parliament lives out the full term of its existence. It is always
44 dissolved before it actually expires, and so it would be in this [start page 645] case. The practice almost
45 invariably is for the house to be dissolved, and a new house elected, before the expiration of the three
46 years, the object being that there shall always be a parliament in existence. The intention is not that the
47 members shall be elected for three years, but that they shall absolutely serve for three years, and the
48 three years ought for the sake of convenience to date from the first meeting of parliament. At any rate,
49 we ought to ensure that all the members shall be elected for the same term, and that one member's
50 time shall not expire three or four weeks before the term of another member, as might be the case
51 under this clause.
Page 68
1 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: No!
2 Sir JOHN BRAY: I think so, because the date appointed for the return of the writs is not necessarily
3 the same in every district.
4 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The clause does not say that each member shall sit for three years, but
5 that the house shall endure for that time!
6 Sir JOHN BRAY: But the house consists of members. At any rate, the operation of the clause is not
7 very clear, and I would ask hon. members to agree to the amendment I have proposed.
8 Mr. BAKER: The hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, says that this clause is not intended to fix the
9 term for which members of the house shall hold office, but to fix the duration of the house itself; but
10 there can be no house without members. If the writs are returned at different dates, members of
11 parliament will hold office for different periods.
12 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: No!
13 Mr. BAKER: That is how it strikes me. If the writ of one member is returned three weeks before that
14 of another, the first man will be a member of parliament for three weeks longer than the other.
15 Mr. BARTON: The writs are appointed to be returned on the one day!
16 Mr. WRIXON: I must say that the amendment of the hon. member, Sir John Bray, commends itself
17 to my mind. Until parliament meets, and the members present themselves, you do not really know who
18 is a member of parliament and who is not. Up to that time a man is only returned to serve in
19 parliament, and it may be that he will not take the oath when he presents himself at the table, or it may
20 be that he is disqualified, and, therefore, until the house meets, and the members take the oath, and
21 qualify themselves, you do not know who are members of parliament and who are not. It seems to me,
22 therefore, that you have one uniform date at which you know those who really are members of
23 parliament when you start from the first meeting of parliament. But if the day of the return of the
24 writs is uncertain, you will not know who are members of parliament until they are actually sworn in.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 It is clear that regarding Phil Cleary that he was entitled to be a candidate in the Federal election
28 regardless if he held any State employment because as was made clear it is only when the person
29 presents himself to make an oath to accept the seat upon the return of the writs that then the issue
30 of qualification is relevant. It is not at all at the time the election is being held but when the
31 person presents himself at the return of the writs that it is relevant if the person is or is not
32 qualified to take up the seat. As such, any person elected in a political elections can still be a
33 bankrupts as long as the person has this set aside or completed prior to making an oath to take up
34 the seat elected for.
35
36 It should be clear that “citizenship is a State issue and the Commonwealth has no constitutional
37 powers to define/declare citizenship.
38
40 QUOTE
41 Mr. SYMON.-Of course, the absolute control by a state of everything within its own borders is retained
42 by this Constitution, except in respect to such matters as are expressly handed over to the
43 Commonwealth.
44 END QUOTE
45
47 QUOTE
48 Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing crime to the
49 Commonwealth, but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make special laws as to alien races; and the
50 moment you do that the power of making such laws does not remain in the hands of the states; and if you
51 place in the hands of the Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should

Page 69
1 not defeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth. I do not think that that applies at all, however, to
2 any power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we do not give any such power to
3 the Commonwealth, whilst we do give the Commonwealth power with regard to alien races; and
4 having given that power, we should take care not to take away an incident of it which it may be
5 necessary for the Commonwealth to use by way of regulation. I have had great hesitation about this
6 matter, but I think I shall be prevented from voting for the first part; and as to establishing any religion, that is
7 so absolutely out of the question, so entirely not to be expected-
8 Mr. SYMON.-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not be established.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 *.
12
13 **#**
14
15 *.
16
17 **#**
19 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
20 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
21 the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
22 that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
23 Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
24 any private person would be.
25 END QUOTE
26 .
27 Alec Kruger & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia; George Ernest Bray & Ors v The
28 Commonwealth of Australia [1997] HCA 27 (31 July 1997)
29 Matter No M21 of 1995
30 QUOTE
31 "Q.2. Does the Constitution contain any right, guarantee, immunity, freedom or provision as referred to in
32 paragraph 29 of the Amended Statement of Claim, a breach of which by -
33 (a) an officer of the Commonwealth; or
34 (b) a person acting for and on behalf of the Commonwealth;
35 gives rise to a right of action (distinct from a right of action in tort or for breach of contract) against the
36 Commonwealth sounding in damages?"
37 A. No.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 It is clear that HCA misinterpreted what the true meaning and application of the constitution
41 stands for. As every Minister/official can be sued for wrongdoing. This is why Section 75
42 provides for this
43
44 *. Do you accept that the Government can deny people to attend to a religious or other service?
45
46 **#** Section 116 specifically prevent the Commonwealth to make any laws that limits in any
47 way a persons right to pursue a religion or non-religion. Not even a so called “State of
48 Emergency” can override the constitution. The moment you allow for such ridiculous nonsense
49 then politicians will bit by bit use this for whatever political purpose. In my view nothing any
50 Government can do to deny a person to participate in a religion or non-religious service.
51
52 ADDRESS TO THE COURT
53 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
Page 70
1 QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

2 As shown below in greater extend the question of the Defendants religion itself would be an
3 invasion as to his rights. Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion as the
4 matter in U.S. Supreme Court.
5
6 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
7 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any
8 religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall
9 be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
10
11 WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
12 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,
13 Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
14
15 1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the
16 prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it
17 being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the
18 words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to
19 formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
20 2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is
21 contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
22 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose
23 conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are
24 based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those
25 whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
26 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of
27 exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely,
28 should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its
29 coverage. Pp. 361-367.
30
31 And;
32
33 http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
34
35 Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
36 Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and
37 support materials provided in the following link:
38
39 Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
40
41 Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a
42 recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not
43 require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious
44 exemption to be challenged.
45
46 And
47 Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law.
48 You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to
49 submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do
50 not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
51 And
52 Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the
53 law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are
54 betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.
55
56 What appears to be clear is that a “religious objection” is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can be as
57 this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be associated with any particular religion as
58 this would also interfere with Section 116 of the Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the “religious
59 objection” Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious
60 person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED
Page 71
1 STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the “religious objection” applies as much to non
2 religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is
3 entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned.
4 END QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
5
6 It should be clear that I specifically raised this issue and it doesn’t just apply to voting or military
7 service but to whatever.
8
9 *. What about preventing people to come near Aboriginals in the country?
10
11 **#** There is no such constitutional powers for this. Ss51(xxvi) of the constitution actually
12 only allows the Commonwealth of Australia (not the States) to legislate against, I repeat again
13 against a race, being it Aboriginals or other races but not against the General Community. But it
14 was designed to relate to all members of that race. As such, the Commonwealth could for
15 example order that all persons of the Aboriginal race shall be kept in detention at Christmas
16 Island but then this shall also include lawyers, doctors, etc, of that race, regardless where in the
17 Commonwealth they reside. This because all laws must be uniform for all people of that specific
18 race.
19
20 *. Can the States provide for special race laws like they do in regard of Aboriginals?
21
22 **#** Not at all as since the 1967 ss51(xxvi) referendum being successful only the
23 Commonwealth can so and as such any purported State treaty with Aboriginals is utter and sheer
24 nonsense as they have no constitutional validity.
25
26 *. What about those protestors who were fined?
27
28 **#** In my view they were exercising their political rights of protest and I view the fines
29 should be struck out by the courts and those who issued them being dealt with for misuse and
30 abuse of power.
31 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/protesters-cop-nearly-dollar50k-in-fines/ar-
32 BB12q76G?ocid=spartandhp
33 Protesters cop nearly $50k in fines
34
35 And consider also:
36 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/man-is-fined-dollar1000-for-going-for-a-morning-walk-despite-
37 exercise-being-allowed-because-he-gave-police-several-different-reasons-for-leaving-home/ar-
38 BB12lYht?ocid=spartandhp
39 Man is fined $1,000 for going for a morning walk despite exercise being allowed - because he gave police
40 'several different reasons' for leaving home
41
42 Versus:
43 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/nsw-arts-minister-don-harwin-resigns-after-visiting-holiday-home-in-
44 breach-of-coronavirus-lockdown-rules/ar-BB12qk5L?ocid=spartandhp
45 NSW Arts Minister Don Harwin resigns after visiting holiday home in breach of coronavirus lockdown rules
46
47 MOSLEMS PARTY WITH POLICE BLESSING WHILE THE REST OF US ARE LOCKED DOWN
48 April 2, 2020 Ben Copenhagen
49 https://newaustralianbulletin.com/2020/04/02/moslems-party-with-police-blessing-while-the-rest-of-us-are-locked-
50 down/
51 MOSLEMS PARTY WITH POLICE BLESSING WHILE THE REST OF US ARE LOCKED DOWN
52 QUOTE
53 Melbourne police have come under fire for allowing a wedding party of Moslems to continue their
54 celebrations in spite of harsh new penalties being handed down for breaching social distancing.
55 More than 30 guests were allowed to whoop it up Moslem-style at a wedding ceremony at Broadmeadows on
56 Sunday. The family eagerly uploaded pictures of their extended list of family of friends breaking rules as they
57 belly-danced the night away.

Page 72
1 Despite concerned citizens calling the police, the family was allowed to continue on the promise that each
2 attendee maintain the mandatory social distance of 1.5 metres from other guests.
3 The Moslems then laughed and gave the cops the finger as they cha-chaed them out of the hall and back to
4 their patrol cars, possibly with massive doses of Mao’s Revenge to share with their families.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 And then this:
8 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/point-of-contagion-mass-gatherings-and-the-coronavirus/ar-
9 BB12r2jc?ocid=spartandhp
10 Point of contagion: Mass gatherings and the coronavirus
11
12 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/my-family-is-in-hotel-quarantine-and-theres-no-dignity-in-it/ar-
13 BB12m0Id?ocid=spartandhp
14 My family is in hotel quarantine and there's no dignity in it
15
16 QUOTE 12-4-2020 EMAIL
17 The church gave notice the day before Judge Walker entered the order. Th city could have filed a response.
18 As Eugene Volokh noted on the religionlaw list, the plaintiffs made this representation to the court, which I
19 have no reason to doubt is true:
20
21 “Comes the Plaintiff, On Fire Christian Center, Inc., by counsel, and, pursuant to the Court’s Notice on
22 Summons issued in the above-styled case (DN 4), notifies the Court that it has tendered a Summons hereto
23 for each of Defendants Greg Fischer, in his official capacity as Mayor of Louisville Metro, and the City of
24 Louisville as Exhibits 1 and 2. Plaintiff further attests in this Notice that it has tendered a copy of the
25 Complaint (DN 1), the Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for
26 Emergency Hearing (DN 3), the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary
27 Restraining order (DN 3-1) and its Exhibits (DN 3-2, 3-3, 3-4), and the proposed Order Granting Plaintiff’s
28 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (DN 3-5), to counsel for Defendant Greg Fischer by electronic
29 mail dated April 10, 2020. Pursuant to the Court’s Notice on Summons, Plaintiff hereby notifies the Court
30 that it does not intend to serve any summons through the Kentucky Secretary of State.”
31
32 Judge Walker’s order provides for a prompt hearing:
33
34 “8. The Court GRANTS On Fire’s request for Oral Argument. The Court will hold a telephonic hearing on
35 the preliminary injunction motion on April 14, 2020 at 11:00 A.M. Counsel shall email Ms. Megan Jackson
36 at Megan_Jackson@kywd.uscourts.gov for the hearing’s call-in number and access code. Members of the
37 public interested in listening to the hearing may also email Ms. Jackson.”
38
39 One or more list members may want to email Ms. Jackson so they can listen to the hearing and give u s a
40 report.
41
42 Although the entry of a TRO is not ordinarily appealable, I think this one would have been, if public health
43 were seriously at risk. At least, if it mattered, the city could have sought an immediate stay of the TRO, even
44 in the middle of the night. Remember that “the Courts of the United States shall always be open.” But if the
45 city did not have an order in place or did not intend to do anything, as some list members have suggested,
46 then it is understandable that the city would wait four days for a hearing.
47
48 Mark
49
50 Mark S. Scarberry
51 Professor of Law
52 Pepperdine University
53 Rick J. Caruso School of Law
54 END QUOTE 12-4-2020 EMAIL

Page 73
1
2 In my view considering the Authority of WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970),
3 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
4 COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970,
5 Decided June 15, 1970 I suspect the Court will strike down any law that interferes with religious
6 and non-religious rights and conduct unless a person appears before the court specifically
7 charged being an infected person against whom the State has authority to prohibit to engage in
8 conduct that could jeopardize the health of others. Not merely assume any person regardless if
9 not infected is unilaterally denied to engage in religious/non-religious practices.
10 Those who for example worship the Sun as much can be deemed to practice their non-religious
11 beliefs then those who attend to a place of worship for religious purposes.
12
13 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/health-minister-issues-an-urgent-plea-to-australians-this-easter-as-
14 police-ramp-up-their-patrols-at-beaches-churches-and-family-gatherings/ar-BB12rQPo?ocid=spartandhp
15 Health minister issues an urgent plea to Australians this Easter - as police ramp up their patrols at beaches,
16 churches and family gatherings
17 QUOTE
18 The federal Health Minister has warned Australians it is vital to follow social distancing restrictions over the
19 Easter weekend.
20 'This, in many ways, is the most important weekend we may face in the whole course of the virus,' Greg Hunt
21 said on Thursday.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 While the Federal Minister for Health Greg Hunt actually was in my view responsible for the
25 gigantic disaster regarding QUARANTINE issues regarding the Ruby Princes to allow
26 disembarking of passengers without any testing and now about a dozen have died and many
27 more infected this bloke instead of resigning for gross incompetent is now telling us what we
28 should be doing.
29
30 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/russian-roulette-with-our-lives-ruby-princess-passenger-outraged/ar-
31 BB12rr89?ocid=spartandhp
32 'Russian roulette with our lives': Ruby Princess passenger outraged
33
34 And then consider this:
35 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/funeral-for-very-significant-elder-allowed-to-go-ahead-with-80-
36 mourners/ar-BB12mgxA?ocid=spartandhp
37 Funeral for 'very significant elder' allowed to go ahead with 80 mourners
38 QUOTE
39 Eighty mourners were granted an exemption by the state's top doctor to attend a funeral on Thursday for a
40 "significant" First Nation elder who died in central Queensland.
41 The service was given the green light by Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young, despite strict rules dictating
42 only 10 people were permitted to attend a funeral.
43 Dr Young said the funeral, scheduled for Thursday morning, was held outside, with some mourners asked to
44 watch on from their cars to reduce the risk of a potential spread of the coronavirus.
45 "This is a very significant elder for that community, who has died, and normally they would expect many,
46 many hundreds - if not thousands - of people to attend," she said.
47 END QUOTE
48
49 It is the Federal Government that has the sole legislative powers regarding races and so
50 Aboriginals and yet again we have this nonsense of reverse racial discrimination. Queensland
51 should have, if they had appropriate legislative powers that is, deal with all persons equally.
52 Clearly this is not happening. The same in Victoria, where the wedding photo of all those people
53 pressed against each other clearly shows a total disregard to keep any distance between each
Page 74
1 other. And we had another member of parliament who reportedly took his family to the beach.
2 This may underline, as it appears to me, that those politicians are really using the CONVID-19
3 HOAX as otherwise they would not do as they did..
4
5 *. Are you claiming that COVID-19 is a hoax?
6
7 **#** I didn’t say that, what I am saying is the politicians are doing as if it is a hoax.
8 But let us go further into this.
9 A NYC doctor who already spend about 20 years in ICU (Intensive Care Unit) made a video
10 warning that the patients he has many show absurd conditions he never has seen before and that
11 in some cases using ventilators can be fatal to the patient because it causes further problems.
12
13 https://youtu.be/Ppy7ZU0oDWg
14 NYC 10 minute video. New York intensive care Doctor confirms 5g symptoms and NOT covid19!
15
16 And then with all the media reports and other propaganda about hospitals being overflowed with
17 patients then watch this:
18 https://youtu.be/3heng8bKS9A Film your Hospital Dayton, Ohio, COVID HOAX
19 Then watch this:
20 https://youtu.be/zoK6h4Mg7E8
21 Boom Info on Maeve Kennedy, Birx, Gates – CORRECTED
22 Also:
23 Event 201 https://youtu.be/Eq4lu0xfMq0 The planned Coronavirus
24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq4lu0xfMq0&feature=youtu.be
25
26 https://youtu.be/aEubPR36pzk
27 Wait you can get reinfected
28
29 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/victorias-stage-3-coronavirus-restrictions-raise-mp-concerns-about-
30 civil-liberties-stupid-restrictions/ar-BB12lf5P?ocid=spartandhp
31 QUOTE
32 Australia facing rice shortage amid…
33
34 Victorian crossbenchers have called on the Government to immediately review some of the most draconian
35 regulations put in place to suppress the spread of coronavirus, including directions prohibiting people sitting
36 alone in public spaces and going fishing.
37 The Reason Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens said many of the restrictions around solitary
38 activities, or activities conducted as a household that abided by social distancing, needed to be fine-tuned to
39 make them sustainable for the long-term.
40 At the moment, there are only four reasons Victorians can leave their homes — for food and supplies,
41 medical care, exercise, and work or education.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 https://www.bitchute.com/video/gDd8cQkohNJE/ & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwl__8rivG8
45 Montana physician Dr. Annie Bukacek discusses how COVID 19 death certificates are being manipulated
46
47 Basically if is someone tells the doctor that his brother was a heavy smoker and died because of
48 it, then the doctor will likely record this as the cause of death, this even so the person may never
49 have been a smoker.
50
51 The CDC Confesses to Lying About COVID-19 Death Numbers
52 http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-cdc-confesses-to-lying-about-covid.html
53 Anonymous View
54 2 days ago ... (See “Montana physician Dr. Annie Bukacek discusses how COVID-19 death certificates are being
55 manipulated,” YouTube, April 6) Why should ...
56
Page 75
1 The High Wire.com

2 Re CDC website
3 QUOTE
4
5 QUOTE
6
7 The High Wire.com
8 Re CDC website
9 QUOTE
10
11 END QUOTE
12
13 The High Wire.com
14 Re CDC website
15 QUOTE
16
17 END QUOTE
18
Page 76
1 The High Wire.com

2 Re CDC website
3 QUOTE
4
5 END QUOTE
6
7 A Breakdown on Current Testing Procedures
8 QUOTE
9
10 END QUOTE
11
13 QUOTE
14
15 END QUOTE
16
Page 77

2 QUOTE
3
4 END QUOTE
5
7 QUOTE
8
9
10 END QUOTE
11
13 QUOTE
14
15 END QUOTE
16
17 From the above it is reasonable to conclude that COVID-19 can be found in septic tanks not used
18 since the COVID-19 claim was made, and indeed may also be checked for in the many years I
19 took water samples, and kept them stored, of the “UNTREATED” water that is supplied in
20 water taps in large parts of the Mallee in Victoria and used to grow wheat, etc. As such, those so
21 called “healthy breakfast cereals” could very well and in my view most likely are laced with
22 lots of poisons. And this may also perhaps explain the drastically increase in mental health
23 problems.
24 What we have is that GWMWater reportedly owned by the State Government is willing to act in
25 clear violation of provisions:
26 As the following email states
27 QUOTE

Page 78
1 The only exceptions are if the property has been declared derelict by the local council or it is vacant
2 land.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 Again: “or it is vacant land”. The property has always been vacant land and never had a residence
6 upon it. As such by GWMWater own admission it cannot charge any rates.
7 Yet is nevertheless tried previously using a Debt Collection Agency but failed miserably.
8
9 I advised to use the EWOV (Ombudsman) who claimed it is a legal matter. Reality is that
10 GWMWater pursues to charge me for water connection to a vacant land and for water that is
11 “UNTREATED” and so useless to me. Eventually this might be ending up in the courts but in
12 the meantime GWMWater is also in violation of regulations as it provides “UNTREATED” to
13 household taps without using any specific coloured coded pipes, and taps and one day some
14 innocent visitors to some area may end up sick if not dead, as I set out below.
15
16 QUOTE 20150407-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Jill Hennessy Minister Re EWOV2004-317-570-etc
17 Just consider if a bus load of children were to stop say at a service station or near a water tap and
18 using the “untreated water” without being warned this is so and then fall ill or even due then I
19 suspect people will pursue revenge at the very least, in particular if they become aware of my
20 writings and the blatant ongoing disregard by Members of Parliament and relevant Ministers and
21 staff of the various departments.
22 END QUOTE 20150407-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Jill Hennessy Minister Re EWOV2004-317-570-etc
23
24 QUOTE GWMWater 8-1-2014 correspondence
From: Helen Friend <helen.friend@gwmwater.org.au>
To: schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
Cc: spservices@ewov.com.au
Date: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 04:58 pm

Subject: FW: New Assisted Referral - 2014/570 Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
Attachments: Text version of this message. (5KB)
(3KB)
(4KB)
image001.png (8KB)
Letter of response to Mr Schorel-Hlavka 15 July 2013.pdf (59KB)
Letter of response to Mr Schorel-Hlavka 19 March 2013.pdf (2MB)
Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
I refer to the above mention Assisted Referral (2014/570) received from EWOV yesterday.
In response to the resolutions you are seeking, I offer the following information:
1. The attached letters dated 19 March 2013 and 15 July 2013 outline GWMWater’s position in
relation to this matter, which remains unchanged. Under the Water Act 1989, all properties in
a declared urban water supply district who have access to a water supply, regardless of
whether the water supply is used, are required to pay the annual service availability charge, as
nominated by the relevant water corporation. The only exceptions are if the property has been
declared derelict by the local council or it is vacant land.

Page 79
2. We cannot confirm that your credit rating will not be affected if we proceed with legal action
against you. However whilst your case is the subject of any enquiry from EWOV, GWMWater
will not pursue recovery of the outstanding debt.
Yours sincerely
Helen Friend
Manager Customer Relations
GWMWater
PO Box 481, Horsham 3402
Victoria, Australia
Telephone: 1300 659 961
Direct: 03 5381 9802
Website: www.gwmwater.org.au
Water Case 2014/570
Dear Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water
Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka has contacted EWOV about an issue which remains unresolved.
Contact details
Customer name: Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
Postal Address: 107 Graham Road
VIEW BANK VIC3084
Incident Address: 10 Anderson Avenue, BERRIWILLOCK 3531
Home Phone: 03 9457 7209
Email: schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
PREFERRED CONTACT TIME: Email or Letter due to hearing difficulties
Account Number: 2305224
Customer statement
Incident Address: 10 Anderson Avenue, BERRIWILLOCK 3531
1. He is dissatisfied with Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water in regards to debt collection, billing
error and billing format name.
2. He consented for the account to be transferred into his son's name for incident location which
had occurred.
3. He requested it to cease issuing copies of bills to him, which are addressed to his son despite
unpaid accounts by his son.
4. He advised as a result of unpaid accounts the account was transferred back into his name without
consent, resulting in debt collection activity.
Resolution Sought

Page 80
1. Cease seeking further payments and ensure the account has been closed.
2. Confirm credit rating will not be affected.
As this is an Assisted Referral, please contact the customer within three business days to discuss their
concerns. If you are unable to contact the customer by phone, please send a letter within five business
days.
Response to EWOV if AR fails or if no contact with the customer

If Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka does not accept Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water’s offer to the AR,
please use the following template and reply to spservices@ewov.com.au.
Email SUBJECT LINE: CASE REF: 2014/570 - Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
Dear EWOV
RESOLUTION OFFERED (in response to the customer's resolution sought):

1.
2.
3.
CUSTOMER'S RESPONSE TO OFFER:
OTHER RELEVANT / SUPPORTING INFORMATION (as required):
WHAT ADDITIONAL ACTIONS WILL YOU BE WILLING TO TAKE TO RESOLVE THIS CASE?:
If Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water is not able to contact the customer then please provide details of
contact attempts including dates and times. Please advise if voicemails were left.
EWOV has explained its role and process to Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this, please call EWOV between 8.30am and 5.00pm,
Monday to Friday.
Yours sincerely,
EWOV Intake Team

Energy and Water Ombudsman (Victoria)
Phone: 1800 500 509
Email: spservices@ewov.com.au
Website: www.ewov.com.au
DISCLAIMER: This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity

Page 81
to whom they are addressed. Confidentiality is not waived or lost if this email has been sent to you by mistake. This email may contain
information that is subject to Commonwealth and State privacy laws in Australia. This email is also subject to copyright. If you are not the
intended recipient, you must not read, print, store, copy, forward or use this email for any reason. If you have received this email in error,
please notify the sender by return email, and delete this email from your system. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be
secure or error-free. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. We do not accept liability for
any computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Energy and Water Ombudsman
(Victoria) Ltd.
1 END QUOTE QUOTE GWMWater 8-1-2014 correspondence

2
3
5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
6 Jill Hennessy Minister 7-4-2015
7 jill.hennessy@parliament.vic.gov.au
8
9 Cc: Energy and Water Ombudsman Victoria ewovinfo@ewov.com.au
10
11 Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
12
13
14 Chairman Peter Vogel (And other members of the Board of Directors) GWMWater
15 info@gwmwater.org.au Ref: 2305224
16
17 Ref; 20150407- G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Jill Hennessy Minister -Re EWOV2004-317-570-etc-
18 Jill,
19 Despite my writings over a period of time to the former Minister for Water “20140921-G. H.
20 Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Walsh Re Safe Drink Water Act 2003-etc-EWOV Case
21 Number 2014-317 (I view Minister for Water Peter Walsh is totally incompetent. Consider it for
22 yourself! You can download the document from:
23 http://www.scribd.com/doc/240418493/20140921-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-Peter-
24 Walsh-Re-Safe-Drink-Water-Act-2003-Etc-EWOV-Case-Number-2014-317) and subsequently
25 with “20141015-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Walsh Re Safe Drink Water Act
26 2003-etc-EWOV Case Number 2014-317-Supplement-01” (Safe Water Act 2003 is it worth the
27 paper it is written upon, one may ask? You can download the document from:
28 https://www.scribd.com/doc/243073865/20141015-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-Peter-
29 Walsh-Re-Safe-Drink-Water-Act-2003-Etc-EWOV-Case-Number-2014-317-Supplement-01)
30 and various correspondence with the Premier all I basically was provided with was that the
31 matter was handed over to the Minister for Health. Well, since September 2014 I had no contact
32 from the Minister for Health.
33
34 http://www.health.vic.gov.au/ministers.htm
35 QUOTE
36 On 1 January 2015, the Victorian Government established the Department of Health & Human Services
37 (DHHS) to integrate health and human services policies, programs and services to improve the wellbeing of
38 all Victorians. The new DHHS brings together the former Department of Health, former Department of
39 Human Services and Sport and Recreation Victoria
40 END QUOTE
41
42 Now I won der how on earth this amalgamation serve the citizens of Victoria if in the end it is
43 basically all the rot of the same? Having some kind of musical chairs isn’t going to resolve the
44 real dangers to what people are facing daily. Having a parade of Ministers changing seats n
45 either is going to resolve anything irrespective of which politic al party they represent unless
46 finally it is someone who doesn’t just pretend to care but actually shows by conduct to care.
47 .
48 http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE
49 MBLY&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&date2=
50 May&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+%29
51 QUOTE

Page 82
1 Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking Water Bill. This bill forms part of the
2 government's strategic approach to water management, with specific attention being paid to water quality and risk
3 management as matters of public health. It is worth noting that this is a debate about public health and about making sure
4 that each community across our state has access to the highest quality water. It is also worth noting that this bill has been
5 introduced by the Minister for Health as a matter of public health.
6 The bill has four specific objectives. Before going on to those I welcome the support shown by the Liberal and National
7 parties for this bill. Every endeavour has been made to try to provide as much information as possible.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 Yet, GWMWater so to say has thumped its nose upon this and does as it likes.
11 As I understand it by 2004 it had no provisions to supply “Safe Drinking Water” to many
12 regional area’s including Berriwillock (where I have a property). By 2005 it still didn’t have Safe
13 Drinking Water to Berriwillock. By 2006 it still didn’t have any Safe Drinking water to
14 Berriwillock and one may question then what on earth is going on where a water service
15 provider can so to say thump its nose upon legislative provisions? Then so GWMWater seems to
16 claim it obtained an exclusion in 2007 and which was since then allegedly extended til about
17 2018 that it doesn’t have to provide Safe Drinking Water, albeit I understand this was obtained
18 by deception.
19 .
20 As I understand it GWMWater obtained the 2007 exemption upon the basis that people may
21 mistakenly hold they were provided with Safe Drinking Water instead of “untreated water”.
22 Obviously there can be no part of mistake by any consumer if the legislation provided that since
23 2004 they were entitled to Safe Drinking Water by the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water
24 Act 2003. As such if the exemption was obtained by falsehood then the further extension
25 remains also without legal force.
26 The issue must be why has n o Minister taken drastic action against GWMWater since its
27 failur5e in 2004 to comply with legal requirements.
28 GWMWater in its pamphlets makes clear it will fine people who offend against certain
29 provisions, and yet it is the worst offender and nothing is done against this!
30 .
31 In October 2013 I attended to my Berriwillock property and had 2 cups of coffee at the local pub
32 and thereafter fell very ill. (See also my previous writings about this). I was able to drive home
33 and then for weeks was sick in bed that my wife even contemplated to having to have a funeral.
34 Yet, I am not aware any investigation was held as to deal with the issue. Why not?
35
36
Page 83
1
3 Just consider if a bus load of children were to stop say at a service station or near a water tap and
4 using the “untreated water” without being warned this is so and then fall ill or even due then I
5 suspect people will pursue revenge at the very least, in particular if they become aware of my
6 writings and the blatant ongoing disregard by Members of Parliament and relevant Ministers and
7 staff of the various departments.
8 I did make it clear that I view GWMWater has an obligation to mark every watertap with a sign
9 that the water is untreated water not suitable for human consumption. It in my view will not
10 avoid them being sued if a person accidentally or unknowingly consumes “untreated water”
11 and is harmed as result, even may have died.
12 In time the harm to the human bodies of those using the “untreated water” may result possibly
13 in a class action against those involved.
14
15 In my view there can be no excuse by any Minister or officials because ultimately they are
16 to be held legally accountable for failures to act appropriately.
17
18 The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
19 federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-
20 tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
21 QUOTE
22 37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
23 principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
24 which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
25 END QUOTE
26
27 As such,the purported exemption if this was based upon a fraudulent claim then it cannot be
28 accepted as having any legal value. Nor so its purported extension.
29 But the callous conduct to provide “untreated water” and by this placing the health and wellbeing
30 at risk of consumers and others surely is a matter that cannot be tolerated and I view they must
31 be held legally accountable for this. After all, we now have a situation where a water provider
32 appears to me to make clear to be above the rule of law.
34
35 See also:
36 https://youtu.be/l2KtgSnk3XE COVID DEATH TOLL IN QUESTION
37 This video shows the deception and deceit in using COVID-19 code on death certificates regardless
38 the person may not at all have died of COVID-19 or may not even have had it.
39 And this is now with the coronavirus. If they detect something that might relate to the
40 coronavirus then the death is recorded as a coronavirus death even so it may have had
41 nothing to do with why the person died.
42
43
44 US Doctor_ How can you make a vaccine for something never proven to exist_ A must-watch
45
46 Perspectives on the Pandemic _ Professor Knut Wittkowski _ Episode 2
47 https://principia-scientific.org/dr-knut-wittkowski-debunks-the-coronavirus-frenzy/
48 Dr Knut Wittkowski Debunks the Coronavirus Frenzy
49
50 https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-04-09-new-brain-damaging-disease-stupid-19-coronavirus-
51 hoax.html
52 QUOTE
Page 84
1 Connie Ludgate •
2 OK so then who isolated the virus? Nothing I have heard or read from anyone including you has said yes they
3 isolated the virus and it is covid 19? I have been following you for years and I am shocked at this response.
4
5 Jacquie Bresee Connie Ludgate • 2 days ago
6 Here is a patent from 2007 of coronavirus being isolated from a human, (though it is not referred
7 to as covid in this patent), but you might still like to check it out: http://www.chemtrailplanet....
8 END QUOTE
9
10 http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chemtrailplanet.com%2FPDF%2FCORONAVIRUS%2520ISOLATE
11 D%2520FROM%2520HUMANS%2520PATENT.pdf%3A0djzGEKCMHuJXk7D_SPhAR_uCLY&cuid=695686
12 Patent
13
14 https://youtu.be/YkPL6VmUqQQ
15 EVENT 201 The Planned Coronavirus Pandemic
16
17 This video sets out also some of the conflict of interest with Dr Fauci and Dr Birx in
18 making recommendations that appears to me to be of financial interest to them both.
19 .
20 https://youtu.be/s7eyZUu6rTo
21 How you get a virus
22
23 > 1st documentary movie on the origin of CCP virus, Tracking Down the Origin
24 > of the Wuhan Coronavirus
25 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdd7dtDaYmM
26
27
28 https://youtu.be/Xr8Dy5mnYx8
29 A breakdown of current testing procedure
31 hoax.html
32 QUOTE
33 This is all a smokescreen for the real agenda. https://www.nejm.org/doi/fu... THIS ARTICLE FROM NEW
34 ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE STATES DR. FAUCI SAYING:
35 Over 2.5 million people per year die of pneumonia globally.
36 Source: https://ourworldindata.org/...
37 In excess of 1.5 million people per year die of tuberculosis.
38 Source: https://www.tballiance.org/...
39 Flu kills around a half a million people every year.
40 https://www.medicinenet.com...
41 END QUOTE
42
43 What we have, as shown above, people are dying ongoing of numerous health issues, as
44 after all we are born to die eventually of something. However, what appears to be is that
45 now if anyone “assumes” even if wrongly that a person had COVID-19 (regardless the
46 person may not have had this) then the death be classified as being a COVID-19 death
47 and as shown above it will not be checked if indeed this was so. As such there is a
48 manipulation in the figures and it seems to serve the manufacturers of whatever
49 chemicals they might be able to use to sell on a market in need. So, create a hypothetical
50 market and politicians will fall for this as they have done for this “Global warming”
51 claim that Australian rivers would be dry somewhere around the year 2000, and well now
52 that there is a player getting involved being Bayer providing anti-malaria tablets to fight
Page 85
1 the COVID-19 then Dr Fauci and Dr Brix being tied up with the Bill and Malinda Gates
2 Foundation trying to sell their product then obviously the aim is to discredit Bayers
3 products.
4
6 hoax.html
7 QUOTE
8 Liberty or Death Synickel
9 There is no such thing as a virologists who is not a eugenicists, they simply don't exist. The people doing the
10 modeling for this pandemic have been virologists, of which modeling is not their forte (that is supposed to
11 the domain of epidemiologists some of whom who have spoken out publicly against the insanity) and they
12 are being bankrolled by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who also have their strings attached to all the
13 main players involved in this scheme like the WHO, and CDC.
14 see more
15 END QUOTE
16
17 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-clusters-pervade-australian-hospital-wards/ar-
18 BB12o16E?ocid=spartandhp
19 Coronavirus clusters pervade Australian hospital wards
20
21 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-restrictions-are-already-in-place-but-what-is-
22 stage-four-and-will-we-see-those-measures-soon/ar-BB12sxmx?ocid=spartandhp
23 Coronavirus restrictions are already in place, but what is 'stage four' and will we see those measures soon?
24
25 I understand from many reports that doctors are tied up with pharmaceutical companies to seek
26 to (sell) recommend their products to patients. For this, I understand, they receive a financial or
27 other kickback. This means that the patient’s interest is secondary to their own financial benefits.
28 As such creating a need for all kinds of pharmaceutical products regardless of the harm inflicted
29 upon certain patients is why I view it should be outlawed that a health practitioner can get a
30 financial and/or other kickback for prescribing certain medication.
31 In my view health practitioners should place the interest and wellbeing of patients first and
32 should be required, in writing, to a patient what, if any, financial or other benefit this health
33 practitioner has in prescribing certain medication.
34
35 Actually the same for alternative health practitioners who are duping people attending to them to
36 purchase in some brown bag whatever claiming it is some special item to assist them when in the
37 end the person taking it unaware what it really is after many years has left behind a lot of money
38 without gaining any benefits from this brown paper bag content. People desperate to seek to
39 resolve some health issues are so to say cannon fodder for those charlatans.
40
41 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/03/science/coronavirus-genome-bad-news-wrapped-in-
42 protein.html?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=70a7a458db-briefing-dy-
43 20200406&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-70a7a458db-44316169
44 Bad News Wrapped in Protein: Inside the Coronavirus Genome
45
46 In view that the Framers of the Constitution also indicated that the legal rights and freedoms in
47 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was equal if not better than that
48 provided in America (then with its 14 amendments) I view the following is also very relevant.
49
50 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/andrew-p-napolitano/can-the-government-restrict-travel-
51 to-protect-public-health/
52 LewRockwell.comANTI-STATE•ANTI-WAR•PRO-MARKET
53 QUOTE
54 Can the Government Restrict Travel to Protect Public Health?
55 By Andrew P. Napolitano
Page 86
1 March 12, 2020

2 The issue of whether government in America can quarantine persons against their will, ostensibly for their
3 own health and that of others with whom they may come in contact, requires a dual analysis — one of the
4 powers of the federal government and the other of the powers of the states. For constitutional analysis
5 purposes, since local and regional governments derive their powers from the states in which they are located,
6 the analysis of state powers pertains to them as well.
7 We begin our analysis with the observation of the truism that freedom is the default position. The language of
8 the Declaration of Independence, as well as various amendments in the Bill of Rights, unambiguously
9 reflects the views that those who wrote, ratified and amended the Constitution recognized that our rights —
10 to think, speak, publish, worship, defend ourselves, travel, own property, be left alone — are natural to our
11 humanity.
12 These rights preexisted the government. Their source is our humanity. Government does not grant these
13 rights. Rather, its primary purpose — as stated in the Declaration of Independence, its sole purpose — is to
14 protect these rights.
15 Lies the Government To...Andrew P. NapolitanoBest

16 Though the courts have interpreted the Constitution to possess lamentable exceptions, the framers and
17 ratifiers arguably accepted the non-aggression principle — articulated in the modern era by the late Professor
18 Murray Rothbard — which declares that all aggression against persons and property even by government is
19 immoral.
20 In the case of the federal government, it is one of limited, delegated powers. Of course, 230 years of
21 legislation and litigation have blown its powers outside the confines of the Constitution and, invariably, in
22 the direction of expanding federal power at the expense of personal liberty and the states.
23 The states formed the federal government and not the other way around. Yet today, the feds stay in power by
24 bribing the states with cash grants, the rich with bailouts, the middle class with tax breaks and the poor with
25 transfer payments. Notwithstanding all this, the courts continue to recognize the concept of personal liberty
26 in a free society.
27 All this is background to the issue lurking beneath the headlines this week. Can the government quarantine
28 people without proof of contagion and imminent assault? The short answer is no.
29 We know that, under the Fifth Amendment, if any government — state or federal — wants to impair the life,
30 liberty or property of any person, it must follow due process. Due process has two components — substantive
31 and procedural. The substantive component asks if the impairment of liberty is proper to the government that
32 seeks the impairment, and the procedural component asks if the impairment has come about fairly.
33 Now back to what the feds can do and what the states can do in a public health crisis. There are no
34 emergency provisions or triggers in the Constitution; yet, Congress gave itself the power to regulate public
35 health and safety under various pretexts. The pretexts exist because the nanny state urge of members of
36 Congress to regulate is confronted by the reservation in the Tenth Amendment of health and safety to the
37 states. Those pretexts are regulating commerce and all that affects commerce, and paying the states to do
38 Congress’ will.
39 Stated differently, the Supreme Court has ruled that both the federal government and the states can confine a
40 person who has not committed a crime, or one who has but has served one’s full sentence, in order to protect
41 society from the person’s intentional or uncontrollable harmful tendencies.
42 It is contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution for Congress to give itself powers that were not
43 delegated to it by the Constitution, but the courts have permitted this. Yet, even in the case of a lunatic who
44 has committed a crime and served his full sentence but remains dangerous, the courts have recognized
45 constitutional safeguards to protect his natural rights.
46 Now back to our question of whether the government — state or federal — can confine persons against their
47 will in order to protect public health. The short answer is yes, but the Constitution requires procedural due
48 process. That means a trial for every person confined.
49 END QUOTE
50
Page 87
1 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/australian-government-experts-at-odds-with-health-department-over-
2 using-hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-coronavirus/ar-BB12myjh?ocid=spartandhp
3 Australian government experts at odds with health department over using hydroxychloroquine to treat
4 coronavirus
5 QUOTE
6 The government’s expert panel on disease control has recommended against the use of a controversial anti-
7 malarial drug, hydroxychloroquine, for treating coronavirus, directly contradicting the federal health
8 department, which has told doctors they can prescribe it for patients.
9 The Australian Health Protection Principal Committee – the peak body that manages health emergencies –
10 said experimental use of medications such as hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 prevention and treatment was
11 not recommended, and should only be prescribed as part of a clinical trial.
12 “Appropriate dosage of medications for use in Covid-19 are not yet determined, and there is concern that if
13 used inappropriately, off-label use of medications may cause toxicity and lead to adverse patient outcomes,”
14 the latest AHPPC advice on use of the drugs for Covid-19 says.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 From my research I view that you may need to get experts to make known what, if any, ties they
18 have with pharmaceutical companies to get to understand what product they are pushing and
19 which one they are seeking to denounce.
20
21 The following quotation (The COVID illusion and the currency reset) may give an indication why
22 politicians may desire a “LOCKDOWN” and prevent cash transfer so they can control peoples
23 bankholding, including the unconstitutional “bail-in” provisions as where for example a senior
24 citizen was forced to have a bank account to be able to receive a pension then this pension is paid
25 into the account for the benefit of the person entitled to it and not for some irresponsible bank to
26 gamble it away in various ways. The Commonwealth is bound by the constitution regarding
27 acquisition to provide a fair and proper compensation and as such, without validating the “bail
28 in” legislation, the Commonwealth would be bound to replace all and any monies the bank were
29 authorize to take from a pensioner. This as the Commonwealth cannot give away the property of
30 others.
31 (xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or
32 person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has
33 power to make laws;
34
35 Neither can the Commonwealth prevent cash transactions as the constitution specifically
36 provides:
37 115 States not to coin money
38 A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and
39 silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.
40
41 Meaning that gold and silver coins must be left in circulation sufficiently for citizens to be able
42 to pay any debt and/or in payment of goods, etc.
43
44 We also have this “council rate” issue in which the High Court of Australia ruled in Sydney
45 Council v Commonwealth in 1904 that council rates were an exercise of delegated powers of the
46 State land taxation powers.
47 However, on 11 November 1901 the Commonwealth commenced to create the “Land Tax
48 Office” and as shown above once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate then the State
49 must retire from this field. As such, as from 11 November 1910 the States no longer had any
50 legislative powers to demand land taxation and so neither could municipal/shire councils have
51 any delegated powers to charge “council rates”.
52 While it may be argued that to some extend the Commonwealth abolished its land taxation laws,
53 however once one seek Caesar to make a decision then it always is within his power, regardless
54 if it is exercised or not. This means that all and any State land taxation including the purported
Page 88
1 delegated land taxation powers for municipal/shire councils to charge “council rates” is and
2 remain to be unconstitutional. While the NSW Government, then under Premier Kristine
3 Keneally claims in writing to me that the land Tax legislative powers was returned to the States,
4 reality is that our constitution doesn’t provide any such mechanism to refer Commonwealth
5 legislative powers back to the States.
6 .
7 And as it is an “EXCLUSIVE” Commonwealth legislative power regardless if it is exercised or
8 not then at most if the Commonwealth desired to exercise land taxation powers then it has to be
9 ‘UNIFORM” throughout the Commonwealth. As such all monies raised throughout the
10 Commonwealth must be deposited in the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Funds and can
11 only be drawn by way of Appropriation bills passed by the Federal Parliament. And any such
12 Commonwealth legislated “land tax”, regardless if it is a State and/or municipal/shire council
13 must be “UNIFORM” in amount throughout the Commonwealth and not that every
14 municipal/shire council sets its own level of land taxation called council rates.
15
16 QUOTE ATO ID 2012/87 ruling
17 The local government act also empowers the entity to levy other charges in addition to general
18 rates, for example, charges for water supply, sewerage, or drainage. These are separate
19 charges which, in accordance with the local government act, do not fall within the description of
20 general rates.
21 Land owners are liable to pay general rates to the entity solely as a consequence of their land
22 ownership within the entity's local government areas. The amount of general rates charged is
23 calculated according to a formula contingent upon the rateable value of the land.
24 QUOTE ATO ID 2012/87 ruling
25
26 Clearly this is false and misleading and violates what our constitution stands for!
27 Again:
29 QUOTE
30 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
31 legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
32 END QUOTE
33
35 QUOTE

42
43 Yet, again I am not aware any Human Rights Commissioner has pursue this to avoid people
44 being kicked of their land for not paying the unconstitutional State land taxes and/or the
45 unconstitutional purported delegated land taxation called “council rates”.
46
47 https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/04/06/the-covid-illusion-and-the-currency-reset/
48 The COVID illusion and the currency reset
49 QUOTE
50 The World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank (WB) are joined at the hip. In 2018, they
51 double-knotted their ties by forming a partnership to monitor outbreaks and epidemics before they spread.
52 Basically, behind the scenes, the deal looks like this: WHO creates the illusion of global epidemics; WB
53 steps in later, to pick up the pieces of the result—injured national economies— by shelling out loans to
54 governments.

Page 89
1 These loans always carry conditions. The prime condition is: let in private, roaming, foreign, predatory,
2 private investors so they can take over vital sectors of a nation: energy, agriculture, water, etc.
3 But this time, WHO, as planned, has gone ballistic. The lockdowns are shredding economies. It’s not going
4 to be “here’s a loan.”
5 It’s more on the order of: we have to bail out everybody.
6 How is that done?
7 Step by step, through switching over one kind of illusory money for another kind of illusory money.
8 “We invented one kind of money out of thin air, and it reached the end of the line. Now we have to invent
9 another kind of all new money out of thin air.”
10 Universal guaranteed income (UGI). Eventually, for everyone.
11 It, too, comes with conditions, gradually implemented. Basically, the deal is: “we pay you, and you obey us.”
12 The behavioral side of the model is the Chinese regime, which works obedience through a “social credit
13 score.”
14 Infractions lower the score. In which case, the violator can’t travel on a plane or send his kids to certain
15 schools or stay in certain hotels or start a business. There are levels of punishments.
16 Infractions include walking a dog off a leash, spreading fake news, crossing against a red light, failure to
17 separate garbage properly, business fraud—little and big offenses.
18 Under a global UGI, it would be: “Here’s your monthly digital check, now follow orders, or your money
19 might be reduced. Be a good citizen.”
20 Of course, a system like this requires complete and utter surveillance, public and private, every which way.
21 The holy grail is energy quotas for every person. “Mr. Smith, this is your wall talking through the glorious
22 Internet of Things. Your energy number for the month is reaching its limit. I want to help you avoid that limit
23 and the social credit score penalties that would be enforced. I’m going to initiate brown-outs and dimming in
24 your home for the next two weeks. Your Internet will be shut down—excepting the hours of midnight to
25 three in the morning. Cook all your meals for the day between four and five am…”
26 END QUOTE
27
28 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/victorias-stage-3-coronavirus-restrictions-raise-
29 mp-concerns-about-civil-liberties-stupid-restrictions/ar-BB12lf5P?ocid=spartandhp
30 Victoria's stage 3 coronavirus restrictions raise MP concerns about civil liberties
31 QUOTE
32 Victorian crossbenchers have called on the Government to immediately review some of the most draconian
33 regulations put in place to suppress the spread of coronavirus, including directions prohibiting people sitting
34 alone in public spaces and going fishing.
35 The Reason Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens said many of the restrictions around solitary
36 activities, or activities conducted as a household that abided by social distancing, needed to be fine-tuned to
37 make them sustainable for the long-term.
38 At the moment, there are only four reasons Victorians can leave their homes — for food and supplies,
39 medical care, exercise, and work or education.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 Despite the ongoing claims that this “LOCKDOWN” is to protect the elderly, the invalids and
43 carers reality is that next to nothing so far has actually been done to assist those in their needs.
44 Billions of dollars are handed out to companies, regardless that the Commonwealth can only
45 provide financial support for the unemployed and not those still in employment, where now
46 about $1,500 is being paid on a fortnightly basis and yet not even a basic food parcel to assist the
47 elderly, the invalid and the carers is provided during this “LOCKDOWN”. Instead they are
48 informed they can have a special hours from 7am to 8 am to do some grocery shopping. Never
49 mind this ungodly hours for people to get there and possibly not being able to get what they need
50 as there is no supplies on the shelves.
51 I found receiving a message from Woolworth as to $80 home delivery kit. Well, many of the
52 items it listed are not on the shelves. As such, it appears to me they are holding back items from
53 the shelves as to increase the demands for home delivery.
54 Those who live far from any store where the local township may no longer have a supermarket
55 of even a milkbar, than they have to arrange some form of transport to another town. And, with
56 travel restrictions this can be very complicated. If hypothetically a person was ordinary picking
57 up several elderly persons to go together shopping and they then share the cost of fuel, now this
Page 90
1 being denied means that the driver either can only take along one passenger or needs to do the
2 shopping for whomever. Alternatively make numerous trips each time with another passenger,
3 which can drastically cause an increase in fuel cost to all.
4
5 But even living within Melbourne can still have a major problems. Many elderly do not use a
6 motor vehicle and to even take a taxi can become very expensive. Public transport at that
7 ungodly hour can be difficult to get to be at a store at 7am. But there is more to it all as
8 reportedly those persons stacking shelves are infected and then the seniors who are collecting
9 items at 7 am (that is if there is any) then can be infected by touching those products. Clean your
10 hands isn’t going to resolve it as when the items are laced with infective material then putting it
11 in a trolley or a bag merely will make any cleaning of hands worthless. And to expect a senior
12 citizen to purchase items and store them in a perforated bag to allow any infectious item to die
13 off say in a period of 3 days it to lack common sense.
14
15 In my view where, if constitutionally permissible that is, a Government directs a
16 “LOCKDOWN” then it should be responsible for the elderly, the invalid and the carers to be
17 provided on regular basic food supplies to seek to avoid any such person having to leave their
18 residences. But to install rules and regulations and further who a total disregard to the harm that
19 inflict upon the elderly, the invalid and the carers I view underlines the appalling conduct of
20 politicians.
21
22 Let me use an example to how my now wife had to get assistance.
23 When her late husband was still alive but in a nursing home she had to get a man to drive her
24 husbands car , she paid the fuel for it even so he would take the car home and use it for other
25 personal things, and she would pay him about $100.00 each time she had to do shopping and also
26 would purchase his groceries. Meaning she would be out of pocket more than $200 or more even
27 if her own groceries was then merely $30 or so. To her he was her solution to be able to get
28 groceries as she had no other way to get any. Afterwards I discovered he was actually being paid
29 by an organization to assist her. This is why the first thing the Government should have done
30 was to enlist staff who would ask those elderly, invalids and carers if they need any assistance,
31 even of just to obtain medication, and this service would be done free of charge. Those staff
32 members would be required to carry identification as to being genuine staff employed for this
33 purpose.
34
35 EXERCISE
36 THE MEANING OF EXERCISE IS DIFFERENT FOR ABOUT EVERYONE. To some
37 persons exercise can be walking about the park. For others it can be using a bicycle. For me it is
38 to go through a hardware store walking through aisle (OK looking for bargains) so I in the
39 process walk a few kilometers a lot safer and no risk to be mugged walking in the streets. Yet,
40 we find that the police are issuing fines merely for people to do their kind of exercise, because
41 the police may not agree with their kind of exercise, even so to the person it is his/her kind of
42 exercise.
43 Hence we have seen police officers in parks ousting people exercising because the police didn’t
44 like it. However, when it comes to some funeral than 80 persons to attend a funeral for
45 Aboriginals somehow is acceptable but not for others. This implies DOUBLE STANDARDS
46 that the dead of a person cannot be mourned equally as now the State Government now decides
47 which person is deemed important of which race, this even so the State government do not have
48 any constitutional legislative powers for this.
49 The same with weddings, where 30 people are shown tightly on a photo of a wedding while
50 failing social distancing is awarded to others with a $1,652 fine. What an absurdity we have.
51 Again when it comes to race then the Commonwealth has the sole legislative powers and cannot
Page 91
1 use this against the “general community” but only against the particular race it relates to and
2 apply it to all persons of such a race regardless of their social standing.
3
4 We often have this argument about people being racist but the evidence is very clear it are the
5 governments who are practicing (unconstitutionally) “reverse racism”.
6 Yet I am not aware a single Human Rights Commissioner took note of this can objected to this
7 conduct.
8
9 The Framers of the Constitution were very honourable when it came to women and made clear
10 that while the man was deemed to be the head of the family the women generally were the once
11 who used common sense and were running the family budgets, etc. Our constitution in Section
12 41 made clear that any person (regardless of gender) who had State Franchise then automatically
13 would have Federal franchise. Not a single woman had to fight to gain federal franchise to vote
14 in federal elections and to be able to become a Member of Parliament. It was however for many
15 woman to try to get their respective States to grant them state franchise, as they had already in
16 South Australia and Western Australia before federation. However, we now have this nonsense
17 that political parties are dictating that there must be equal number of women as men in
18 Parliament and in government positions. This is again “reverse discrimination” this, as not the
19 best person for the job is then given a portfolio but rather whichever changer is needed to make
20 the numbers.
21
22 This is why I view there is a swell of dissatisfied citizen who are sick and tired of this kind of
23 unconstitutional “reverse racism”.
24
25 It should be understood that electors cannot elected any person into Government. Electors
26 merely elect those they desire to represent their constituentcy and even that is fraught with
27 absurdities because a person may vote for a particular candidate but have his vote counted for a
28 candidate he may have opposed.
29 This was also part of my 2001 case in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka, where I stood as an
30 INDEPENDENT candidate and refused to give preferences and refused to vote. My issues in my
31 successful appeals was that I stood as a candidate because I held others were in my view not
32 acceptable and as such, it would be absurd for me to vote for anyone of them. Surely if a
33 jobseeker is going to a job interview and there are say 10 jobseekers then for the potential
34 employer to ask the job seeker to nominate whom the company should employ of the 10 job
35 seekers would be deemed absurd. Yet that is really what is being done with political elections,
36 where a candidate must vote as to allocate preferences to other candidates. As an
37 INDEPENDENT candidate I refused to give preferences as this could be deemed to show I was
38 aligned with whomever I gave first preferences to.
39 I may add that the constitution doesn’t provide for a Commonwealth electoral roll whatsoever.
40 The Framers of the Constitution made clear that the commonwealth had to rely upon State
41 electoral rolls and then of those which had obtained the age of “ADULT”.
42
43 I will now refer to various documentations (albeit it is merely some of all I considered and not
44 seeking to indicate any are more important than others) in support of hat is stated in this
45 correspondence:
46
47 https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/03/17/corona-bologna-the-truth-begins-to-leak-out/
48 Corona Bologna Italy: The Truth begins to leak out
49
50 https://truthbits.blog/2018/12/28/italy-blows-the-lid-off-vaccine-scam-will-no-longer-poison-citizens-with-globalist-
51 eugenics/
52
Page 92
1
2 https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/indians-dont-need-to-panic-about-coronavirus-says-who-1652541-2020-03-
34 05?ref=taboola
5 Indians don't need to panic about coronavirus, says WHO
6 Speaking with India Today, Dr Rodrico Ofrin, Regional Emergencies Director, WHO, said there is no need to
7 panic, as cases tested positive in India were because of travelling abroad, citizens' caught the virus on foreign
land.
8
9 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044133
10 Efficacy and Safety of Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure
11 With Reduced Ejection Fraction According to Age
12 Insights From DAPA-HF
13
14 https://nypost.com/2020/04/01/13-year-old-boy-dies-alone-in-coronavirus-isolation-in-uk-hospital/
15 13-year-old boy dies of coronavirus alone in UK hospital isolation
16
17 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/alabama-and-massachusetts-are-giving-the-addresses-of-people-
18 diagnosed-with-coronavirus-to-police/
19 Alabama and Massachusetts are Giving the Addresses of People Diagnosed with Coronavirus to Police
20
21 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/bunnings-and-kmart-could-be-next-in-line-to-close-as-coronavirus-
22 hits-economy/ar-BB11U4Gm?ocid=spartandhp
23 Bunnings and Kmart could be next in line to close as coronavirus hits economy
24
25 https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/chinese-researchers-find-coronavirus-patient-contagious-for-49-days/
26 Chinese researchers find coronavirus patient who was contagious for 49 days
27
28 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/coronavirus-thai-king-self-isolates-in-alpine-hotel-with-harem-of-20-
29 women-amid-pandemic/ar-BB11RXgL?ocid=spartandhp
30 Coronavirus: Thai king self-isolates in Alpine hotel with harem of 20 women amid pandemic
31
32 https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus-epicenter-could-possibly-shift-back-to-east-asia/
33 Coronavirus epicenter could shift back to East Asia, expert warns
34
35 https://nypost.com/2020/04/01/county-in-china-locks-down-amid-concerns-of-second-coronavirus-wave/
36 County in China locks down amid concerns of second coronavirus wave
37 QUOTE
38 A notice on the county microblog account said special permits are needed to leave home and residents
39 must have their temperature taken and are required to wear face masks, the South China Morning
40 Post reported.
41 END QUOTE
42
45 QUOTE
46 She said residents were urged by authorities to stock up on daily necessities and that each family could
47 assign one person to visit the grocery store once every two days.
48 END QUOTE
49
52 QUOTE
53 In a classified report to the White House, three US intelligence officials said this week that China’s
54 public records of coronavirus cases were incomplete and deceptive.
55 A United Nations report released Wednesday praised China for sharing the genetic sequence of
56 COVID-19 but failed to highlight that it didn’t report the first confirmed case until it was forced to
57 and that officials knew about the virus two months before.
58 END QUOTE
59
Page 93
1 https://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/smart-living/do-homemade-face-masks-help-stop-the-spread-of-the-
2 coronavirus/ar-BB122caN?ocid=spartandhp
3 Do Homemade Face Masks Help Stop The Spread Of The Coronavirus?
4
5 Wruiters note:
6 I may add to this issue that certain mask market as RP10M “Nuisance Dust Mask” to which i
7 noticed many shoppers using it in fact does state:
8 Warning:
9 This product does not safely filter toxic dusts or any gases or vapours. It is not suitable for
10 protecting the wearer when spraying paint, handling asbestos, welding, from viruses,
11 bacteria, spores or fungi. It is only suitable for non-toxic dusts such as sawdust, household
12 and garden dusts.
13
14 As such those using the mask may hold the view they are protected and in fact may place
15 themselves then at risk unduly by their conduct to move about in expectations the mask will
16 protect them against any virus.
17
18 https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/feds-distribute-200k-n95-masks-seized-from-coronavirus-hoarder/
19 Feds distribute 200K N95 masks seized from coronavirus hoarder
20
21 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/huge-infectious-disease-expert-says-his-clinic-has-not-seen-anyone-
22 under-70-who-was-not-obese-or-pre-diabetic-get-seriously-ill-with-covid-19-video/
23 HUGE! Infectious Disease Expert Says His Clinic Has Not Seen ANYONE UNDER 70 Who was not Obese or Pre -
24 Diabetic Get Seriously Ill with COVID-19 (VIDEO)
25
26 EXCLUSIVE: Data Shows US Efforts to Combat China Coronavirus Crushed the US Economy -- But Brazil and
27 Sweden Have Similar Fatality Numbers With Open Economies
28
29 https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/malaysia-tells-women-not-to-nag-men-during-coronavirus-lockdown/
30 Malaysia government tells women not to nag husbands amid coronvirus lockdown
31
32 https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/mom-of-young-twins-dies-of-coronavirus-despite-careful-habits/
33 Mom of 6-year-old twins dies of coronavirus despite careful habits
34
35 https://nypost.com/2020/04/03/capt-brett-crozier-gets-dramatic-send-off-from-sailors/
36 Ousted Navy captain Brett Crozier, who raised coronavirus alarm, gets dramatic send-off
37
38 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/outrageous-dr-birx-serves-complete-rubbish-to-american-public-
39 insists-without-one-iota-of-proof-that-the-us-economic-suicide-cut-coronavirus-deaths-by-over-a-million-deaths-
40 video/
41 OUTRAGEOUS! Dr. Birx Pushes COMPLETE RUBBISH on American Public -- Insists without One Iota of
42 Proof that the US Economic Suicide Cut Coronavirus Deaths by Over a Million Deaths! (VIDEO)
43
44 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/remember-the-young-woman-who-died-while-waiting-for-a-
45 coronavirus-test-in-new-orleans-yeah-that-was-a-media-lie-too/
46 Remember the Young Woman Who Died While Waiting for a Coronavirus Test in New Orleans? ...Yeah,
47 Well Now the Truth Is Out
48 QUOTE
49 But it was not true.
50 A second coronvirus test came back negative on Natasha Ott.
51 The media reported incorrectly that she died of COVID-19 while waiting for her test results.
52 Furthermore, it was not revealed that she was in fact suffering for the last TWO years from an undiagnosed
53 intestinal condition but her boyfriend lied and said she was perfectly healthy.
54 She was a “Peace Corps Alumni.”
55 END QUOTE
56
57
Page 94
1 https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/rotting-corpses-litter-ecuador-streets-as-coronavirus-spreads/
2 Rotting corpses litter Ecuador streets as coronavirus spreads
3
4 https://nypost.com/2020/04/03/scientists-say-covid-19-can-come-from-aerosolized-feces/
5 Scientists say coronavirus can spread through ‘aerosolized feces’
6
7 https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/shenzhen-is-first-in-china-to-ban-consumption-of-cats-dogs/
8 Shenzhen becomes first Chinese city to ban consumption of cats, dogs
9
10 https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/trump-complainers-should-have-stocked-up-on-supplies-before-coronavirus-crisis/
11 Trump: ‘Complainers’ should have stocked up on supplies before coronavirus crisis
12
13 https://nypost.com/2020/04/01/whistleblowing-coronavirus-doctor-mysteriously-vanishes/
14 Whistleblowing coronavirus doctor at Wuhan hospital mysteriously vanishes
15
16 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/burnie-hospital-staff-infection-probe-begins-as-man-arrested-for-
17 ignoring-isolation-rules/ar-BB12b21B?ocid=spartandhp
18 Burnie hospital staff infection probe begins, as man arrested for ignoring isolation rules
19
20 https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/
21 COVID-19 Coronavirus / Death Rate
22
23 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/long-lonely-winter-australians-could-be-in-cooped-up-in-isolation-
24 until-long-after-christmas-with-strict-social-distancing-measures-for-up-to-two-years/ar-
25 BB12aV5G?ocid=spartandhp
26 Long lonely winter: Australians could be in cooped up in isolation until long after CHRISTMAS - with strict
27 social distancing measures for up to two years
28
29 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/new-zealand-enforces-bonk-ban-partners-who-dont-live-together-cant-
30 visit-each-other-under-strict-coronavirus-lockdown/ar-BB12bBmW?ocid=spartandhp
31 New Zealand enforces 'bonk ban': Partners who don't live together can't visit each other under strict
32 coronavirus lockdown
33
34 https://www.jta.org/2020/03/24/lifestyle/the-netherlands-is-ok-with-citizens-being-exposed-to-the-
35 coronavirus-thats-terrifying-to-me-and-nearby-jewish-communities
36 The Netherlands is OK with citizens being exposed to the coronavirus. That’s both reassuring and terrifying
37 to me.
38 QUOTE
39 Prime Minister Mark Rutte has essentially argued that social distancing will only prolong the
40 disastrous effects of the virus. He believes — supposedly based on the knowledge of medical
41 professionals — that the Dutch population should be somewhat exposed to the virus so that immunity
42 can be formed and society can return to a sense of normalcy as quickly as possible.
43 The Dutch government did shut down schools, cafes, movie theaters, houses of worship and many
44 offices, but we are still free here to move around, shop, pick up takeout and receive packages in the
45 mail. Our extensive public transportation network hasn’t skipped a beat.
46 END QUOTE
47
48 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/world/europe/germany-coronavirus-death-
49 rate.html?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=70a7a458db-briefing-dy-
51 A German Exception? Why the Country’s Coronavirus Death Rate Is Low
52
53 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/albo-must-speak-for-australia—-and-those-who-fought-for-its-
54 democracy/ar-BB12fLfU?ocid=spartandhp
55 Comment: Albo must speak for Australia— and those who fought for its democracy
56
57 https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-04-06-5g-alter-hemoglobin-coronavirus-patients-oxygen-deprivation.html
58 Can 5G exposure alter the structure and function of hemoglobin, causing coronavirus patients to die from oxygen deprivation?
59
Page 95
1 https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-03-24/with-coronavirus-what-are-your-safest-exercise-options/12082308
2 Coronavirus has closed the gyms, but are running, walking and cycling still safe exercise options?
3
4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00154-w
5 Coronavirus latest: scientists mourn renowned HIV researcher who died of COVID-19
6
7 https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-dont-be-fooled-by-covid-19-
8 carpetbaggers/?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=70a7a458db-briefing-dy-
10 Don't Be Fooled by Covid-19 Carpetbaggers
11
12 https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/exercise-and-physical-activity
13 Exercise and physical activity
14
15 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00973-x
16 How sewage could reveal true scale of coronavirus outbreak
17
18 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/22/world/coronavirus-spread.html
19 How the Virus Got Out
20
21 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01028-x?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=70a7a458db-
22 briefing-dy-20200406&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-70a7a458db-44316169
23 Mentoring during the COVID-19 pandemic
24 Mentors must change their approach during an outbreak that has left many of us feeling frightened, worried and
25 overwhelmed. Ruth Gotian, the assistant dean for mentoring at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, offers her
26 tips for mentors: check in and chat (accepting that children, pets and pajamas might be there too), suggest a different
27 type of ‘to do’ list and don’t forget to just listen.
28
29 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/ruby-princess-artania-dodge-orders-to-leave-australian-waters/ar-
30 BB12fEYT?ocid=spartandhp
31 Ruby Princess, Artania dodge orders to leave Australian waters
32
33 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01027-
34 y?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=70a7a458db-briefing-dy-
36 Safely conducting essential research in the face of COVID-19
37
38 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01019-
39 y?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=70a7a458db-briefing-dy-
41 The outbreak that invented intensive care
42
43 https://nature.us17.list-
44 manage.com/track/click?u=2c6057c528fdc6f73fa196d9d&id=f9cdc29c05&e=70469c9e6d
45 Why Germany’s coronavirus death rate is so low: trust, testing, treatment and a quirk of fate
46
47 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/police-drop-dollar1652-coronavirus-fine-against-victorian-learner-
48 driver/ar-BB12ezKI?ocid=spartandhp
49 Police drop $1652 coronavirus fine against Victorian learner driver
50
51 https://insidestory.org.au/reflecting-on-the-endgame/
52 Reflecting on the endgame
53 Writers post:
54 QUOTE
55 Posted 8-4-2020 22:47
56 Anyone who is really concerned about why COVID-19 is to go up or down should consider alternatives that
57 may in fact serve a better purpose. If medical staff are falling ill because of their contact with ill patients then
58 clearly something is drastically wrong with their protection gear. If however they fell ill outside their place of
59 work and then unbeknown of this attend to their place of work spreading their infection then this too ought to
Page 96
1 be of grave concern. This is why a test of a health worker is essential to ensure they are not themselves
2 spreading their infections amongst co-workers.
3 Let us seek solutions to keep the death toll low without unduly interfering with people’s ability to live
4 as normal as possible lives and use a Home Faeces Test Kit to check who is infected.
5 This document can be downloaded from:
6 https://www.scribd.com/document/455531739/20200408-Press-Release-Mr-g-h-Schorel-hlavka-o-w-b-Issue-
7 Re-Constitutional-Quarantine-Powers-Etc
8 As I outlined in my view there is absolutely no constitutional powers for the States/Territories and/or the
9 Federal Government to essentially apply house arrest to healthy persons.
10 Anyone cooked up in some high rising residential flat may go insane after some time, and the immune
11 system denied Vitamin D from being outside may ravage the immunity system. This kind of dictatorship
12 approach in my view is a massive failure and considerable mishandling. Premiers ordering cruise ships to
13 leave where they lack the constitutional powers for this. Why not use them as hospital ships if Premiers are
14 claiming the Health system is overwhelmed and insufficient bedding available?
15 END QUOTE
16
17 https://insidestory.org.au/rising-to-the-occasion/
18 Rising to the occasion
19
20 https://insidestory.org.au/so-you-want-to-wear-a-mask-in-public/
21 So you want to wear a mask in public?
22 Writers post
23 QUOTE
24 I asked my wife (87 and having heart failure and other problems) if she wanted to wear a
25 mask when she had to have blood taken and she adamantly refused this. To her quality of
26 live should be considered rather than quantity of life at a cost. While I stocked up over the
27 years (being a handyman) mask and have some ready for use in the car, in case this
28 suddenly is needed, so far however I walk around without when shopping. As a senior
29 citizen seeing others like wild animals scared to come near another person, I for one have
30 no such fear. The article is very informative about wearing a mask or not. In my view (not
31 being a health practitioner) it is better to not be stressful as this could undermine your
32 immune system to fight any kind of infection. Enjoy life while being careful about possible
33 contamination. When I come to a cash register, I just make my jokes and that is a
34 welcoming change for the staff as generally people are too occupied about the Novel
35 Coronavirus to forget to live. We used to have bank tellers hiding behind massive screens
36 because of robberies. Those screens are gone and now Aldi implemented screens because
37 of the Novel Coronavirus. I made known to the staff member that I suspect those screens
38 are likely going to be permanent. Doesn’t worry me a bit but consider what it is for the
39 staff to sit behind such a screen. While every person has a right to be concerned, do not
40 turn yourself into some frightened animal fearful to come near another human being.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/coronavirus-supermarket-workers-under-attack/vi-BB12j8Bd
44 'Aggressive' man calls cops on teen Coles worker for no gloves
45
46 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/national-cabinet-discusses-exit-strategy-post-coronavirus/vi-BB12lSna
47 National Cabinet discusses exit strategy post-coronavirus
48 The National Cabinet has discussed an exit strategy once the COVID-19 crisis subsides, floating the
49 possibility of easing social distancing restrictions.
50
51 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/australian-government-experts-at-odds-with-health-department-over-
52 using-hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-coronavirus/ar-BB12myjh?ocid=spartandhp
53 Australian government experts at odds with health department over using hydroxychloroquine to treat
54 coronavirus
55

Page 97
1 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/man-is-fined-dollar1000-for-going-for-a-morning-walk-despite-
2 exercise-being-allowed-because-he-gave-police-several-different-reasons-for-leaving-home/ar-
3 BB12lYht?ocid=spartandhp
4 Man is fined $1,000 for going for a morning walk despite exercise being allowed - because he gave police
5 'several different reasons' for leaving home
6
7 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/nsw-minister-don-harwin-went-clothes-shopping-in-sydney-after-
8 relocating-to-holiday-home/ar-BB12lFhQ?ocid=spartandhp
9 NSW Minister Don Harwin went clothes shopping in Sydney after relocating to holiday home
10
11 https://newaustralianbulletin.com/2020/04/06/top-paid-lebanese-labor-mp-blasts-obsolete-scum-of-white-
12 australia-in-chinese-paper/
13 TOP-PAID LEBANESE LABOR MP BLASTS ‘OBSOLETE SCUM OF WHITE AUSTRALIA’ IN
14 CHINESE PAPER
15
16 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-restrictions-are-already-in-place-but-what-is-
17 stage-four-and-will-we-see-those-measures-soon/ar-BB12sxmx?ocid=spartandhp
18 Coronavirus restrictions are already in place, but what is 'stage four' and will we see those measures soon?
19
20 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/point-of-contagion-mass-gatherings-and-the-coronavirus/ar-
21 BB12r2jc?ocid=spartandhp
22 Point of contagion: Mass gatherings and the coronavirus
23
24 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/protesters-cop-nearly-dollar50k-in-fines/ar-
25 BB12q76G?ocid=spartandhp
26 Protesters cop nearly $50k in fines
27
28 Obviously I rely also upon my previous correspondence content.
29
30 Somehow, I wonder why there is a Human Rights Commissioner when really there is
31 ample of unaddressed racism and human rights violations occurring mainly against the
32 “general community”?
33
34 This document can be downloaded from:
35 https://www.scribd.com/document/455719630/20200410-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
36 Victoria-s-Human-Rights-Commissioner-Kristen-Hilton
37
38 * I decided not to interrupts you in this gigantic presentation and I am very impressed to the
39 comprehensive set out you made.
40
41 **#** Well, let see if others also appreciate this all. It is also now for the Human Rights
42 Commissioner to pursue matters I outlined such as the “UNTREATED” water issue before there
43 are many deaths from it. How on earth can any Premier claim to be concerned about citizens
44 health and wellbeing when he continues to blatantly ignore the relevant issues.
45
46 I look forwards to your courteous feedback.
47
48 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
49
50 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
51 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
52 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

53 (Our name is our motto!)

20200413-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Victoria's Human Rights Commissioner Kristen Hilton

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

20200413-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Victoria's Human Rights Commissioner Kristen Hilton

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20200413-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Victoria's Human Rights Commissioner Kristen Hilton

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

13-4-2020 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

13-4-2020 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

13-4-2020 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

13-4-2020 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 *.So there is then no Queen of Australia?

5 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?

21 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?

22 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.

38 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

13-4-2020 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

45 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

27 Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.

48 Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.html#ixzz2mjxpd0CQ

13 QUOTE John K. Phillips statement

13-4-2020 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

13-4-2020 Page 21 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

17 That the words "or detention" be inserted after "detention."

29 Mr. GLYNN.-Not for the punishment of accused persons.

13-4-2020 Page 22 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

7 Mr. ISAACS.-Detention may be part of the punishment.

10 Mr. Barton's amendment was agreed to.

13-4-2020 Page 23 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)

19 Section 51(xix) provides for “naturalization”.

29 Mr Quick proposed to give the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to

38 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

21 Mr. HIGGINS.-Who is he?

29 and he now wants to give power to Parliament to vary that subsequently.

30 Mr. ISAACS.-It is not clause 120A that he is proposing now.

12 [start page 1761]

35 Mr. ISAACS.-Commonwealth citizenship.

36 Mr. OCONNOR.-Exactly. But if we do not know what you mean by citizenship-

29 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

1 narrowest limits, so that the citizenship of a state might be worth nothing; or of

13 Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.

13-4-2020 Page 33 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 As was made clear by Mr quick;

16 Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning

1 Melbourne No M25 of 2001

1 MR MAXWELL: Yes, your Honour.

13-4-2020 Page 38 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

19 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Is a naturalized alien a subject?

6 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Is a naturalized alien a subject?

7 Mr. BARTON.-He would be a citizen under the meaning of this clause.

16 Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized

25 Mr. KINGSTON.-There might be a special disability on minors.

8 Mr. HIGGINS.-You want to keep both classes out.

39 Mr. GORDON: These are not internal affairs!

18 We cannot give a sanction to a law

23 The Hon. E. BARTON: We cannot establish a new criminal offence!

13-4-2020 Page 46 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

13-4-2020 Page 47 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

12 48. In Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor HYPERLINK

13-4-2020 Page 48 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

13-4-2020 Page 50 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 15-09-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth

3 An HONORABLE: MEMBER.-What is the meaning of citizenship?